Pan-Islamic-Pakistan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 28, 2018
- Messages
- 13,153
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
By Daniel Haqiqatjou
In the aftermath of the New Zealand shooting, many have tried to decipher the motives of the alleged shooter, Brenton Tarrant, as expressed in his alleged manifesto, entitled “The Great Replacement.”
The 73-page document explains how Whites are being displaced in their “own” nations by two main factors:
Two main ideologies are usually mentioned as being uniquely anti-White: Feminism and “Globo-Homo.” Feminism, according to the White Nationalists, reduces birth rates in numerous ways, e.g., because it encourages women to pursue career fulfillment instead of becoming mothers, promotes birth control and abortion, institutes no-fault divorce, etc. Globo-Homo, i.e., the promotion of the “gay lifestyle” and the dissolution of gender via trans ideology, also reduces birth rates because it promotes a non-reproductive sexual outlet, among other things.
In other words, if White women weren’t busy having careers and getting abortions and White men weren’t busy having sex with each other, more White babies would come into this world.
In this way, according to White Nationalists like David Duke, Jews use these ideologies plus immigration policy like a cudgel against Whites. How are Jews able to do this? What Duke and other White Nationalists like Andrew Anglin say is that Jews are, as a matter of fact, over represented in positions of power in government, academia, and media. Jews tend to be leftists, as well, and push feminism, Marxism, sexual liberation, etc. The White Nationalist obsession with Jews tends to downplay the fact that plenty of Whites are in positions of power pushing these same policies and ideologies. In fact, these same policies and ideologies have been deliberately used by Whites over the centuries to attack the Muslim world, e.g., when President Trump’s administration recently announced they were using a pro-LGBT agenda to create justification for attacking Iran, as well as other races, such as Blacks, Native Americans, Aboriginals, Indians, the Chinese, etc.
But, these White Nationalist quickly deflect and claim that these Whites have been brainwashed by the Jews, or the Jews wield so much power that they are able to manipulate all White politicians and academics everywhere for the benefit of the Jewish agenda.
And why would Jews want to attack Whites in this way? White Nationalists have theorized this in depth in (banned) books like The Culture of Critique. The story is that Jews are themselves a race intent on preserving themselves and their interests, and they view the White race as a threat to those interests and their overall dominance. This story is much more involved and in depth, but we can leave it at that for now.
The bottom line, however, for White Nationalism is that when a White person like Brenton Tarrant goes on a rampage murdering 50 non-White people, that is not an act of aggression. That is merely an act of self-defense. Indeed, this is what the manifesto explicitly says (conspicuously leaving out all mention of Jews).
It’s Racist. It’s Sexist. It’s Homophobic. But Is It True?
So much of the contemporary discourse fails to address substance and, instead, traffics in name calling. This is what we have seen with the, thus far, shallow analysiscoming from mainstream media analysts on “The Great Replacement.” The operative mindset seems to be that evaluating offensive ideas is itself an offensive act. Anything less than loud denunciations of “RACIST!” is itself racism.
I, of course, find this shrill and unjustified. There is plenty to critique about the idea of “White genocide” and “The Great Replacement” that doesn’t stop at the obvious observation that it is racist.
Yes, White Nationalism is racist. But White Nationalism and White Supremacy have been the overarching ideologies of the West for centuries. This fact is not presented in mainstream media discussions. The narrative that is being aggressively pushed is that White Nationalism is a fringe movement playing on the margins of Western culture and history. This deceit is necessary in order to supply Americans and Europeans a non-racist past to identify with.
The reality, however, is that virtually all the major White thinkers of the West prior to the early 20th century were White supremacists. The idea that non-Whites were savages in need of conquest and reformation was a truism in the writings of individuals as disparate as Thomas Jefferson, Immanuel Kant, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, even Abraham Lincoln. As for the latter, the “Great Emancipator” delivered a speech in 1858, which included:
I WILL SAY THEN THAT I AM NOT, NOR EVER HAVE BEEN, IN FAVOR OF BRINGING ABOUT IN ANY WAY THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF THE BLACK AND WHITE RACES — THAT I AM NOT NOR EVER HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR OF MAKING VOTERS OR JURORS OF NEGROES, NOT OF QUALIFYING THEM TO HOLD OFFICE, NOR TO INTERMARRY WITH WHITE PEOPLE; AND I WILL SAY IN ADDITION TO THIS THAT THERE IS A PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WHITE AND BLACK RACES WHICH I BELIEVE WILL FOREVER FORBID THE TWO RACES LIVING TOGETHER ON TERMS OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY. AND INASMUCH AS THEY CANNOT SO LIVE, WHILE THEY DO REMAIN TOGETHER THERE MUST BE THE POSITION OF SUPERIOR AND INFERIOR, AND I AS MUCH AS ANY OF HER MAN AM IN FAVOR OF HAVING THE SUPERIOR POSITION ASSIGNED TO THE WHITE RACE.
