What's new

Why are Turks so nationalistic?

I personally think Pakistan hasn't yet found its calling. The country wants to be too many things at the same time: a secular capitalist Islamic Republic without its own version of Islam. This is the reason why arab Islamic extremism has found its way to Pakistan. Pakistan must raise the flag of one ideology and mobilize the country around it, be it secularism, arabic Islamic extremism (saudi wahabism), nationalism, extreme capitalism etc...

India, I have no idea. India has never been a country with an opinion in my eyes (for good or bad). For now, the country has adopted a Western economic and political model and if it works for India than more power to India.

Allow me to try to enlighten you a bit ! Our ideology is rather a sycretism between 'Islam', 'Modernity' and 'Muslim Nationalism'; however tis true that we haven't been able to strike up a good enough balance between all three of them and the abysmal state of governance in Pakistan has only served to compound the issues further !
 
.
please dont go to youtube, i used to go and do ma behn, its very common to do maa behn in usual youtube arguements
 
. .
[:::~Spartacus~:::];2950066 said:
please dont go to youtube, i used to go and do ma behn, its very common to do maa behn in usual youtube arguements

Were you inspired to Love us Punjabis that much from Youtube too ! :P

Achaaa joke thaaa...don't come at me with all guns blazing ! :woot:
 
.
Allow me to try to enlighten you a bit ! Our ideology is rather a sycretism between 'Islam', 'Modernity' and 'Muslim Nationalism'; however tis true that we haven't been able to strike up a good enough balance between all three of them and the abysmal state of governance in Pakistan has only served to compound the issues further !

Maybe those three are not exactly compatible with each other ?

Especially the 'Muslim Nationalist' one. Doesn't Islam actually discourage nationalism ?
 
. . .
Allow me to try to enlighten you a bit ! Our ideology is rather a sycretism between 'Islam', 'Modernity' and 'Muslim Nationalism'; however tis true that we haven't been able to strike up a good enough balance between all three of them and the abysmal state of governance in Pakistan has only served to compound the issues further !
The bold part is the major problem and it's the reason why I said "without its own version of Islam" in my other post. Iran and Saudi can be "muslim nationalists" because both countries have their own versions of Islam. Both countries are net exporters of their own ideologies. Without your own ideology, you become a net importer and that makes you vulnerable (hence the taliban and wahabi islam in Pakistan). Iran can mobilize the country around shia Islam and that could become a source of nationalism itself!!

Pakistan IMO should stop being an "Islamic Republic" and simply stick to its Islamic heritage and build a legacy by adopting a purely secular model. Remember, Iran and Turkey only managed to destroy tribalism through extreme secularism.
 
.
Maybe those three are not exactly compatible with each other ?

Especially the 'Muslim Nationalist' one. Doesn't Islam actually discourage nationalism ?

As I have understood it to be it talks about Nationalism which brings together people on the basis of a common collective consciousness or an organized religion in other words instead of what it perceives to be archaic concepts of unity in a common ethnicity or language or territory ! However in practise we haven't really been able to replicate such a 'Nationalism' on a sustainable basis since the time of the Rashiudin Caliphs - the first 50 years or so ! After their deaths what was 'Muslim Nationalism' gave way to 'Arab Nationalism' and then to 'Persian Nationalism'. In fact even the Ottoman Empire with all its pluralism wasn't entirely conforming to the ideal that was set 1400 years ago for a bit of Turkishness became an intrinsic part of it but no doubt that in recent history it probably was a lot better than any Muslim country that I can think of !

As for the compatibility bit - We believe it is but like all things out there it too is brutally susceptible to the tinkerings of us humans and so we saw 'Muslim Nationalism' in the context of Pakistan get a very bloody nose in '71 ! Perhaps so bloody that most of our raison detre for the Partition was negated !
 
.
Maybe those three are not exactly compatible with each other ?

Especially the 'Muslim Nationalist' one. Doesn't Islam actually discourage nationalism ?

Unless you have your own version of Islam, which could then become a source of nationalism itself (as ironic as it sounds)!
 
.
Pakistan IMO should stop being an "Islamic Republic" and simply stick to its Islamic heritage and build a legacy by adopting a purely secular model. Remember, Iran and Turkey only managed to destroy tribalism through extreme secularism.

Tribalism is only found in small part of north western region of Pakistan.
 
.
The bold part is the major problem and it's the reason why I said "without its own version of Islam" in my other post. Iran and Saudi can be "muslim nationalists" because both countries have their own versions of Islam. Both countries are net exporters of their own ideologies. Without your own ideology, you become a net importer and that makes you vulnerable (hence the taliban and wahabi islam in Pakistan). Iran can mobilize the country around shia Islam and that could become a source of nationalism itself!!

Pakistan IMO should stop being an "Islamic Republic" and simply stick to its Islamic heritage and build a legacy by adopting a purely secular model. Remember, Iran and Turkey only managed to destroy tribalism through extreme secularism.

Unfortunately that would negate the very raison detre for Pakistan's existence ! One of the reasons why we wanted either an autonomous region in a United India or a separate Homeland altogether was because we believed that certain communal injunctions are made incumbent upon Muslims when we sit together and constitute a community of ours which is enough to justify a political voice ! As it so happens what, I believe, Iqbal and Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be...is still very much just a dream ! As I have understood Iqbal, from his 'Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam', that he wanted a State where the Parliament where Muslims from all sects, genders and walks of life will be represented would be able to conduct Ijtihad (or consensus to form a legal opinion) to end this accursed Taqlid (or blind imitation) that had crippled us and try to reinterpret Islam in the light of modernity i.e the changing dynamics that we find ourselves. For example what is the relation between a Muslim and a Non-Muslim in today's world...is he a Dhimmi still or has the coming of the modern day concept of a 'Nation State' brought about a need to see each other from a prism other than 'religion' alone ! Another example could be how do you come up with a system of economics from which Ri'ibah or Interest is taken out of the equation ? I believe that Jinnah paralleled those thoughts too and he wanted a Pluralistic state where all would be equal, all would enjoy the same privileges but one would still be allowed to table a resolution in the Parliament which has a religious connotation and conduct, in case of the Muslims, an Ijtihad to reinterpret age old 'Fatwas' !

Unfortunately both Jinnah and Iqbal thought far too highly of Pakistanis and we - the lot of us - haven't been able to live up to iota's worth of the trust that they bestowed on us ! What was supposed to be in Jinnah's words 'an experiment' to show to the world how Islam provides an equally viable, if not better, alternative to most 'isms' out there, has gone horribly awry !
 
. .
Wrong!

Both the Pahlavi Dynasty in IRan and Ata Turk managed to destroy tribalism. That's a wonderful thing. However, the Turkish model would destroy the fabric of multi-ethnic countries like Iran and Pakistan. Turkey has the two major nationalities and it can't cope. Can you imagine that model in a country with 5-6 major ethnic groups? In Iran you would have Persians, Kurds, Azari Turks, Baluchis, arabs, Armenias etc... all chopping each other's heads off lol That model only works in "ethnically pure" nations.

I agree with this to an extent. This is one of the reasons I was fond of nationalism based on Indo-Aryan origins for Pakistan. The idea was to go back far enough & manage to revive the common roots the different ethnicities of the country share.

However multiple ethnicities can be united on the basis of language & culture. Arab nationalism is a good example of this. It is difficult of course to unite people of different ethnicities together. Countries with multiple ethnicities in my opinion should also try to incite unity on the basis of the nationality itself.

The bond formed by religion in my opinion only lasts if the followers of that religion truly believe in it. If a person's belief in his or her religion declines or isn't strong enough then that will have an impact on the bond established by the religion. Once again though there are too many different factors to be taken in to consideration while attempting to establish unity.
 
.
Tribalism is only found in small part of north western region of Pakistan.
Even knowing what tribe you hail from is tribalism.

In the region, I've only seen the pure Western model of a state in Turkey and Iran.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom