The First Nationalist

[Indus Pakistan]

Would Islam still be a unifying factor or would ethnicities trump religion?

The British held the entire sub-continent together for over 100 years that is longer lifespan then India or Pakistan. Religion, ethnicities were not the unifying factor?

So what was?

 

[xeuss]

Pakistan is a distinct civilizational state, which would preserve its own territorial integrity, should it in the future merge with another Islamic state such as Afghanista, Oman, or CARs

You don't need to merge. Just common policies on currency, defense, etc would suffice.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Well there is space in Islamic governance for divisions on ethnic, linguistic, and civilizational lines.

Source? I thought Muslims were one civilization etc

 

[Ace of Spades]

The nation-state of Pakistan is a bit confused

In the current construct of nationhood it's natural the confusion. There is a difference in ideology and the implementation of it and what's the construct of that ideology. Pakistan as a geographical area is coexisting from thousands of years i.e. IVC. Religion was not the unifying thing till very recent rather the governments. Different rulers, including muslims ruled this area. If religion was the only unifying factor we won't have problems starting in between muslims from the period of khulfa e rashideen. Hence, the emergence of shias and sunnis, which was nothing but an emergence of a political ideology among muslims.

Ideologically Pakistan has a great one, but how would this ideology work in the bigger picture when from west onwards to all the way to africa all of the "muslim nations" are divided on political lines? And the funny part is none of the "muslim countries" except Pakistan is ideologically based on Islam. So how will supra nationality concept where islam is regarded as a nationality would expand from outside Pakistan's borders. During different eras of khilafa, muslims kept taking over reign from other muslim khalifas by force based on political rifts, so clearly this concept as a standalone factor is not enough for stability of a nation.

Is Pakistan confused? i won't put blame on Pakistan in entirety. If Pakistan is confused then all other "muslim" nations are stupid. But again as i mentioned religion as standalone factor is not a very good starting point. Ideologically we have a beautiful ideology but it must be anchored with regional history and celebrate the great ancestry and civilization we are part of.

 

[xeuss]

The British held the entire sub-continent together for over 100 years that is longer lifespan then India or Pakistan. Religion, ethnicities were not the unifying factor?

So what was?

Obsession with the white skin. j/k.

 

[Old School]

A nation can have multiple societies residing within. Those society may or may not follow the similar culture. Hence, there are potential causes of possible conflicts with in a nation. Islamic principles therefore call for building Islamic societies based on Islamic culture instead of nations which play the role of binding blocks. It is society which plays the central role in Islam instead of political hegemony. However, this essence of Islam gradually faded away following the death of the 'Rashedun'. Nevertheless, Islam's inception as a social justice movement from the very beginning can not be denied.
Though PAKISTAN was originally created as a Muslim Homeland in 1947, the founders were all bearers of British colonial culture to the core. The fundamental conflicts between British colonial culture and Islam were never resolved. British style jurisprudence, economic and political system remain as the building blocks and causes of troubles of today's PAKISTAN nation state. We must address those suicidal British colonial elements before we can move on to build a strong and prosperous PAKISTAN.

 

[H. Dawary]

In the current construct of nationhood it's natural the confusion. There is a difference in ideology and the implementation of it and what's the construct of that ideology. Pakistan as a geographical area is coexisting from thousands of years i.e. IVC. Religion was not the unifying thing till very recent rather the governments. Different rulers, including muslims ruled this area. If religion was the only unifying factor we won't have problems starting in between muslims from the period of khulfa e rashideen. Hence, the emergence of shias and sunnis. Emerging from a political ideology among muslims.

Ideologically Pakistan has a great one, but how would this ideology work in the bigger picture when from west onwards to all the way to africa all of the "muslim nations" are divided on political lines? And the funny part is none of the "muslim countries" except Pakistan is ideologically based on Islam. So how will supra nationality concept where islam is regarded as a nationality would expand from outside Pakistan's borders. During different eras of khilafa, muslims kept taking over reign from other muslim khalifas by force based on political rifts, so clearly this concept as a standalone factor is not enough for stability of a nation.

