A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| Debate on religion and nationalism |
|---|
| Chris |
| 04/19/03 at 13:27:57 |
| I was talking to a muslim friend of mine, Abu Eesa, about the Iraq war and the relation to Isreal of its religion and its extreame reaction to threats from outside when I have a brainwave (drum roll, pls, jannah ;)) "The worst thing that happened to Judism was getting a nation and therefore identifing itself with said nation." What I would like to know is how true you brothers and sisters think that statement is of Islam? Chris |
| Re: Debate on religion and nationalism |
|---|
| Nabila |
| 04/19/03 at 21:22:50 |
| [slm] Well, I don't think there really is a 'true' Islamic nation that Muslims look upto, so I dont think this statement is very true of Muslims. Although Saddam hussein is trying to fill the gap -- the idea that by insulting America, he can promote himself as an Islamic leader and gain support doesnt seem to be fooling any one ;) Even the establishment of a Khalifah is no excuse for nationalism, nationalism is not allowed pure and simple. ma asalaamah and take care |
| Re: Debate on religion and nationalism |
|---|
| sofia |
| 04/20/03 at 12:50:48 |
| Chris, Just a thought: At one point, the Islaamic empire stretched from Spain to China (or around that), as one state. Hard to imagine now, but there were Christian churches, schools and court systems, and Jewish synagogues, schools and courts, within the larger context of an Islaamic state (just as there were Muslim schools, judges, etc). There were people with different languages, different cultures, different faiths. Some may argue that it was external conflict that led to the decline of Islaamic rule, but towards the end, some rulers simply went beyond the limits of Islaam (ie, no longer being equitable or just or moral). In other words, it was the spiritual decline of the state and/or its leaders that led to the fall of Islaamic rule. Allahu A'lim. Point being, it was unlike the many nation-states we have today, where differences are more apparent than similarities ("us" versus "them"). Now, there seems to be a "new" nation sprouting up every year. Civilizations are old, but the lines are new. Following a religion means conforming to its limitations and regulations. Trying to make these regulations conform to personal interests, is something else. One of the results can be nationalism. The issue of Israel is not about religion (interestingly, there is a group of Jews who are opposed to the creation of Israel). It's basically nationalism at its core, under the guise of religion. It's an old trick, not restricted to Israel or current events. When followers of a religion believe their Lord promotes the death of innocent people as a means to an end (as though God needs our help), you know something has gone awry. It's a disgrace to the teachings of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or any other Prophet, peace be upon them all. So the issue of nationalism makes more sense in a secular debate, but it is not a concept within the true teachings of any Abrahamic faith, itself. Allahu A'lim/God knows. ***4/21 Note*** Was just listening to NPR briefly this morning. They spoke with a Professor from Tennessee (Prof. Gunter?), who was asked why there is so much internal struggle/conflict amongst the different ethnic and religious groups in Iraq. He admitted that it's mainly due to the introduction/influence of Western nationalism. Before that, everyone was "unified under the banner of Islam," (under Muslim rule). Subhan'Allah, this Professor from TN used those words. |
| NS |
| 04/21/03 at 12:24:30 |
| sofia |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |