Should we hold Nationalism??
-
Salaam , the believer of God.
When people talking about politics in Television, I felt none but sad.
I felt jerk barking in my dummy head.2213 The people used to be one nation
2107 Did you not know that to God is the kingship of the heavens and
the earth, and that you do not have besides God any guardian or
supporter?3189 And to God is the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and God is capable of all things.
By reading this verse nationalism, countries, flags, Is this kind of things relevant with the Quranic teaching?
Just wanna to know your opinion, guys.
PS Please don't use bad words in my thread, coz my brain will not connect for that.
-
Salam
As far as I'm concerned, Khalifa/Caliphate is nationalism. The Ummah of united people of Muslims, Jews, Christians and Pagans under the prophet Muhammed was nationalism. David and Solomon were Kings of Israel, a nation state.
4913 O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.
One global nation is a pipe dream and an unrealistic utopian setting that would likely only 'work' at the expense of liberty, which is not an option for us.
We will however, be united in death.
5221 And those who believed and whose descendants followed them in faith - We will join with them their descendants, and We will not deprive them of anything of their deeds. Every person, for what he earned, is retained.
We are responsible for our immediate surroundings, and our 'surroundings' often constitute a nation state. When a foreign nation state acts illegally against a people with persecution or worse, we should respond to it and defend the innocent. Each nation values certain virtues or qualities, it should be a goal to ensure those are in line with God's requirements and not based on unnecessary things such as ethnicity or geography, but by what keeps the peace and what protects the freedom of the individual.
It comes at a price though, nationalism, and that is we may be quick to disperse and discredit our foes. Only with a cool head understanding the opposites needs and desires and weighing it with our own can peace be maintained. For example, I'm quite openly Russiaphobic, due to current Russian foreign policy, but I don't hold it against the Russian people or its armed forces but its political leaders even if those policies are widely supported by the population. A change in leadership leads to a change of national direction and the easiest way of bringing a nation state back to the right path.
Edit I should also state, Islam/Quran represents the most politicalised faith/scripture I've ever known, the only one which makes it a religious requirement to defend the rights of individuals, sanctions actions against leaders who transgress, and promotes social support and welfare. To be non-political and claim to follow Quran is an oxymoron.
-
There is no Caliphate system can be found in the Quran.Khalifa literally means succesor.
230 And your Lord said to the angels ?I am placing a successor (khalifa) on the earth.? They said ?Will You place in it he who would make
corruption in it, and spill blood; while we praise by Your glory, and exalt to You?? He said ?I know what you do not know.?But some muslims hijacked the meaning of this word then created a political system named "Calipate state" which actually not existed both in the Quran n hadith.
The Ummah of united people of Muslims, Jews, Christians and Pagans under the prophet Muhammed was nationalism. David and Solomon were Kings of Israel, a nation state.
There is no verses which said if Muhammad created a country.
Currently I believe in Quran only and I see if some/entire stories in the Bible are manmade innovation including the kingship of Dave and Sulaiman.3826 O David, We have made you a successor on the earth. Therefore, you shall judge among the people with the truth, and do not
follow desire, lest it diverts you from the path of God. Indeed, those who stray off the path of God will have a severe retribution
for forgetting the Day of Reckoning.Look this is what Quran spoke about David.I assume he is a judge or a military technician (2180)
4913 O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.
Please notice this, what is the difference of tribes and political state?
Country and flags are manmade based on ideology while tribe is a human classification by genetics, descendant and language.Example Khalid is an Arab and his surname/tribe is "Bin Laden" and he migrated to America, became It's citizen.
So formally he is American by nationality, but his tribe still belong to Arabian Bin Laden.One global nation is a pipe dream and an unrealistic utopian setting that would likely only 'work' at the expense of liberty, which is not an option for us.
In this thread I didn't propagande world government, new order etc.Yes I also believe if this things is very impossible because the human didn't capable to controll the whole region on this planet.
Take example of Ottoman and Russia.One of the reason of Ottoman's death is separatism and Russia also face many separatism for some times.The main issue I want to talk in this thread is as muslim should we still practice nationalism or just see our country as a formality?
For example, I'm quite openly Russiaphobic, due to current Russian foreign policy, but I don't hold it against the Russian people or its armed forces but its political leaders even if those policies are widely supported by the population. A change in leadership leads to a change of national direction and the easiest way of bringing a nation state back to the right path.
Yes it's true, the government and it's people are two separate things.
Russian get doctrined in the school if they're Russian Federation (nationalism) and Russian even don't need their Russian Federation and tricolour flag to pursue their career, dreams and faith.The negative impact of nationalism is "sovereignity".
According to Montevideo Convention, a country consists three points people/citizens, government and territory (land, sea, air) and I questioning this third part.Each country have their own territories and claims it's sovereignity,
In the past the British and French fighting each other coz disputed some territories, collonies. but 2107 and 3189 said God is the original possessor of the lands.
So why both of countries disputed lands which they have no right for, so what they figthing for hmmI should also state, Islam/Quran represents the most politicalised faith/scripture I've ever known, the only one which makes it a religious requirement to defend the rights of individuals, sanctions actions against leaders who transgress, and promotes social support and welfare.
I think different from you.
I never found any verses talking about politic systematically. -
There is no Caliphate system can be found in the Quran.Khalifa literally means succesor.
But some muslims hijacked the meaning of this word then created a political system named "Calipate state" which actually not existed both in the Quran n hadith.True, Caliphatism is a political ideology made popular in 21th century by Hizb Thahrir organization after the destruction of Ottoman Turkish Caliphate.
Country and flags are manmade based on ideology while tribe is a human classification by genetics, descendant and language.
Example Khalid is an Arab and his surname/tribe is "Bin Laden" and he migrated to America, became It's citizen.
So formally he is American by nationality, but his tribe still belong to Arabian Bin Laden.Addition, Nation, Religion/Sect, Ethnicities/Race/Tribes are all man made based conception.
Why? Because it can be easily changed.Example Khalid was born from Ahmad's Sperm and Fatima's Egg in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia thus he was named Khalid Bin Achmad (Son of Achmad) he was joined into Islam Sunniism Religion by his parent and then he went to America. In America he converted to Catholicism, as he was attracted to this good looking Catholic girl and decided to marry her, fearing for his life because he has converted to become an Infidel and such deed was punishable by death in his nation of origin, he decided to convert his nationality to USA citizen, albeit the ridiculous taxes that the nation of USA burden their citizen. After Marriage Khalid found a job in Switzerland and decided to become Switzerland's citizen, yet the USA government makes it nearly impossible for him to denounce his USA citizenship, primarily because the USA government wanted him to continue paying his taxes. In Switzerland he also convert his religion to Buddhism.
So formally he is American and Switzerland by nationality (no longer Saudi Arabian), currently he's a Buddhist (no longer Sunnis or Catholics) while his father is Ahmad and his mom is Fatima (cannot be changed). During conversations he often identify himself as "Genevans" as he has lived there for about 10 years now. While asked about his religion he always answered with "I'm a Buddhist".
Back to the main topic; no I don't think we should hold Nationalism, Religionism/Sectarianism, Tribalism/Racism/Ethnic-ism. All of that is merely man made conception to differentiate between "Us" and "Them".
Salam / Peace
-
Peace David Saidi,
Should we hold Nationalism?? great question, my answer is no we should not. Why? Because Nationalism
many times deteriorates to us against them, our kind versus the others. Instilling pride, tolerance
unity and justice to one's own nation is a good thing, on the other hand, us versus them can lead to intolerance
racism, bigotry, and Fascism, you can add to the list of the positive and the negative aspects of nationalism.
In essence I would prefer righteousness over nationalism because we humans in most cases have not
succeeded in controlling our hatred and paranoia of others.49/13 Sahih International O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you
peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is
the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.God bless
peace
-
No to the Hitler nationalism.
But should i care about the community/people/country i live in ? Yes.
