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

How many of you believe in Pan Arabism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

"That’s all nice on paper but where are these weapons on the ground? And why is it ‘impossible’ for any Islamic army to defeat the Zionists? If Syria truly posses a capable and a modern army it should have no fear in eradicating the Zionist vermin; Hezbollah with adequate funding and support were able to do so. "

The reason Hezbollah won in South Leabonon was that it was a gurilla force and it waged a very effefctive gurilla war, they were also very organized and its fighter were willing to sacrifice themselves for thier cause, which seems very difficult in many Arab armies.

"I’m a Democratic Socialist.

Whay about yourself?"

I would say I consider myselve more in the form of the Nasserists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Pan-Welayat Fakih

Instead of pan-Arabism, how about just cooking Arab food in a nice pan?  That's a much better idea. 

Pan Kufr*

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

the Hizballah fought a guerilla war, guerilla forces are rarely defeated against regular warfare. The Hizballah and Amal fought Israel with Syria and Iran's help, Syria opposes Zionism regularly.

Is not the Syrian army larger than the Zionist counterpart? If that is the case, and it is modern as you say with long range Missile capability; why can't force the Jews off Syrian Soil?

(salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

You seem to forget that the Zionist state has universal service into its military, which will mean it has many reservists.

Even so, it still doesn't answer the question. If you have a sizable army that has the means and equipment to take back your land; why wouldn't you infuse that 'resource' to defeat your enemy?

It sounds like lip-service to me.

I would say I consider myselve more in the form of the Nasserists.

You mean Arab Socialism? Like the kind embraced by Jamal Abdul Nasser?

(salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You said that Machel Aflaq never supported censorship?! That is why he lived well supporting Saddam's traitors right? Aflaq was a sell-out. Zaki Arsuzi was the heart of the Party. The Zionists also have the US standing over their shoulder looking for any excuse to attack Syria.

I hold myself as a Socialist and yes, I did see Socialism in Dimasq and in Halab. I support almost any form of Socialism which retains a national character (exception being obviously National Socialism). I support Juche, Bolivarianism, African Socialism and of course I myself am a Baathist. I support Nasser himself, but I severely criticize him from pulling from the 1963 deal which would have unified Iraq, Syria and Egypt.

Alawi differ from Twelver in several thoughts and interpretations. Enough to make a difference within Twelvers, however generally not that much. In the 1930s when we were first allowed our own courts, many of our judges were orthodox Twelvers from Lebanon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

digitalmo is correct in interpretting my words. I do not believe all left action is Zionist propaganda. There are many left-wing Jewish parties which support Palestine. Also, I cannot see Bolivarianism, Juche, African Socialism or Baathism helping the Zionists, they all oppose Imperialism greatly. After all, it was the DPRK which criticized the USSR (at their own risk after all, it was right before Czechoslovakia) heavily over what they called the "effective abandonment of Arabs" in 1967.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Assalamalaikum,

Thankyou for that clarification. Find me two arab who can get along then maybe it would be plausable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Setting them quite a task, aren't you??

(salam)

"Pan-Arabism" sounds a bit racist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe you're consciously understating things . . .

(bismillah)

Firstly speaking; what has Pan-Arabism accomplished? Has it built a Modern Nation for us? Has it built a Modern Army? Has it destroyed the Zionist Enemy? Has it destroyed hunger and poverty? The answer is quite clear.

Secondly; NO Arab State is a real Socialist state; their govt. is a mix of rigid Capitalistic ‘economic’ system coupled with a fascist dictatorship sponsored by “The bearer of democracy and Justice” the United States’.

P.S.

Pan-Shiism forever!

(salam)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No regressive ideology can accomplish what you're asking . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...
  • Advanced Member
(bismillah)

(salam)

I am just wondering, I believe in, I think it is the only way to save the Arab and Islamic world from Imperalism. But I believe most of the Arab leaders are to corupt by greed and lust for power that they could never serve this idea rightly.

Pan-Arabism would by definition exclude non-Arab Muslims. Wouldn't it?

@)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
(bismillah)

Is not the Syrian army larger than the Zionist counterpart? If that is the case, and it is modern as you say with long range Missile capability; why can't force the Jews off Syrian Soil?

(salam)

The losses it would incur in an army vs army conflict would be extremely high and there still would not be a guarantee of success.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...
  • Advanced Member

Regardless if it's racist or tolerant. We saw how it was a disaster.

Nasser had an idea of Pan Arab Socialism, he invited Syria, and wanted to take over Jordan, and Yemen, and other nations to get included. Algeria sounded interested as well.

