A ‘Muslim Union’ is the need of the hour

[Developereo]

While most of us agree that the concept is more science-fiction than reality in the foreseeable future, there is nothing inherently impossible about it.

All human societies are amenable to media manipulation, for better or for worse.

As I have stated before, given unlimited funds and enough time, I can have neighbor killing neighbor in a genocidal frenzy in the streets of America/Switzerland/Sweden/any country. Conversely, we can have Iranians and Arabs hugging each other for pure joy.

It's not about a top down approach, involving government agreements and dictates, but grass roots media campaigns and shaping public attitudes. If Muslims had a media presence as dominant as the global Western media does, and such a media juggernaut were used judiciously, it is entirely doable.

It takes time, but it can be done. It has been done to unite people, in Europe, and in the US, for example, to get past their historical prejudices and appreciate the benefits of unity over the spoils of ethnic selfishness.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Yes, these are all the challenges that come with it.

If we ever take such a step in Pakistan, it would change it completely and turn it to something new.

Something new? Change for the sake of change is pointless, there is no benefit in the idea you have suggested. UAE for instance has a minuscule population, & while they are going to continue to need foreigners, they do not hand out citizenships on the fly. That preserves their demographics, culture, language, etc. The same applies for our own country. The idea you have suggested would bring with it a ton of other issues, while solving none of our current issues. If immigrants are required, that's fine, & the government may provide them with permanent residence permits, but providing nationalities en masse is not. If nationalities have to be given out, they must be provided to those who truly deserve them & manage to integrate in to the society without any disruption of it. In the mean time, perhaps the government should make better use of our vast overseas diaspora, & even provide them with incentives to return. It's a far more feasible & beneficial idea than handing out our passports to people who for the most part aren't religious, neither do they care about it.

Some forum-members who are teenagers, and those in early twenties have no concept or idea of the practical outcome of this idea. Therefore they are more prone to take a nationalist approach. I just wish they could stop and reflect before they would allow their itchy fingers do the talking.

A nationalist approach? I see no reason as to why a nationalist would object to greater economic, political, & military cooperation among Muslim or any other nations for that matter. All nationalists desire the best for their own nations, & despise anything that could harm their countries in any way whatsoever.

 

[Leader]

look at post 16, this is how a sound and trained brain thinks.

look at post 16, this is how a sound and trained brain thinks.

 

[FaujHistorian]

No i just responded to you're personal statement as i said earlier i won't take it. And i don't get frustrated by people here who hurl accusations and get personal as it seems their pasttime. Whatever my opinion was you have no right to get personal.

Oh I understand.

But you gotto understand that statements like



I am not saying that we can't or shouldn't implement that [Islamist] ideologically within Pakistan.

or

terrible statements like

Islamist union is need of the hour

is much worse than what Jim Jones did to his followers back in 1978.


peace

Cam muslims do anything without religion being THE reason?

A unity based on religion when religion itself has internal sectarian conflicts is itself contradictory.

How to get rid of shias? Genocide?

Then how come killing is following Quran?

And when you do so much of killing, how will you get rid of tyranny which is more a state of mind?

FYI

Shiaism in Iran resulted from genocide and ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in Iran.


Please read history a bit.


Thank you

 

[Sriram]

why not humanity?

 

[FaujHistorian]

......

We have seen EU form over the last 2-3 generations. We could copy this model.

We could begin by a few countries forming a club and espousing the following values:

1. Constitutionalism & forms of representative government that truly reflect people's choice.
2. Anti-Sectarianism stance. No sect can be allowed to suppress and oppress others.
3. Elimination of border disputes between members.
4. Adoption of welfare state model, with some common rules derived from Quran & Hadith.
5. Freedom of speech bound with common decency.

Each of the above would require tremendous intellectual, educational, and institutional efforts. But countries like Malaysia, Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia can begin ..

Yet another Desi dear friend of mine is spreading santa claus story and stork story to little kids,

hoping against hope

That

Santa claus will fill his stockings

And

a stork

will bring him a baby brother or a baby sister



hahahahahahaha




Good one yaar


goood one






So many desi Muslims are living in 1910's Khilafah Lafafah (empty bag).


Na 9 mun tail ho ga

na Radha naachay gi

But

Ameer Khusro tubla mutkatay rahay
(tranlation: A pathetic prostitute/dancer didn't want to show her ineptness, so she demanded 9 tones of desi ghee as a precondition. Poor villagers didn't have more than a kilo, so she kept on claiming that she is the best dancer/prostitute in the world and no one could prove her wrong, at least not on paper)


hahahahah

 

[$elf]

What is a muslim union?

 

[FaujHistorian]

What is a muslim union?

in reality it is Islamist onion.

everytime you touch it, you cry, and lose your eyesight and lose Aql in the process too.

 

[Chak Bamu]

A nationalist approach? I see no reason as to why a nationalist would object to greater economic, political, & military cooperation among Muslim or any other nations for that matter. All nationalists desire the best for their own nations, & despise anything that could harm their countries in any way whatsoever.

All one needs to do is to read a few posts on this very thread to find out that the only people among Pakistanis objecting to this idea are exactly the ones who are nationalists. There are young ones who are not thinking hard enough and unable to comprehend the wider ramifications, and old turds who are so fond of their bottle and Islamo-phobia that they basically equate Islam with a sort of barbarism - implicitly not explicitly.

Your implicit expression of thought on nationalism is noted, and it may be necessary to spend a little time thinking about points of friction. What I have suggested is a means to minimize friction points by adopting a consensus-based system that would be very inefficient, but good at defusing friction.

What would be a nationalist's response in case there is a conflict of interest and one should choose nationalism or pan-Islamism? Suppose a supra-national parliament of Muslim politicians agree to push for free trade by issuing guidelines to this effect. What would individual countries do? Agree to free trade or disagree for sake of protectionism? This is just an example I thought on the spot to illustrate that Nationalistic sentiment might not always agree to pan-Islamism.

On my trip to Portugal last year, I could see Portugese grumbling about loss of manufacturing because of being in EU. Some were resigned to this loss, some were critical. This is just an illustration of people being dissatisfied with being a part of a supra-national entity. I hope you can imagine dozens of other such conflicts. But since EU is so far able to manage divergence, so can others. Muslims actually have a better chance of doing so. Our rituals support brotherhood & loyalty; and also foster an ability to sacrifice.

 

[Chak Bamu]

I do not know what is wrong with @FaujHistorian. Whenever someone writes something that can somehow remotely be construed with having something to do with religion, he jumps in and makes it a personal crusade against forces of darkness. You know something like a lone knight in the night. Its just something he has taken upon himself...

Fauj, we two are very different individuals. I have noted your reaction to my post. Answering would accomplish nothing. We could be friends, but your sarcasm seems to be a permanent feature and though I appreciate you calling me yaar, I do not think I could reciprocate sincerely. Our divergent views are a function of who we are as persons. We both have very different backgrounds, mindset, and experience. As I mentioned in my earlier post that I have seen Ummah concept at work.

I will relate just one happening among many that has been a powerful lesson for me:

While at a US university in early 90s. I was active with PSA (Pakistan Student Association) - helping arrange cultural programs (acting, facilitating, helping with script), sports matches, fund raising, representing PSA in official capacity, etc...

I was also active with MSA (Muslim Students Association) - hosting 1 iftar during Ramazan at nearby mosque (where dozens students like me had their fill throughout Ramazan), arranging annual dinner, contacting foreign Muslim students, arranging two picnics a year, helping arrange evening lectures, etc... That is beside activism for Bosnia in the university, metropolis, & Washington.

PSA decided to participate in annual Football / Soccer tournament. The first year we lost 6-0 to a fraternity team. The second year, I suggested that we field an MSA team, since we sucked at Soccer and our 2 or 3 good players were good strikers but could not be effective. Junaid objected and said that we must have our own team. So we lost 8-0. The next year, MSA team made it to the finals. Sub par players like me were happy to watch a pitch full of friends chalk up victories with Pakistani strikers including Junaid and Dr. Saleem sb. doing very well.

So that was a valuable lesson not just for me, but for many others. You may find fault with something here, and I have a feeling that you would, but I hope you understand that on the level of different peoples (Saudi, Pakistani, Morroccan, Malaysian, Egyptian, etc...) the concept of Ummah is strong, makes sense, and delivers results. As far as I am concerned, we just need to translate that at a higher level. Self-flagelation and self-doubt would not get us there, neither would sarcasm stop us.

Good day.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

All one needs to do is to read a few posts on this very thread to find out that the only people among Pakistanis objecting to this idea are exactly the ones who are nationalists. There are young ones who are not thinking hard enough and unable to comprehend the wider ramifications, and old turds who are so fond of their bottle and Islamo-phobia that they basically equate Islam with a sort of barbarism - implicitly not explicitly.

Your implicit expression of thought on nationalism is noted, and it may be necessary to spend a little time thinking about points of friction. What I have suggested is a means to minimize friction points by adopting a consensus-based system that would be very inefficient, but good at defusing friction.

What would be a nationalist's response in case there is a conflict of interest and one should choose nationalism or pan-Islamism? Suppose a supra-national parliament of Muslim politicians agree to push for free trade by issuing guidelines to this effect. What would individual countries do? Agree to free trade or disagree for sake of protectionism? This is just an example I thought on the spot to illustrate that Nationalistic sentiment might not always agree to pan-Islamism.

On my trip to Portugal last year, I could see Portugese grumbling about loss of manufacturing because of being in EU. Some were resigned to this loss, some were critical. This is just an illustration of people being dissatisfied with being a part of a supra-national entity. I hope you can imagine dozens of other such conflicts. But since EU is so far able to manage divergence, so can others. Muslims actually have a better chance of doing so. Our rituals support brotherhood & loyalty; and also foster an ability to sacrifice.

I skimmed through most of the posts on this thread. I obviously disagree with those that equate Islam with barbarism, but that does not necessarily make them nationalists or even patriotic. Religion is an important element in society, & true nationalists respect that. The impression I have gotten so far from that paragraph of your post is that anyone against a Muslim union is a nationalist. Others may simply dislike Islam, there is nothing I can do about that. Nationalists care about their heritage & the prosperity of their own nation primarily. That doesn't exclude helping out other deserving nations with charity & humanitarian aid for instance. Voting to reduce conflict might be a good idea, but it is absolutely pointless on an online forum. It might make sense when policy makers within the government are debating among themselves provided a supra-national organization has come in to existence.

I agree that nationalism & pan-Islamism can & are likely to conflict in some areas, but it should be noted that pan-Islamism is itself religious nationalism. Both are in some ways very similar, with the major difference being that one is based on a religious identity while the other is based on an ethnic one. In the case of a free trade agreement affecting local organizations, a nationalist response would vary depending upon the benefits derived in the long run. That is understandable, & in fact that is how it should be. It simply makes no sense for one to suffer for the sake of the other, & that is absolutely not what our religion requires either. If a free trade agreement means that our local companies get the chance to compete & improve, then it would be approved by nationalists & pan-Islamists. In fact both groups are going to have to consider a wide variety of factors when coming to a decision on that one. A pan-Islamist would be a fool if he or she accepts a free trade agreement knowing that it could end up destroying local organizations & putting people out of work for the sake of some foreigners that apparently believe in the same God. Even if this supra-national organization was based on shared ethnicity between countries, they are still likely to face similar issues. Except that, this time, it's going to be patriots & ethnic nationalists that disagree.

Islamic brotherhood has never required long term sacrifices to the point that your own nation ends up becoming dependent on another. Yes, Muslim nations should look after & resolve conflicts with each other & aid each other politically, economically, & perhaps militarily & technologically if they are capable of doing so. That is the extent of what Islam requires. Conflicts have & will always continue to emerge & there is absolutely no religious jurisdiction that states that one nation should suffer for another's sake or not look after its own interests. Compromise is important because this suffering or "sacrifice" would eventually lead to hatred for whatever supra-national Muslim union exists. In fact compromise is the key for a successful union to exist, the concerns of all parties involved have to be dealt with and accounted for. It should be noted that any logical person would accept some compromise for the sake of the greater good.

 

[Chak Bamu]

@p(-)0ENiX

I want to dispel a notion that Islam is against nationalism.

"Watn ki Muhabbat Iman mein sai hai" Urdu translation of a Hadeeth.