One nation/one caliphate all around the world idea is not possible. The possible thing is maintaining friendly relations of the countries with each other.
Islam is against tribalism/nationalism. Islam calls for the universal brotherhood. But its hard for the people to overcome tribalism. With the beginning of the Umayyad dynasty rule, tribalism returned among the muslims. Hadiths were fabricated to promote tribalism.
According to Ibn Khaldun, tribalism (asabiyyah) runs human civilizations. The rise and fall of civilizations are cycles of tribalism. Tribalism is the fundamental bond of human society and the basic motive force of history.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asabiyyah
-
Thanks for the answers, all
Addition, Nation, Religion/Sect, Ethnicities/Race/Tribes are all man made based conception.
Why? Because it can be easily changed.Yes
Such kind of division created during colonialism era especially the naming of tribe/race.
One of the greatest impact of this is 1994 Rwandan conflict (Label Hutu-Tutsi created by Belgian collonialist).Name Asia, Europe, Africa, America just a manmade.
on the other hand, us versus them can lead to intolerance racism, bigotry, and Fascism,
Yes. Nationalism is a politic and ain't part of our faith, bussiness and other activities.
Example is in this forum, we can talk each other without bounded by political borders
Even a country has the best record of freedom and human right, but politic is politic, that record is just a politic.It cannot be messed up with the human social life.you can add to the list of the positive and the negative aspects of nationalism.
Almost nothing for postive.
If political states doesn't exist, an enteprenour can do bussiness with foreigner without visa/border boundaries or paying taxes to the government.
Governance is still needed to make civillization more systematically, but to create a government, we don't need to follow the concept of political states.But should i care about the community/people/country i live in ? Yes.
One nation/one caliphate all around the world idea is not possible. The possible thing is maintaining friendly relations of the countries with each other.
Nationalism is an ancient idea based on ancient thinking.
This is globalization era, the humans gains more freedom and the function of flags and political boundary is less influenced to human civillization.A caliphate is just a dream and full of oppression both in struggle and practices.
-
I think that nationalism can have many meanings. I certainly DON'T believe in the Hitler type of nationalism(infact I oppose this type a lot), but I believe in a democratic unity, and that one should care about his country more than anything else. This could probaly be called patriotism instead.
In the Middle-East, nationalism always gets mixed with religion which is why it becomes oppressive. Many people assume that nationalism is the problem, but it's not true. It's the fact that religion gets mixed with nationalism every single time. Most people who oppose nationalism in the Middle-East, and support Islamism(AKA their cowardly democratic "freedom fighters" lives in the West, while supporting Israel. This is because the Westerners would run away if nationalism were ever to rise in the middle-east. A lot of Westerners make propaganda on how bad nationalism is in the Middle-East, but they enjoy promoting their fake democracy which is actually Shariah. Nationalism is a good tool IMO. It calls for unity and often secularism, and that's what the Arab world needs. That's why pathetic Westerners oppose it becuase then Israel will be wiped off the map already.
I'm quite openly Russiaphobic, due to current Russian foreign policy, but I don't hold it against the Russian people or its armed forces but its political leaders even if those policies are widely supported by the population. A change in leadership leads to a change of national direction and the easiest way of bringing a nation state back to the right path.
This should be blamed on that garbage country Germany for bringing up this crappy ideology "Nazism". In terms of racism, Russia was a lot better when it was run by communism because it teached co-existance despite how oppressive the leaders were. And not all Russians are like this. I've met a lot of nice Russians in Syria and in Sweden. It's Putin who channels his European nazism into the minds of the Russians. These conservative-right wing tards needs to get out of Russia and back to their stupid country(i.e Germany or any other European country). To me, Russia is just not Russia anymore.. It's more like Denmark or Nazi-Germany. Bring back the real Russia by kicking out all the moronic nationalist right-winger who uphold European stupidity(Send them all to Europe instead). Where are the days when skilled Russian engineers used to march around calling others "comrade" everytime? Or when the Russian soldiers used to do military parades? Or when the Russians believed in co-existance regardless of faith, ethnicity or gender? We can see many good Russian activists calling for change in their country right now. Not even they can stand living under conservative-nazis. There are many great Russian feminists/leftists in Russia(Which is a good example of a Russian), but sadly enough they are being harassed by dumb Nazis.
