Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Muslim Hypocrisy On Nationalism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

We are often told by Muslim imams that nationalism is corrupt, backward, tribalistic (the Irony) and "Haram". Yet the same Muslims who say this appear to be all in favor for Palestinian nationalism (hamas), pushtun nationalism (Taliban) and Pakistani nationalism (imran khan, PMFJ). Not only that but Muslims are nationalists them selves, let me explain, Muslims believe in a "ummah", a Muslim nation, and they have a emphasis on this nation and the individuals in it, which is nationalism by definition. Yet after all this, when it comes to non-Muslim nationalists (who are upset about the fact they are to become a minority in their ancestral homelands in under a century) this is deemed Tribialistic and Haram because it opposes the interests of most Muslims in that non-muslim majority state, the irony and hypocrisy is crippling, nationalism is only ok for the Muslims, what's up with that?

I'm in no fear of being banned for the truth, and wanting to know the response.

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

I wouldn't come here and claim that these good people support the Taliban (who hate the shia) or neccesarily believe in establishing a world-wide caliphate.

You are correct in the sense that some form of nationalism (can be civic or cultural, not neccesarily ethnic) is a natural phenomena and that (non-liberal) muslims won't find any stable allies among leftists, feminists, LGBT-movement people and others who believe in breaking the civil society apart for the sake of equality, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The ummah isnt tied down to geography; a member of the ummah can be living anywhere on earth. Even in a 'Muslim' country or state, the official interpretation of Islam can be different than the one you experience when you read and digest the sources for yourself. Your submission is always to God, not to the state. The state can change in many directions depending on the cultural and political forces pushing and pulling on it.

Edited by Ruq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You have completely misunderstood.

The nationalism based on ethnicity, race, language, tribe or any other qualifier that is expressed in our modern times in the concept of nation-states is alien to the Islamic ideal, which is that of an Ummah, that is to say, a nation of believers based on the religion of Allah.

I'm just reporting and not arguing for/against any type of nationalism.

So you say that "Islam says" it's haram for anyone to oppose his ethnicity becoming a minority in his ancestral homeland, which is what ethnic nationalism opposes, how then can you expect the same people of that ethnicity to like or even accept Islam? When most of them hear that their initial response will be to oppose Islam based of the notion it is opposed to their nation.. Do you ever wonder why Islam is so hated among most non-Muslims in non-Muslim majority lands?

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Is that so? Which countries? Name them.

England for starters, especially England, especially after the beheading in South London, that was the final straw for so many Englishmen. If you look at the statistics I think around 60% of the English population belived Islam was a threat to their society, to their nation (what I have mentioned above), that was in 2001, now with the beheading in south London it's no doubt far worse, come on man, open your eye.. The majority of European countries hate Islam, especially the northern Europeans ones, excluding France. And can you blame them when you claim Islam opposes their ethnic preservation, the vast majority of them are instantly going to dislike it and oppose it, it's a human reaction.

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Do you ever wonder why Islam is so hated among most non-Muslims in non-Muslim majority lands?

I live in England and i dont think Islam is 'so hated', actually; there are a group of aggressive and vocal nationalists who really dont care what Islam is, or about truth generally, but please dont confuse them with the majority. I get the impression most non-Muslim people recognise that the majority of Muslims in the UK are decent, hard-working, regular people because these people are people they went to school with, go to work with and see serving the community in different roles just like everyone else. I think what scares people is extremism, and its not just Islamist extremism, its the extremism of the far-right as well. Naturally there is a lot of confusion about what 'true Islam' is, if you like. But people dont bother to take the time to study the Quran with any determination - theyre lazy, so they type provocative questions into Google and pretty much stop their research at sites like 'answeringIslam'.

that was in 2001

That survey wasnt taken on september the 12th by any chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What benefit is there in 'ethnic preservation'? Every country in the world has had ethnic mixing for millenia, so why now the big fuss about it?

If you take a peek at the university of Lancasters DNA mappings I think you'll find the northern Europeans countries are very much racially pure, infact the most racially pure and least multiracial countries in the world are Ironically Muslim majority countries. It's easy for you to say people with over 2000 years of history becoming a minority in their homelands (that they feel a strong affection for) is no problem (with you not being of the same ethnicity as them), but they will never accept that, as you can clearly see, if you can see past your own nose. "Whats the big fuss about", good grief, what do you think the fuss is about? Let me give you a Ironic scenario, lets take a racially and culturally pure Islamic majority country, there are plenty of them, lets pick Egypt, and we flood that country will European Christians, how do you think the Egyptians would react if they were told they were to become a minority in 40 years (by even the most biased reports), and that the Christian priests told them Ethnic nationalism was forbidden (obviously in their own interests)? The reaction of the Egyptians would have being the same as that of the native Indians and most in Europe, they would completely opposed to the religion, it's a natural humanist reaction. Those Egyptians would be declaring the ethnic nationalist preservation of Egyptian Muslims a Islamic ideology and duty, but now when the tables are switched, they are completely opposed to it, and thus the non-Muslims are opposed to Islam. The bias is clear to all with eyes to see. Now imagine if I told those Egyptians "Every country in the world has had ethnic mixing for millenia, so why now the big fuss about it" they would be totally outraged, and rightfully so.

There is my life story. I bring this to you just in case you are not already aware.

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

^ I dont think thats so much a racial issue, it may be for some, but you'll find EDL members will talk about not having an issue with race, rather their issue is with multiculturalism. I think race was more of an issue in the 60's and 70's in the UK, when seeing lots of non-white faces was something people were still trying to get used to. Now its about people not 'integrating' and creating segregated areas, which seems to build mis-trust.

Its not something i personally relate to, as i grew up in the midlands in a city that has a significant asian and black population. There is some segregation with majority asian or black areas, but, at least in my experience, people mixed quite well in schools. This was in the 90's and by that time there was a recognition of how the black an asian community had contributed to the evolution of British culture with music/food/fashion etc, all the things teenagers tend to care about and a strong stigma had built up regarding racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

^ I dont think thats so much a racial issue, it may be for some, but you'll find EDL members will talk about not having an issue with race, rather their issue is with multiculturalism. I think race was more of an issue in the 60's and 70's in the UK, when seeing lots of non-white faces was something people were still trying to get used to. Now its about people not 'integrating' and creating segregated areas, which seems to build mis-trust.

Its not something i personally relate to, as i grew up in the midlands in a city that has a significant asian and black population. There is some segregation with majority asian or black areas, but, at least in my experience, people mixed quite well in schools. This was in the 90's and by that time there was a recognition of how the black an asian community had contributed to the evolution of British culture with music/food/fashion etc, all the things teenagers tend to care about and a strong stigma had built up regarding racism.

The EDL are the greatest wastes of time in English history, they are not ethnic-nationalists they are civic-nationalists. Their leader is not an ethnic English but Ironically a Irishman who's real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, he has made it clear he has no issue with multiculturalism, he is only against Islam, he has held up the hand of a immigrant and said "He is as English as I am", aka not English at all, ethically. It's entirely a racial issue, next to all the terrorist attacks have being carried out by immigrants, undeniably, thus if there was no immigration Islam would have being far more respected then it is now despised. You are openly supporting the genocide of the English nation by calling it a good thing that there are no Englishmen in multiracial mainly Asian schools in places like London, the same English people you could be converting to Islam, and have a entire nation of people practicing Islam according to their own nations culture, but instead you are opposed to their ethnic preservation, thus, how you call your self a real Muslim? Only these words will penetrate a minority here, but in the minority is righteousness.

I am sorry if some people here may not like what I am saying, I am aware and risk being banned, but these issues undeniably need addressing, now more then ever. I say it in hope of awaking you to realize the pit Muslims are sleep walking into, and knowing what the opposition has to say is also undeniably important. It seems as though you do not understand the nature or the European peoples. Again, it is a natural human response what they are feeling in response to their unasked cleansing from their ancestral homeland, both culturally and racially, nationalism only to them seems like a just cause, and from the points I have mentioned it only seems as though it is.

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

What benefit is there in 'ethnic preservation'? Every country in the world has had ethnic mixing for millenia, so why now the big fuss about it?

One would have thought that the advent of 'post-modern' globalised era would dilute race and language-based nationalism across the world but the trend has been quite the opposite for around a decade or so. It is usually expressed as having disagreement with the relatively new concept of multiculturalism and the failure of integration as Ruq opined.

People are still used to pretty much homogenized societies and resist demographic changes. Perhaps this is a short term reaction and will die down in the near future, or perhaps this is not short term and will lead to more conflict. It's a matter to be seen and it will greatly depend on the political discourse that takes roots in those societies.

If the world is going to be further globalised, in the most liberal interpretation of the concept, there is inevitably going to be more multiculturalism, more multilingualism and more multi-everything. Those who object to that are actually objecting to the future.

Edited by Marbles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Im not exactly sure what 'ethnic English' means exactly and who would know if they were somehow 'racially pure' in such a respect, as you put it. England was invaded by Romans, Saxons and Normans and they themselves all had their own ethnic mixes. My ancestors go back pre-norman invasion in England (i have an uncle who turned into one of those family tree obsessives upon retirement). So i guess youre talking about me and my family when you talk about 'ethnic English' people who are supposed to be paranoid about 'racial impurity', only im not, and neither is anyone in my family as far as im aware. My aunty married a French man (yes, we're that liberal). One of my cousins is married to a chinese girl and i married a Kuwaiti/Iraqi/dutchman xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Im not exactly sure what 'ethnic English' means exactly and who would know if they were somehow 'racially pure' in such a respect, as you put it. England was invaded by Romans, Saxons and Normans and they themselves all had their own ethnic mixes. My ancestors go back pre-norman invasion in England (i have an uncle who turned into one of those family tree obsessives upon retirement). So i guess youre talking about me and my family when you talk about 'ethnic English' people who are supposed to be paranoid about 'racial impurity', only im not, and neither is anyone in my family as far as im aware. My aunty married a French man (yes, we're that liberal). One of my cousins is married to a chinese girl and i married a Kuwaiti/Iraqi/dutchman xD

Engles, Jutes, Saxons, Frisians, Normans and vikings are all Germanic, they have similarly linked cultures and languages (excluding the Normans) and identical DNA sets, they are only different tribes of the same race. English it's self refers to the Engles, the largest Germanic tribe to invade Britian, thus the ethnic English are Germanic by definition and the term of the word, as England was created by the Germanics, before the Anglo-Saxons arrived there was no England (land of Engles), it was only after the Roman empire withdrew the Anglo-Saxons invaded and created England, before there was no such thing. The Celts (British, Britons) and Romans on the land before them were evicted or killed in a apartheid like system (google Anglo-Saxons wanted genetic supremacy for evidences), it was common back then, it was a war their king started and lost. The university of Lancesters DNA maping along with many other academic studies show the majority of Englishmen are ethically English. I hope this clears up what it means to be ethnically english by definiotn and who the first Englishmen were, because not even most Englishmen know this them selves. But this is completely of topic. European history, only on ShiaChat.com

So there undeniably is a English nation, despite it's culture being stripped from it by globalization hundreds of years ago, but we cannot accept further humiliation by being killed of, no one, either foreigner of native can support such a act whilst calling them selves honorable people, and again, this all links into the question I asked from the start.

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Engles, Jutes, Saxons, Frisians, Normans and vikings are all Germanic, they have similarly linked cultures and languages (excluding the Normans) and identical DNA sets, they are only different tribes of the same race. English it's self refers to the Engles, the largest Germanic tribe to invade Britian, thus the ethnic English are Germanic by definition and the term of the word, as England was created by the Germanics, before the Anglo-Saxons arrived there was no England (land of Engles), it was only after the Roman empire withdrew the Anglo-Saxons invaded and created England, before there was no such thing. The Celts (British, Britons) and Romans on the land before them were evicted or killed in a apartheid like system (google Anglo-Saxons wanted genetic supremacy for evidences), it was common back then, it was a war their king started and lost. The university of Lancesters DNA maping along with many other academic studies show the majority of Englishmen are ethically English. I hope this clears up what it means to be ethnically english by definiotn and who the first Englishmen were, because not even most Englishmen know this them selves. But this is completely of topic. European history, only on ShiaChat.com

So there undeniably is a English nation, despite it's culture being stripped from it by globalization hundreds of years ago, but we cannot accept further humiliation by being killed of, no one, either foreigner of native can support such a act whilst calling them selves honorable people, and again, this all links into the question I asked from the start.

Yes, i did know that, i have 'The Monarchy of England volume one' by David Starkey, which includes that period of history. I know the history, i just dont know what its supposed to mean, why that should necessarily be important to me, or anyone else really. I can understand why culture is important to people, its less clear to me why ethnicity is important to people. I think people often try and tie the two together, but they arent the same thing. This becomes clearer when you have generations of people who have created unified area's of identity which are multicultural hybrids - specifics and also just a general shared narative, not to mention the increasing numbers of people who are racially mixed.

I dont know what you mean by 'humiliation'. What is a racially mixed English person supposed to feel? that they are the product of 'killing off' of two ethnic groups? i'd suggest the opposite is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Randolph,

how can you compare a country like Egypt with minimum 7,000 years of advanced civilization with any European nation? You obviously didn't read history of Egypt when you have Egypt as an example:

lets pick Egypt, and we flood that country will European Christians, how do you think the Egyptians would react if they were told they were to become a minority in 40 years (by even the most biased reports), and that the Christian priests told them Ethnic nationalism was forbidden (obviously in their own interests)? The reaction of the Egyptians would have being the same as that of the native Indians and most in Europe, they would completely opposed to the religion, it's a natural humanist reaction.

Egypt already had its floods of Europeans in form of French, English, and Greeks. Also, Egypt had floods of Persians, Arabs, Africans (many many different types), Albanians, etc etc etc.