Is Pakistan confused? i don't think so. Ideologically we have a beautiful ideology but it must be anchored with regional history and celebrate the great ancestry and civilization we are part of.

There is no issue with celebrating regional history... Allah says "And we set you up as nations and tribes so that you may be able to recognise each other" Quran 49:13

We are all different, each of us, from our interests in our professions, to the color of our skin, and shapes of our cultures, and we should be happy about that. The issue starts with taking Pride in that, which then brings about a sense of superiority e.g. Nationalism.

 

[Yankee-stani]

Is that why the country made in Islam makes some more equal [those born in British Raj] but prejudices against other Muslims? Is that why a Hindu born in Larkana is Pakistani citizen but a pious Muslim from Kandahar or Somalia is thrown out when he lands at Islamabad Airport.

Clearly being Muslim or piety is not enough is?

Or the Pakistan state? Read post above please.

If Pakistan is land for believers then believers who want to move here should be allowed without any hindrance other than proving they are believers. Anything less is creating divisions and ranks in the believers.

Well, you accept that the Pakistani state does place ranks out of the Muslims. That is why a pious Muslim from Kandahar cannot get Pak citizenship but a Hindu from Thar Parker can. This means the Pakistani state is goiing against the very fundamental of Islam. That all believers are equal. Thus it has no right to place that prefix "Islamic Republic of". It ought to be just "Republic of" which at least would be th truth.

Inserts Israel in the room

Many Hardcore nationalists types and Islamists types regarding Pakistan fail to understand one thing we are stagnant regional power which is heavily reliant on ideological different states like China and Turkey yet many are itching for geo political extensions in far off regions when we cant even get Kashmir

 

[Ace of Spades]

There is no issue with celebrating regional history... Allah says "And we set you up as nations and tribes so that you may be able to recognise each other" Quran 49:13

We are all different, each of us, from our interests in our professions, to the color of our skin, and shapes of our cultures, and we should be happy about that. The issue starts with taking Pride in that, which then brings about a sense of superiority e.g. Nationalism.

Sense of superiority is indeed wrong. But what you are telling is not nationalism, that's racial superiority concepts. Which can be confused as nationalism but that's not the case. Americans are nationalists but those with confederate flags consider themselves racially superior. That's the difference. A black american can be a nationalist without thinking that they are above other races in US.

However, in relation of this discussion with Muslims at large and Pakistan to be specific, it's a great concept to talk about but the implementation part.. that's not gonna come as i explained in my above post. It's much complicated than just nationalism. It's the whole construct of current nation states/ political interests.

 

[Vortex]

If I were to ask you who was the first nationalist, who would you say it be? Perhaps you would name a figure from thousands of years ago, or perhaps you would name a person from recent history, or maybe you wouldn't name anyone but rather give a different meaning altogether.

I present to you the first nationalist...

[So mention] when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I am going to create a human being from clay.
So when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My [created] soul, then fall down to him in prostration."
So the angels prostrated - all of them entirely.
Except Iblees; he was arrogant and became among the disbelievers.
[ Allah ] said, "O Iblees, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My hands? Were you arrogant [then], or were you [already] among the haughty?"
He said, "I am better than him. You created me from fire and created him from clay."

Quran 38:71-76

At the height of nationalism... This is the reality... https://www.history.com/topics/germany/eugenics

At the heigh of Justice... This is the reality... https://www.arabnews.com/umar-ibn-al-khattab-commander-faithful

Which do you choose? I have made my choice...


@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Cliftonite @Sine Nomine @ArabianEmpires&Caliphates @OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ @PakSword

Thanks brother for this post.

Truly deserve a positive rating.

 

[H. Dawary]

Sense of superiority is indeed wrong. But what you are telling is not nationalism, that's racial superiority concepts. Which can be confused as nationalism but that's not the case. Americans are nationalists but those with confederate flags consider themselves racially superior. That's the difference. A black american can be a nationalist without thinking that they are above other races in US.

