What does 'Are you a Muslim first or...' mean?

[M. Sarmad]

If someone genuinely believes in Islam, and still says that they're Pakistani first, then they're insane ....

Please define 'sanity'

There are 194 countries in the world (excluding Pakistan), over 50 of them are Muslim countries, and all of them consider us Pakistanis first.

As per your logic, the entire world is 'insane', and the only sane government is that of ISIS which welcomes Muslims from all over the world regardless of what nationality they are !!?

But I see a lot of chavals on this forum who don’t care much for Islam but give more importance to the state and nationalism. I honestly believe it’s because they are not religiously inclined, their environment and the secularisation of education.

So, everyone who disagrees with you is a 'chaval'!
And then you have the audacity to bring up others' environment and education??

 

[Kaniska]

It's simple really, if you say you are Pakistani first, that means that if you had to pick between Islam and Pakistan, you'd choose Pakistan, and the total opposite is true for those who say they are Muslim first.

If someone genuinely believes in Islam, and still says that they're Pakistani first, then they're insane (since that's literally saying one would rather be from Pakistan and spend an eternity in hell, than not be from Pakistan and spend an eternity in heaven).

If one truly understands Islam and it's values, then they would know that any real Muslim would pick Islam over their nationality any day.



Utter nonsense, religion itself has done so multiple times. Pakistan is a prime example, it united various ethnic groups from British India, many of which literally preferred Muslims less related to them culturally/genetically than Kafirs who were/are.

The same thing happened during the Muslim conquests of the region, the conquerors were extremely diverse, with Persians, Arabs, Indians, Afghans, Turks, sub-saharan Africans, etc all working for the common cause of dominating over India and spreading Islam. It's very telling that Muhammad Bin Qasim was an Arab, and Aurangzeb Alamgir had Rajput heritage, yet both fought for the same cause.

Oh come on..if religion would be a uniting factor then there would have been 5-6 countries in the world...Can you guys come to real world??? Your idea of religion unites s country is full of romanticism and idealistic in nature...

 

[Hareeb]

Pakistan was not created an 'Islamic Republic', it became one much later.

How could you say that it was not supposed to be an Islamic replubic? If that's supposed to be true then why did Jinnah ask Allama Mohammad Asad to draft the first constitution of Pakistan according to Quran, and why did he order a special set up, The Department of Islamic Reconstruction, for Mohammad Asad? And after Jinnah's death, why Asad was forced to leave the department by Sir Zafarullah Khan (Ahmadi), and when Asad refused, he was forcibly appointed to the ministry of foreign affairs by Zafarullah Khan (then Deputy Foreign Minister).
After Asad left for US on assignment, the department's building caught fire (which causes are still unknown) and all records which were proof that Pakistan was always supposed to be an Islamic state - created on the name of Islam - destroyed in the said fire.
Further details in the book " The Road to Mecca" by Allama Mohammad Asad.

 

[M. Sarmad]

... why did Jinnah ask Allama Mohammad Asad to draft the first constitution of Pakistan according to Quran, and why did he order a special set up, The Department of Islamic Reconstruction, for Mohammad Asad? And after Jinnah's death, why Asad was forced to leave the department by Sir Zafarullah Khan (Ahmadi), and when Asad refused, he was forcibly appointed to the ministry of foreign affairs by Zafarullah Khan (then Deputy Foreign Minister).
After Asad left for US on assignment, the department's building caught fire (which causes are still unknown) and all records which were proof that Pakistan was always supposed to be an Islamic state - created on the name of Islam - destroyed in the said fire.
Further details in the book " The Road to Mecca" by Allama Mohammad Asad.

• There is absolutely no reference to a Department of Islamic Reconstruction in any of the official documents of the Government of Pakistan.
• Muhammad Asad himself has made no mention of any such details in "Road to Mecca".
• All we find is : Asad in his book “Principles of State and Government in Islam” claims that he headed what seems to be an Islamic Reconstruction Department in West Punjab. Even if that were true, which would require confirmation, that does not connect Asad to Jinnah or the Central Pakistan Government.
• Muhammad Asad disliked Zafarullah as he was denied a permission to marry a polish lady by Ministry of Foreign affairs (Zafarullah was the foreign minister) .

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/muslim-pakistan-vs-islamic-pakistan.558756/page-5#post-10499747

 

[Hamza913]

As per your logic, the entire world is 'insane', and the only sane government is that of ISIS

Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

Oh come on..if religion would be a uniting factor then there would have been 5-6 countries in the world

Not necessarily true, there are other factors preventing such unions.

Your idea of religion unites s country is full of romanticism and idealistic in nature...

My idea has been implemented. Multiple times. Pakistan is a prime example of this.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

No, I am not. What I am saying is the logical consequence of the premises on which 'your' logic is based

 

[Kaniska]

Now you're just putting words in my mouth.



Not necessarily true, there are other factors preventing such unions.



My idea has been implemented. Multiple times. Pakistan is a prime example of this.

But Islam is not just about Pakistan... Islam and Muslim religion means those countries which have Muslims too....again, i am not here neither to troll nor to make any one to avoid beleiving the unity of religion...
Overall, humans unite under one umbrella under different common factors to build a nation...Now, it depends on the nation to decide which critical factors are needed to create a nation....If Pakistan is for Muslims, then why not Afganistan, Pakistan and BD become a single country in Asia?

I hope you get my point in a positive way...Religion can be a easy shortcut to unite people and making them beleive of positivity of their future...But it is not just the religion that binds people, religion can be a 1st step but on top of that cuture, way of living and aspiration of people with ancient civilization also influences significantly in making a nation successful...

 

[M. Sarmad]

Ideas are subservient to material interests, and material interests shape the course of history by determining the nature of men's social relations. How men conceive the nature of their existence is the direct product of where they stand in relation to forces of social conflict. It's not the conscious of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness (Marx)

 

[Hamza913]

No, I am not. What I am saying is the logical consequence of the premises on which 'your' logic is based

Lmao no it's not.

 

[M. Sarmad]

... no it's not.

Yes it is....

While calling into question the sanity of those who disagreed with you, you failed to realize that it's actually the entire world (including 50+ Muslim countries), except ISIS of course, that puts nationality before religion.

 

[Avicenna]

Yes it is....

While calling into question the sanity of those who disagreed with you, you failed to realize that it's actually the entire world (including 50+ Muslim countries), except ISIS of course, that puts nationality before religion.

ISIS puts perversion before anything else.

Also its actaully the ideal and what Muslims need to strive for to put religion above all else.

This is according to the religion itself.

Of course most of us pay lip service to the religion in reality.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Also its actaully the ideal and what Muslims need to strive for to put religion above all else.

This is according to the religion itself.

Of course most of us pay lip service to the religion in reality.

Not according to the religion itself, but according to a certain narrow interpretation of the religion/Islam.

Read post #17

 

[Avicenna]

Not according to the religion itself, but according to a certain narrow interpretation of religion/Islam.

Read post #17

I'm basing my assertion on historical events and the Sunnah and not secondary interpretations.

Specifically this:

When Islam was revealed, individuals were faced with following the ways of their forefathers or embracing the new faith.

The closest ties that bind are those of blood.

Islam fostered the idea that the ties of faith supercede all.

It's the exact opposite of the spectrum.

Thus the question of what is more important to an individial; nationality or faith is absolutely legitimate.

The people at the time of the Prophet (saw) faced an even more intimate choice.

Blood versus faith.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I'm basing my assertion on historical events and the Sunnah and not secondary interpretations.

Specifically this:

When Islam was revealed, individuals were faced with following the ways of their forefathers or embracing the new faith.

The closest ties that bind are those of blood.

Islam fostered the idea that the ties of faith supercede all.

It's the exact opposite of the spectrum.

Thus the question of what is more important to an individial; nationality or faith is absolutely legitimate.

The people at the time of the Prophet (saw) faced an even more intimate choice.

Blood versus faith.

^^ That's just one interpretation. And you of course are free to follow it.

The point is, that's not the only interpretation out there, it's not even the one that was accepted by the majority of Islamic Scholars in British India. The majority of ulema agreed with Hussain Ahmed Madni who wrote Composite Nationalism and Islam in 1938 and convincingly proved (by quoting from the Holy Qur'an) that different religions did not constitute different nationalities.

 

[Avicenna]

^^ That's just one interpretation. And you of course are free to follow it.

The point is, that's not the only interpretation out there, it's not even the one that was accepted by the majority of Islamic Scholars in British India. The majority of ulema agreed with Hussain Ahmed Madni who wrote Composite Nationalism and Islam in 1938 and convincingly proved (by quoting from the Holy Qur'an) that different religions did not constitute different nationalities.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree and I will leave it at that.