1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The real Muslim problem

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by robmiller, Apr 28, 2006.

  1. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    It could not be said of all religions, nor can it be said that all components of Islam are problematic, nor can it be said that Islam is the only problematic religion...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4204820.stm

    Fairly good explanation by the second contributer in that piece although it is really inspecific and a lot of it sounds like rhetoric... but -

    My basic belief is that no Islamic nationalism means no problem. Why do I think this?

    1) The only incompatible behaviours of a Muslim are those based around political and legal beliefs. Terrorism is born of the desire to control Islamic international affairs, mostly with regards to border disputes in Islamic countires or whereby a Muslim country is fighting a non-Muslim one.

    2) The spiritual and personal components of Islam are very good. I do not know everything about them, but I do understand certain aspects of them and my general belief is that certain parts of all religion have positive contributions. Many Muslims that I have met have been humble and modest individuals, many have been very loyal and family oriented. In some ways Islamic values are better than Western counterparts - there is less pornography in Islamic countries, family bonds are strong.

    3) When Christianity had a political hold over Europe there were atrocities committed in the name of that religion that probably outscored most of the atrocities that can be observed in the ME.

    The question what are the best way to seperate such things... the Islamic world seem quite comfortable with the idea that Hamas straps bombs to mentally disabled children, but not that Israel might shoot that child - that's not a positive attitude of reconciliation.

    As far as other religions are concerned, many religions are not based on ignorance or on ideas that cannot change - they are more philosophical than doctrinal. Generally Pagan religions avoid literal teachings and teachings are expressed in metaphor - so generally dont have hard and fast rules, or install anti-social or hateful beliefs in their followers.
     
  2. Dr Who

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Nov 11, 2004

    Posts: 8,030

    Location: Wiltshire

    I agree whole heartedly with those sentiments CBS...

    Knowing many muslims who are very spiritual, not one of them is a terrorist and all of them condemn violence, but there are a few "govt" people who like to stir the pot and call things anti-islam to aid with their control in those countries...

    :mad:
     
  3. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 26, 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    It's unfair to say "Islam + Nationalism = bad", when really your point seems to be that "Nationalism = bad" and therefore any kind of nationalism is a bad thing.
     
  4. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    nationalism isn't automatically bad because that is how people govern themselves democratically. nationalism CAN be bad.

    Islamic nationalism is a problem becasue it is inflexible and has no clear ruler or system of government - hence why so many jihadis think they are in some sort of army and their terrorism is comparable to a legitimate war

    The reason that religion and nationalism should not mix is because one should deal with political issues and the other with spiritual - trying to mix to two leads to bloodshed
     
  5. @if ®afiq

    Soldato

    Joined: May 3, 2003

    Posts: 6,080

    (Empahsis in bold is mine)

    Isn't this more of an issue of leadership and the lack and quality of it, both as a collective and individually, rather than an inherrent problem with Islam?

    The jihadi issue stems from this and would be virtually non-existenent if that quality was there.

    Are you saying that purely political nationalism would be free from bloodshed?

    Facism and Nazism were both a form of political nationalism that sprung up in the last centuary, and we can both agree they didn't exactly bring out the best in man.
     
  6. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY



    Do you agree that there is such a thing as Islamic Nationalism? If you do, how would you define it?

    And I agree, nationalism often can motivate a nation to engage in brutal behavior toward others who are non-nationals.
     
  7. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    Would it be possible for there to be an authoritative head of Islam? Also, would this 'head' not be bound by existing rules such as the common ones that many of us disagree with...

    Of course not, I am suggesting nationalism can be both good and bad, yet it is bound by no rules, and there is no arbitrary ideology attached to it.

    For example, religious nationalism usulaly requires a God to be in charge of everything, and His word is absolute - which has lead in the past to the murder and torture of those who do not follow that particular faith en mass all over Europe.

    Ultimately politics should be decided by the people who are here and now and on rational decisions rather than blind faith.
     
  8. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    I would say that nationalism can be seen as investing political and military attitudes around the nation and the nation alone.

    During Christian nationalism we went to war for buildings that had no value to us except on a religious basis (such as crusades) and we persecuted non-Christians Europe-wide becasue religious obedience was more important to us than social cohesion as a nation.

    Therefore religious nationalism is basically promoting politics and military efforts for the aims of that religion above anything else.
     
  9. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    I am sure that you don't mean that nationalism and national identity cannot include a religious component and with that proviso I understand and accept your meaning although I am uncomfortable with the segmentation you have adopted between the two.

    I guess my question is less structured. It is whether there is such a thing as Islamic nationalism and if it does exist, what are its hallmarks?
     
  10. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    You can be religious and a citizen, but if you are a religious nationalist then your religious political beliefs over-ride your national political beliefs. This doesn't have to be a problem, but often leads to a consistent minority who see no authority so will committ violence on behalf of their religious-political beliefs and consider it equivalent to any civic nationalistic threats to the political agenda of their religion.

    Caring about the political aims of your religion above all other politics?
     
  11. @if ®afiq

    Soldato

    Joined: May 3, 2003

    Posts: 6,080

    That's a tough one. I don't know much about my religion or the movements within it, I also don't know the proper definitions(sp?) of all the "ism's".

    However I think Islamic Nationalism exists in that the vast majority of Muslim's would like the (re)-establishment of a central government (Caliphate), the need for the people to choose their leadership and to have a greater say in what they want/need....but I'm not too sure if my points actually constitute some sort of Nationalism.
     
  12. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 2, 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    I think we all want that!

    The crusades and their ilk are more about land than anything else. I doubt it matters who it was that was encroaching on the christian empire, it's just the fact that somebody was encroaching that matters. Obviously the religious differences fuel the fire, and give the fighters on both sides a huge moral boost and a handy good/evil division between the two sides.

    Wiki has a good article about the crusades actually - like most wiki articles in fact!
     
  13. @if ®afiq

    Soldato

    Joined: May 3, 2003

    Posts: 6,080

    I think there needs to be a "head of state", as to who it will be - that I cannot say.

    As for the rules/laws - I take it you refer to homosexuality and treatment of women??? The are some rules that can't be broken, such as those set down by God. I'll make two quick points.

    After the last discussion on homosexuality I did do some more further reading up on this and I could not get a clear answer. I am from the Hanafi School of Law and dod manage to read a small amount on the Hanafi viewpoint on this. Homosexuality is a sin - this is fully agreed on by all. Where the differences arise is in what punishment, if any, should be prescribed. From what I understand, the punishment for those caught in the act is be whipped, although four witnesses to this act are also required. But even here it is really up to the judge on what to prescribe. As for stoning, that is only for those who commit adultry - both hetro and homo.

    As for the issue on equality for women. I think the instructions of Islam, rather than the actions of it's followers need to be noted here. Prophet Muhammed's first wife Khadijah was a very prominent business women in Arabia, yet he did not object to this.

    Was it the Word of God that commanded the Crusaders to take back Palestine, or the Church eager to control the vast flow of trade/wealth through that region? Therein lies the difference. Man will usurp whatever rules there are in order to further his own desires. Whether these are the rules of God or the rules of man, it does not matter.
     
  14. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 28, 2005

    Posts: 48,109

    Location: On the hoods

    s/religion/:rolleyes:
     
  15. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    I imagined that the desire to return to a Caliphate could be analogized to Islamic nationalism but I wasn't sure of it. I also wonder how many in the Muslim World today would want to see a return to a Caliphate and which one also is a question.

    I have assumed that the ideal Caliphate that may be desired today would be the one that was put into effect immediately upon Mohammed's death and not those that followed under the various dynasties. From what you say here, I sense that you mean the same. Or is the notion of a return to a Caliphate something more of a unenunciated desire?

    In other threads here, people have stated that it isn't the religion that prompts the warfare, rather, that it is the people in positions of power and authority that make use of religion to wage wars. I tend to agree with this and, being in agreement, I had difficulty in accepting that there could be a form of "nationalism" that mainly was motivated by the religion itself. But if you mean that there are those who are blinded by their idea of what a religion may hold to be most sacred and mandatory (as opposed to what others of that faith may believe to be true), I agree that there are worshippers who think this way and, regrettably, act on those ideas with violent effect.


    Do you mean something like the theocratic government in Iran?
     
  16. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    Not alone, its was the unity and exclusivity of two authoritative religions that allowed such an episode in history. Also, persecution of Pagans was a generally accepted Christian practice.


    Also, does the concept of Ummah not count as a kind of Islamic nationalism - i.e. the concept that religious agendas supercede national ones?

    I am not sure if I am interpreting that right, so it is a question more than anything.
     
  17. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    If this were the case, why are conquests such as the crusades based on a religious agenda?

    Also, why do people from country A, who have the religion of country B but have never visited country B seem to have more loyalty to country B's struggles than interest in country A?
     
  18. @if ®afiq

    Soldato

    Joined: May 3, 2003

    Posts: 6,080

    I think many in the Muslim world are blissfully ignorant of what they once had and could once again have.

    Yes, the dynasties that followed the initial 4 Caliphs all detracted from the fundamental teachings. The initial Caliphs were elected by the people, whereas susbequent one's inherited or even usurped(?) the Caliphate.

    I don't think we will see a re-establishment - not without major upheaval as the monarchies that are currently in power will not let it relinquish so easily, but without this upheaval the "House of Islam" will face darker times and even greater internal threats.
     
  19. @if ®afiq

    Soldato

    Joined: May 3, 2003

    Posts: 6,080

    I would probably agree. The Caliphate/Ummah concept is a massive part of Islam, especially political Islam.

    I think one thing to bear in mind is that with Islam you have a complete way of living. From the moment you wake to the moment you sleep, every second of a Muslim's life has to be in accordance to Islam and so nationalism does come second place.

    The main uniting factor amongst Muslim's is not their race or nationality, but their religion, so it makes sense to give religion precedence over nationality.
     
  20. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 26, 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    It was tongue-in-cheek, although I wouldn't mind religion not existing entirely if it came down to the crunch :)