However, in relation of this discussion with Muslims at large and Pakistan to be specific, it's a great concept to talk about but the implementation part.. that's not gonna come as i explained in my above post. It's much complicated than just nationalism. It's the whole construct of current nation states/ political interests.

That's a very good point. But you are missing something crucial... Degrees of nationalism.

If we were to put a scale of 1-10 of nationalists of Southern Americans vs Northerners, without a doubt the southerners would be alot more nationalist then the Northerners. Watch this for example...

You see in the tolerant northern states, still that feeling of nationalism is there, but it is HIDDEN. All you need is a spark to bring it out. Why play with fire (Nationalism) when you don't need to begin with? I am sure you are aware that no soul with an atom's weight of pride (nationalism) will enter Jannah...

 

[Ace of Spades]

Why play with fire (Nationalism) when you don't need to begin with? I am sure you are aware that no soul with an atom's weight of pride (nationalism) will enter Jannah...

I agree with that statement if you put pride as in "takab'ur" or racial superiority concepts in it. However, nationalism is looking after your national identity which is normally based on shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history. Now that can't be used as a synonym for pride "takab'ur" but nationalism is to look after the interests of your people based on those values. And religion is part of it.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Read Ishtiaq Ahmed's "The Concept of an Islamic State: An Analysis of the Ideological Controversy in Pakistan"
It very nicely summarized the various positions and mirrors some of what you said above.

But had the concept of a nation state not existed, and Pakistan (or a Muslim homeland) came into existence, how different would it be than what we have today? Would Islam still be a unifying factor or would ethnicities trump religion?

Ishtiaq Ahmed, seems like a different author then the one I am thinking of.

Pakistan was only allowed by the British to exist as a secular Muslim state. Quaid understood that very well. A genuine Islamic state, which was based completely on Quran and Ahadith, was unpalatable to the British. You have to understand everything which he did was for the benefit of the Muslims.

He soon passed away, and died a very religious and pious man. Afterall he was the mureed of a Sufi saint, Allama Iqbal, and a Wali of Allah swt in his own right. Allah swt blessed him with foresight, that accounts for his unyielding faith in his cause.

His last words were very ominous. You should take a look at Dr. Israr's lecture concerning it, even Imran Khan shared it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1073824168548937728

 

[H. Dawary]

I agree with that statement if you put pride as in "takab'ur" or racial superiority concepts in it. However, nationalism is looking after your national identity which is normally based on shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history. Now that can't be used as a synonym for pride "takab'ur" but nationalism is to look after the interests of your people based on those values. And religion is part of it.

I suppose so, After the prophet's (SAW) death, the AWS and Khazraj wanted to elect a leader from amongst themselves, but Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA) argued that the Quraysh would not accept anyone except for a Quraysh.

Only issue is bro is that not everyone is as wise as you to look at it like you are looking at it. I am suspicious of nationalism, but I suppose I agree with you.

But also remember @Ace of Spades they perhaps made this decision not because they were nationalists, but because the Quraysh were nationalists, and they did not want the Quraysh to rebel and fall into Fitnah. Abu Sufyan in the beginning was angry when Abu Bakr was chosen, since he was from the clan of Ta'if, and asked Ali to assume the position as he was from Hashime. Please remember to also keep this in mind, and not just the outcome...

 

[Ace of Spades]

I suppose so, After the prophet's (SAW) death, the AWS and Khazraj wanted to elect a leader from amongst themselves, but Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA) argued that the Quraysh would not accept anyone except for a Quraysh.

Indeed. The muslims of that time in that region were sahabas; most of them at least. And we are not even dust of their feet. If such disagreement can emerge back then, then it's very unrealistic approach to this whole concept when looking at it from political angle now. Won't go further into it, don't want to make this discussion religious debate. But the thing is that current construct of political entities i.e. nations have lots of factors on which they stand. And we need to rather devise policies for the betterment of our people; who are nothing but suffering and playing in the hands of various entities under the veil of language/ethnic/religious/sectarian superiority.