-
Salam,
I think there is some use in organizing a society according to the language that people speak. I have experienced in many stays abroad that people of the same language tend to stick together as it is easier to communicate for them.
But that does not mean they have common interests as against the people who speak another language. Is is just a means to cut the big cake into smaller pieces so that it can be managed easier.So in my opinion, states that follow the line of language (not "race" is a good idea, but for internal organisation, not against the people of another state.
This is also how I understand 4913.
-
"There is no Caliphate system can be found in the Quran.Khalifa literally means succesor."
Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest it was, only that it was an /example/ of nationalism.
"But some muslims hijacked the meaning of this word then created a political system named "Calipate state" which actually not existed both in the Quran n hadith."
But it does represent the desire to uphold a moral value system in the form of a state that governs a large body of people. Corrupt individuals does not necessarily result from a corrupt system.
"There is no verses which said if Muhammad created a country."
Country and nation are different things, Muhammed led a nation of like minded people who shared reasonable ethnic, geographic, but most importantly cultural/moral values. It was a nation even if it wasn't a country.
"Look this is what Quran spoke about David.I assume he is a judge or a military technician (2180)"
Judges and military staff are representatives of a country or nation state, so regardless of whether you believe David led with a crown upon his head or a wig, its still an example of nationhood.
"Country and flags are manmade based on ideology while tribe is a human classification by genetics, descendant and language."
"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah , even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort or refuse , then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted."
Tribes are the intermarrying of people, who may or may not be of similar genetics, descent and language. A manmade based arrangement usually upon resources, family fueds/friendships, power. The beginnings of a nationstate.
Not only that, but God commands us to reject even our own parents if they are in the wrong, breaking any tribal/clan line if it doesn't uphold justice. If you break from your family ties, who do you stand with in regards to justice if it is not like minded people who form the foundations of nationhood?
"In this thread I didn't propagande world government, new order etc.Yes I also believe if this things is very impossible because the human didn't capable to controll the whole region on this planet.
Take example of Ottoman and Russia.One of the reason of Ottoman's death is separatism and Russia also face many separatism for some times.The main issue I want to talk in this thread is as muslim should we still practice nationalism or just see our country as a formality?"
"And if Allah wills He would certainly make you a single nation, but He causes to err whom He wills and guides whom He wills; and most certainly you will be questioned as to what you did."
There are only three options though isn't there? World Government, World Anarchy or multiple governments. Multiple governments = multiple countries = multiple nationstates. For Muslims to see a country as a 'formality' would be to say they are totally devoid of responsibility and justice. Something I personally don't believe the Quran suggests.
"According to Montevideo Convention, a country consists three points people/citizens, government and territory (land, sea, air) and I questioning this third part."
I agree with you that the assignment and claiming of land is problematic, but its something even the prophets of God, including Muhammed, had to do to some extent to exert influence and to outlay the policies and rights of its population and to defend it from outsiders or those who wish to do harm.
"I think different from you.
I never found any verses talking about politic systematically."Really? Orphans, Women, criminals, Children, believers, non-believers, taxation, witnesses, protection of the environment, prohibition of murder, theft, assault, what more do you need to be political? Whats your definition of politics if not guidelines for how one lives life, how one respects life, how one converses and communicates with others, what constitutes a crime and what acceptable behavour?
"True, Caliphatism is a political ideology made popular in 21th century by Hizb Thahrir organization after the destruction of Ottoman Turkish Caliphate."
A popular political ideology in the 21st century perhaps, but a real life nation state in the 7th century. I responded above that it was used as an /example/ of Nationalism, I didn't claim it was sanctioned by Quran, that is not what brother David asked for in his original post.
" I would prefer righteousness over nationalism because we humans in most cases have not succeeded in controlling our hatred and paranoia of others."
I agree with the righteousness trait, it can even be a trait of nationalism in the context you mean.
" Islam calls for the universal brotherhood"
Universal brotherhood is the same as a nation. Universal brotherhood is a shared interest in moral values, nationhood can be a representation of a shared interest in moral values.
"With the beginning of the Umayyad dynasty rule, tribalism returned among the muslims. Hadiths were fabricated to promote tribalism."
An excellent point, I too believe this was the beginning of the real downfall of the Ummah and its core practices and beliefs.
"It cannot be messed up with the human social life."
Politics is the human social life, it dictates how one person treats another, just as it does in the Quran.
"Governance is still needed to make civillization more systematically, but to create a government, we don't need to follow the concept of political states."
I'd be very interested to know how you think this could be achieved, I think you are trying to suggest some kind of technocratic or libertarian styled small-government which tries not to interfere in individuals business. Is that correct?
"I think there is some use in organizing a society according to the language that people speak. I have experienced in many stays abroad that people of the same language tend to stick together as it is easier to communicate for them.
But that does not mean they have common interests as against the people who speak another language. Is is just a means to cut the big cake into smaller pieces so that it can be managed easier.So in my opinion, states that follow the line of language (not "race" is a good idea, but for internal organisation, not against the people of another state."
There is examples of this in practice sister. The European Union compromises many nation states of varied languages, of which an invented language Esperanto is used in many circles to ensure one language isn't favoured over another with the benefit of being fairly easy for most people to learn. Co-operation between even multi-lingual people is very possible when they share common values.
I honestly believe the promotion of common values, which is indeed an element of nationalism is possible without having to revert to language/race/tribal ties. Common beliefs crosses all other boundaries, even religious ones.
-
Country and nation are different things, Muhammed led a nation of like minded people who shared reasonable ethnic, geographic, but most importantly cultural/moral values. It was a nation even if it wasn't a country.
The word being used is "Ummah", Ummah is a community of human not necessarily a nation or country.
One can have an ummah / community within nation / country or cross-nation or countries.Once a community felt a threat / oppressed it will (eventually) raised arms and troops to defend itself thus it will challenge the oppressor (which are usually a nation/country/kingdom/sultanate/caliphate etc..) thus eventually it will become one (if it succeed).
And as history dictates the (once peaceful) ummah once become a strong nation/kingdom/sultanate/caliphate will grew arrogant of their 'power over others' and start to become an oppressor itself. And then the decay started until eventually the ummah is destroyed / extinct.
Judges and military staff are representatives of a country or nation state, so regardless of whether you believe David led with a crown upon his head or a wig, its still an example of nationhood.
Judges are not necessarily representative of country or nation state. We now have Arbitrage Court as we speak where the judges are not representative of a state/nation/country because it judge "cross-national and inter-national cases".
Yet, It was so within Classical Israeli tradition, as the israelite kingdom was all started by "Justice system".
Tribes are the intermarrying of people, who may or may not be of similar genetics, descent and language. A manmade based arrangement usually upon resources, family fueds/friendships, power. The beginnings of a nationstate.
Correct, and it doesn't have to be one..
There are only three options though isn't there? World Government, World Anarchy or multiple governments. Multiple governments = multiple countries = multiple nationstates. For Muslims to see a country as a 'formality' would be to say they are totally devoid of responsibility and justice. Something I personally don't believe the Quran suggests.
Collaborative multiple administration is what eventually will happened yet it can also be named as World Government, depending on one perspective. And it's already happening now as we speak, UN -> Alliance Of Regional Nations (EU, ASEAN etc..) -> Nation -> State/Provinces -> District/Town.
In any case I always see my country/nationality, tradition/culture/religion/sect, ethnicity/language as 'formalities' in the sense of political context.
If my nation/religion/sect/ethnicity is a crook I will say it's crook.Human tendency is always trying to uphold/defend "their own group", where group can be based on similar country/nationality/culture/tradition/religion/sect/ethnicity/language and as Moses learn it the hard way when he murdered an innocent Egyptian, it was not the just thing to do.
An excellent point, I too believe this was the beginning of the real downfall of the Ummah and its core practices and beliefs.
Arrogance lead to downfall.
Those who are high will be lowered, those who are humbled will be heighten.
That's the law.There is examples of this in practice sister. The European Union compromises many nation states of varied languages, of which an invented language Esperanto is used in many circles to ensure one language isn't favoured over another with the benefit of being fairly easy for most people to learn. Co-operation between even multi-lingual people is very possible when they share common values.
EU is a good example, The nation of state of Indonesia is another good example (where within over 700 languages is spoken)
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Indonesia
The nation state of People Republic of China is another good example (292 languages)
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_ChinaMore than merely languages, the PRC is now experimenting with 'different ideology / economical / political system within a state'.
Cooperation among human is primarily driven with "common needs" and not necessarily "common values" or "common tradition".
I honestly believe the promotion of common values, which is indeed an element of nationalism is possible without having to revert to language/race/tribal ties. Common beliefs crosses all other boundaries, even religious ones.
As Michio Kaku put it, we're now still evolving into type-1 civilization, planetary civilization.
Salam / Peace
-
Well I would see neither the European Union nor China as an example of an ideal state. In China it is obvious that there is not a harmonious ensemble of different languages, but one language/culture that dominates the others. Ask any Uighur or any Tibetan what they think of the P.R.of China.
In the EU it is not taht obvious as it is a voluntary union, but there are still inequalities. And they are not one state, but a community of different states. The even graver problem with EU is its attitude against those who want to enter it (see Frontex). This is not how I understand islamic values.
Concerning Esperanto, apart from that I don't know anyone who speaks it (as most people speak English now, as you can see in this forum), it is a Eurocentristic language. It was created in a time when "international" in the mind of many people was synonymous to European (and maybe the European descendants of the US) and it mixes some European words/grammar, but has no relationship with non-European languages (e.g. Chinese or Arab or whatever).
And yes, of course common values are more important than language. i was thinking of a big entity with common values that might be divided vor adminstrative reasons, and then I think language might be a good criterion.
No state should have a problem with a part of it deciding to seperate. -
In the Middle-East, nationalism always gets mixed with religion which is why it becomes oppressive. Many people assume that nationalism is the problem, but it's not true. It's the fact that religion gets mixed with nationalism every single time. Most people who oppose nationalism in the Middle-East, and support Islamism(AKA their cowardly democratic "freedom fighters" lives in the West, while supporting Israel. This is because the Westerners would run away if nationalism were ever to rise in the middle-east. A lot of Westerners make propaganda on how bad nationalism is in the Middle-East, but they enjoy promoting their fake democracy which is actually Shariah. Nationalism is a good tool IMO. It calls for unity and often secularism, and that's what the Arab world needs. That's why pathetic Westerners oppose it becuase then Israel will be wiped off the map already.
Maybe what you means the Arabs must uphold the unity ideology called 'Arab-Nationalism".
I also imagine if Arab countries united into a single nation and embrance this idea, perhaps..... they will became a great nation.Yes since nationalism related well with politic, it cannot be mixed with the religion, unless we want take.
Politic is the art for controlling/maintains.running the state, while religion is the relation between human and their God/gods.So in my opinion, states that follow the line of language (not "race" is a good idea, but for internal organisation, not against the people of another state.
This is also how I understand 4913.
Many people still more refer to their tribe, ideology, perceptions as their group rather than just limited on "langauge similiarity"
Country and nation are different things, Muhammed led a nation of like minded people who shared reasonable ethnic, geographic, but most importantly cultural/moral values. It was a nation even if it wasn't a country.
Nationa-ism is one of the main roots from where the political country created from.
Even you said like that, it's same, still there is no verses in the Quran explains if Mohammed did that.Judges and military staff are representatives of a country or nation state, so regardless of whether you believe David led with a crown upon his head or a wig, its still an example of nationhood.
There are many private forms (not related with any governments) of this things.
Example International criminal court, PMC (Private Military Company/Mercenarries) etc.For Muslims to see a country as a 'formality' would be to say they are totally devoid of responsibility and justice. Something I personally don't believe the Quran suggests
.Ok yu're from UK right?? Do you ever knowing the history of creation of this country since middle ages?Do you ever knowing if this current Union Jack state created through many spillbloods??
No offence but I wonder what makes you loyal to UK?
But again sorry to ask this What happens if Scotlanders really hold the illegal referendum and claims independence?? Of course British will not allow this.
So what is your position in that case, since according to the Quran the human has no right over Scotland (land) both British and Scotlanders themself. -
The word being used is "Ummah", Ummah is a community of human not necessarily a nation or country.
One can have an ummah / community within nation / country or cross-nation or countries.Yes, ummah can also means people,
In the Quran there are amny verses which pointed if Ummah also mean religious community (if I'm not wrong).Well I would see neither the European Union nor China as an example of an ideal state. In China it is obvious that there is not a harmonious ensemble of different languages, but one language/culture that dominates the others. Ask any Uighur or any Tibetan what they think of the P.R.of China.
Yes.
Informally (outside UN laws), the Tibet and Uyghur are under PRC's occupation.
They're diferrent both in language and culture from China and they're separate countries before.They became part of China by annexation/invasion not by peaceful integration.This is just like in Russia, the Russian kingdom invaded other nations in the past and the impact is Russian Federation have the widest territory
EU is a good example, The nation of state of Indonesia is another good example (where within over 700 languages is spoken)
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_IndonesiaEven they spoke different languages, they actually still one race, the Malay-Mongoloid.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_race
By knowing this, I also examine Indonesian flag (red-white) which also used by Singapore and I ever read a news bout protesters in Malaysia who demanded to change Malaysian flag into the red-white one.
-
Well I would see neither the European Union nor China as an example of an ideal state. In China it is obvious that there is not a harmonious ensemble of different languages, but one language/culture that dominates the others. Ask any Uighur or any Tibetan what they think of the P.R.of China.
Go to Hongkong, Guang Dong or Macau and see if people commonly speak Mandarin (the official Han's language) there.
Or go to Manchuria and see if people commonly speak Mandarin there.
And I don't see any real problem in Uyghur (Xin Jiang), they also don't commonly speak Mandarin.Tibet, they become PRC as part of 'invasion/annexation' performed during Mao Tse Tung era.
In similar manner as Persia become part of the "Caliphate" in 7th century through invasion / annexation.
Yet at least there isn't any genocide or enslavement happening towards those "Non-Mandarin Speaker", problems / conflicts / disagreement? sure.. it's normal as long as it's manageable.Informally (outside UN laws), the Tibet and Uyghur are under PRC's occupation. They're diferrent both in language and culture from China and they're separate countries before.They became part of China by annexation/invasion not by peaceful integration.
Better check your data again, Uyghur/Xin Jiang is not under PRC occupation outside or inside UN laws. They've been within Qing Dynasti since 17th century long before PRC came to exist. Language-wise or cultural-wise they're as different with the Han as Manchus, Taochews, Hakkas, and hundreds of other races/ethnicities within PRC.
Even they spoke different languages, they actually still one race, the Malay-Mongoloid.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_race
By knowing this, I also examine Indonesian flag (red-white) which also used by Singapore and I ever read a news bout protesters in Malaysia who demanded to change Malaysian flag into the red-white one.Race scientifically do not exist, it's hard to measure which human fell within the same or outside of a race.
Its left to the observer to define 'what is a race'.If the entire China + Indonesia population is considered as one race named "Malay-Mongoloid" then the 'race' contains over 1000 different non compatible/unintelligible languages and tradition with skin tone ranging from pale white as caucasian white, yellow as japanese yellow, brown as polynesian/native american brown to dark brown / black as african black. And any colors in between. And so does the varieties in facial and hair features. In fact they will represent the entire human features on this earth.
The entire Europeans + Middle Easterners + Persians can be defined as a race, Caucasian race.