The Muslim majority today is new. Actually it used to be a Christian majority, and before that it was pagan mixed with other types, spanning thousands of years. Egypt even had a flood of Mongols, and obviously also from all places in the Turkish Empire, and the vast Roman Empire (as well as Armenians, and of course the Children of Israel )

When those floods came, the Egyptians didn't scream and shout while worshiping their "genes" and "race". The first church in the world and most orthodox Christian Egypt did not scream racist ideas when it found itself suddenly racially different. Compared to this racial panic you are talking about, while equating it to "Christianity", does not exist in most truly civilized countries, that lay more emphasis on the soul. Of course racism exists everywhere, but it should be looked down upon. And Egypt is perhaps the worst example in the world, as they went through this racial and cultural melting pot situation hundreds of times in their very ancient civilization.

The Islamic world had one way of mixing everybody racially together: it was the yearly hajj that forced people from all nations to travel over vast lands to reach the pilgrimage site. In that way they would settle in new places and people would mix and realize that the soul is what unites us, not the color of our skin.

Anyway, your racial talk is quite disappointing to me, and accusing the non-white people of killing English people is absurd. It is the white people who went around conquering and occupying and colonizing without being welcome. While the immigrants in England came in peace.

And to add to your Egypt scenario:

England already occupied Egypt. Did Egypt occupy England?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also i want to add that Christianity comes from this part of the world, just like Abraham, Jesus and Mohamed, and not from England. And also for your info the royal family of England gets its supposed right to rule because they claim to be descended from King David, who is basically from Palestine area (Canaan). So you are ruled by a family that claims to be from the Middle East. (from semitic not japeth (who is supposedly father of europeans)) just some info there about "racial" info.

i believe that the royal families of all of Europe have the same claim, of their blood being from the nation of Sem, who is basically the father of the Middle Easterners, including the Arabs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Yes, i did know that, i have 'The Monarchy of England volume one' by David Starkey, which includes that period of history. I know the history, i just dont know what its supposed to mean, why that should necessarily be important to me, or anyone else really. I can understand why culture is important to people, its less clear to me why ethnicity is important to people. I think people often try and tie the two together, but they arent the same thing. This becomes clearer when you have generations of people who have created unified area's of identity which are multicultural hybrids - specifics and also just a general shared narative, not to mention the increasing numbers of people who are racially mixed.

I dont know what you mean by 'humiliation'. What is a racially mixed English person supposed to feel? that they are the product of 'killing off' of two ethnic groups? i'd suggest the opposite is true.

I typed a whole paragraph response and accidentally pressed back space whilst not editing and thus deleting it, i'm in mood to repeat my self, but i'll stress some key points:

Cultures, nations, and soil are all bound toghter because they have adapted to different environments.

The English are being killed of, even the most biased statistics show we will be a minority in this land in 40 years, the media is officially and admittedly banned from using the words England or English unless it is refering to a particular organization, the """white Britons""" living in places like London are moving out because their children face racial abbuse (to the point of sucicde, one kid did kill him because of this, look it up) by the Asian-Muslim majority class and recieve no help, these are just a few examples. And again, this all links in about just why most English people hate Islam.

That's all I can remember typing, unfortunate about that.

@ Randolph,

how can you compare a country like Egypt with minimum 7,000 years of advanced civilization with any European nation? You obviously didn't read history of Egypt when you have Egypt as an example:

Egypt already had its floods of Europeans in form of French, English, and Greeks. Also, Egypt had floods of Persians, Arabs, Africans (many many different types), Albanians, etc etc etc.

The Muslim majority today is new. Actually it used to be a Christian majority, and before that it was pagan mixed with other types, spanning thousands of years. Egypt even had a flood of Mongols, and obviously also from all places in the Turkish Empire, and the vast Roman Empire (as well as Armenians, and of course the Children of Israel )

When those floods came, the Egyptians didn't scream and shout while worshiping their "genes" and "race". The first church in the world and most orthodox Christian Egypt did not scream racist ideas when it found itself suddenly racially different. Compared to this racial panic you are talking about, while equating it to "Christianity", does not exist in most truly civilized countries, that lay more emphasis on the soul. Of course racism exists everywhere, but it should be looked down upon. And Egypt is perhaps the worst example in the world, as they went through this racial and cultural melting pot situation hundreds of times in their very ancient civilization.

The Islamic world had one way of mixing everybody racially together: it was the yearly hajj that forced people from all nations to travel over vast lands to reach the pilgrimage site. In that way they would settle in new places and people would mix and realize that the soul is what unites us, not the color of our skin.

Anyway, your racial talk is quite disappointing to me, and accusing the non-white people of killing English people is absurd. It is the white people who went around conquering and occupying and colonizing without being welcome. While the immigrants in England came in peace.

And to add to your Egypt scenario:

England already occupied Egypt. Did Egypt occupy England?

Egypt was conquered by Europeans but was not submerged with European settlers, where on Earth would all these settlers be today if this was the case? Despite Egypt being conquered by different nations it does not mean it's multiracial to this day, DNA haplogroups beg to differ, they are arabs, in the vast majority. Hardly any Muslim land is multicultural yet you openly expect the English to accept being wiped out in the fatherland they love, all the while claiming to be Muslims (yet not making a shred of effort to spread Islam), this hast to be some kind of sick joke. The Islamic Caliphate enslaved millions of white people in Spain (historical fact, look it up) and wiped out countless civilizations, replacing them with what is now "The Arab World", so if you want to use the colonization and conquest argument I can do that also, the Turkish muslims put the white Hellenic and Iranian peoples to the point of extinction, to the point where they are now a minority in their ancestral nations.

England did not occupy Egypt, let me explain, ever since England unified with Scotland the English parliament was removed, to this day it has no government, England has not had a stood hood for hundreds of years, which is why it's impossible for them to occupy or go to war with anyone, let alone Egypt, that's why it was called a "British empire", not a English one.

Also the Royal Family is a Norman import of 1066ad that happily labels it's self Briton (british), a ethnicity the opposite of English, she is not the Queen of the English, She is the queen of the British, she is a fat rich pompous that has remained obediently silent towards everything that has gone wrong against the England, she is not my Queen. When the Normans (French) conquered England they replaced all their Germanic names with Latin and Semitic ones to remove their cultural identity so they wouldn't rise up against their overlords.

How is any of this relevant to the question I asked?

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Khomeini; We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

Patriotism is love for your homeland, for your people, for your culture and for God who has blessed you with it, as some are born blessed and others not, this can not be striped from any ethnic human, either consciously or subconsciously, for the reason I have stated above. And patriotism is not worshiping your homeland, if that was true I would be worshiping my parents by loving them. So that's a very strange thing for khamenei to say, he clearly knows not the definition of the word patriotism. Khamenei has the power to spread Islam anywhere in the world, but he does not even attempt, as do not most Muslims, because they do not understand why they are hated for the so many reasons I have stated.

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egypt was conquered by Europeans but was not submerged with European settlers, where on Earth would all these settlers be today if this was the case? Despite Egypt being conquered by different nations it does not mean it's multiracial to this day, DNA haplogroups beg to differ, they are arabs, in the vast majority. Hardly any Muslim land is multicultural yet you openly expect the English to accept being wiped out in the fatherland they love, all the while claiming to be Muslims (yet not making a shred of effort to spread Islam), this hast to be some kind of sick joke. The Islamic Caliphate enslaved millions of white people in Spain (historical fact, look it up) and wiped out countless civilizations, replacing them with what is now "The Arab World", so if you want to use the colonization and conquest argument I can do that also, the Turkish muslims put the white Hellenic and Iranian peoples to the point of extinction, to the point where they are now a minority in their ancestral nations.

England did not occupy Egypt, let me explain, ever since England unified with Scotland the English parliament was removed, to this day it has no government, England has not had a stood hood for hundreds of years, which is why it's impossible for them to occupy or go to war with anyone, let alone Egypt, that's why it was called a "British empire", not a English one.

How is any of this relevant to the question I asked?

Egypt you want to tell me is monogynous? do you have a paper that actually tries to prove this? Because i know from my own experience that Egyptians of the North of Egypt can be blonde blue eyed, while the south they are known to be dark (and until the end of English occupation Egypt was for 7000 years one country with Nubia and Sudan, who are properly black !!! ) Very strange you come up with conclusions about races that are 100% not true!!! And what do you mean by Arab anyway?? Arabic speaking? Beduin? or descended from Prophet Ismail??

England did occupy England and ruled it for a while. If you google "England occupation Egypt" you will find publications including Oxford and Cambridge ones.

And the spanish people are surely very genetically linked to the berbers who are basically stuck to them anyway.

point is that the English have been occupying and killing people, and they are still supporting a killing off strategy of people across the world such as Afghanistan.

And if immigrants that came in peace into England are outnumbering the Brits, that does not qualify is "killing"!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hardly any Muslim land is multicultural yet you openly expect the English to accept being wiped out in the fatherland they love, all the while claiming to be Muslims (yet not making a shred of effort to spread Islam), this hast to be some kind of sick joke. The

Pure rubbish. Iraq is one of the most multicultural countries in the muslim world, perhaps not based on religious affiliations but more so with ethnic and tribal identities. There's arabs, Iranians, kurds, assyrians, turks and it's home to the last remaining mandaeans on earth; along with that there's the cultish yezidis and the Allillahiya, an ultra extremist brand of alawites that literally deifies Imam Ali (as) as a god. Iran has a good chunk of turks, along with kurds and arabs. Go study some books and travel a bit instead of incessantly referring us to google. And don't talk from your backside about English ethnicity being wiped out, not as nearly as 2% of the british population is that daft to believe this is what muslims are demanding; demand for tolerance is what level-headed people are seeing not coconuts like you who cant even bring any effort to refute the most ridiculous theories out there. (let's not go into your useless assessment of history, seems you cant ever accept being mistaken)

Edited by Jahangiram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patriotism is love for your homeland, for your people, for your culture and for God who has blessed you with it, as some are born blessed and others not, this can not be striped from any ethnic human, either consciously or subconsciously, for the reason I have stated above. And patriotism is not worshiping your homeland, if that was true I would be worshiping my parents by loving them. So that's a very strange thing for khamenei to say, he clearly knows not the definition of the word patriotism. Khamenei has the power to spread Islam anywhere in the world, but he does not even attempt, as do not most Muslims, because they do not understand why they are hated for the so many reasons I have stated.

it is not something strange to say, because you don't love your parents for the color of their skins or their "genes". you love them for their souls. and the soul is all that counts, especially once we pass away God willing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I typed a whole paragraph response and accidentally pressed back space whilst not editing and thus deleting it, i'm in mood to repeat my self, but i'll stress some key points:

Cultures, nations, and soil are all bound toghter because they have adapted to different environments.

The English are being killed of, even the most biased statistics show we will be a minority in this land in 40 years, the media is officially and admittedly banned from using the words England or English unless it is refering to a particular organization, the """white Britons""" living in places like London are moving out because their children face racial abbuse (to the point of sucicde, one kid did kill him because of this, look it up) by the Asian-Muslim majority class and recieve no help, these are just a few examples. And again, this all links in about just why most English people hate Islam.

That's all I can remember typing, unfortunate about that.

Adaptation is the key - people who fail to adapt will not thrive. Cultures adapt and evolve, environments do the same. This isnt an English issue, its a reality of the modern world. People are moving around like never before. Unless you want to isolate yourself, you have to adapt and focus on the commonalities between people. 'English' to me is a national identity made up of many different factors, immigrations and cultural mix is part of that. That doesnt mean that English traditions end, it means they mingle. How many things that we associate with being traditionally English are not in origin? tea drinking, fish and chips and even the most English of eccentric past times - morris dancing - have origins elsewhere? cultural identity isnt stagnent, thats the beauty of it. Ethnic identity isnt either. Why is it important for people to hang onto an ethnic identity? is it really pale, freckled skin and floppy hair thats so important, or is it a cultural identity your coupling that with? im not suggesting the world would be a better place if every one looked the same, variety is the spice of life and makes the world more interesting, but when that difference is something you use to separate yourself from others, to distinguish in a way that suggests superiority over another, thats when problems arise.

I dont think its just a race issue, i think people are overly identified generally, with race, nationality, class, you name it. Non of these things are who or what you are in essence.

With regards to white kids being bullied, i did see an article were a boy moved schools, and its horrid that any one should be bullied in such way, but the statistical likelihood of that is incredibly small, esp compared to the likelihood of being bullied for being non white. It was reported precisely because its so rare, if an asian family went to the papers and said their child was being bullied for being asian, it would be a non-story.

Edited by Ruq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Look, non of this is relevant to the question I first asked, people are repeating them selves, let's put things back on track starting here.

Let me ask something, if all the English population accepted Islam do you really think they would have the same mind set you people have, as immigrants? Or do you think they would still be angry about the fact they were to become a minority in their homeland? Try being reasonable or look at things from a different perspective for once,i'm being beyond diplomatic, but many of you are beyond rationality.

Also the Irony is that the first point I have asked in my question hasn't even being addressed yet! If nationalism is haram and alien to Islam, why do so many Muslims support Imran Khan, a Muslim nationalist? And Palestinian nationalism? It's hypocrisy, by definition.

The second point has yet to be addressed also, aren't Muslims nationalists when they have a emphasis on the individuals in the Muslim "Ummah"? Which is nationalism by definition, in which case it's hypocritical for them to oppose such a ideology for non-Muslims who are concerned about the preservation of their kin.

I almost feel ashamed for repeating my self as much as I have, I pretty much summed up my paragraphs of responses and evidences in those very simple questions from the start, most of which haven't even being answered, it's incredible.

If the Quran does not condemn the opposition of genocide against a group of individuals belonging to a particular nation and thus holding a emphasis of those individuals in that nation what business do you have calling your self a Muslim whilst opposing such a ideology in clear self interests? Even a child can see the hypocritical clause in this situation.

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you will find muslims of all walks.

and the racist people of England would be upset, while the open minded ones would see it as a benefit to have a cosmopolitan multi-cultural place, which would lead to a new identity.

don't confuse race with religion

this website is shia and more concerned about true purity in blood and spiritual blood line of the holy prophetic family, and even in that family there are bad people. So good and bad has nothing to do with race, therefore thinking about race is a waste of time. unless you are a racist materialistic eugenicist nazi or something. but that would be your own loss. what intelligent people care about it goodness of the soul, which means they look beyond the skin color.

your race has nothing to do with who you are. your actions build your identity

and our hearts are all the same color btw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

and the racist people of England would be upset, while the open minded ones would see it as a benefit to have a cosmopolitan multi-cultural place, which would lead to a new identity.

If any Englishmen want multiculturalism then why are next to all of them moving out of multicultural areas?

http://www.dailymail...regated-UK.html

WHAT DOES THIS HAFT TO DO WITH ANYTHING I HAVE ASKED? D:

Also I have talked with Muslims from Muslim majority countries and they have nothing against nationalism, infact they say it's not unislamic, with proves my point further, along with the fact two key questions I asked from the start remain completely undressed because it proves the people who are opposing nationalism are in a hypocritical stance, and those two questions I have rephrased above need addressing for that to be refuted, until then my point is proven, but my point from the start has already being proven because of those two questions I have asked from the start have not being addressed, it goes to show the hypocrisy and arrogance of the left for those with eyes to see.

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
your race has nothing to do with who you are. your actions build your identity

I think people strongly identify with race and nationality when they feel insecure. These things can give the illusion of security, but in reality theyre highly subjective and transitory notions - theyre nothing more than stories that we project meaning on to. The things that are eternal ahve nothing to do with these notion. These stries/identities are like suits people wear while theyre living in the material world. Sometimes they change their suits, sometimes they will wear a suit for a long time and look at it and cant figure out why they liked it so much, why they were attached so much in the first place. Imagine leaving your body and looking at it completely objectively for the first time in your life, no longer identifying with it or with the stories attached to it. People who have near death experiences and experience leaving their bodies, often say they look down on their bodies and earthly identity and see them in a completely different way.

If any Englishmen want multiculturalism then why are next to all of them moving out of multicultural areas?

http://www.dailymail...regated-UK.html

WHAT DOES THIS HAFT TO DO WITH ANYTHING I HAVE ASKED? D:

I wouldnt rely on the DM for a reliable interpretation. If people are moving, its because they are highly identified with a certain idea/story of what their surroundings should be like and who should be in them. People who dont have that notion, wont feel threatened. If you want to be surrounded by white people there are probably certain area's of Birmingham and London that youre not going to live in. Its the same reason why people who emigrate into a country tend to group together. They assume that they have more in common with some than others and that their is somehow safety in that.

Edited by Ruq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any Englishmen want multiculturalism then why are next to all of them moving out of multicultural areas?

http://www.dailymail...regated-UK.html

WHAT DOES THIS HAFT TO DO WITH ANYTHING I HAVE ASKED? D:

Also I have talked with Muslims from Muslim majority countries and they have nothing against nationalism, infact they say it's not unislamic, with proves my point further, along with the fact two key questions I asked from the start remain completely undressed because it proves the people who are opposing nationalism are in a hypocritical stance, and those two questions I have rephrased above need addressing for that to be refuted, until then my point is proven, but my point from the start has already being proven because of those two questions I have asked from the start have not being addressed, it goes to show the hypocrisy and arrogance of the left for those with eyes to see.

if you want to prove they are hypocritical, then you need to use religious evidence. True Muslims are called sons of the hereafter, and we are to seek and care about the gardens of paradise. Also, our identity is an identity of faith, not race. You can never prove otherwise.

If you want to know what is the closest you get to nationalism in Islam: it is the right to defend ourselves and this includes the lands we live on.

and the situation in England now is a result of history which is very bloody, so it is not ideal. At the same time not everybody who calls himself muslim is actually a muslim. So if you want to debate Islam, then better start using Islamic arguments, based on Quran or narrations of the prophet and his family members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I think you should bear in mind that peoples cultures tend to trump their religion. A lot of people who indentify at all with a religion do so in a very general cultural kind of way and often are very ignorant about their scriptures. Its human nature. That nature didnt suddenly disappear when the Quran was revealed and people came in contact with it, they kept doing what theyve always done. The difference is, in Islam you have an unadulterated source, which you dont have in Judaism or Christianity, so no matter what time and culture has dictated since, you can go to the Quran and study it and look at it holistically and get a decent grasp of its reality, in a practical sense, without the worry of it being meddled with, or manipulated.

