What's new

Nationalism and national culture in Islam

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 14, 2015
4,264
12
8,192
Country
Turkey
Location
Turkey
I'm going to say something that'll probably hurt a few people: there is not one Islam.
We Muslim nations have many Islams. The Saudi Islam is different from the Iranian Islam or let's say Bangladeshi Islam. Ironically, what they all have in common is the denial of Islamic schools, branches, cultures and traditions. Every single Islam recognizes only its own understanding as pure and truth therefore every other person is a non-Muslim -> making Islam artificially homogeneous.

The lowest common denominator in Islamic terms is the Kur'an. Muslims all around the globe accept the written Kur'an. But even our holy book needs interpretation -> different Islams. That's the (obvious) reason why we have many Islams in reality.

In addition, you're wrong in case of nationhood concept in Islam.

eaaa30a9c2c44efb8c764da458f0d763.png

Nationalism, ethnicity or similar concepts aren't haram. The Kur'an acknowledges the fact that we have different backgrounds. All depends on how you define nationalism. Being proud of technological and scientific progress of your nation is a very Islamic sentiment because you're exploring Allah's creation as a community/group -> this is also a form of being "pious". Racism on the other hand is indeed haram.

For instance, our Imam told us always that working and being succesful is a form of Islamic prayer. The harder you work, the stronger is Allah's love for you. You're getting more sevap. There is no difference between hard working and praying 5 times or going to mosque every day. It's equally important.

I personally refuse the concept of Islam without nationalism for many specific reasons, which I can tell you: DAESH, Al Qaida, Taliban, Boko Haram etc. pp.

All of them have in common that they reject nationalism. Look at the recently radicalized Turkish/Bosnian/Albanian in Europe. These people always had contact with Salafist Arab Muslims supporting pan-Islamist ideas (of terror organizations) before heading towards Syria.

Islam without a nationalist framing leads with certainty to extremism.

Suddenly friends are not celebrating Kandil anymore because some Arab Muslims told them it's Bid'ah.
-> http://turkishlifecafe.com/life-liv...-holidays-turkey/kandil-the-five-holy-nights/

This is part of our national culture and therefore it is Islamic!
 
It's a shame that not one Muslim country has been able to successfully implement laws based on our religion while still being able to flourish and compete with any one else in multi spheres such as education, living standards, scientific achievements etc. This was the dream of Quaid-E-Azam and Allama Iqbal. Pakistan had the right ingredients however internal conflicts inhibited progress which our founders desired. The constitution needs to be changed. This is a nice jumping off point:

If not ONE Muslim country cannot base laws off the Quran and the sunnah and still be able to flourish then that is a testament of the pathetic state that the Muslim world is in. There is no need at this point at uniting all Muslim countries due to the fact that many already hate one another lol. However, not one has been able to function as a light house in which others nations can use to see the right direction. The Prophet (pbuh) would be in shock. Everything he went through: the physical abuse, boycotts, battles and this is how we treat his sacrifices. Utterly disgraceful.
 
Last edited:
It's a shame that not one Muslim country has been able to successfully implement laws based on our religion while still being able to flourish and compete with any one else in multi spheres such as education, living standards, scientific achievements etc. This was the dream of Quaid-E-Azam and Allama Iqbal. Pakistan had the right ingredients however internal conflicts inhibited progress which our founders desired. The constitution needs to be changed. This is a nice jumping off point:

If not ONE Muslim country cannot base laws off the Quran and the sunnah and still be able to flourish then that is a testament of the pathetic state that the Muslim world is in. There is no need at this point at uniting all Muslim countries due to the fact that many already hate one another lol. However, not one has been able to function as a light house in which others nations can use to see the right direction. The Prophet (pbuh) would be in shock. Everything he went through: the physical abuse, boycotts, battles and this is how we treat his sacrifices. Utterly disgraceful.
I don't want to be mean here but honestly the so called "Executive Summary" with the enumerated list must have been prepared by a person with intellect that would be somewhere in the region of being classed as 'retarded'. If this is the depth of thought you guy's can come up then we are all better off without this rubbish being peddled as 'Islamic Laws'.

And did you read clause 24? About emigration. No?
 