The entire Non Sub Saharan Africans (all humans except Sub Saharan Africans) can be defined as a race, Neanderthal Descendant race, as it's proven they carries Neanderthal genes within their DNA.
The entire human can be defined as a race, human race.Again it's just a measurement that people are using to differentiate between "Us" and "Them".
-
Friends
Assalaamu AlaykumThank you for your informative comments.
How about thinking of a "state" instead of a "nation state". The concept of a nation, if carefully considered, has over the years been morphed to be associated with the concept "state".
Dictionary.com describes the origin of the word as follows
c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) "nation, stock, race," lit. "that which has been born," from natus, pp. of nasci "be born" (Old L. gnasci; see genus). Political sense has gradually taken over from racial meaning "large group of people with common ancestry."
A State on the other hand is a mutual contract between a defined set of people to collaborate for the mutual benefit of all within the set. (See Vincent, 1994, "Theories of the State".
If this is the definition of a state, and since the Quran is not specific, then I suggest there is no harm in the formation of a state, of whatever shape and size to agree on a common legal system, judiciary, defence mechanisms and relations with other states. Of course, islam brings in the added moral, monotheistic core that must inform the state.
A state cannot, I believe be judged on the racial or ethnic features of its members/citizens, but must be evaluated on the level of equity and righteousness of its official policies.
-
Tibet, they become PRC as part of 'invasion/annexation' performed during Mao Tse Tung era.
In similar manner as Persia become part of the "Caliphate" in 7th century through invasion / annexation.
Yet at least there isn't any genocide or enslavement happening towards those "Non-Mandarin Speaker", problems / conflicts / disagreement? sure.. it's normal as long as it's manageable.Even your data is true, it still couldn't change the the fact if the lands belong to God, not Chinese nor Uyghur.
UN definition of "soverignity", "self-determination" or etc are the Satanic innovations.
Again it's just a measurement that people are using to differentiate between "Us" and "Them".
Yes I agree.
Its the Satanic-orientalist, colonialist, scholars who created this terms and sadly some believers are the victim of it -
Even your data is true, it still couldn't change the the fact if the lands belong to God, not Chinese nor Uyghur.
UN definition of "soverignity", "self-determination" or etc are the Satanic innovations.Yes I agree.
Its the Satanic-orientalist, colonialist, scholars who created this terms and sadly some believers are the victim of itYour statement means nothing, of course it is, not only the land, it includes the air the water on this planet plus zillion of other planets within trillion of galaxies within this recognizable universe. All things belongs to God.
Within (each of) God's universe.
Species fought each others on control over resources and sustenance.
Especially when it's limited or scarce.The conception of 'nations', UN sprung up from that conflict as a mean to manage intra-species conflict within human species.
Let's make an agreement that one is yours this one is mine and let's stop bashing each other heads over this.And as a mean to manage inter-species conflict, human created an agreement of "natural reserve". On that area human cannot create any settlement because it's preserved for bonobo, tiger, lion, panda etc..
The claim of 'nation sovereignty' has not spread to the moon or mars (for example) due to the basic reason that human cannot easily reach such places (yet). But once they do, then human also need to have an agreement between themselves on how to split / manage the newly reached resources to avoid bashing head against each others.
The same process will also be required when human met another sentient species from another planet, the human and the alien need to have an agreement to avoid conflict. Thus there will be human nation and 'alien name' nation protocol / agreement.
Salam / Peace
-
Salam Jafar
Before I further, I want to ask for what's your religion actually.I already read some of your posts and it seems you always mix something with another religions.
In this thread, I want discuss bout Nationalism by Quranic views and currently I reject the modern concept of Nationalism.The claim of 'nation sovereignty' has not spread to the moon or mars (for example) due to the basic reason that human cannot easily reach such places (yet). But once they do, then human also need to have an agreement between themselves on how to split / manage the newly reached resources to avoid bashing head against each others.
I'm interested on this point, please explain in simple way and elaborate with Quran verses if necesarry.
Hope yu're not and atheist/agnostic.