^^
Find one post of mine where I have denigrated Pakistan or stated that I hate Pakistan or Islam. BTW Islam is not the sole prerogative of Pakistan. India also has a very large number of muslims many of whom are my dear friends. Find a single post of mine where I have made negative comments about Islam.
As I promised you in another post: Islamabad hates India.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ghuLail: *
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.
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.
[/QUOTE]
Nationalism can never unite the muslim ummah it will always be a barrier to unity simply because it is a divisive concept.
But your point on muslim countries sharing similar culture and concepts is very good point, and shows the muslims have so much in common it is unreal. If you visit turkey and then visit pakistan as an example you will see the similar cultures and see why muslims can so easily be united the muslims have same habits, same beleif in allah(swt), similar food i.e halal, social system the list continues.
The only obstacle to this unity is borders and this concept of nationalism.
nationalism no doubt is a divisive concept, and anybody who says that if the islamic world needs to unite they need to get rid of it or downpaly it etc. is quite right. but i think we need to realise that this just cannot happen.
i was definitely not putting it forth as a unifying concept there. i was just saying that we need to accept that both can exist together,and we can
find a lot of common ground inspite of our diverse historical and geograhical experiences and situations,which give rise to nationalism.
We need not even make it completely a cultural phenomenon, cuz our economic situations are quite similar too.i would prefer pakistan not seeking much solidarity with the arab world, but looking further east since their econ situation is more like ours.i know this would a very bad pill for the pathans and balochis to digest, since they are more culturally close to arabs than the rest of pkaistan, but even then being more enthusiastic abt malaysia and indonesia wouldn't be a bad idea eithr.
somehow i tend to think that all forms of mutual cooperation stems from similar economic conditions, which dictate cultural outlooks.
again thats just an opinion.could very well be wrong.
^^
Original thoughts. Hmm. Pakistan should look east. What a novel idea!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ghuLail: *
nationalism no doubt is a divisive concept, and anybody who says that if the islamic world needs to unite they need to get rid of it or downpaly it etc. is quite right. but i think we need to realise that this just cannot happen.
i was definitely not putting it forth as a unifying concept there. i was just saying that we need to accept that both can exist together,and we can
find a lot of common ground inspite of our diverse historical and geograhical experiences and situations,which give rise to nationalism.
We need not even make it completely a cultural phenomenon, cuz our economic situations are quite similar too.i would prefer pakistan not seeking much solidarity with the arab world, but looking further east since their econ situation is more like ours.i know this would a very bad pill for the pathans and balochis to digest, since they are more culturally close to arabs than the rest of pkaistan, but even then being more enthusiastic abt malaysia and indonesia wouldn't be a bad idea eithr.
somehow i tend to think that all forms of mutual cooperation stems from similar economic conditions, which dictate cultural outlooks.
again thats just an opinion.could very well be wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Economy is one aspect only foriegn policy, military pacts, removing nationaism and border, technology co-operation, development of infrastructure etc these all part and parcel of forging closer ties just relying on economic ties will unite you on issue of money which is not everything!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ghuLail: *
i know this would a very bad pill for the pathans and balochis to digest, since they are more culturally close to arabs than the rest of pkaistan
[/QUOTE]
Culturally, historically, racially and linguistically Pashtuns and Baloch are closer to Iranians than to Arabs.
to ak47:
non-military techonology transfer and infrastructure deveopment is part of economic ties. why do we only associate only charity with economics i'll ike to know.
military and foreign policy, are lets face it useless aspects for third-world countries, who are way down the ladder in their military and economic strengths, compared to US and her allies. it would have made sense for the islamic world to have talked of military ties if they were great econmic and military superpowers to begin with. with american soldiers forming saudi army, and with pakistan constantly getting its debt reschdeulyed, i wonder what meanigful cooperation can be undertaken in this sphere.
to shawaiz:
racially, linguistically,...... apnee jagah, but we seem to be forgetting the sunni-shia aspect it seems.
and a lil clarification. i think an open political and military bloc of the islamic world, would only have been possible if the islamic world could make itself economically indepedent of the west, and free of military castration from them too. but since this is not possibly, nice pretty small to medium-scale, predominatly economic ties, are our only hope.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ghuLail: *
to ak47:
military and foreign policy, are lets face it useless aspects for third-world countries, who are way down the ladder in their military and economic strengths, compared to US and her allies. it would have made sense for the islamic world to have talked of military ties if they were great econmic and military superpowers to begin with. with american soldiers forming saudi army, and with pakistan constantly getting its debt reschdeulyed, i wonder what meanigful cooperation can be undertaken in this sphere.
to shawaiz:
racially, linguistically,...... apnee jagah, but we seem to be forgetting the sunni-shia aspect it seems.
[/QUOTE]
The muslim lands are firstly the most strategically placed lands on planet earth. For the US to attack places like Iraq and Afghanistan they have to get access through these lands in the first place. and we all know saudi arabia give US all access they want to attack iraq and pakistan gave all the access to US to attack afghanistan.
If the muslim countries where united as one islamic state from turkey to china how they going to bomb places like iraq where they going to shoot from a boat near cyprus or something go ahead let them.
Being economically independent is definetly vital issue but having a good Economy is not the only solution to your problems you need an ideology that will unite the people and it is not enough to say you will throw money at the problem, because belive me the muslims lands have plenty of money just it is being spent on rubbish.
The combined forces of the muslims armies are in the hundreds of millions, they are not as backward as you may think. Yes they are not at the level of military technology that the US has but it is enough to protect itself and initate attacks.
The muslim countries have the ability to solve all these problems from economic dependency to military development, it just matter of having correct system and leadership.
all i can say is that 'the correct system and leadership' you are talkin of is a very different one from the way countries operated in recent centuries.
the correct system: u mean get the wealth out of economic and human resource developemt projects and increase the size of the defence budget.
the correct leadership: pan-islamic leadership, always on its toes for dissolving natinal boundaries and ready to stand up to the US, against attacks on other islamic countires. u mean turn a blind eye to the illegal immigration, don't care abt how afghamistan's drug trade and kalashinkov culture spills ovr to pkaistan, just always be ready for the muslim brethren, wherever and whenever they are threatned by the terrible christain west.
well i can definitely not say that the system you are envisioning is worng, but it is at the risk of severe economic degradation and stagnation in te long run. how long can you keep up this confrontation with the west?
to make a USSR out of the islamic nations, you not just need a gud enuff military base, but the economy to finance the confrontaiton.
come up with a muslim-marxism, and we'll see just another different economic system solving our probelsm, not just foregin policy.
^^
ak47 luv this stuff.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ghuLail: *
well i can definitely not say that the system you are envisioning is worng, but it is at the risk of severe economic degradation and stagnation in te long run. how long can you keep up this confrontation with the west?
to make a USSR out of the islamic nations, you not just need a gud enuff military base, but the economy to finance the confrontaiton.
come up with a muslim-marxism, and we'll see just another different economic system solving our probelsm, not just foregin policy.
[/QUOTE]
Islamic system is not marxism or capitalist in any form whatsoever.
If for 1400 years this concept of islamic unity stood firm then why today are people calling for this system once again i tell you why because they have had enough of nationalism, they have had enough of sectarian infighting, they have seen the socialist doctrine forced on them in the 50's and 60's and fail they have seen the capitalist doctorine forced on them in 80's untill now and its failure is there for all to see it cannot satisfy all the people with even basic needs.