I don't want to be mean here but honestly the so called "Executive Summary" with the enumerated list must have been prepared by a person with intellect that would be somewhere in the region of being classed as 'retarded'. If this is the depth of thought you guy's can come up then we are all better off without this rubbish being peddled as 'Islamic Laws'.

And did you read clause 24? About emigration. No?

That's why I used the term jumping off point. I never said we should use this exactly. It's a start and somewhere in a direction we should be moving.
 

Pan
-Islamism is a political movement advocating the unity of Muslims under one Islamic state or an international organization with Islamic principles.

Islam does mention one “Ummah” where all Muslims are equal, but does that also imply that there is only one unified State for all the Muslims? I am a student of history and in actual practice this seldom been the case.

Until the time of Hazrat Omar (RA) vast majority of the new converts were Arabs / Arab language speakers and therefore one united State was workable. I consider Hazrat Omar (RA) as greatest of the Rashideen and the real architect of Islamic civilization. However, soon after Iran & Egypt were conquered and large number ‘Dhimmis’ of non-Arab origin converted to Islam.

New converts were considered ‘Mawali’. The Mawali (or mawala) were non-Arab Muslims, who converted to Islam in the lands conquered by the Arabs. The Mawali were considered second class in Arabian society beneath the Arab conquerors and a differentiation between Arab & Ajami Muslims existed. This occurred during the lifetime of majority of the Sahaba (RA). Most historians consider that the primary reason of the fall of the Omayyad after 80 years in power was the inequality that existed between Arab and non-Arab Muslims. The army that toppled Omayyad rule and brought in the Abbasids Caliphate originated from Merv and consisted largely of the new Irani Muslim converts commanded by the pro-Hashemite Arab officers.

Post Omayyad period, all the Muslim occupied lands have never been under one rule. An Omayyad Caliphate in Spain (756 – 1031 AD) existed side by side with the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad. In fact third Abbasid Al Mansur (died 775 AD) asked support of the Frankish Carolingian ruler Pepin the Short to help the pro- Abbasid governors in Spain in their fight against the Omayyad Caliphate of Cordoba. Soon after there was a Fatimid Caliphate in North Africa, Egypt which at its peak during Al-Mustnasir (1036 – 1094) included Syria and Hejaz, Palestine & Yemen, this was when the Abbasid Caliph Al-Qaim ruled in Baghdad.

The above is not a criticism but merely a statement the even during the golden age of the Muslims (Abbasid Caliphate) all the Muslim lands were not under rule.

Let us now look at pan-Islamism from the socio-political view point. The questions to ask is whether all the ‘Ummah’ is in fact one Muslim nation? Central to this discussion is another question. What is nationalism & what makes a nation?

We have to understand that a nation state is different from “Nation”. It is generally accepted that boundaries of a nation are not drawn by the state lines, rather the identifying factors are culture, language, religion and ethnicity. A nation can therefore be defined as cultural community, quite different from the State that is essentially a political entity. Therefore Nationalism is as much a process of nation building as it is a sense of belonging. In most cases nationalism manifests through to some kind of movement / communal action.

Anti-Muslim Hindu nationalist movement of Hiduvta was founded by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923 and its sister organisation Rashtriya Swayamevak Sangh (RSS) was founded by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar in 1925. In my opinion Allama Iqbal proposed his 'Two Nation' theory in 1930 in response to the threat perceived by the Muslims of the sub-continent from the RSS & Hinduvta movements.

Even though Pakistan came into being on the basis of “Two nation theory”; the state broke up because Bengalis considered themselves to be too different from the people of West Pakistan. In Israel, another state created on the basis of religion, there is a considerable difference between the Ashkenazi & Sephardi Jews.

In the vast Ottoman Empire; largest Muslim state after the Omayyad period; non- Turkic Muslim subjects such as Arabs & Kurds were always treated as second class citizens. Consequently the Turks were gradually kicked out North Africa by the Arab speaking population. Syria, Iraq & Arabian Peninsula sided with the infidel English against the Muslim Turkish Caliph for precisely the same reason.

Pakhtunistan, Sindhi & Baluchistan nationalist movements re-enforce the fact that religion alone in not enough for national building. A pan-Islamic state would therefore need a lot more than Islam to form a successful community.