The main justification for European colonialism and the enslavement of non-Whites throughout the world post-Enlightenment has been the “White man’s burden.” White nations have a duty to civilize the world and bring the world to a state of enlightenment and, ultimately, utopian felicity. This is because Whites are superior in intellect, industriousness, strategic thinking, and other qualities supposedly unique to European bloodlines and European physiology. Why would they have this arrogant self-perception? Well, the proof is the pudding, they claim. Whites invented (or, at least, significantly advanced) science and technology. Did other races develop the steam engine? The automobile? The telephone? etc. No, the White race did. This, to them, proves that Whites are superior in the only way that matters for advancing the human race to new heights of progress: materialism and dunyawi utopianism.
The Muslim critique of White Nationalism can begin precisely here. Even if it were conceded that White people post-Enlightenment invented more and did more science than other races, we will insist on the essential worthlessness of dunya, i.e., the lesser world of material existence in which we all live for some decades before passing away to the greater abode of the akhira. The Prophet ﷺ is reported to have said:
“IF THE WORLD TO ALLAH WERE EQUAL TO A MOSQUITO’S WING, THEN HE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE DISBELIEVER TO HAVE A SIP OF WATER FROM IT.” [TIRMIDHI]
Science, technology, and civilization is not everything, but White Nationalists have an autistic-like fixation on these notions as if they were pillars of a religion. And White Nationalism is a religion insofar as it maintains a teleological belief in progress, namely that the human race is meant to progress and improve over time through materialistic development. Without this metaphysical conception of progress (that they inherited from Christian eschatology while excising the theological aspects of it), there is no reason to place such high and definitive value in science and technology. And without that value in science and technology, there is no reason to look at White (i.e., Western) civilization as inherently superior to non-White civilization. Without the metaphysics of materialistic progress, White Nationalism has no leg to stand on.
An important nuance here is that White Nationalists today will claim that they are not like the White Supremacists of old. White Nationalists say that they are not looking for domination of the entire globe. Rather, they simply want a nation for White people. Chinese people have China. Mongolian people have Mongolia. Indian people have India. Arab people have numerous Arab nations. And, of course, Jews have Israel. Why can’t Whites have their own nation?
Furthermore, countries like Israel implement strict immigration policies and regulations against intermarriage in order to preserve their racial majority. Why can’t Whites do the same in their “own” countries? Other countries acknowledge the importance of demographics in preserving power. Why are Whites the only race that is not allowed to engage in these kinds of power plays?
By pointing to examples like China and Israel, White Nationalists point to a double standard that undeniably does exist. Ethno-nationalism exists all over the world and has existed throughout human history. This is an anthropological and historical fact. For example, it is hard to see how Zionists, who have displaced, occupied, and genocided Palestinians for decades in the interest of the Jewish race, can then turn around to White Nationalists and call foul.
So what can be said?
A critique of White Nationalism must be a critique of ethno-nationalism and ethnic identity more broadly. This is where leftist social justice warriors and cultural Marxists are handicapped. The identitarian left, in its so-called celebration of diversity, reduces all identities to gender, racial, cultural, and sexual identities. Each gender, race, culture, and sexual predilection has its own associated identity group whose collective interests those groups are entitled to pursue. In fact, those collective interests have to be furthered by “social justice” policies that counteract “systematic” injustice. But what about White men? Well, White men don’t get to pursue their collective interests because they are the primary source of the systematic injustice that is oppressing every other group. Or so it is claimed.
I certainly think there is truth to this. How convenient for Whites to have engaged in centuries of colonialism, genocide, conquest through mass death around the world only to now conclude that they want to be left alone in their own nations — nations which, by the way, sit on land they forcefully acquired from indigenous populations.
At the same time, why should young White men today have to pay for the sins of their fathers? Is there a collective guilt they are uniquely burdened with by virtue of their blood? This kind of racial realism cuts both ways. If race is purely a social construction, which cultural Marxists and Critical Race Theorists claim whenever it suits them, then why should Millenial Whites — many of whom are cultural Marxists themselves in one form or another — be held responsible for the crimes of their biological forefathers? Why can’t these White men claim that they are not “White” in the same sense as those racist, evil Whites of history, and, as such, are entitled to pursue their collective interests in the same way Latinos, Blacks, Chinese, and Jewish people are allowed to pursue theirs? These White Millenials can claim that, in a way, they have been oppressed by White men too.
The problem with this reasoning, however, is that Whites collectively continue to enjoy the fruits of their forefathers’ domination. And furthermore, that domination has yet to cease! Whites continue to sit at the helm of a massive hegemonic empire which has the world in its death grip. Muslims know this better than anyone.
Yet, is it only the White race that enjoys this kind of position of power? Not at all. There is a certain other race that is also over represented in the halls of world power, a race whose name, in a moment of absentmindedness just right now, I have forgotten.
What About the Muslim Hordes?
The manifesto mentions that Muslims have a strong culture, high birth rates, high in-group preference. These qualities are lacking in the White race, it claims. This means that Muslims are ascending in the West while Whites are declining and this is seen as a bad thing.
I am afraid that the manifesto has too high of an estimation of Muslims in the West. Unfortunately, Muslims are following the same path as Whites and every other group. Marriage rates are declining for Muslims as are birth rates. The Muslims that immigrate to the West sadly often do not have a strong religious identity and, instead, are very eager to assimilate to the dominant culture. The idea of in-group preference is also fading away in the minds of many Muslims. In Islam, there is the important concept of al-wala wal-bara, loosely translated as loyalty and disavowal. This concept comes from the Quran and Sunna in many places.
YOU ARE THE BEST NATION PRODUCED [AS AN EXAMPLE] FOR MANKIND. YOU ENJOIN WHAT IS RIGHT AND FORBID WHAT IS WRONG AND BELIEVE IN ALLAH. IF ONLY THE PEOPLE OF THE SCRIPTURE HAD BELIEVED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR THEM. AMONG THEM ARE BELIEVERS, BUT MOST OF THEM ARE DEFIANTLY DISOBEDIENT. [QURAN 3:110]
In this aya of the Quran, Allah defines the Ummah and what makes the Ummah of Muslims superior to others. It is not due to race or bloodline or heritage. It is due to ethics and belief. Muslims stand for what is right and fight against what is wrong. And what is right and wrong ultimately goes back to what the Creator commands, the Creator in which we believe and worship. One who does not believe in God and His Messenger ﷺ cannot be a Muslim even if his entire family for generations has been Muslim. This importance of faith over blood is expressed when Allah says:
YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN ALLAH AND THE LAST DAY, LOVING THOSE WHO OPPOSE ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE THEIR FATHERS, OR THEIR SONS, OR THEIR BROTHERS, OR THEIR KINDRED (PEOPLE). [QURAN 58:22]
Allah also says:
LET NOT THE BELIEVERS TAKE THE DISBELIEVERS AS AWLIYA (SPIRITUAL LEADERS, ROLE MODELS, ETC.) INSTEAD OF THE BELIEVERS, AND WHOEVER DOES THAT WILL NEVER BE HELPED BY ALLAH IN ANY WAY, EXCEPT THAT YOU FEAR A DANGER FROM THEM. AND ALLAH WARNS YOU AGAINST HIMSELF (HIS PUNISHMENT), AND TO ALLAH IS THE FINAL RETURN [QURAN 3:28]
And the Prophet, peace be upon him, is reported to have said:
THE STRONGEST BONDS OF FAITH ARE LOYALTY FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH, ENMITY FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH, LOVE FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH AND HATE FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH. [CLASSED AS SAHIH]
Islam does not deny that people can have preference for other people who share a culture, a heritage, or even a race. Preference for one’s race is considered racism in social justice discourse. But this is not Islam’s conception. This is related to us in one hadith:
A MAN ASKED THE PROPHET ﷺ: ‘O MESSENGER OF ALLAH, IS IT TRIBALISM (`ASABIYYAH) IF A MAN LOVES HIS PEOPLE (I.E., QAWM)?’ HE SAID: ‘NO, RATHER [FROM THE CHARACTERISTICS OF] TRIBALISM IS WHEN A MAN HELPS HIS PEOPLE TO DO DHULM (I.E., OPPRESSION, INJUSTICE).’ [IBN MAJAH]
Loving one’s people or tribe is a part of human nature. This is an undeniable part of human biology, even. But look at the unmatched wisdom of the Prophet, peace be upon him. This preference for one’s own tribe has it limits. If one’s love for one’s people leads one to commit injustice in favor for his own group at the expense of other groups, then this is clearly what is blameworthy. Importantly, we understand injustice by referring back to the Quran and Sunna, i.e., revelation, which clarifies and elaborates on the nature of injustice in all its forms.
Despite all these conceptions of Ummah, al-wala wal-bara, and `asabiyya, there is a deliberate effort to destroy what I describe as an “Ummah First Mentality,” or the precise in-group mentality that the killer’s manifesto ascribes to Muslims. Part of this effort is a campaign to emphasize “humanity above religiosity.” Telling Muslims not to have more concern for fellow believers than non-believers is a tried and tested colonial tactic that is used to this day to weaken the Ummah. We need to rebut these efforts and reemphasize the importance and necessity of al-wala wal-bara and denounce those agents who teach against this value in preference for humanism, nationalism (wataniyya), social justice, or any other weaponized foreign ideology.
So What Makes Us Different From White Nationalists?
Plenty, as explained above. But some might say that al-wala wal-bara, loyalty and disavowal, an Ummah First Mentality are akin to White in-group preference. Not at all.
As the ayat and ahadith cited above make clear, the Ummah is defined according to belief and ethics, standards of justice. What is White Nationalism based on?
If being White is defined as having a certain bloodline, then this is a relatively weak basis for identity. If we want to be racial realists and accept the idea that races exist, then why should a person define himself according to that one particular biological characteristic? Why not define people according to the nation they where were born (as is the current convention around the world, i.e., national citizenship)?
The White Nationalist might claim that unlike place of birth, race and bloodline affects things like intelligence, sociability, and other positive traits. But does bloodline really affect how a person behaves and acts? Does it affect a person’s commitment to values like justice and goodness and faithfulness? Perhaps. We can concede that to a certain extent. But there are other factors other than blood that are far more powerful in affecting how one exists in this world and interacts with others.
In fact, this is an important message in the Bible and the Quran. Cain and Abel, for example, were blood brothers, yet they took completely different courses of action. The children of Jacob (Ya`qub) were all related by blood, but, through their personal and moral decisions, they ended up in very different places. How can two people who share the same father and mother, let alone the same race, pursue such diametrically opposed paths?
This is an inescapable reality. The White Nationalist argument that Whites have an interest in avoiding mixing with other races because other races can negatively impact the moral character of their nations is completely undermined by this simple fact. Race by itself cannot account for moral character because other things, like religious devotion, are so much more determinative of how people collectively behave.
This is proven by the history of Europe itself. If race were so critical, why has Europe experienced such a sharp moral decline in the past few decades (something which White Nationalist themselves bemoan)? To blame this on racial immigration is merely to beg the question. But White Nationalists are wont to recognize the circularity of their reasoning, namely:
What About Heritage?
Another White Nationalist line of argument is the appeal to heritage. Whites have a shared heritage that they want to preserve, they argue. This argument strikes me as bizarre and unfounded as well. If heritage is tied to race, then the argument above is sufficient to dismantle this reasoning. If heritage has no connection to race, then people who are not White could claim to share in that heritage.
What, after all, is a heritage? Is it a set of values and beliefs? If so, then anyone can adopt those values and beliefs regardless of race or bloodline. And ultimately, the question arises: What makes European values and beliefs, whatever they are, superior to other systems? This is certainly not self-evident, and appeal to historical dominance of White nations is not going to work either. If might makes right, then what of the fact that, according to White Nationalists themselves, Whites are a dying breed? Doesn’t this mean White are being defeated, and wouldn’t this mean that the values and beliefs of the non-Whites are superior?
These are the kinds of thoughts that White Nationalists don’t really pursue with logical consistency.
To add to this, cultural heritage tends to be fictional more often than not. As a Persian American myself, I roll my eyes whenever fellow Persians blather on about the “great Persian kings” of the past and the “illustrious Persian dynasties.” I roll my eyes even harder when Americans talk about the “American dream” and the “wonder of American hope,” etc. These paeans to nationalism are all self-evident myths, constructions. Go far enough back in time and borders and bloodlines mix and intersect. I don’t think one has to be an absolute social constructionist to accept this. Even if racial identity is an objective reality, tying one’s race to historical events or personages in the past is wishful thinking at best. How much blood do Persians today share with the Persian king Darius who lived thousands of years ago? How much blood do Whites today share with, say, Thomas Jefferson? Due to Thomas Jefferson’s philandering with black slave girls, probably not much more than any number of non-Whites.
Overall, we can see why the Islamic conception of Ummah is so much more superior to race-based or nation-based identities. The notion of Ummah is inherently normative. It is inherently tied to values and beliefs. And values and beliefs are what are determinative of a people’s collective character and, ultimately, the destiny of a civilization. The idea of Ummah is inexorably tied to the transcendent Unseen and to the Creator of all existence. This is a transcendent source of value that drives Muslims to do good and even sacrifice their lives for good. An ethnic or even cultural identity can never be plausibly transcendent in this way. The only way for ethnic and cultural identities to reach this level is by inventing gods, inventing myths (i.e., the “chosen people”), inventing teleologies (e.g., progress), inventing false religions. This is what White Nationalism has produced. They have abandoned Christianity (and why wouldn’t they?) and have created a culture of memes and irrational nationalism in its place, a debased altar of ancestor worship characteristic of all the paganistic religions of history.
As Allah says:
AND WHEN IT IS SAID TO THEM, “FOLLOW WHAT ALLAH HAS REVEALED,” THEY SAY, “RATHER, WE WILL FOLLOW THAT WHICH WE FOUND OUR FATHERS DOING.” EVEN THOUGH THEIR FATHERS UNDERSTOOD NOTHING, NOR WERE THEY GUIDED? [QURAN 2:170]
A final point, White Nationalists understand that liberal secularism is mirage. They claim that all the liberal secularism in the world cannot bring salvation because, ultimately, race determines the world’s fate. But we have already seen the gaping holes in this line of thought. But sadly, some Muslims want to pin their hopes on liberal secular discourse. Some Muslims insist on promoting the social justice warrior ideology, the feminist ideology, the liberal secular ideology, the Marxist ideology, all ideologies that even people as irrational and blind as White Nationalists have roundly rejected. Are these Muslims stupider than White Nationalists?
The stupidity of these Muslims is that, rather than think for themselves, rather than refer these questions back to the Quran and Sunna, their thinking does not extent beyond, “Well, if the racist, bigoted White Nationalists reject these ideologies, that means those ideologies are good and we have to accept them!”
Those Muslims who understand these realities (and they are the majority, alhamdulillah) need to do their part to set the rest of the Ummah straight. Otherwise, the ignoramuses will dig a hole in the bottom of the safina (ark) we are all collectively riding through the turbulent seas in these days at the precipice of Qiyama.
https://muslimskeptic.com/2019/03/21/a-muslim-response-to-white-nationalism-and-white-replacement
In the aftermath of the New Zealand shooting, many have tried to decipher the motives of the alleged shooter, Brenton Tarrant, as expressed in his alleged manifesto, entitled “The Great Replacement.”
The 73-page document explains how Whites are being displaced in their “own” nations by two main factors:
- Immigration of non-Whites
- Higher birth rates of non-Whites vs. Whites
Two main ideologies are usually mentioned as being uniquely anti-White: Feminism and “Globo-Homo.” Feminism, according to the White Nationalists, reduces birth rates in numerous ways, e.g., because it encourages women to pursue career fulfillment instead of becoming mothers, promotes birth control and abortion, institutes no-fault divorce, etc. Globo-Homo, i.e., the promotion of the “gay lifestyle” and the dissolution of gender via trans ideology, also reduces birth rates because it promotes a non-reproductive sexual outlet, among other things.
In other words, if White women weren’t busy having careers and getting abortions and White men weren’t busy having sex with each other, more White babies would come into this world.
In this way, according to White Nationalists like David Duke, Jews use these ideologies plus immigration policy like a cudgel against Whites. How are Jews able to do this? What Duke and other White Nationalists like Andrew Anglin say is that Jews are, as a matter of fact, over represented in positions of power in government, academia, and media. Jews tend to be leftists, as well, and push feminism, Marxism, sexual liberation, etc. The White Nationalist obsession with Jews tends to downplay the fact that plenty of Whites are in positions of power pushing these same policies and ideologies. In fact, these same policies and ideologies have been deliberately used by Whites over the centuries to attack the Muslim world, e.g., when President Trump’s administration recently announced they were using a pro-LGBT agenda to create justification for attacking Iran, as well as other races, such as Blacks, Native Americans, Aboriginals, Indians, the Chinese, etc.
But, these White Nationalist quickly deflect and claim that these Whites have been brainwashed by the Jews, or the Jews wield so much power that they are able to manipulate all White politicians and academics everywhere for the benefit of the Jewish agenda.
And why would Jews want to attack Whites in this way? White Nationalists have theorized this in depth in (banned) books like The Culture of Critique. The story is that Jews are themselves a race intent on preserving themselves and their interests, and they view the White race as a threat to those interests and their overall dominance. This story is much more involved and in depth, but we can leave it at that for now.
The bottom line, however, for White Nationalism is that when a White person like Brenton Tarrant goes on a rampage murdering 50 non-White people, that is not an act of aggression. That is merely an act of self-defense. Indeed, this is what the manifesto explicitly says (conspicuously leaving out all mention of Jews).
It’s Racist. It’s Sexist. It’s Homophobic. But Is It True?
So much of the contemporary discourse fails to address substance and, instead, traffics in name calling. This is what we have seen with the, thus far, shallow analysiscoming from mainstream media analysts on “The Great Replacement.” The operative mindset seems to be that evaluating offensive ideas is itself an offensive act. Anything less than loud denunciations of “RACIST!” is itself racism.
I, of course, find this shrill and unjustified. There is plenty to critique about the idea of “White genocide” and “The Great Replacement” that doesn’t stop at the obvious observation that it is racist.
Yes, White Nationalism is racist. But White Nationalism and White Supremacy have been the overarching ideologies of the West for centuries. This fact is not presented in mainstream media discussions. The narrative that is being aggressively pushed is that White Nationalism is a fringe movement playing on the margins of Western culture and history. This deceit is necessary in order to supply Americans and Europeans a non-racist past to identify with.
The reality, however, is that virtually all the major White thinkers of the West prior to the early 20th century were White supremacists. The idea that non-Whites were savages in need of conquest and reformation was a truism in the writings of individuals as disparate as Thomas Jefferson, Immanuel Kant, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, even Abraham Lincoln. As for the latter, the “Great Emancipator” delivered a speech in 1858, which included:
I WILL SAY THEN THAT I AM NOT, NOR EVER HAVE BEEN, IN FAVOR OF BRINGING ABOUT IN ANY WAY THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF THE BLACK AND WHITE RACES — THAT I AM NOT NOR EVER HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR OF MAKING VOTERS OR JURORS OF NEGROES, NOT OF QUALIFYING THEM TO HOLD OFFICE, NOR TO INTERMARRY WITH WHITE PEOPLE; AND I WILL SAY IN ADDITION TO THIS THAT THERE IS A PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WHITE AND BLACK RACES WHICH I BELIEVE WILL FOREVER FORBID THE TWO RACES LIVING TOGETHER ON TERMS OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY. AND INASMUCH AS THEY CANNOT SO LIVE, WHILE THEY DO REMAIN TOGETHER THERE MUST BE THE POSITION OF SUPERIOR AND INFERIOR, AND I AS MUCH AS ANY OF HER MAN AM IN FAVOR OF HAVING THE SUPERIOR POSITION ASSIGNED TO THE WHITE RACE.
The main justification for European colonialism and the enslavement of non-Whites throughout the world post-Enlightenment has been the “White man’s burden.” White nations have a duty to civilize the world and bring the world to a state of enlightenment and, ultimately, utopian felicity. This is because Whites are superior in intellect, industriousness, strategic thinking, and other qualities supposedly unique to European bloodlines and European physiology. Why would they have this arrogant self-perception? Well, the proof is the pudding, they claim. Whites invented (or, at least, significantly advanced) science and technology. Did other races develop the steam engine? The automobile? The telephone? etc. No, the White race did. This, to them, proves that Whites are superior in the only way that matters for advancing the human race to new heights of progress: materialism and dunyawi utopianism.
The Muslim critique of White Nationalism can begin precisely here. Even if it were conceded that White people post-Enlightenment invented more and did more science than other races, we will insist on the essential worthlessness of dunya, i.e., the lesser world of material existence in which we all live for some decades before passing away to the greater abode of the akhira. The Prophet ﷺ is reported to have said:
“IF THE WORLD TO ALLAH WERE EQUAL TO A MOSQUITO’S WING, THEN HE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE DISBELIEVER TO HAVE A SIP OF WATER FROM IT.” [TIRMIDHI]
Science, technology, and civilization is not everything, but White Nationalists have an autistic-like fixation on these notions as if they were pillars of a religion. And White Nationalism is a religion insofar as it maintains a teleological belief in progress, namely that the human race is meant to progress and improve over time through materialistic development. Without this metaphysical conception of progress (that they inherited from Christian eschatology while excising the theological aspects of it), there is no reason to place such high and definitive value in science and technology. And without that value in science and technology, there is no reason to look at White (i.e., Western) civilization as inherently superior to non-White civilization. Without the metaphysics of materialistic progress, White Nationalism has no leg to stand on.
An important nuance here is that White Nationalists today will claim that they are not like the White Supremacists of old. White Nationalists say that they are not looking for domination of the entire globe. Rather, they simply want a nation for White people. Chinese people have China. Mongolian people have Mongolia. Indian people have India. Arab people have numerous Arab nations. And, of course, Jews have Israel. Why can’t Whites have their own nation?
Furthermore, countries like Israel implement strict immigration policies and regulations against intermarriage in order to preserve their racial majority. Why can’t Whites do the same in their “own” countries? Other countries acknowledge the importance of demographics in preserving power. Why are Whites the only race that is not allowed to engage in these kinds of power plays?
By pointing to examples like China and Israel, White Nationalists point to a double standard that undeniably does exist. Ethno-nationalism exists all over the world and has existed throughout human history. This is an anthropological and historical fact. For example, it is hard to see how Zionists, who have displaced, occupied, and genocided Palestinians for decades in the interest of the Jewish race, can then turn around to White Nationalists and call foul.
So what can be said?
A critique of White Nationalism must be a critique of ethno-nationalism and ethnic identity more broadly. This is where leftist social justice warriors and cultural Marxists are handicapped. The identitarian left, in its so-called celebration of diversity, reduces all identities to gender, racial, cultural, and sexual identities. Each gender, race, culture, and sexual predilection has its own associated identity group whose collective interests those groups are entitled to pursue. In fact, those collective interests have to be furthered by “social justice” policies that counteract “systematic” injustice. But what about White men? Well, White men don’t get to pursue their collective interests because they are the primary source of the systematic injustice that is oppressing every other group. Or so it is claimed.
I certainly think there is truth to this. How convenient for Whites to have engaged in centuries of colonialism, genocide, conquest through mass death around the world only to now conclude that they want to be left alone in their own nations — nations which, by the way, sit on land they forcefully acquired from indigenous populations.
At the same time, why should young White men today have to pay for the sins of their fathers? Is there a collective guilt they are uniquely burdened with by virtue of their blood? This kind of racial realism cuts both ways. If race is purely a social construction, which cultural Marxists and Critical Race Theorists claim whenever it suits them, then why should Millenial Whites — many of whom are cultural Marxists themselves in one form or another — be held responsible for the crimes of their biological forefathers? Why can’t these White men claim that they are not “White” in the same sense as those racist, evil Whites of history, and, as such, are entitled to pursue their collective interests in the same way Latinos, Blacks, Chinese, and Jewish people are allowed to pursue theirs? These White Millenials can claim that, in a way, they have been oppressed by White men too.
The problem with this reasoning, however, is that Whites collectively continue to enjoy the fruits of their forefathers’ domination. And furthermore, that domination has yet to cease! Whites continue to sit at the helm of a massive hegemonic empire which has the world in its death grip. Muslims know this better than anyone.
Yet, is it only the White race that enjoys this kind of position of power? Not at all. There is a certain other race that is also over represented in the halls of world power, a race whose name, in a moment of absentmindedness just right now, I have forgotten.
What About the Muslim Hordes?
The manifesto mentions that Muslims have a strong culture, high birth rates, high in-group preference. These qualities are lacking in the White race, it claims. This means that Muslims are ascending in the West while Whites are declining and this is seen as a bad thing.
I am afraid that the manifesto has too high of an estimation of Muslims in the West. Unfortunately, Muslims are following the same path as Whites and every other group. Marriage rates are declining for Muslims as are birth rates. The Muslims that immigrate to the West sadly often do not have a strong religious identity and, instead, are very eager to assimilate to the dominant culture. The idea of in-group preference is also fading away in the minds of many Muslims. In Islam, there is the important concept of al-wala wal-bara, loosely translated as loyalty and disavowal. This concept comes from the Quran and Sunna in many places.
YOU ARE THE BEST NATION PRODUCED [AS AN EXAMPLE] FOR MANKIND. YOU ENJOIN WHAT IS RIGHT AND FORBID WHAT IS WRONG AND BELIEVE IN ALLAH. IF ONLY THE PEOPLE OF THE SCRIPTURE HAD BELIEVED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR THEM. AMONG THEM ARE BELIEVERS, BUT MOST OF THEM ARE DEFIANTLY DISOBEDIENT. [QURAN 3:110]
In this aya of the Quran, Allah defines the Ummah and what makes the Ummah of Muslims superior to others. It is not due to race or bloodline or heritage. It is due to ethics and belief. Muslims stand for what is right and fight against what is wrong. And what is right and wrong ultimately goes back to what the Creator commands, the Creator in which we believe and worship. One who does not believe in God and His Messenger ﷺ cannot be a Muslim even if his entire family for generations has been Muslim. This importance of faith over blood is expressed when Allah says:
YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN ALLAH AND THE LAST DAY, LOVING THOSE WHO OPPOSE ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE THEIR FATHERS, OR THEIR SONS, OR THEIR BROTHERS, OR THEIR KINDRED (PEOPLE). [QURAN 58:22]
Allah also says:
LET NOT THE BELIEVERS TAKE THE DISBELIEVERS AS AWLIYA (SPIRITUAL LEADERS, ROLE MODELS, ETC.) INSTEAD OF THE BELIEVERS, AND WHOEVER DOES THAT WILL NEVER BE HELPED BY ALLAH IN ANY WAY, EXCEPT THAT YOU FEAR A DANGER FROM THEM. AND ALLAH WARNS YOU AGAINST HIMSELF (HIS PUNISHMENT), AND TO ALLAH IS THE FINAL RETURN [QURAN 3:28]
And the Prophet, peace be upon him, is reported to have said:
THE STRONGEST BONDS OF FAITH ARE LOYALTY FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH, ENMITY FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH, LOVE FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH AND HATE FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH. [CLASSED AS SAHIH]
Islam does not deny that people can have preference for other people who share a culture, a heritage, or even a race. Preference for one’s race is considered racism in social justice discourse. But this is not Islam’s conception. This is related to us in one hadith:
A MAN ASKED THE PROPHET ﷺ: ‘O MESSENGER OF ALLAH, IS IT TRIBALISM (`ASABIYYAH) IF A MAN LOVES HIS PEOPLE (I.E., QAWM)?’ HE SAID: ‘NO, RATHER [FROM THE CHARACTERISTICS OF] TRIBALISM IS WHEN A MAN HELPS HIS PEOPLE TO DO DHULM (I.E., OPPRESSION, INJUSTICE).’ [IBN MAJAH]
Loving one’s people or tribe is a part of human nature. This is an undeniable part of human biology, even. But look at the unmatched wisdom of the Prophet, peace be upon him. This preference for one’s own tribe has it limits. If one’s love for one’s people leads one to commit injustice in favor for his own group at the expense of other groups, then this is clearly what is blameworthy. Importantly, we understand injustice by referring back to the Quran and Sunna, i.e., revelation, which clarifies and elaborates on the nature of injustice in all its forms.
Despite all these conceptions of Ummah, al-wala wal-bara, and `asabiyya, there is a deliberate effort to destroy what I describe as an “Ummah First Mentality,” or the precise in-group mentality that the killer’s manifesto ascribes to Muslims. Part of this effort is a campaign to emphasize “humanity above religiosity.” Telling Muslims not to have more concern for fellow believers than non-believers is a tried and tested colonial tactic that is used to this day to weaken the Ummah. We need to rebut these efforts and reemphasize the importance and necessity of al-wala wal-bara and denounce those agents who teach against this value in preference for humanism, nationalism (wataniyya), social justice, or any other weaponized foreign ideology.
So What Makes Us Different From White Nationalists?
Plenty, as explained above. But some might say that al-wala wal-bara, loyalty and disavowal, an Ummah First Mentality are akin to White in-group preference. Not at all.
As the ayat and ahadith cited above make clear, the Ummah is defined according to belief and ethics, standards of justice. What is White Nationalism based on?
If being White is defined as having a certain bloodline, then this is a relatively weak basis for identity. If we want to be racial realists and accept the idea that races exist, then why should a person define himself according to that one particular biological characteristic? Why not define people according to the nation they where were born (as is the current convention around the world, i.e., national citizenship)?
The White Nationalist might claim that unlike place of birth, race and bloodline affects things like intelligence, sociability, and other positive traits. But does bloodline really affect how a person behaves and acts? Does it affect a person’s commitment to values like justice and goodness and faithfulness? Perhaps. We can concede that to a certain extent. But there are other factors other than blood that are far more powerful in affecting how one exists in this world and interacts with others.
In fact, this is an important message in the Bible and the Quran. Cain and Abel, for example, were blood brothers, yet they took completely different courses of action. The children of Jacob (Ya`qub) were all related by blood, but, through their personal and moral decisions, they ended up in very different places. How can two people who share the same father and mother, let alone the same race, pursue such diametrically opposed paths?