You have to ask why was this system sucessful withstanding an onslught from crusade after crusade, with orientalists trying to find the weakness of islam in order to destroy the system, then with its destruction in early 1900's you will find that it will return because the people want it back.
the agents can put there obstacles the west can invade and put there occupying armies in the lands to prevent this return but the inevitable will happen and they know it, its just a matter of time!
concept of islamic unity and 1400 years, u say.
a matter of time, u say.
how do u know there won't be another 1400 years to go?
islamic system? what exaclty is it do you care to elaborate? you want to impose 1400-saal purana jizya-zakat system and interest-free banking, and you think it is radically different from any other theologically-based welfare state? remove islamic-rulers from the pciture,and then you can tell me how exactly is the islamic system so amazingly different from economies elsewhere in the world. bus sirf, kaunsee 'religion' power may hay ka sawal hay, not much difference on ground otherwise.
russian communism wasn't just an ideology, it was something carefully created and built-up to counter western imperialism. if you want an islamic sytem performing like that, u need to come up with ideas more in tune with how the world operates today.
and lets foget the islamic system of yore shall we. kafee pani guzar chuka pul kay neechay say, since then. probably the most difficult thing that muslims need to digest today, is that the west did not build themselves up at the expense of islam and its empire in the last few centuries. their progress was independent of us. so if u want to stand up tomorrow to them, first u need to catch up with them, aur phir do haath agay kee baath karain gay.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ghuLail: *
concept of islamic unity and 1400 years, u say.
a matter of time, u say.
how do u know there won't be another 1400 years to go?
[/QUOTE]
I don't know and neither do you when the result will be achived it could be around the corner or it could be years from now but it has to happen if the people want then they gonna get it, the victory is from allah(swt) the people have to do the action to make it happen it will not just fall from the sky.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ghuLail: *
islamic system? what exaclty is it do you care to elaborate? you want to impose 1400-saal purana jizya-zakat system and interest-free banking, and you think it is radically different from any other theologically-based welfare state? remove islamic-rulers from the pciture,and then you can tell me how exactly is the islamic system so amazingly different from economies elsewhere in the world. bus sirf, kaunsee 'religion' power may hay ka sawal hay, not much difference on ground otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
Yes there will be no intrest banking because this is clearly haram. this is just a post which i cannot post the entire islamic economic system, but as small example i can say the economy is different because unlike the communist system you can develop and do your business how much you want you are not restricted in the amount you want to develop or earn, and unlike capitalism the basic needs of citizen will have to be met i.e food, clothing, shelter where as in the capitalist model they say everyone for themselves and some people end up with fur coats and ferraris and others have scraps and in poverty!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ghuLail: *
russian communism wasn't just an ideology, it was something carefully created and built-up to counter western imperialism. if you want an islamic sytem performing like that, u need to come up with ideas more in tune with how the world operates today.
[/QUOTE]
Islam its been said before is not like windows 95 its does'nt need no upgrade it deals with mattersthousands of years ago and it has soloutions for today and tommorow.
Is there any problem today not covered by islam as an example do you know islam covers issue of cloning something i did not know untill i read about it, i.e cloning of children is not allowed because there is no father so child is bastid but cloning of plant is allowed as it is a method to increase production for example this all based from the islamic evidence.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ghuLail: *
and lets foget the islamic system of yore shall we. kafee pani guzar chuka pul kay neechay say, since then. probably the most difficult thing that muslims need to digest today, is that the west did not build themselves up at the expense of islam and its empire in the last few centuries. their progress was independent of us. so if u want to stand up tomorrow to them, first u need to catch up with them, aur phir do haath agay kee baath karain gay.
[/QUOTE]
the west is not the main problem for the muslims they are one of the problem because of all there interfernce but they not main problem. We don't want to catch up with the west we want to surpass them as we have done previously. Do you think the muslim countries in there 55 plus statelets have any chance or do you think as a one ummah reality where they have all resources they have the man power they can trade and develop the state because if they rely on outside states this can be cut by sanctions etc. All this unity will make a strong state which will have real effect on the world.
all rite man lay tay hain we dont know when islam will rise again. yeh bhee maan lay tay hain keh we have to make it happen, and it wont fall from the sky.
laikin yeh kahan likha hay kay the only way to do it is to to form a politcal aggressive unified bloc of the islamic world? ummah koa sirf iseee pairaai may daikhna kiyun zaroori hay?
as for the islamic system, that cannot fit into one post, being very different from others i will really have to disagree there. the fundamental difference is simply that it is an 'islamic-power' system that is all. warna islamic system, captialism or communism are only different from eachotherr in their degrees of government control over resources. true capitalism to duniya may kabhee shayad thee hee nahee. its just a bukwas word that the communists created to group together the different economies of the world allowing private property and to define their own system against. ifyou take capitalism less as an ideology and more as the modern welfare state, you'll be hard-pressed to find 'major' dissimilarites with the islamic state.
upgradinng islam? solutions for today and tomorrow? i think the problem with ppl constantly thinking ovr this issue is that they just refuse to accept all progress and all contemporary models of states, as simply christain progress. labeling it as christain, will not make it evaporate will it? har cheez pay pehlay progressive islam kee kotee pehnana kiyun zaroori hota hay. its not as if Quran gives detailed instructions on everythingh under the sun? then why do muslims constanlty think of 'upgrading islam' each time some new 'christain' thing comes up.
laikin no, har cheez kaa aik jawab hay.
talwar lay kay lehrana shuru kar do, aur jab bhook lagay to UN aur US ka darwaza khutkhatao. u really think, all the lovely third-world bhikaree islamic countries can pool together resources and come-up with a modern progressed west-independent state?
with progress only happening in the christain state, how long will yr 'independence' last?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ghuLail: *
laikin no, har cheez kaa aik jawab hay.
talwar lay kay lehrana shuru kar do, aur jab bhook lagay to UN aur US ka darwaza khutkhatao. u really think, all the lovely third-world bhikaree islamic countries can pool together resources and come-up with a modern progressed west-independent state?
with progress only happening in the christain state, how long will yr 'independence' last?
[/QUOTE]
No i think the muslim countries as one ummah will be islamic state why should we be another western country. We don't want a copy of britain or france we want an islamic state which protects the peoples beleif, there honour and is progressive and developing all the time.
The example you gave of christain state there is no christian state in existence because christianity is not ideology it is just a set of spirtitual beliefs, islam is comprehensive ideology which encompasses both spirtual belief and political aqeedah which includes a system of economy, judicial system, foriegn policy etc a spirtitual belief like christianioty does not have a political aqeedah that is why the europeans rejected it, islam however in its correct form can satisfy the needs of all its citizens be they muslim or non muslim that is the difference.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
The example you gave of christain state there is no christian state in existence because christianity is not ideology it is just a set of spirtitual beliefs, islam is comprehensive ideology which encompasses both spirtual belief and political aqeedah which includes a system of economy, judicial system, foriegn policy etc a spirtitual belief like christianioty does not have a political aqeedah that is why the europeans rejected it, islam however in its correct form can satisfy the needs of all its citizens be they muslim or non muslim that is the difference.
[/QUOTE]
well that is an interesting argument made by AK47. Unfortunately, i do not have comprehensive knowledge of Christianity. Some how, I always considered Islam to be a continuity of Judaism and Christianity. To me, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all three have solid ideological background and all three of them define the social, political, and judicial system. Having said that, I was never sure about Christianity but I was pretty sure about Judaism and Islam.
Now that I think of this issue again, I realize that given the fact that Jesus did not get much time to set up a system based on his principals, it is very likely that Christianity is only based on a basic ideological framework with no clear definition of how to run a government, set up a judicial system, establish the economy, and lay down the foreign policy rules. But again, I admit my lack of knowledge of Christianity. If anyone has a comprehensive knowledge of Christianity, I would appreciate if he can provide his feedback regarding the political, social and judicial extent of Christianity.
What about Judaism?
Mind you, we are not deviating from our basic subject “ validity of the concept of having One Islamic Ummah”. We are taking the discussion to the next level.
If we can determine that Christianity and Judaism are not as comprehensive as Islam when it comes to establishing a social, political and judicial system, only then we can clearly make a point that Islam has an edge on these religions when it comes to establishing a political system and a functioning-government. And therefore, Islam definitely provides a framework to lay down the foundation of one Islamic ummah.
However, in contrary to above argument, say, if someone can show that in fact Christianity and Judaism also defined the framework of a political and judicial system at that time but as the human civilization progressed, both religions failed to address the political and judicial needs, then based on these two past failures, we Muslims can also revisit the idea of establishing one Islamic ummah.
okay may nay yeh thread kuch ziyada hee kaich gayee, but i'll just end with this clarification:
u are saying, and i completely agree with this too that christains do not have a politcal aqeedah but we do, and so there is no christain state but there is definitely something called an islamic state.
what i think is that our politcal aqeedah, is perhaps one the of the foremost reasons why the muslims hate the present state of the muslim world, and just cannot tolerate the various muslim states, modernising in the same fashion that any other regular third-world country would. another important reason, is our historical position as a relatively new and major religion, who have shared in world supremacy till recent centuries.
in face of this, it is more problematic for the muslims than others to adopt the western models of democracy, as a contemporary model that will take them towards progress, and instead they like to focus more on political-relgious units that upon unification would be better able to safeguard their interests.
our political aqeedah, which will not settle for anything less than an islamic state is what disregards the western state as simply a un- islamic, (more like a simply christain state).
another thing we dont realise is that, an islamic state, her achievements and institutuons have historically often been simply as those carried out under a period of ismalic rule, or under a region occupid by an islamic power.they havn't always been very to-the-letter islamic, as you may.
sufism, is one such case in point.
so i do not quite understnad, why then having a to-the-letter islamic state is such a pre-requisite to muslim development today. we shud realise that our outlook is becoming restrictedly reactionary, and we just tend to label all even slightly liberal strains, that realise the importance of emulating certain western institutions and models as sadly a necessity today, as losing touch with islam.
why are we so insecure in our muslim identities? in my opinion, anything one might do, just cannot take this very fundamental part of us from us unless we want to thru conscious effort.
(phew!)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by phoenixdesi: *
If we can determine that Christianity and Judaism are not as comprehensive as Islam when it comes to establishing a social, political and judicial system, only then we can clearly make a point that Islam has an edge on these religions when it comes to establishing a political system and a functioning-government. And therefore, Islam definitely provides a framework to lay down the foundation of one Islamic ummah.
However, in contrary to above argument, say, if someone can show that in fact Christianity and Judaism also defined the framework of a political and judicial system at that time but as the human civilization progressed, both religions failed to address the political and judicial needs, then based on these two past failures, we Muslims can also revisit the idea of establishing one Islamic ummah.
[/QUOTE]
Its no problem people can bring there proof that religion like judaism and xtianity have comprehensive spirtual and political aqeedahs because they don't.
Irfan Hussain’s latest article in Dawn addresses some of the questions we were trying to answer in this thread. The thread title was to analyze the validity of the concept of one Islamic Ummah.
Irfan Hussain, in this article, presents his ideas about “Islamic Ummah Concept”. Though, I do not agree with all of his views, I found them interesting and worthwhile to be shared with guppies. He ends his article with a thought-provoking question for all of us (especially for those who believe in concept of One Islamic Ummah):
“But ultimately, the question to ask is what defines us? Our humanity, or the labels applied to us at birth?”
(I am extremely happy the way all of you have participated in different discussions at WA forum over last few weeks ( with a minor exceptions of course). I did not delete one single post in last few weeks and it is a very positive sign. You guys have done a great job by restricting to the topic under discussion and by not bringing notorious indo-pak bashing or hindu-mulsim card into every discussion.
I hope you guys will keep the same spirit while responding to this article or for that matter to any “ controversial” article. Like i said before, difference in opinion is a healthy trait so far one has expressed himself in a civilized manner. Thanks a lot)
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm
"It is true that the concept of the Ummah, or nation of Islam, is unique to Muslims. The Jews perhaps come closest to this spirit, but in their case, this is due to a shared history of persecution that has lasted hundreds of years.
However, in the case of Muslims, this desire to present a united front against the rest of the world often translates into an uncomfortable ‘us against the world’ syndrome that only serves to deepen the existing gulf that Huntington reminded us of in his controversial ‘Clash of Civilizations’.
The truth is that despite the show of unity that we put on when a member of the Ummah is under attack or is being criticized, far more Muslims have been killed and victimized by their fellow-Muslims than they have been by non-Muslims. From Afghanistan to Algeria, Muslims are pitted against Muslims.
For almost a decade in the eighties, Iranians and Iraqis slaughtered each other by the hundreds of thousands. When Saddam Hussein unleashed his chemical weapons, he did not do so against Israel or the West; he did so against fellow-Muslim Kurds and Iranians. When he chose to expand his frontiers, he invaded the Muslim nations of Iran and Kuwait.
After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in the late eighties, the (Muslim) Mujahideen fell upon each other, merrily killing their fellow Afghans for over a decade. If the Taliban had not been thrown out in the aftermath of 9/11, they would be still at it.
As it is, their blood lust is only partially controlled by the presence of western troops. The Algerian civil war in which tens of thousands of Muslims have been killed over 25 years shows no sign of abating.
Over the centuries, a slight difference in the way Muslims worship has made it kosher to kill each other, all in the name of religion. While European Christians have put their sectarian intolerance and slaughter of the Middle Ages behind them, we continue to define ourselves by the particular sect we belong to, often killing those who do not conform to our particular narrow interpretation of the holy scriptures.
Thus, the (Sunni) Taliban killed thousands of (Shia) Hazaras. In Pakistan, this Shia-Sunni division has similarly claimed hundreds of victims over the last two decades. In Saudi Arabia, Shias are not allowed to proclaim their faith, and are marginalized in public life. In Iraq, the situation is pregnant with the possibility of a Shia-Sunni civil war.
But these Muslim-on-Muslim crimes are brushed under the carpet when a member of the Ummah is accused of crimes against humanity, as Sudan is now. What did Pakistan gain by abstaining from the UN vote? Had Sudan been an important trading partner or benefactor, Islamabad’s decision would have made a kind of cynical sense.
And if our government had evidence to prove that the charges against Khartoum were false, then we ought to have voted against the resolution. But in the event, an abstention is a cheap, wishy-washy cop-out.
If the Ummah has any relevance and cohesion, surely it must be based on morality, and not mistaken self-interest. The present ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’ attitude has further marginalized the Muslim world. By refusing to face reality, we risk falling further behind.
Indeed, many sensitive young Muslims are already disillusioned by the sight of their fellow-Muslims behaving in ways that are completely out of step with our times. Many Muslims in America are furious over the plight of a young Kashmiri girl whose ears, nose and tongue were sliced off by separatist militants.
Indeed, the acts of terrorism being committed by extremist Islamic groups from Bali to Basra are polarizing and dividing the Muslim world as no western policy has. While terrorist groups are undoubtedly gaining fresh recruits among disaffected and confused youth, many other young Muslims are revolted by the senseless violence these groups are committing in the name of religion.
These are difficult days, and many Muslims are unsure of the line to take. Should they join the critics of their fellow-Muslims when the criticism is justified, or take a more comfortable, ostrich-like position? But surely, the rights and wrongs of issues remain unchanged since man attained civilization: it is as morally reprehensible to kill except in self-defence as it always was.
No cause can possibly justify the killing of innocent bystanders. And to gloss over such crimes by asserting that the perceived enemy also acts in a similar fashion is a morally bankrupt argument.
But ultimately, the question to ask is what defines us? Our humanity, or the labels applied to us at birth? "