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

[Maarkhoor]

Salaam

NOTE: This thread is not actually asking this question, rather it is ABOUT the meaning of this question.

Are you a Muslim first or a (insert your choice identity/belief etc)

This question seems to get asked a lot by people. I have heard this question asked on national television of political leader amongst countless other instances.

So what is this question supposed to actually mean? I just wanted to get a clear idea of what it is actually being asked here.

If you ask a person if they are a Muslim first or a Pakistani first - what are you exactly asking them?

Is the question, essentially, meant as a choice between

• Renouncing Allah, His Messenger (pbuh) and the deen of Islam

and,

• Renouncing the state of Pakistan

?

Like if it came down to chosing one or the other, is a person who says Pakistani first (as opposed to Muslim first) saying that they will be willing to abandon Allah, His Messenger and Islam for Pakistan?

Is a person a bad Pakistani if they say they are Muslim first?

What about the opposite of it?


Please treat this as a genuine question and answer accordingly - preferably without name calling and such.



Thank you
...

We are both same time.

Don't be naïve to post such threads to create doubts in the minds of people.

@waz @The Eagle
Kindly delete this thread.

 

[IbnAbdullah]

Salaam

@IbnAbdullah

It's intended to implicate someone as beholden to priorities of his faith rather than country. Or unfit to rule or direct development of the state.

I do agree that most people who ask seem to either not realize the complexity of the matter or simply use it as a weapon the highlight the 'otherness' of the questioned.

Just looking at the answers thus far you can see how differently the concept of 'Pakistaniness' is defined by different people.

It is like whether Snowden was a patriot for holding up the values espoused by the country and exposing the transgressions of some of the people in charge of the US government, OR was he a traitor who betrayed his country.

Or how Muslims are asked about their loyalties to their new countries in the west (and elsewhere), whereas, the ones asking the questions get to define the what constitutes their country's interest and what does not.

The US has fought wars in the middle east and around the world to guard it's interests - but whose interest in the US is exactly being guarded by the invasion of Iraq, for instance.

So I do agree that questions like these are meant not to actually ascertain any facts, rather simply to attack someone as 'the other'.

Thank you for reading the note at the start.


....

 

[M. Sarmad]

You were arguing about it you seem to have some problem with word islamic

Show me where 'I was arguing about it'?
Like I said earlier, you seem to have serious comprehension issues.
And no, I have no problem with word "Islamic",
I, however, have low tolerance for stupidity

 

[Falcon29]

Salaam



I do agree that most people who ask seem to either not realize the complexity of the matter or simply use it as a weapon the highlight the 'otherness' of the questioned.

Just looking at the answers thus far you can see how differently the concept of 'Pakistaniness' is defined by different people.

It is like whether Snowden was a patriot for holding up the values espoused by the country and exposing the transgressions of some of the people in charge of the US government, OR was he a traitor who betrayed his country.

Or how Muslims are asked about their loyalties to their new countries in the west (and elsewhere), whereas, the ones asking the questions get to define the what constitutes their country's interest and what does not.

The US has fought wars in the middle east and around the world to guard it's interests - but whose interest in the US is exactly being guarded by the invasion of Iraq, for instance.

So I do agree that questions like these are meant not to actually ascertain any facts, rather simply to attack someone as 'the other'.

Thank you for reading the note at the start.


....

You are a smart person and rightly guided Muslim based on what I've seen you post. Good job and keep up your path.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Existence of Pakistan was based on what?
Islam. People migrated coz of Islamic country.
..

Have discussed that many times here,

Read these threads through when you have time:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...ed-in-history-ayaz.446122/page-9#post-8622527

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/secu...-says-pti-lawmaker.485224/page-4#post-9319787

 

[JF-17ThunderBlock3]

Salam,

For me the meaning of this question is where your loyalties actually lies. For instance, if you have to chose between Pakistan and Islam, what will you chose. Some people think that nationality based on ethnicity or nation state should be the focus of our loyalties.

Further questions then arise from it, like; whose verdict is supreme? Constitution of state or Quran? If state is openly rejecting verdict of Quran, then whose side will you take? I know its a dangerous path full of ditches, but these are logical questions which arise from the study of nationalism and modern nation state system.

Islam then Country.
Islam teachings will make me honest and Noble & true Patriot.
Quran is word of God ( Allah )
Quran is perfect. I will choose Quran off course.
Constitution of Pakistan is imperfect and biased. & Horse ride of rich like Malik Riaz and company of rich people.& Horse Crap for poor.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Quran is word of God ( Allah )
Quran is perfect. I will choose Quran off course.
Constitution of Pakistan is imperfect and biased.

Agreed

 

[IbnAbdullah]

Salaam

Salam,

For me the meaning of this question is where your loyalties actually lies. For instance, if you have to chose between Pakistan and Islam, what will you chose. Some people think that nationality based on ethnicity or nation state should be the focus of our loyalties.

Further questions then arise from it, like; whose verdict is supreme? Constitution of state or Quran? If state is openly rejecting verdict of Quran, then whose side will you take? I know its a dangerous path full of ditches, but these are logical questions which arise from the study of nationalism and modern nation state system.

That is a very interesting point. The legal side of the question - which law does one follow.


In the earlier days of the Bolshevik revolution, one of the proposals being considered (and they tried but didn't move forward because of high resistance) was that just wealth should be communal, so should wives be communal as well. This way all would've been truly equal - I think the idea comes from Plato's work on utopia (and maybe Marx and co also wrote it). Even Lenin's wife was for it, apparently.

So if one were to leave Islam and religion out of it, say the law of the land (and the constitution) is changed to represent something of that nature, would many a people consider following the law and sharing their wives as it would be part of the constitution of Pakistan? Or would they say that the law is against their idea of Pakistaniness?

So the way I see it is that it may be easy for a non-religious person to easily say that they are Pakistani first even if it means leaving Islam. They will follow the constitution of Pakistan. However, the same person may not be as keen on claiming being a staunch follower of Pakistani constitution and law if it suddenly meant they are required to follow the communal wife proposal of Lenin and co - (provided they aren't into that sort of thing).

So it is easy be a Pakistani first (in the sense you've mentioned) if it means doing something you are comfortable doing. However, if suddenly the definition of Pakistaniness is changed to something you are very uncomfortable with, something that goes against many of the other deeply held beliefs of yours, than it isn't as easy.

--

So the take away, IMHO, is that the whole issue depends on how one defines Pakistaniness. Define it in a way that makes it conform to your deeply held beliefs and you are a patriot or define it such that it goes against deeply held beliefs of others and you can brand them traitors and such.


----

 

[dexter]

The basis of our nation is Two-nation theory and if you look closely it doesn't emphasize on a particular area but a separate muslim homeland to ensure that muslims of British Raj live according to the teachings of ALLAH S.W.T.
It is based on the very notion that muslims live under the teachings of Islam as decided in 23 March 1940 on Pakistan resolution unlike other muslim majority states Pakistan is based on different ethinicities of Sub-continent forming the Pakistani nationality.
In short, we are Islamic Republic of Pakistan and from every major institution be it civilian or military if you ponder on oaths its start with Divinity of Almighty ALLAH S.W.T. and teachings of Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. so Islam was, is and will be the single cause which hold us "Pakistanis" together.
Thus, being a muslim is the foremost priority for me as it is being a Pakistani, but I don't impose my approach on others and everyone is free to have their own mindset of following things.

 

[IbnAbdullah]

Salaam

@IbnAbdullah

Bro could you tell me how I can tag someone, like you did. Thanks.


...

 

[Falcon29]

Salaam





Bro could you tell me how I can tag someone, like you did. Thanks.


...

Use @ then type the users name, first initial is enough for various user options to show up.

 

[PakAlp]

I remember this question, was asked for a few months around a decade ago. Are you a Muslim or Pakistani? Are you a Muslim or British?

After Jumma, at college, at parks. Just about everywhere

The Islamist groups asked these sort of questions because they know you will either be baffled or say Muslim.

Their aim is to take you away from your country and so you stop defending it, this will weaken your country. And since you will say I am a Muslim and then brothers it's time for Jihad against the traitors lol. Kill the armed forces, politicians. I know it doesn't happen so quick but this is one of the ways and this leads to Libya Iraq Syria situation.

Even though it's a wrong question to ask, I always answer with I am Muslim Pakistani, Muslim British and I have the passport at home with my signature, just like everybody else.

It's like asking are you a Punjabi or Pakistani? Are you a man or Muslim? Are you a Lahori or Punjabi? Are you a Lahori or Manchester? The answer is of course I am a Muslim who is Lahori but moved to UK Manchester and I live here.

The Islamist groups hate Nationalism because it goes against their ideology. They want to use Islam as a political weapon, so anybody who loves their country, they are automatically their opponents. How can you make youths rebel against the state if they love their country and armed forces? They of course want to make country more strong not destroy it. Then again these tactics worked in Arab countries. I wouldn't be surprised if Islamist group come with a new face and come out with slogans like Pakistan Zindabad. They keep changing their slogans and tactics but their mission is always the same.

 

[Mutakalim]

In the earlier days of the Bolshevik revolution, one of the proposals being considered (and they tried but didn't move forward because of high resistance) was that just wealth should be communal, so should wives be communal as well. This way all would've been truly equal - I think the idea comes from Plato's work on utopia (and maybe Marx and co also wrote it). Even Lenin's wife was for it, apparently.

So if one were to leave Islam and religion out of it, say the law of the land (and the constitution) is changed to represent something of that nature, would many a people consider following the law and sharing their wives as it would be part of the constitution of Pakistan? Or would they say that the law is against their idea of Pakistaniness?

So the way I see it is that it may be easy for a non-religious person to easily say that they are Pakistani first even if it means leaving Islam. They will follow the constitution of Pakistan. However, the same person may not be as keen on claiming being a staunch follower of Pakistani constitution and law if it suddenly meant they are required to follow the communal wife proposal of Lenin and co - (provided they aren't into that sort of thing).

So it is easy be a Pakistani first (in the sense you've mentioned) if it means doing something you are comfortable doing. However, if suddenly the definition of Pakistaniness is changed to something you are very uncomfortable with, something that goes against many of the other deeply held beliefs of yours, than it isn't as easy.

All of it leads to a single point. There should be a "constant", to which every one of us can relate to.

For some, this constant is ethnicity, for others its a geographical identity of a nation state. Both of these theories are preposterous, to say the least. How will you define ethnicity, meaning thereby how deep will you let yourself to go? Is it a common language? A tribe, a geographical area, a cast or a family? How you can construct a dogma based on ethnic nationalism and then still restrict anyone from further division based on ethnicity? I am still unable to find any sense in ethnic nationalism. Same goes with the system of a nation state. If the principle is "self determination" then every one has the inherent right to claim and create a nation state. How can you stop an ethnicity from claiming a new homeland?

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

Only Pakistan first. Curse other everything if it clashes with country interest.

 

[IbnAbdullah]

Salaam

@Falcon29 yup got it. Thank you very much.


...