This is an inescapable reality. The White Nationalist argument that Whites have an interest in avoiding mixing with other races because other races can negatively impact the moral character of their nations is completely undermined by this simple fact. Race by itself cannot account for moral character because other things, like religious devotion, are so much more determinative of how people collectively behave.
This is proven by the history of Europe itself. If race were so critical, why has Europe experienced such a sharp moral decline in the past few decades (something which White Nationalist themselves bemoan)? To blame this on racial immigration is merely to beg the question. But White Nationalists are wont to recognize the circularity of their reasoning, namely:
- Whites, by virtue of their race, are inherently more civilized and moral whereas non-Whites are not.
- This is evidenced by the fact that White nations are more civilized and have higher standards of morality.
- Yet, the fact that White nations are currently in decline in terms of civilization and morality is because of an influx of non-Whites.
- An influx of non-Whites causes decline in civilization and morality because non-Whites are not as civilized and moral as Whites. <– This was the initial premise that needed justification, hence the circle.
What About Heritage?
Another White Nationalist line of argument is the appeal to heritage. Whites have a shared heritage that they want to preserve, they argue. This argument strikes me as bizarre and unfounded as well. If heritage is tied to race, then the argument above is sufficient to dismantle this reasoning. If heritage has no connection to race, then people who are not White could claim to share in that heritage.
What, after all, is a heritage? Is it a set of values and beliefs? If so, then anyone can adopt those values and beliefs regardless of race or bloodline. And ultimately, the question arises: What makes European values and beliefs, whatever they are, superior to other systems? This is certainly not self-evident, and appeal to historical dominance of White nations is not going to work either. If might makes right, then what of the fact that, according to White Nationalists themselves, Whites are a dying breed? Doesn’t this mean White are being defeated, and wouldn’t this mean that the values and beliefs of the non-Whites are superior?
These are the kinds of thoughts that White Nationalists don’t really pursue with logical consistency.
To add to this, cultural heritage tends to be fictional more often than not. As a Persian American myself, I roll my eyes whenever fellow Persians blather on about the “great Persian kings” of the past and the “illustrious Persian dynasties.” I roll my eyes even harder when Americans talk about the “American dream” and the “wonder of American hope,” etc. These paeans to nationalism are all self-evident myths, constructions. Go far enough back in time and borders and bloodlines mix and intersect. I don’t think one has to be an absolute social constructionist to accept this. Even if racial identity is an objective reality, tying one’s race to historical events or personages in the past is wishful thinking at best. How much blood do Persians today share with the Persian king Darius who lived thousands of years ago? How much blood do Whites today share with, say, Thomas Jefferson? Due to Thomas Jefferson’s philandering with black slave girls, probably not much more than any number of non-Whites.
Overall, we can see why the Islamic conception of Ummah is so much more superior to race-based or nation-based identities. The notion of Ummah is inherently normative. It is inherently tied to values and beliefs. And values and beliefs are what are determinative of a people’s collective character and, ultimately, the destiny of a civilization. The idea of Ummah is inexorably tied to the transcendent Unseen and to the Creator of all existence. This is a transcendent source of value that drives Muslims to do good and even sacrifice their lives for good. An ethnic or even cultural identity can never be plausibly transcendent in this way. The only way for ethnic and cultural identities to reach this level is by inventing gods, inventing myths (i.e., the “chosen people”), inventing teleologies (e.g., progress), inventing false religions. This is what White Nationalism has produced. They have abandoned Christianity (and why wouldn’t they?) and have created a culture of memes and irrational nationalism in its place, a debased altar of ancestor worship characteristic of all the paganistic religions of history.
As Allah says:
AND WHEN IT IS SAID TO THEM, “FOLLOW WHAT ALLAH HAS REVEALED,” THEY SAY, “RATHER, WE WILL FOLLOW THAT WHICH WE FOUND OUR FATHERS DOING.” EVEN THOUGH THEIR FATHERS UNDERSTOOD NOTHING, NOR WERE THEY GUIDED? [QURAN 2:170]
A final point, White Nationalists understand that liberal secularism is mirage. They claim that all the liberal secularism in the world cannot bring salvation because, ultimately, race determines the world’s fate. But we have already seen the gaping holes in this line of thought. But sadly, some Muslims want to pin their hopes on liberal secular discourse. Some Muslims insist on promoting the social justice warrior ideology, the feminist ideology, the liberal secular ideology, the Marxist ideology, all ideologies that even people as irrational and blind as White Nationalists have roundly rejected. Are these Muslims stupider than White Nationalists?
The stupidity of these Muslims is that, rather than think for themselves, rather than refer these questions back to the Quran and Sunna, their thinking does not extent beyond, “Well, if the racist, bigoted White Nationalists reject these ideologies, that means those ideologies are good and we have to accept them!”
Those Muslims who understand these realities (and they are the majority, alhamdulillah) need to do their part to set the rest of the Ummah straight. Otherwise, the ignoramuses will dig a hole in the bottom of the safina (ark) we are all collectively riding through the turbulent seas in these days at the precipice of Qiyama.
https://muslimskeptic.com/2019/03/21/a-muslim-response-to-white-nationalism-and-white-replacement