The first thing people identify strongly with is their culture and for a lot of people that doesnt alter as they age, infact, can get even stronger. National identity is part of that and Muslims are as subject to that weakness as anyone else.

Edited by Ruq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

National identity is part of that and Muslims are as subject to that weakness as anyone else.

So Muslims identifying them selves with the Muslim nation is a weakness?

Good grief. Is it no wonder to you people why Islam has one of the highest growth rates yet one of the lowest conversion rates? Is it no wonder why even the most biased statistics show Islam is hated among the native population? Why are my points being ignored? Sorry, I should stop asking question, I have yet to have the first 2 questions I asked from the start addressed.

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Let me ask something, if all the English population accepted Islam do you really think they would have the same mind set you people have, as immigrants?

What makes you think you are talking to immigrants? Ruq has already told you she is as English as anyone else in the country, and she doesn't seem to have this problem you have.

Or do you think they would still be angry about the fact they were to become a minority in their homeland? Try being reasonable or look at things from a different perspective for once,i'm being beyond diplomatic, but many of you are beyond rationality.

Since the Ummah is based on religion, not race, a Muslim is a Muslim, and hence would not consider himself, or be considered, a minority in any meaningful sense in this hypothetical Muslim England. You might find this hard to believe, but good Muslims really don't care about race. They aren't exactly alone in this either. There are plenty of other people who think nationalism is stupid.

Also the Irony is that the first point I have asked in my question hasn't even being addressed yet! If nationalism is haram and alien to Islam, why do so many Muslims support Imran Khan, a Muslim nationalist? And Palestinian nationalism? It's hypocrisy, by definition.

People support Imran Khan because they think he is the only reasonable alternative to a bunch of crooks, not because he is a 'Pakistani nationalist'.

As for the Palestinians, I think it's pretty obvious why people support their right to have a state. In an ideal world, Palestine would be part of an Islamic state, but we don't live in such a world, so the best alternative to them being oppressed by the Israelis is to have their own state.

The second point has yet to be addressed also, aren't Muslims nationalists when they have a emphasis on the individuals in the Muslim "Ummah"? Which is nationalism by definition, in which case it's hypocritical for them to oppose such a ideology for non-Muslims who are concerned about the preservation of their kin.

I think you are rather stretching the definition of the word nationalism here.

What Islam teaches is that all Muslims are equal, regardless of ethnicity, culture, or where they were born. Hence, devout Muslims do not concern themselves with petty issues such as preserving a particular culture or genetic makeup. This seems to go completely against what most people understand as nationalism, a phenomenon which is generally held to have developed in 18th century Europe. The Muslim's loyalty isn't to a nation, or a community, but to God.

If the Quran does not condemn the opposition of genocide against a group of individuals belonging to a particular nation and thus holding a emphasis of those individuals in that nation what business do you have calling your self a Muslim whilst opposing such a ideology in clear self interests? Even a child can see the hypocritical clause in this situation.

Genocide? Really? Who is killing the native populations?

Going back to your OP:

Not only that but Muslims are nationalists them selves, let me explain, Muslims believe in a "ummah", a Muslim nation, and they have a emphasis on this nation and the individuals in it, which is nationalism by definition.

The Ummah is a community, not a nation. There is no Islamic state at the current time, although their is a still an Ummah of Muslims. Hence, it is rather difficult to speak of Nationalism. Perhaps you can quote the exact definition you are using.

Anyway, I still don't see what your problem with is, or what solution you propose.

Good grief. Is it no wonder to you people why Islam has one of the highest growth rates yet one of the lowest conversion rates?

Which religions have higher conversion rates in England?

Is it no wonder why even the most biased statistics show Islam is hated among the native population?

Who cares? Most people are morons.

Edited by Haydar Husayn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

^ Thank you for the guy above me for actually answering my questions.

"As for the Palestinians, I think it's pretty obvious why people support their right to have a state.-" "-Because they are Muslims, nationalism is only halal for the Muslims, but it's haram for everyone else because it's against Islamic interests, whether it be flooding a non Muslim nation with Muslim immigrants or not"

I refuse to bring this of topic yet again by talking about genocide, go look up the definition of the word then reread what I have said in response to this, that is all.

"Who cares? Most people are morons." So you basically don't give a damn about spreading Islam, your just a hypocrite, essentially.

Ummah is a arabic word for nation and community, now you're misleading us.

Oh, and Imran Khan isn't a crook because he is patriotic, he loves his kin, his culture his nation, he is a nationalist, that's why he isn't a crook like all the other crooks in Pakistani Parliament that claim to represent Islam by opposing nationalism like your self.

Edited by dfdfRandolphdfdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...