But later on, all the big heads, of each of these Arab states, including Syria, Algeria, Lebanon and so on, were more interested in their personal wealth, rather than have an Arab Socialist State, which is a big "no no" if you are a greedy Arab that thinks about your own pocket.

Israel would also be the first to prevent such a thing from happening. They kind of did it before.

But I can certainly see a "Pan-Islamic System" as proposed by Erbakan of Turkey, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, and some other leaders out there, that want to take advantage of the GDP's of the most powerful Islamic nations in the world. This would counter the EU interests greatly, and build progress for the Muslims in these nations.

Turkey and Iran, would be the first to join such a coalition, since they are neighbors, and have a large population, strong military etc.. And both are in dire need of economic strengthening in their regions.

Edited by ShiaBen
Link to post
Share on other sites

pan arabism is a lie and a fact at same time

what is shared between arabs is what is between the italians and is whats between the french and is whats between the chinese and is whats between the Americans

some factors help to bring people closer including language race history geography traditions and values

but it is a lie in its political sense , it had not been nor there will be a pan arabism state ever

just cuz you are an arab dose not qualify you enough to be an allie or friend by default , you are simply anoter human who i may enjoy his company , but each of us would look forward for his own interest

though this lie-fact is easly priecived by arabs , it sounds vouge for non arabs which is strange

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

(bismillah)

Pan-Arabism is more deadly than Cancer to the idea of the Ummah. It is as deadly as Pan-Turkism, Iranian nationalism and Pakistani nationalism. It is completely against the idea of the Ummah.

Also, Pan-Arabism has created murderous dictators like Saddam, Assad, Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Saleh, etc. etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Pan Arabism is a very good idea. The language is the most important identification of a nation. My national identity is swedish because my mother tongue is swedish. But arabic is a world language, which swedish is not. Arabic could compete with english if the arabic world could be united. This does not mean all arabic countries must become one country. Just look at the english speaking countries. Canada,USA, Britain, Australia, New Zeeland etc. All wish to remain independant. But still the english language is uniting them and makes them powerful. The same could be the case with arabic speaking countries.But for this to happen, I think it is necessary that they become democracies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

hell YEAH !!! :D Pan Arabism is un-Islamic !!

Not only unIslamic but also childish. Even the educated and advanced societies no longer believe in junk nationalism. Pan Arabism bothers me because most Arabs have non-Arabic ancestors; they're Arabized. So essentially if they believe in pan Arabism its like they're spitting in the graves of their ancestors. It's also very materialistic, to divide themselves like an island from the rest of humanity. I also have no respect for other forms of nationalism, notably Pan-Turkism, which is based on mythical history and foundation, not to mention is delusional and potentially genocidal. Nationalism also distorts real history because it loves to promote ethnocentric black propaganda (false information / fabrication) about many things. You know like Salah Al Din being Arabic when he was Kurd, that kind of stuff.

Edited by Mo.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only unIslamic but also childish. Even the educated and advanced societies no longer believe in junk nationalism. Pan Arabism bothers me because most Arabs have non-Arabic ancestors; they're Arabized. So essentially if they believe in pan Arabism its like they're spitting in the graves of their ancestors. It's also very materialistic, to divide themselves like an island from the rest of humanity. I also have no respect for other forms of nationalism, notably Pan-Turkism, which is based on mythical history and foundation, not to mention is delusional and potentially genocidal. Nationalism also distorts real history because it loves to promote ethnocentric black propaganda (false information / fabrication) about many things. You know like Salah Al Din being Arabic when he was Kurd, that kind of stuff.

Most funny was when Ataturk removed the Arabic script from Turkey :angry: , in the name of "Pan-Turkism". :!!!: :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Most funny was when Ataturk removed the Arabic script from Turkey :angry: , in the name of "Pan-Turkism". :!!!: :wacko:

You should see how Turks worship that guy, like a cult of some sort.

"Without him, we won't be here today" and things like that. What a buncha nonsense.

I've read some pan-Turkist comments on youtube, some have gone as far as glorifying a maniac like Genghis Khan.

Yeah there's clearly something wrong with nationalism, and its eating Islamic unity away.

Muslims need to give up the -isms and set themselves free, otherwise they'll always be chained up to think the way a group of people want them to think.

-isms can be hijacked and hence anyone following an -ism can end up being brainwashed like sheep. Which is exactly why prophet Muhammad told us to abandon these jahiliya thoughts, otherwise our minds and souls will never be set free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Pan-Shiism on the other hand...

Do you truly mean Pan-Shi'ism or do you just mean Pan-Twelverism. Because we already have a semblance of the latter. Would you,say, accept the Ismailis and Zaydis on your Pan-Shi'i boat

Edited by JimJam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you truly mean Pan-Shi'ism or do you just mean Pan-Twelverism. Because we already have a semblance of the latter. Would you,say, accept the Ismailis and Zaydis on your Pan-Shi'i boat

I'm afraid if Ismailis and Zaydis, not to speak of the 'Alawis, were accepted in the pan-Shi'i boat, the relations between Sunnis and Shi'is would only get from bad to worse.

You should see how Turks worship that guy, like a cult of some sort.

Only a microscopic minority of Turks support Ataturk and his rotten ideology. This is evident from the result of the last 3 general Elections in Turkey.

Edited by Yousuf Ahmed
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Pan-Arabism is a nationalistic ideology. In my opinion, nationalistic ideologies are foolish, racist, and should not be even considered.

Instead, Arabs should build relations amongst ourselves and have relations with Iranians, Kurds, Turks, Pakistanis, Indians, Azeris, Chinese Muslims, etc.

Pan-Shiism on the other hand...

I am Swedish and I love my country and language. So that makes me foolish and racist?

A language is a tool of communication. It is very practical for a country to have a language that all citizens can use. Just like we all use english in this forum, no matter race or creed.

But a constitution built on pan-shiism or any other -ism favourising any particular creed -like e.g. in Iran - means discrimination. But this is obviously very hard for muslims to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam .. I don't know guys .. But I feel that ethnic backgrounds should have nothing to do with Islamic unity .. And anyway, as someone mentioned above .. The Arabs have some of the most corrupt political systems .. islam has nothing to do with being Arab .. And most Arab leaders are western and Israeli puppets (if not all) .. So it's kind of pointless to put our hopes in Arabs .. to make any unity .. We need to think Islam .. We need to think global .. All races, creeds, languages, etc.

Salam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I am Swedish and I love my country and language. So that makes me foolish and racist?

A language is a tool of communication. It is very practical for a country to have a language that all citizens can use. Just like we all use english in this forum, no matter race or creed.

But a constitution built on pan-shiism or any other -ism favourising any particular creed -like e.g. in Iran - means discrimination. But this is obviously very hard for muslims to understand.

Loving you nation is patriotism. If you hated your neighbours, on the other hand, it would be foolish. Hating the "other nation" is a common feature of nationalists worldwide. A pan-Shia nation which guaranteed equal rights for all citizens wouldn't be discriminatory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I am Swedish and I love my country and language. So that makes me foolish and racist?

A language is a tool of communication. It is very practical for a country to have a language that all citizens can use. Just like we all use english in this forum, no matter race or creed.

But a constitution built on pan-shiism or any other -ism favourising any particular creed -like e.g. in Iran - means discrimination. But this is obviously very hard for muslims to understand.

So you're meaning to tell us you don't know the difference between:

1. Someone who loves his country and culture.

and...

2. Someone who's a nationalist?

If you don't know the difference, then the discussion would warrant pointless.

Second, we're not talking about a lingua franca, and in any case Arabic would serve as one of the worst lingua francas in the World due to its difficulty. Arabic to non-Arab Muslims is only important for detailed religious study and the Quran. Other languages serve better as the lingua franca, if that's your point.

Third, your example of favoring a creed being Iran is pretty poor. Even as a huge critic as I am of Iran's current regime, I don't think they discriminate 10% of what the Arabs on the other side of the Persian Gulf are doing. See, perhaps your pan-Arabist mindset didn't like to use an Arabic country as an example.

In countries like Turkey, Kurds aren't allowed to speak their own language officially because of Turkey's pan-Turkist junk of nonsense. In Iraq, Kurds used to be treated that way, until the 'Americanized/Westernized' new face of Iraq ended up granting minorities their rights. Kurds in Iran were the longest respected by the Iranian govt in comparison to the Turkish or Iraqi neighbors.

In the six GCC countries, each member has in its constitution that "so and so country is part of the Arabic Ummah". Not "Islamic Ummah", not "Ummah of prophet Muhammad". No, "Arabic Ummah". All these countries, including ones like Egypt, follow pan-Arabist movements, which is why they even label bodies of water such as Persian Gulf in their own way, e.g. "Arabian Gulf", which is historically wrong and only came to realization during the late 60s because of Gamal Abdulnasser - the Arabized Egyptian who thinks he's more Arab than the Arab.

So if you are in favor of nationalism ,you're essentially in favor of the following things:

1. Racial superiority.

2. Discrimination of non-Arabs and removal of their rights.

3. To propagate as much of the Arab culture around the world while diminishing that of other cultures. You are a therefore a supporter of Arabization and not the diverse nations and tribes God created for mankind.

4. You are also in favor of fabricating history to meet your pan-Arabist goals, including changes names of bodies of water (Persian gulf -> Arabian gulf), faking history about Muslim warriors and scientists and calling them Arabs, e.g. Salah Al Din the Kurd is suddenly Arab, Ibn Sina the Persian is suddenly an Arab, etc.

Nationalism is stupid and always has been. The fact you're mixing a movement like nationalism with a human's emotional feelings of 'love and affection' towards his country and culture only means that you fail to differentiate both, and that's detrimental to the healthy nature that Muslims should be following.

You speak about English-speaking countries having a linguistic unity making them powerful. Oh brother... Yeah too bad that doesn't mean squat to any of the citizens of these countries because they don't think in the same racially-motivated manner that you are. I don't see the US constitution saying as many daft things as 99% of Arabic constitutions today (bar Iraq's constitution cause its the only decent one in the arab world today). Oh yeah George Washington must have stressed Anglo-Saxon unity...

"United States of America is part of the Anglo-Saxon Ummah".

Even if you look into their constitutions, you'll realize their languages have de facto status cause their constitutions never stressed on the official language being what, unlike the Arabic countries.

Edited by Mo.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're meaning to tell us you don't know the difference between:

1. Someone who loves his country and culture.

and...

2. Someone who's a nationalist?

If you don't know the difference, then the discussion would warrant pointless.

Second, we're not talking about a lingua franca, and in any case Arabic would serve as one of the worst lingua francas in the World due to its difficulty. Arabic to non-Arab Muslims is only important for detailed religious study and the Quran. Other languages serve better as the lingua franca, if that's your point.

Third, your example of favoring a creed being Iran is pretty poor. Even as a huge critic as I am of Iran's current regime, I don't think they discriminate 10% of what the Arabs on the other side of the Persian Gulf are doing. See, perhaps your pan-Arabist mindset didn't like to use an Arabic country as an example.

In countries like Turkey, Kurds aren't allowed to speak their own language officially because of Turkey's pan-Turkist junk of nonsense. In Iraq, Kurds used to be treated that way, until the 'Americanized/Westernized' new face of Iraq ended up granting minorities their rights. Kurds in Iran were the longest respected by the Iranian govt in comparison to the Turkish or Iraqi neighbors.

In the six GCC countries, each member has in its constitution that "so and so country is part of the Arabic Ummah". Not "Islamic Ummah", not "Ummah of prophet Muhammad". No, "Arabic Ummah". All these countries, including ones like Egypt, follow pan-Arabist movements, which is why they even label bodies of water such as Persian Gulf in their own way, e.g. "Arabian Gulf", which is historically wrong and only came to realization during the late 60s because of Gamal Abdulnasser - the Arabized Egyptian who thinks he's more Arab than the Arab.

So if you are in favor of nationalism ,you're essentially in favor of the following things:

1. Racial superiority.

2. Discrimination of non-Arabs and removal of their rights.

3. To propagate as much of the Arab culture around the world while diminishing that of other cultures. You are a therefore a supporter of Arabization and not the diverse nations and tribes God created for mankind.

4. You are also in favor of fabricating history to meet your pan-Arabist goals, including changes names of bodies of water (Persian gulf -> Arabian gulf), faking history about Muslim warriors and scientists and calling them Arabs, e.g. Salah Al Din the Kurd is suddenly Arab, Ibn Sina the Persian is suddenly an Arab, etc.

Nationalism is stupid and always has been. The fact you're mixing a movement like nationalism with a human's emotional feelings of 'love and affection' towards his country and culture only means that you fail to differentiate both, and that's detrimental to the healthy nature that Muslims should be following.

You speak about English-speaking countries having a linguistic unity making them powerful. Oh brother... Yeah too bad that doesn't mean squat to any of the citizens of these countries because they don't think in the same racially-motivated manner that you are. I don't see the US constitution saying as many daft things as 99% of Arabic constitutions today (bar Iraq's constitution cause its the only decent one in the arab world today). Oh yeah George Washington must have stressed Anglo-Saxon unity...

"United States of America is part of the Anglo-Saxon Ummah".

Even if you look into their constitutions, you'll realize their languages have de facto status cause their constitutions never stressed on the official language being what, unlike the Arabic countries.

It is often a matter of definition. I googled about pan-arabism and found that "The origins of Pan-Arabism are often attributed to Jurji Zaydan (died 1914) and his Nahda (Revival) movement. Zaydan had critical influence on acceptance of a modernized version of the Quranic Arabic language as the universal written and official language throughout the Arab world, instead of adoption of local dialects in the various countries." So to Zaydan pan-arabism was obviously a matter of lingua franca. And at least to some arabic speakers that I know it is also today a matter of lingua franca. Most of them are christians. So arabic is important not because of the Quran but becaus it is a world language - and one of the six official languages in UN.

I am learning arabic. And I am able to read the modern standard arabic in newspapers rather well with help of dictionary.But I need to practice spoken arabic. I refuse to believe that any modern language is more difficult to learn than another. It all depends on which languages you already know. Of course e.g german is a lot easier than arabic for an english speaker to learn. But for a hebrew speaker arabic is easier because the two languages are closer related.

Having a national language does not necessarily mean discrimination of minorities. At least it does not in my country. And we have recieved many refugees who have fled from discrimination in their countries. I have met Kurds both from Turkey and Iran. From what they tell Iran is no better than Turkey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You could write books on the difference between the US and Canada/Europe or between either of those and Mexico. The ideology the US is based on is its own form for political liberty, and it can and has destroyed any groups that actively challenge it. It is illegal to attempt to overthrow the government, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It is often a matter of definition. I googled about pan-arabism and found that "The origins of Pan-Arabism are often attributed to Jurji Zaydan (died 1914) and his Nahda (Revival) movement. Zaydan had critical influence on acceptance of a modernized version of the Quranic Arabic language as the universal written and official language throughout the Arab world, instead of adoption of local dialects in the various countries." So to Zaydan pan-arabism was obviously a matter of lingua franca. And at least to some arabic speakers that I know it is also today a matter of lingua franca. Most of them are christians. So arabic is important not because of the Quran but becaus it is a world language - and one of the six official languages in UN.

I am learning arabic. And I am able to read the modern standard arabic in newspapers rather well with help of dictionary.But I need to practice spoken arabic. I refuse to believe that any modern language is more difficult to learn than another. It all depends on which languages you already know. Of course e.g german is a lot easier than arabic for an english speaker to learn. But for a hebrew speaker arabic is easier because the two languages are closer related.

Having a national language does not necessarily mean discrimination of minorities. At least it does not in my country. And we have recieved many refugees who have fled from discrimination in their countries. I have met Kurds both from Turkey and Iran. From what they tell Iran is no better than Turkey.

Well no actually, Iran is better. Apart from Persian being the official language or lingua franca of Iran to the dominance of Persian culture, Iran has a list of other recognized languages, Kurdish being among them. There are no attempts of Persianizing Kurdish communities in Iran whereas there are attempts by pan-Turkists in Turkey to Turkify their Kurdish population. Not until 1993, Kurds were considered as 'Mountain Turks' by Turkish govt. Only recently under international pressure and some lenient Islamist parties coming to power have the Turks slightly improved in treating their ethnic minorities. Otherwise before they were no better than Saddam's Arabist vision in Iraq. Right now Iraq grants Kurds the best rights among the countries the Kurds are minorities of. Iran more or less the same. Syria and Turkey, however, being the worst two countries in treatment of Kurds. This is a result of Baathist pan-Arabist ideology in Syria and Ataturkist ideology in Turkey. Both countries, not surprisingly, are now at each others' throats because two countries run by backward mentalities are bound to clash.

Anyway your idea of pan-Arabism may be different but it represents what a niche community of Arabists think. Most pan-Arab nationalists think of the basic laws I wrote earlier:

1. Racial superiority.

2. Discrimination of non-Arabs and removal of their rights.

3. To propagate as much of the Arab culture around the world while diminishing that of other cultures. You are a therefore a supporter of Arabization and not the diverse nations and tribes God created for mankind.

4. You are also in favor of fabricating history to meet your pan-Arabist goals, including changes names of bodies of water (Persian gulf -> Arabian gulf), faking history about Muslim warriors and scientists and calling them Arabs, e.g. Salah Al Din the Kurd is suddenly Arab, Ibn Sina the Persian is suddenly an Arab, etc.

As for Arabic being important because of its UN status, let's be realistic. UN doesn't have Hindi as official language, despite 1 billion native speakers. It doesn't have Persian despite having roughly 100-150 million speakers of Persian, as first or second language (not taking into account other Iranian peoples, which might make the number rise to 200 million). It doesn't have Portuguese, even though speakers of that language are what... around 300 million. These 3 languages I just mentioned, that are without UN official status, are more important than French and Russian.

Link to post
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...