But Muslim jurists over centuries have definitely objected to having nationalism as a supreme ideology. The only book that I have read about nationalism by a Western professor noted this institutional aversion to nationalism within Muslim scholars. In fact he seemed enthralled by this approach. You see nationalism has been the prime motivator in world wars and has caused more death and destruction than any other ideology. An observant and sensitive soul can not accept nationalism unconditionally. Why must one be made to hate another for the sake of a line on the ground? Governments make stupid decisions many times and I would rather have a supra-national entity place a check on excesses.

In any case I just wanted to highlight a salient feature of your response and offer my opinion (for whatever it is worth).

I believe in Islam and humanism. Only then do I consider nationalism of any importance. To me discriminatory nationalism is stupidity incarnate.

 

[Neptune]

Is there any Christian Union, Hindu Union, Jewish Union, Budist Union or somewhat? What's the deal of finding such alliance. Sorry but even if yes, count Turkey outta the list. We suffered the biggest pain from inside at WWI

 

[ghilzai]

Muslim Union is welcomed if there is no Arab presence.

Is there any Christian Union, Hindu Union, Jewish Union, Budist Union or somewhat? What's the deal of finding such alliance. Sorry but even if yes, count Turkey outta the list. We suffered the biggest pain from inside at WWI

Now now you can't blame the hereditary backstabbing nature of Arabs on Islam.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

@p(-)0ENiX

I want to dispel a notion that Islam is against nationalism.

"Watn ki Muhabbat Iman mein sai hai" Urdu translation of a Hadeeth.

But Muslim jurists over centuries have definitely objected to having nationalism as a supreme ideology. The only book that I have read about nationalism by a Western professor noted this institutional aversion to nationalism within Muslim scholars. In fact he seemed enthralled by this approach. You see nationalism has been the prime motivator in world wars and has caused more death and destruction than any other ideology. An observant and sensitive soul can not accept nationalism unconditionally. Why must one be made to hate another for the sake of a line on the ground? Governments make stupid decisions many times and I would rather have a supra-national entity place a check on excesses.

In any case I just wanted to highlight a salient feature of your response and offer my opinion (for whatever it is worth).

I believe in Islam and humanism. Only then do I consider nationalism of any importance. To me discriminatory nationalism is stupidity incarnate.

I never implied that Islam is against nationalism, that is what your post was kind off implying. Islam as a religion honors a people's heritage, in fact the diversity of the languages of mankind for instance is seen as a sign from God in the Quran. Over here in the Middle East, the people are very proud of their ethnicity, heritage, & culture, but at the same time they have managed to integrate Islam with their identities too. This blend is very beneficial in creating a unique national identity & fostering unity among Arab nations or at least the people themselves. Wars have been fought throughout history for not simply racial nationalism but also for other benefits, which include resources, land, trade routes etc. Religious nationalism whether it's Islamic or even Christian is no different in that regard. The Crusades were motivated by religious reasons, & the Caliphates fought, killed & enslaved numerous people for spreading religion apart from the obvious gains in power & resources. Their hatred could easily have stemmed from a difference in religion, & that was used as a distinguishing factor among people at that time. Besides, wars shall continue to occur as long as humans exist, there is absolutely no stopping that.

If a sensitive soul can't accept nationalism, then it must reject religious nationalism too because they are in many ways extremely similar. A supra-national entity is capable of making mistakes as well, no one is infallible. Who is asking you to hate anyone for a line on the ground? I could easily state that by adopting religious nationalism you are asking others to hate each other for worshiping a different God. Neither of them are acceptable, & just because people look after their own interests, does not imply that they hate anyone else. In fact, many nationalistic & religious people happen to respect the differences among nations, that includes religious, racial, cultural, etc. I agree that discrimination on nationality or race is stupidity incarnate, but so is discrimination on the basis of religion & that is just as likely to occur as the other. The fact remains that as long as nations respect & accept each others differences, I see no reason for them not being able to cooperate among themselves on the grounds of mutual respect & benefits. Nationalism & religious identity can go hand in hand provided the people belonging to these ideologies are mature & logical. Cooperation among our nations with other Muslim countries & even all other countries from across the world shall always be welcomed provided it is mutually beneficial.