Itachi
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2013
- Messages
- 3,787
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
So, I have been reading this "debate" between @Kaptaan & @Apprentice and this issue of "Muslim or Nationality First" comes up here between college students a lot too. In my opinion, like @Horus said:-
While this would be the most agreeable ground between @Kaptaan 's and @Apprentice 's arguments (since your heated debates are derailing this thread), what I would recommend is that we go with the "Muslim First" notion. Why you may ask? Well, first of all, "Nationalism" is frowned upon in Islam, I know we're not supposed to talk "Religion" on PDF but this is just for citing purposes. I don't have the links to support my claim about "Nationalism" being "frowned upon" but a lot of members above me have said that too.
So, WHY? is "Nationalism" frowned upon? Well, think of the first being who "created" this concept? or one very similar to it. It was Shaytaan, he said "I'm made of Fire.... etc etc and he of clay" so in a sense, nationalism divides us Muslims, especially when we Muslims have to sit at conferences or meet Muslims from other nations.
Remember, "Nationalism" at its core is also a "divide & conquer" strategy by the enemies of Islam. It was used in WWII to divide up the Ottoman and it was used in the past too by the khwarji (sorry if I spelled that wrong).
I especially think the idea of "Nationalism" should be promoted less and less since I see Muslims from a lot of countries residing side by side in my uni.; Iranians being friends to Saudi's, etc etc. For example, if they were to side with nationalism rather then thinking that they were "brothers in religion", obviously the matter would come to be like that of the present situation between Iran and KSA lol and believe me, nationalism came from the older strategy of "sectarian/racial division" and thus, if our Muslim brothers across the world (the ones in governments/positions of power) look at themselves as "Muslim First", a lot of the problems of the past could have been fixed and of the present too.
I know I ranted a lot but take this as a opinion of a Pakistani looking from out of the box lol.
Lastly, I would like all and every Muslim here arguing for any side to answer this question, "Would Salahuddin have cared if he knew that his people, the Kurds, would be persecuted in the near future by fellow Muslims? No, he wouldn't have (my opinion), his duty as a Muslim was to liberate the Holy Land, not act upon nationalistic/racial/ethnic/sectarian ideals, for if he had, why would he have gone to liberate the Holy Lands? Did any other Muslim leader of the world at that time did? Did the Caliph of Baghdad did? No".
Assallam-O-Alaikum
While this would be the most agreeable ground between @Kaptaan 's and @Apprentice 's arguments (since your heated debates are derailing this thread), what I would recommend is that we go with the "Muslim First" notion. Why you may ask? Well, first of all, "Nationalism" is frowned upon in Islam, I know we're not supposed to talk "Religion" on PDF but this is just for citing purposes. I don't have the links to support my claim about "Nationalism" being "frowned upon" but a lot of members above me have said that too.
So, WHY? is "Nationalism" frowned upon? Well, think of the first being who "created" this concept? or one very similar to it. It was Shaytaan, he said "I'm made of Fire.... etc etc and he of clay" so in a sense, nationalism divides us Muslims, especially when we Muslims have to sit at conferences or meet Muslims from other nations.
Remember, "Nationalism" at its core is also a "divide & conquer" strategy by the enemies of Islam. It was used in WWII to divide up the Ottoman and it was used in the past too by the khwarji (sorry if I spelled that wrong).
I especially think the idea of "Nationalism" should be promoted less and less since I see Muslims from a lot of countries residing side by side in my uni.; Iranians being friends to Saudi's, etc etc. For example, if they were to side with nationalism rather then thinking that they were "brothers in religion", obviously the matter would come to be like that of the present situation between Iran and KSA lol and believe me, nationalism came from the older strategy of "sectarian/racial division" and thus, if our Muslim brothers across the world (the ones in governments/positions of power) look at themselves as "Muslim First", a lot of the problems of the past could have been fixed and of the present too.
I know I ranted a lot but take this as a opinion of a Pakistani looking from out of the box lol.
Lastly, I would like all and every Muslim here arguing for any side to answer this question, "Would Salahuddin have cared if he knew that his people, the Kurds, would be persecuted in the near future by fellow Muslims? No, he wouldn't have (my opinion), his duty as a Muslim was to liberate the Holy Land, not act upon nationalistic/racial/ethnic/sectarian ideals, for if he had, why would he have gone to liberate the Holy Lands? Did any other Muslim leader of the world at that time did? Did the Caliph of Baghdad did? No".
Assallam-O-Alaikum
We never leave a stone unturned, thanks for the wish 