As I understand it, Pan Islamism is a political movement for uniting Muslims under one Islamic State. But does this simply means supremacy of one group of Muslims over others? Or it also implies that all Muslims citizens of such a pan-Islamic state will have equal rights?

Muslims have suffered unjust exploitation by the Christian West over the last couple of centuries. I would conclude that the idea on a universal pan- Islamic State where all Muslim citizens have rights is just a pipe dream invented to seduce naïve believers of an imaginary Utopian state. Such a state is not practicable in the multi- cultural, multi- ethnic Muslim world.
 
Last edited:
Muslims have suffered unjust exploitation by the Christian West over the last couple of centuries. I would conclude that the idea on a universal pan- Islamic State where all Muslim citizens have rights is just a pipe dream invented to seduce naïve believers of an imaginary Utopian state. Such a state is not practicable in the multi- cultural, multi- ethnic Muslim world.

A question, if I may: In a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic world in general, is a State that enforces religious policies as matters of State practicable, or not? If yes, where does it exist? If not, then where does this leave Islam's claim as a "complete way of life" including political power?
 
golden age of the Muslims (Abbasid Caliphate) all the Muslim lands were not under rule.

Sir wasn't that the darkest period of Islam's history? I am Abbasi myself and consider that rule a monarchy rather than a caliphate.

Or it also implies that all Muslims citizens of such a pan-Islamic state will have equal rights?

Sir suppose if justice is done in Pakistan and citizens get respect, security and the basic provisions like medical, education, employment etc would the residents of these regions still remain separated? They did once unite for Pakistan didn't they?
 
A question, if I may: In a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic world in general, is a State that enforces religious policies as matters of State practicable, or not? If yes, where does it exist? If not, then where does this leave Islam's claim as a "complete way of life" including political power?

The problem arose after our great Prophet (PBUH) expired. The others, even the closest companions, despite having been purified due their nearness with the Prophet (PBUH); were not divinely guided.

Also not all of the companions had knowledge of all the declarations of the Prophet (PBUH).Therefore even though they were honest and acted in the best interest of the Muslims as they saw fit; their actions could be questioned and indeed quite often the Rashideen had to answer to ordinary Muslims about their actions.

‘Hadith’ were collected around 80 - 90 Hijra, and I find some of the Hadith such as Hazrat Ayesha (RA) being married at the age of 9 (mentioned in the Sahih Bukhari) very hard to believe.

Islam is a complete way of life but it is quite possible that the practices that a theocratic State such as Iran and Saudi Arabia enforces as religious policy may not be Islamic but peculiar to the Arabic or Iranian cultural practices. One example is that female circumcision is practiced among many Middle Eastern and African Muslim countries.
(http://www.meforum.org/1629/is-female-genital-mutilation-an-islamic-problem )

Likewise, in my opinion quite a few of the religious policies enforced by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan were in fact Pashtun cultural practices but assumed to be Islamic.

This thread however is about the practicability of a pan –Islamic state; I stand by my assertion that such a state is not practicable in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi linguistic word.
 
The problem arose after our great Prophet (PBUH) expired. The others, even the closest companions, despite having been purified due their nearness with the Prophet (PBUH); were not divinely guided.

Also not all of the companions had knowledge of all the declarations of the Prophet (PBUH).Therefore even though they were honest and acted in the best interest of the Muslims as they saw fit; their actions could be questioned and indeed quite often the Rashideen had to answer to ordinary Muslims about their actions.

‘Hadith’ were collected around 80 - 90 Hijra, and I find some of the Hadith such as Hazrat Ayesha (RA) being married at the age of 9 (mentioned in the Sahih Bukhari) very hard to believe.

Islam is a complete way of life but it is quite possible that the practices that a theocratic State such as Iran and Saudi Arabia enforces as religious policy may not be Islamic but peculiar to the Arabic or Iranian cultural practices. One example is that female circumcision is practiced among many Middle Eastern and African Muslim countries.
(http://www.meforum.org/1629/is-female-genital-mutilation-an-islamic-problem )

Likewise, in my opinion quite a few of the religious policies enforced by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan were in fact Pashtun cultural practices but assumed to be Islamic.

This thread however is about the practicability of a pan –Islamic state; I stand by my assertion that such a state is not practicable in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi linguistic word.

It was not just the immediate successors of Muhammad PBUH, but the great division that exists in Islam even today:

"The two branches of Islam split during the great fitna, or strife, over the succession to the Prophet Muhammad. Sunnis claim that the leadership passed down the line of the four rashidun (rightly guided or perfect) caliphs who had been the Prophet’s companions: Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and only then to Ali, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law. After that the mantle passed to the Umayyads in Damascus, followed by the Abbasids in Baghdad. Shias say the succession was usurped. It should have passed through the family of the Prophet, first to Ali and later Hussein. But Ali was murdered in Kufa and buried nearby in Najaf, whereas Hussein was killed in a battle against the Umayyads in Karbala and buried there—hence the importance to Shias of the two cities. Shia leadership then passed down a chain of imams that broke off at different points, according to their sect—eg, the Zaydi “Fivers”, the Ismaili “Seveners” and the majority “Twelvers”. Twelver Shiism became the state religion of the Persian Safavid empire, which is why hardline Sunni Arabs tend to regard the Shias as foreign enemies, even non-Muslims."

(Full article here: http://www.economist.com/news/speci...nt-forms-islam-are-fighting-their-own-version )

Yes, I realize the topic of this thread, but my question was posed because, if, as you contend, a pan-Islamic entity is not practicable due to diversity, one must examine if a smaller nation-state based on theology is possible with less diversity. And if such a smaller entity is not practicable as well, then one must ask whether the claim of political power as part of a prescribed complete way of life is a viable concept, or not. If not, then religion must be separated from State. If yes, then where can one find a working example of such an entity in this day and age?
 
Last edited:
In the vast Ottoman Empire; largest Muslim state after the Omayyad period; non- Turkic Muslim subjects such as Arabs & Kurds were always treated as second class citizens. Consequently the Turks were gradually kicked out North Africa by the Arab speaking population. Syria, Iraq & Arabian Peninsula sided with the infidel English against the Muslim Turkish Caliph for precisely the same reason.
Agreed with most of your post except this part,the Turks were considered as peasants,no class citizens,not even second class citizens.
The ruling class in the Ottoman Empire was anyone but Turks,in the beginning yes but after a century or two,none of the ruling class was Turk anymore.
 
Sir wasn't that the darkest period of Islam's history? I am Abbasi myself and consider that rule a monarchy rather than a caliphate.

Abbasid rule is the time of the Islamic golden age of science and culture, the era of Harun ar Rashid and the Bayt al Hikmah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom). Sure there are dark chapters in this period like there are in any period, but generally speaking Abbasid rule is considered the apex of Islamic civilization, as it saw great advances in science and culture, not to mention it was ethno-linguistically more inclusive than the preceding Ummayads.

---------------------------------

With regards to the OP, I share your sentiments. Traditional Islam's of each region tend to be more tolerant and inclusive as compared to the new age Salafi movements. Whilst the later is a consequence of the former's refusal to accommodate with time and accept reality, it can still safely be said that rather than promoting Salafism, Islamic countries should focus on modernizing their traditional Islam's, as these have developed over a period of centuries though an "organic" process in their native regions and cultures. I mean when was the last time you heard a Sufi blowing himself up or driving a truck into people.

This leads us to a second problem which is that many second and third generations Muslims born and raised in countries with little Islamic traditions (say Britain, Sweden or Belgium) have no traditional Islam to fall back onto. Teenagers in these environments are especially susceptible to misguidance, and its no consequence that many end up going down the wrong path. The British movie "Four Lions" touches on this topic, and is a recommended watch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Lions). The director in this movie intentionally shows the "traditional" Muslims in this movie despite their beards and thobs being essentially "normal" people (playing football in the park, having social gatherings etc), whereas its the confused and misguided lot that look western who are the segment in actual risk of becoming "radicalized".
 
I don't intend to divert the discussion of this topic and make it into a religious discussion but would like to share on following points and then I am out of this thread, (unless participants are comfortable with carrying on this discussion).

The problem arose after our great Prophet (PBUH) expired. The others, even the closest companions, despite having been purified due their nearness with the Prophet (PBUH); were not divinely guided.

Sir this is what history tells us, same history written years later like how traditions were gathered and collected based on verbal sayings without referring to any written material. There are no documents available from times of Messenger and Shahaba e kabaar's period, whereas many letters, instructions, peace pacts and contracts were written and executed in that period, specially during rein of Caliph Umer when Islamic state's territories were expanding rapidly and many a different communities surrendered and became Zimmi (Dhimmi). These missing documents were destroyed / hidden intentionally or not no one knows for sure, but it is still strange that such documents were never preserved ........... or may be these documents got burn by Halaku along with many other books.

This history that tells us that companions were pulling each others' beards even when Messenger's body hadn't been buried is doubtful and suspicious, and when it is verified in light of Quran there are many contradictions and acts which are attributed to companions of Messenger but fail when put to test as to what Quran has to say about these Shahaba.

I mean no offense but there are books that refer to a diary written by a Muslim governor in Spain which makes tragedy of Karbala doubtful. That diary is believed to be found by some Italian military personnel and is believed to have been translated in English. One such researcher mentioning this in his books is Dr. Shabir Ahmed.

Whatever looli langari Islamic history we have today is seriously manipulated and misguiding. Tabri and Zehri have been questioned for their real identities and intentions.

‘Hadith’ were collected around 80 - 90 Hijra, and I find some of the Hadith such as Hazrat Ayesha (RA) being married at the age of 9 (mentioned in the Sahih Bukhari) very hard to believe.

Hisham was 70+ years old at that time when he moved from Madina to Iraq, some say he wasn't mentally fit when he quoted this tradition and this tradition is found to be further quoted by Iraqis only. Others' say Hisham quoted this tradition under undue influence as he had married his daughter and had wasted money around 100,000 dirhams, he was expecting to get financial aid from ruler in Iraq at that time but that ruler refused him huge money and just paid him 10,000 instead, so Hisham kept travelling back and forth between Madina and Iraq. Some say due to his growing age he had forgotten to add 1 to 9 when he was quoting this tradition.

However whatever the case be a lot of research has been carried out on this and finally this tradition has been refuted with solid facts and it has been established that minimum age of Hazrat Ayesha at time of marriage was 19 years. It can be more than this but it is not less than 19. And before getting married to Messenger (Peace be upon him) she was already engaged.

This following article is a reflection of that research

https://www.dawn.com/news/696084

Abbasid rule is the time of the Islamic golden age of science and culture, the era of Harun ar Rashid and the Bayt al Hikmah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom). Sure there are dark chapters in this period like there are in any period, but generally speaking Abbasid rule is considered the apex of Islamic civilization, as it saw great advances in science and culture, not to mention it was ethno-linguistically more inclusive than the preceding Ummayads.

In context of what became of Islam during their rule, the damages outweigh the benefits these monarchs brought with them. They just wanted to strengthen their rule and for that they went on to extent of inventing traditions / hear say that would make any ignorant believe that these Abbasid are rightful heirs to the throne. These idiots were fooled by Persians who had infiltrated and were holding senior positions in their governments, with such an influence that they were the ones running the government affairs. And finally their cowardice and incompetence was exposed by Mongols.
 
However whatever the case be a lot of research has been carried out on this and finally this tradition has been refuted with solid facts and it has been established that minimum age of Hazrat Ayesha at time of marriage was 19 years. It can be more than this but it is not less than 19. And before getting married to Messenger (Peace be upon him) she was already engaged.
Yep that is true i read an article where it was proven i got this pic from that article thank god i saved it. But i still don't understand that today why scholars don't tell people that she was 19yo when she was married to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Age of Aisha at marriage - Diagram 5.jpg
 
Yep that is true i read an article where it was proven i got this pic from that article thank god i saved it. But i still don't understand that today why scholars don't tell people that she was 19yo when she was married to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Thanks for sharing this.

Well why don't people research for themselves and read the books they believe in? and why wait for scholars to tell them?

By scholars if you mean molvi hazrat (to wo baychary) if they accept this as true then they would have to accept that many other traditions that they have been believing in as Wahi e Gair Matlu (ALLAH's word that is not recited) are false and fake. People would get to know that they have been held hostage and deprived their genuine rights disguised as ALLAH's will, and would start questioning monarchs and dictators and molvis, many a shops selling fatwas would close ......... and if by scholars you mean people who research on Quran well almost all of them have been declared Kafir, so why would anyone listen to kafir.

Bai dosro ki choti bachio kay sath zulm bhi to karna hay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom