Nationalism as opposed to Religion?

[RuheTag]

Is it just me, or have a lot of Pakistanis apostasised? May Allah SWT protect our Ummah. Ameen.

Here is a Fatwa from a PDF Maulana!

Who says there is freedom of expression and any questions into religion are allowed.

Follow the Mullahs blindly and you are fine.

 

[Juice]

Science my friend literally means embodiment of Knowledge.Its systematically builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.Without the science and its methodology you could never verify anything.

Or post quotes on PDF etc.

 

[CometMibro]

Science my friend literally means embodiment of Knowledge.Its systematically builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.Without the science and its methodology you could never verify anything.Did any body ever verified the existence of God,No people believe in it.Just like believing in Thor,Zues or Unicorns.

Are you serious? Without science we cannot verify anything????

I'd like you to prove these scientifically:

Scientific method is the only way to prove things
2 fufula plus 2 fufula equals 4 fufula


And secondly, I'm guessing you want empirical evidence for Islam. Go through the links I've been posting here.

 

[RuheTag]

what is fufula ?

I searched on internet and came up with this:

 

[Azazel]

Are you serious? Without science we cannot verify anything????

I'd like you to prove these scientifically:

Scientific method is the only way to prove things

Yes,Its the only accepted method.Its the method used by galileo and Copernicus to overthrow Heliocentricity.This is the way we learned to fly this the way we invented antibiotics and vaccines.Its the only way that works.If you have any other method tell me.

2 fufula plus 2 fufula equals 4 fufula

Define and Quantify "fufula"

And secondly, I'm guessing you want empirical evidence for Islam. Go through the links I've been posting here.

If Islam had any empirical that could withstand scientific scrutiny it wouldn't have been called a faith.Faith is something that lacks empirical evidence but demands complete complete submission to its ideology without any questions.

 

[Zaryanshah]

The problem is God orders a lot, but gives almost no reason for it. So we have to blindly believe it or reject. OR take it as a rejection of our brain and common sense. The same brain that helped to achieve a higher livings standard today, higher life expectancy resulting in higher population on the planet, that would never have been possible just with Gods word.

You see this is a problem with us. We are arrogant. God created us and if we believe in him then we MUST submit to his desires, even if we have too sacrifice our needs for his desires. He created us and knows what is best for us, even though we may not realise it ourselves. He does not need to give a reason. He is the one who says 'be' and it is.

On the Day of Judgement when people of the Fitrah [people who did not hear of Islam] are given a separate test from the rest of mankind the following will happen. Allah will call out a ring of fire from hell and tell the people of the Fitrah to jump into it. Some will run to it, whilst others will stare in bewilderment and ask Allah ''You have not even tested us yet, so why are you sending us to hell''. So then Allah SWT will say ''You did not obey me now in my presence, so how would have you obeyed me on Earth? Go to hell''. so all those who willingly jumped in to hell will be sent to paradise whilst all those who questioned Allah will go to hell forever.

Anas said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Four (kinds of people) will be brought forth on the Day of Resurrection: the infant, the insane, the one who died during the Fatrah (the period between two prophets) and the very old man. All of them will speak in their own defence, then the Lord, may He be blessed and exalted, will say to a neck of Hell, ‘Come forth!’ and He will say to them, ‘I used to send Messengers to My slaves from amongst themselves. Now I am the Messenger of Myself to you. Enter this (i.e., the Fire).’ Those who are decreed to be among the doomed will say, ‘O Lord, how could we enter it when we are trying to escape it?’ And those who are decreed to be among the blessed will rush to enter it. And Allaah will say: ‘You would have been more disobedient towards My Messengers.’ So those will enter Paradise and those will enter Hell.” Narrated by Abu Ya’laa, 4224. There are corroborating reports which were mentioned by Ibn Katheer in al-Tafseer, 3/29-31.

Though this will happen in the future, this must also serve as a reminder that we and our brains are nothing in front of God.

And logic isn't the basis of Islam. Such a thing is kufr and a symbol of the Mutazilites.

In Islam we wipe our feet over and not under. Where is the logic there?

Religion is submitting ourselves to the Divine. Look at the example of Ibrahim alayhi salam as he was about to offer his long awaited son Ismail alayhi salam for sacrifice. Masha Allah.

God forbade cloven hoofed animals and animal fat for the Jews and gave them stricter dietary laws than he gave to Muslims, was there any place for logic there? NO. God was testing everyone to see who obeys and who doesn't obey. [Unfortunately the Jews of today have failed].

 

[CometMibro]

Yes,Its the only accepted method.Its the method used by galileo and Copernicus to overthrow Heliocentricity.This is the way we learned to fly this the way we invented antibiotics and vaccines.Its the only way that works.If you have any other method tell me.

Not sure if serious. There are several methods:

- Logic
- Testimony

To name a few

Define and Quantify "fufula"

No such thing exists. But we know through logic that 2+2=4 therefore 2 fufula plus 2 fufula is 4 fufula.

If Islam had any empirical that could withstand scientific scrutiny it wouldn't have been called a faith.Faith is something that lacks empirical evidence but demands complete complete submission to its ideology without any questions.

I've heard this argument before, and it doesn't make too much sense. "its called faith therefore has no evidence" is not a rebuttal lol. As for your other claim:

The Prophet (God bless him and give him peace) said, “The cure for confusion is asking.” [Abu Dawud, Ibn Maja, and Ahmad].

Blind faith is condemned in Islam. Every Muslim should know WHY Islam is right.

The disbelievers say: "We found our fathers following a certain religion, and we do guide ourselves by their footsteps." (Qur'an 43:22)

They say: "Nay, we shall follow the ways that we found our fathers following." What! even if it is Satan beckoning them to the Penalty of the Blazing Fire? (Qur'an 31:21)

They said: "O Shu'aib! Does thy religion of prayer command thee that we leave off the worship which our fathers practised, or that we leave off doing what we like with our property? truly, thou art the one that forbeareth with faults and is right- minded!" (Qur'an 11:87)

They said: "Comest thou to us, that we may worship God alone, and give up the cult of our fathers? bring us what thou threatenest us with, if so be that thou tellest the truth!" (Qur'an 7:70)

When it is said to them: "Come to what God hath revealed; come to the Apostle": They say: "Enough for us are the ways we found our fathers following." what! even though their fathers were void of knowledge and guidance? (Qur'an 5:104)

Actually, here's a good lecture by two converts, Abdur Raheem Green and Hamza Tzortzis. You'll appreciate it.

Discusses atheism and Islam, from a logical perspective.

youtube. com/watch?v=J5eXu2yZZuk

 

[Azazel]

Not sure if serious. There are several methods:

- Logic

Axioms based on logic is not empirical but a priori.Hence its not a method.

- Testimony

Could easily be falsified.Hence not an accepted method.

No such thing exists. But we know through logic that 2+2=4 therefore 2 fufula plus 2 fufula is 4 fufula.

There is a difference between knowing 2+2=4 and knowing how 2+2=4.May I ask you how you know 2+2=4??Its something we learn by experiment.Isn't how you learned it i your preschool??

I've heard this argument before, and it doesn't make too much sense. "its called faith therefore has no evidence" is not a rebuttal lol. As for your other claim:

Have you heard of something called rationalism.Its states truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive.As you have stated Truth is not something that makes sense but something that could be deduced by the process of reasoning.That's why we need proof something to be true.

Blind faith is condemned in Islam. Every Muslim should know WHY Islam is right.

Not true.What is the meaning of the word Islam??

The Prophet (God bless him and give him peace) said, “The cure for confusion is asking.” [Abu Dawud, Ibn Maja, and Ahmad].

The disbelievers say: "We found our fathers following a certain religion, and we do guide ourselves by their footsteps." (Qur'an 43:22)

They say: "Nay, we shall follow the ways that we found our fathers following." What! even if it is Satan beckoning them to the Penalty of the Blazing Fire? (Qur'an 31:21)

They said: "O Shu'aib! Does thy religion of prayer command thee that we leave off the worship which our fathers practised, or that we leave off doing what we like with our property? truly, thou art the one that forbeareth with faults and is right- minded!" (Qur'an 11:87)

They said: "Comest thou to us, that we may worship God alone, and give up the cult of our fathers? bring us what thou threatenest us with, if so be that thou tellest the truth!" (Qur'an 7:70)

When it is said to them: "Come to what God hath revealed; come to the Apostle": They say: "Enough for us are the ways we found our fathers following." what! even though their fathers were void of knowledge and guidance? (Qur'an 5:104)

Actually, here's a good lecture by two converts, Abdur Raheem Green and Hamza Tzortzis. You'll appreciate it.

Discusses atheism and Islam, from a logical perspective.

youtube. com/watch?v=J5eXu2yZZuk

We work think in very different way bro.I don't take orders from books.I can quote similar passages from Lord of the Rings doesn't and claim they are true.But It won't be since its a work of fiction same case applies here.And your video is nothing more than a biased argument based on preconceived belief.I would've watched if it was a fair debate between two opposite perspectives.But this is just a waste of time.

 

[KingMamba]

There are many sources that agree that Muhammad started off as and was primarily a political leader, and a very good and capable one at that in terms of his first wresting control of Mecca and Medina before sending out his forces to invade Persia.

In fact the early name of the movement, largely political, was Mohammedanism, later changed to Islam.

The treatment of the Persians is pretty well documented, as is the treatment of us Indians.

This shows you are full of sht yindoo but then most of you are anyway not to mention ****** liars to boot.

Persia was conquered by the 2nd Caliph Umar (ra) which is why to this day Persians despise him. You cannot even get basic history correct and want to talk about Islam. Everything else you say is just as much a lie as this dumb statement of yours.

 

[KingMamba]

I'm not trying to answer for Comet......but if the basis for creation of a nation is the common "belief" in God (as in case of Pakistan), then its inhabitants have no choice but to place God before nation!

Exactly which is why Pakistan especially needs to have this debate. What is Pakistan without the religion it was made for? If Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan than he should never had broken away from India as India is considered secular today. So then what was the point? Why was it necessary to break away and cause the deaths of millions in the process?

Pakistan was made on the concept Muslim first so if you take Muslim first away my question to the Pakistanis who say nationalism is more important than religion is what is a Pakistani in literal terms?
@Armstrong I would like your input as well.

 

[KingMamba]

Is it just me, or have a lot of Pakistanis apostasised? May Allah SWT protect our Ummah. Ameen.

There are probably like 4 or 5 here who are apostates and hundreds who are not. Who cares it matters little in the long run.

 

[Armstrong]

Exactly which is why Pakistan especially needs to have this debate. What is Pakistan without the religion it was made for? If Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan than he should never had broken away from India as India is considered secular today. So then what was the point? Why was it necessary to break away and cause the deaths of millions in the process?

Pakistan was made on the concept Muslim first so if you take Muslim first away my question to the Pakistanis who say nationalism is more important than religion is what is a Pakistani in literal terms?
@Armstrong I would like your input as well.

I personally think that we get bogged down in 'terminology' & 'self-righteousness' !

As I understood Quaid-e-Azam & his Pakistan to be - He never wanted a State that would be Theocratic but like Iqbal he never wanted a Secular State either & the fact that we often see 'States' or more so 'Political Paradigms' through such a bipolar lens is the reason why we presume that there are only two 'right' ways to go about this. My own understanding of Jinnah, Iqbal & after reading what some of the people who were associated with either of the two or the Pakistan Movement is that I believe that they simply wanted a Democratic State where Muslims would be allowed to live freely & without prejudice but also a State where in the words of Iqbal, 'we'd have the chance of removing the stamp of Arab Monarchy from Islam' (Iqbal's Allahbad Address) & develop different Islamic Paradigms to breath a new life into Islam & bring it on par with Modernity & the many Contemporary Discourses & Paradigms out there.

Unfortunately - None of that came to pass & the Pakistan of Jinnah & Iqbal, as I understood it to be, remains ever elusive till this date.

As far as Nationalism is concerned - An excess of anything is extremely harmful & none more so than Jingoism that propels a person to do terrible things in the name of 'My Nation'. I think what Iqbal & Jinnah were aiming for, in this context, were two things :

(i) Muslim Nationalism, in that we transcend our ethnic & linguistic differences which pit brother against brother & recognize our commonality as adherents of the One God, the One Book & the One Prophet (PBUH) as Iqbal alludes to in one of his couplets.

That said it wasn't to serve as a paintbrush to whitewash our ethnic or linguistic identities but simply to take the venom of that form of 'tribalism' out of those identities, which makes one think that one is better than the other simply because one is an Arab or the other is a Punjabi.

Which brings me to (ii). In addition to this, I believe, they wanted to re-enact the State of Medina in which all were equitable & all had their relevant space to express themselves ! What that meant was that whereas a Jew & a Pagan stood by a Muslim for the greater good of 'Medina - their City', all of them had their own way in their own sphere of influence so if the Muslims wanted to have their own legal, social or economic paradigm - They get to do that ! Similarly the Pagans, the Jews & the Christians had this right as well.

But of course, these are but my own views & could be correct as well as terribly incorrect !

 

[KingMamba]

I personally think that we get bogged down in 'terminology' & 'self-righteousness' !

As I understood Quaid-e-Azam & his Pakistan to be - He never wanted a State that would be Theocratic but like Iqbal he never wanted a Secular State either & the fact that we often see 'States' or more so 'Political Paradigms' through such a bipolar lens is the reason why we presume that there are only two 'right' ways to go about this. My own understanding of Jinnah, Iqbal & after reading what some of the people who were associated with either of the two or the Pakistan Movement, I believe that they simply wanted a Democratic State where Muslims would be allowed to live freely & without prejudice but also a State where in the words of Iqbal, 'we'd have the chance of removing the stamp of Arab Monarchy from Islam' (Iqbal's Allahbad Address) & develop different Islamic Paradigms to breath a new life into Islam & bring it on par with Modernity & the many Contemporary Discourses & Paradigms out there.

Unfortunately - None of that came to pass & the Pakistan of Jinnah & Iqbal, as I understood it to be, remains ever elusive till this date.

As far as Nationalism is concerned - An excess of anything is extremely harmful & none more so than Jingoism that propels are person to do terrible things in the name of 'My Nation'. I think what Iqbal & Jinnah were aiming for, in this context, were two things :

(i) Muslim Nationalism, in that we transcend our ethnic & linguistic differences which pits brother against brother & recognize our commonality as adherents of the One God, the One Book & the One Prophet (PBUH) as Iqbal alludes to in one of his couplets.

That said it wasn't to serve as a paintbrush to whitewash our ethnic or linguistic identities but simply to take the venom of that form of 'tribalism' out of those identities, which makes one think that one is better than the other simply because one is an Arab or the other is a Punjabi.

Which brings me to (ii). In addition to this, I believe, they wanted to re-enact the State of Medina in which all were equitable & all had their relevant space to express themselves ! What that meant was that whereas a Jew & a Pagan stood by a Muslim for the greater good of 'Medina - their City', all of them had their own way in their own sphere of influence so if the Muslims wanted to have their own legal, social or economic paradigm - They get to do that ! Similarly the Pagans, the Jews & the Christians had this chance as well.

But of course, these are but my own views & could be correct as well as terribly incorrect !

I personally believe Pakistan cannot move along and look towards a prosperous future unless it comes to terms with its past. If that means Pakistanis have to get caught up in terminology or self-righteousness than so be it. IMO Muhammad Ali Jinnah did in fact want a secular state in the early starts of the Pakistan movement but as evidenced by his later addresses and even his personal conduct (suit clad to shalwar kameez) it becomes pretty apparent at least to me that he was leaning towards a religious state. His death in the infancy of newly formed state of Pakistan therefore left a ideological void because he never really got to implement the ideology he had finally chosen to be the grass roots of Pakistan. Which is why to this day Pakistanis are left with the conundrum, "What did the Quaid want"? As for Iqbal you are on point with his views of the whole situation but unfortunately he too left far too soon for him to have any real input and also his views while favorable to us today would not have been even comprehended by the majority of illiterate Pakistanis of 1947.

Now when it comes to nationalism I myself hold the opinion of George Orwell when he stated, "nationalism is the enemy of peace". By this I mean to say one is a nationalist is to say that one believes his country is greater than others and such sentiments if left unchecked in a largely illiterate society such as Pakistan can quite frankly become a greater danger when the one extreme that plagues Pakistan today (religious bigotry) is instead replaced with another extreme where hyper nationalism gives way to fascism. The current unemployment and resentment of the great powers of today found prevalent in Pakistan would only exasperate and facilitate such a transition. A nationalist would be opposed to change because their country is already the best in the world where as a patriot would be open to change if it betters the nation. Ergo nationalism is a horrible concept and instead Pakistanis should ascribe to being patriots instead.

That is why with these thoughts in mind I can only conclude that Pakistan cannot risk replacing religion with nationalistic sentiment as the very bedrock of Pakistan was based on Islam and without Islam the question still remains what is Pakistan? What is its purpose?

I do not believe it was Muslim nationalism that Jinnah and Iqbal aimed for rather, Muslim patriotism. The thought that the Muslim way of life was one to be admired and held up as a catalyst that can help Punjabis, Sindhis, Baloch, Pashtun, and others overcome their linguistic and ethnic differences.

While your second part sounds good in theory perhaps Pakistan should find some system of its own that works for it because while that may have worked in Medina at the time it may not work in Pakistan.

 

[Dillinger]

I personally think that we get bogged down in 'terminology' & 'self-righteousness' !

As I understood Quaid-e-Azam & his Pakistan to be - He never wanted a State that would be Theocratic but like Iqbal he never wanted a Secular State either & the fact that we often see 'States' or more so 'Political Paradigms' through such a bipolar lens is the reason why we presume that there are only two 'right' ways to go about this. My own understanding of Jinnah, Iqbal & after reading what some of the people who were associated with either of the two or the Pakistan Movement is that I believe that they simply wanted a Democratic State where Muslims would be allowed to live freely & without prejudice but also a State where in the words of Iqbal, 'we'd have the chance of removing the stamp of Arab Monarchy from Islam' (Iqbal's Allahbad Address) & develop different Islamic Paradigms to breath a new life into Islam & bring it on par with Modernity & the many Contemporary Discourses & Paradigms out there.

Unfortunately - None of that came to pass & the Pakistan of Jinnah & Iqbal, as I understood it to be, remains ever elusive till this date.

As far as Nationalism is concerned - An excess of anything is extremely harmful & none more so than Jingoism that propels a person to do terrible things in the name of 'My Nation'. I think what Iqbal & Jinnah were aiming for, in this context, were two things :

(i) Muslim Nationalism, in that we transcend our ethnic & linguistic differences which pit brother against brother & recognize our commonality as adherents of the One God, the One Book & the One Prophet (PBUH) as Iqbal alludes to in one of his couplets.

That said it wasn't to serve as a paintbrush to whitewash our ethnic or linguistic identities but simply to take the venom of that form of 'tribalism' out of those identities, which makes one think that one is better than the other simply because one is an Arab or the other is a Punjabi.

Which brings me to (ii). In addition to this, I believe, they wanted to re-enact the State of Medina in which all were equitable & all had their relevant space to express themselves ! What that meant was that whereas a Jew & a Pagan stood by a Muslim for the greater good of 'Medina - their City', all of them had their own way in their own sphere of influence so if the Muslims wanted to have their own legal, social or economic paradigm - They get to do that ! Similarly the Pagans, the Jews & the Christians had this right as well.

But of course, these are but my own views & could be correct as well as terribly incorrect !

That is a very interesting paradigm. It would make sense that Jinnah would not have particularly favored a theocratic state. I believe that he dreamed of a Muslim majority state which would safeguard the economic interests, the cultural and religious identity of the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent as well as safeguard the same aforementioned rights and interests of any religious minorities which would be part of the citizenry of the Pakistani state. Albeit many posters shall not appreciate any attempt at diluting their stand that Pakistan was meant to be a theocratic state, specially if such a dilution is posited by an Indian's post/argument.

In Jinnah's conception of Pakistan, he would have viewed it as a geographical entity which would have nurtured the Muslims of the subcontinent in an environment devoid of monarchy, feudalism, extremism and gurbat. As such, a society at peace with itself and secured economically could have then ventured to interpret Islam in a manner which would have reconciled it with the post-colonial and post-monarchic world. Fashioning the populace into a driver for innovative implementation of Islamic tenets in governance and policy making. Islam would have been the glue which would have eased the tensions, which I believe he would have foreseen, which were bound to arise since the Muslims of the subcontinent were not homogeneous in nature. Let us be cognizant of the fact though that it was not meant as an attempt at assimilation but rather at reconciling the obvious differences which were bound to exist due to the diversity of the populace. A reconciliation which would not require the surrender of ethnic, linguistic and cultural identities- instead the said reconciliation would have been made possible by employing Islam as the bridge where the different constituents of the populace could meet each other half-way.

I believe that this is best described by Brigadier (retired) Salim Zia, who was a campaign volunteer for the 1946 elections, though his following words- “Nobody shouted that famous slogan – ‘Pakistan Ka Matlab Kya? La Ilaha Ilallah’ before 1946. It was only used to attract villagers, but unfortunately we carried the slogan too far … The Quaid wanted a separate welfare state for the Muslims, not an Islamic state or a state for mullahism.”

@KingMamba93 @Secur @ZYXW @Hyperion- Agree or disagree?

 

[RuheTag]

There are probably like 4 or 5 here who are apostates and hundreds who are not. Who cares it matters little in the long run.

hmm.. I smell some mullah moroons here too.