My opinion of Nationalism is that I am against Nationalism I am a citizen of the Unit

[truthseeker63]

My opinion of Nationalism is that I am against Nationalism I am a citizen of the United States of America but to me it is just my passport when I travel I have never had any sense of Patriotism or Nationalism towards America I think we should view ourselves as human beings made by God we can't be Americans vs British vs Japanese I know being human does not make someone moral look at Hitler and Stalin but I still think we as humans should do away with Nationalism does anyone here agree with me ?

[- Qatada -]

In Islam, allegiance comes to Allah, His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the believers before anything else. :)


See this article for more information;

United Colors of Islam:
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/290/viewall/

[Pygoscelis]

My opinion of Nationalism is that I am against Nationalism I am a citizen of the United States of America but to me it is just my passport when I travel I have never had any sense of Patriotism or Nationalism towards America I think we should view ourselves as human beings made by God we can't be Americans vs British vs Japanese I know being human does not make someone moral look at Hitler and Stalin but I still think we as humans should do away with Nationalism does anyone here agree with me ?

I oppose tribalism in all its forms. Nationalism is a common one. By this I mean the idiots who scream "USA! USA! USA! Number one!". I really don't care more for somebody just becausse he or she happens to have been born in Canada. And I don't hold Canada out to be some perfect nation that can do no wrong. I stand against the Canadian military's excusion into Afghanistan and I stand against Canada's support of Israel, because though Canada is my country, it is doing wrong in those places.

Religion is another common source of tribalism. Here we have people siding with others of the same faith, even when they are clearly in the wrong, or people claiming to be superior morally or just by right and look down on those of other faiths. Or people hating, deriding, or spitting at people who are not of their faith. It annoys me when people do this. I don't feel that atheists (which I am) are naturally superior to anybody, and I will side with theists where atheists wrong them.

[- Qatada -]

I oppose tribalism in all its forms. Nationalism is a common one. By this I mean the idiots who scream "USA! USA! USA! Number one!". I really don't care more for somebody just becausse he or she happens to have been born in Canada. And I don't hold Canada out to be some perfect nation that can do no wrong. I stand against the Canadian military's excusion into Afghanistan and I stand against Canada's support of Israel, because though Canada is my country, it is doing wrong in those places.

Religion is another common source of tribalism. Here we have people siding with others of the same faith, even when they are clearly in the wrong, or people claiming to be superior morally or just by right and look down on those of other faiths. Or people hating, deriding, or spitting at people who are not of their faith. It annoys me when people do this. I don't feel that atheists (which I am) are naturally superior to anybody, and I will side with theists where atheists wrong them.

“Let not the hatred of a people swerve you away from justice. Be just, for this is closest to righteousness…” (Quran 5:8)

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Zuzubu]

"He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyyah or who dies for `Asabiyyah."

And in another Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saaw) referring to nationalism, racism, and patriotism said:

"Leave it, it is rotten." [Muslim and Bukhari] and in the Hadith recorded in Mishkat al-Masabith, the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said,

"He who calls for `Asabiyyah is as if he bit his father's genitals"

Also, the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said, narrated by At-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud,

"There are indeed people who boast of their dead ancestors; but in the sight of Allah they are more contemptible than the black beetle that rolls a piece of dung with its nose. Behold, Allah has removed from you the arrogance of the Time of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance) with its boast of ancestral glories. Man is but an Allah-fearing believer or an unfortunate sinner. All people are the children of Adam, and Adam was created out of dust."

[Tyrion]

“Let not the hatred of a people swerve you away from justice. Be just, for this is closest to righteousness…” (Quran 5:8)

Too bad most people (and Muslims) don't seem to live by this.

But yeah, I actually agree with Pygoscelis here for the most part. (except for that one underlined part that I added. :p)

I oppose tribalism in all its forms. Nationalism is a common one. By this I mean the idiots who scream "USA! USA! USA! Number one!". I really don't care more for somebody just becausse he or she happens to have been born in Canada. And I don't hold Canada out to be some perfect nation that can do no wrong. I stand against the Canadian military's excusion into Afghanistan and I stand against Canada's support of Israel, because though Canada is my country, it is doing wrong in those places.

Religion can be another common source of tribalism. Here we have people siding with others of the same faith, even when they are clearly in the wrong, or people claiming to be superior morally or just by right and look down on those of other faiths. Or people hating, deriding, or spitting at people who are not of their faith. It annoys me when people do this.

[GuestFellow]

Religion is another common source of tribalism. Here we have people siding with others of the same faith, even when they are clearly in the wrong, or people claiming to be superior morally or just by right and look down on those of other faiths. Or people hating, deriding, or spitting at people who are not of their faith. It annoys me when people do this. I don't feel that atheists (which I am) are naturally superior to anybody, and I will side with theists where atheists wrong them.

Have you studied all religions to make this judgement?

Featured religions and beliefs

Or were you referring to Abrahamic faiths?

I don't hate or spit at anyone who is not Muslim.

[Pygoscelis]

Have you studied all religions to make this judgement?

I did not say that relgion must always lead ot tribalism. I said that it it is a common source of tribalism, and it is, perhaps the most common of all. This is why it has been used in most conflicts and wars in human history. The cases where it was not used are actually quite rare. Religion isn't always the cause of such conflicts, but it is nearly always used to amplify them or justify one side or the other.

Many religions plant the seeds for tribalism at their very core, especially the abrahamic religions. As soon as you claim to have the only acceptable god and the only acceptable way and that worshiping other gods is blasphemy and evil (and even punishable by death according to some religious texts), you're well on your way.

I can think of no greater tool for demonizing the other than religion and I can think of few other ways to get people to kill and hate each other with such righteous pride. "Evil" is what we call people we want to feel good about hating. So yes Religion is a major source of this. But no, not all religions and not all the time (The Jains are probably the best counter example).

One of the great positives about religions is that they tie communities together and create social harmony. The downside is that this usually comes at the expense of outsiders and outside communities. The same can be said of nationalism.

[GuestFellow]

This is why it has been used in most conflicts and wars in human history.

I'm sure you heard of WW1, WW2 and the Cold War? Were these too about religion?

Religion isn't always the cause of such conflicts, but it is nearly always used to amplify them or justify one side or the other.

There will always be conflicts. People will use whatever ideology is available to gain mass support. Even if no one believed in God, people will still be fighting over land and resources, and adopt any ideology to gain support in order achieve their aims.

[Pygoscelis]

I'm sure you heard of WW1, WW2 and the Cold War? Were these too about religion?

Religion was used in all of those wars to harness tribal hatreds, yes.

The Cold war was about fighting the "godless commies" and was when "In God we Trust" was put on the money (it was
originally E. Pluribus Unum (out of many, one)) and when "under god" was put in the pledge of allegiance.

WW1 and WW2 both made extensive use of religion to inflame hatred. German belt buckles read (Got Mit Uns), which isnt a reminder to keep your hands warm. Allies also claimed to have God on their side.

The recent wars in the middle eastand the conflict in Palestine are also heavily leaning on religious divisions and hatreds. 9/11 had clear relgious overtones. George W. Bush pushed religion like crazy in pushing his wars and actually went so far as to refer to them as a "crusade"... which political damage control went in a tailspin to manage.

I once heard it said and I agree that when tyrany comes to America it will be carrying a bible and draped in the American Flag. I see it happening now.

There will always be conflicts. People will use whatever ideology is available to gain mass support. Even if no one believed in God, people will still be fighting over land and resources, and adopt any ideology to gain support in order achieve their aims.

Yes, I agree. There are other tools to do it with too, like nationalism. But nothing works quite as effectively as religion, which is why it gets used again and again.

[KAding]

In principle I would agree that nationalism is a fairly reprehensible doctrine, as morally speaking we should not distinguish between people based on place of birth or nationality.

Yet, while nationality might well be social construct, it is nevertheless real! That is, I do think we can often in broad terms distinguish things like a 'national character' or 'national norms and values'. The different ways in which different countries organize government is living proof of this. It is also undeniable that nationalism does create a bond of solidarity, which make it possible to transcend the mere individual and install 'nation-wide' systems that benefit all (think of the welfare state).

I don't think it would be beneficial to push to abolish nationalism, while at the same time keeping the whole nation-state system (ie. countries) intact. If we want to get rid of nationalism we need something to replace it. Mere individualism will not work (hurts to say that, because I consider myself a liberal!). Replacing it with another 'us-them' ideology (like religion) will only shift the problem and solve nothing.

Cosmopolitanism would be the only way to transcend the 'us-them' mental divide. Yet, as long as different parts of the world disagree on fundamental values, such cosmopolitanism is an impossibility IMHO.

So I prefer we stick with somekind of liberal form of nationalism that at least leaves room for diversity within nation states, yet at the same time allows different peoples to express their values through local government. So in short, abolishing nationalism is no more than a dream, in reality we need to counter destructive and unjust forms of nationalism based on different tiers of citizenship based on some discriminatory characteristic (ethnicity, religious beliefs, etc...)

[GuestFellow]

The Cold war was about fighting the "godless commies" and was when "In God we Trust" was put on the money (it was originally E. Pluribus Unum (out of many, one)) and when "under god" was put in the pledge of allegiance.

I think it was more about Democracy verses Communism.

WW1 and WW2 both made extensive use of religion to inflame hatred. German belt buckles read (Got Mit Uns), which isnt a reminder to keep your hands warm. Allies also claimed to have God on their side.

I think there was an element of nationalism too.

The recent wars in the middle eastand the conflict in Palestine are also heavily leaning on religious divisions and hatreds.

The Palestinian and Israeli conflict is mainly nationalistic except the issue of Jerusalem.

The Afghanistan war was a response to 9/11. I see no religious element to the Iraq war.

9/11 had clear relgious overtones. George W. Bush pushed religion like crazy in pushing his wars and actually went so far as to refer to them as a "crusade"... which political damage control went in a tailspin to manage.

I disagree here to some extent. Fear was the main element. People must have been really scared and paranoid because it has an impact on countries that were not attacked like Britain.

But nothing works quite as effectively as religion, which is why it gets used again and again.

I think fear works quite effectively too. You should watch the documentary called the Powers of Nightmares, its on youtube.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Religion was used in all of those wars to harness tribal hatreds, yes.

The Cold war was about fighting the "godless commies" and was when "In God we Trust" was put on the money (it was
originally E. Pluribus Unum (out of many, one)) and when "under god" was put in the pledge of allegiance.

WW1 and WW2 both made extensive use of religion to inflame hatred. German belt buckles read (Got Mit Uns), which isnt a reminder to keep your hands warm. Allies also claimed to have God on their side.

The recent wars in the middle eastand the conflict in Palestine are also heavily leaning on religious divisions and hatreds. 9/11 had clear relgious overtones. George W. Bush pushed religion like crazy in pushing his wars and actually went so far as to refer to them as a "crusade"... which political damage control went in a tailspin to manage.

I once heard it said and I agree that when tyrany comes to America it will be carrying a bible and draped in the American Flag. I see it happening now.



Yes, I agree. There are other tools to do it with too, like nationalism. But nothing works quite as effectively as religion, which is why it gets used again and again.

Such drivel

Take a good look, this is how far an atheist (of the dawkinite variety) will go to distort history to suit his own prejudices.

WW 1 and WW 2 had nothing to do with faith. Did the Pope order it? Did the Archbishop of Canterbury order it? Was it launched for theological reasons? No. but it was primarly launched for 'secular' reasons, namely territory, prestige, economic interests the usual. Germany and England are both 'protestant' nations right? Why would Italy ally with Protestant nations since they were 'Catholic'.

Incidentally if you look at the Crimea war the the great european powers actually sided with the Ottoman empire against their 'Christian brothers' in Russia. This was in the 1850s

Remember the Russian revolution when eventually bolshvieks took power - what ideology and slogans did they use exactly to impose their 'order?'

Same could be applied to world war 2. Again fought for control of world resources. Religion played an incidental part. After all why would the (Christian) USA side with the (Marxist) Soviet Union? Why during the war did the USA make oil deals with Saudis?

Same could be said during the Cold War. Which had to do with the USA maintaining the captialist system and keeping the 3rd world in check, (same with the Soviet Union which wanted to maintain its own system and keep its own population in check).

Incidentally When liberation theology took off in latin America it was smashed by the USA, the fact that Christains were being massacred didnt bother them.

Now if you arguing about whether its used as propoganda then yes particularly in world war 1 and should be strongly condemed, but the same could be said about secular ideologies like 'human rights' 'freedom'. How many have died in the name of 'democracy'? Just because ideas are misused for whatever reason doesnt make them wrong.

so the idea that 'religion' (whatever that means) is responsible for (these) wars and if it was to 'disappear' then we all be holding hands and singing 'Kumbayah' is laughable and displays a real shallowness in understanding history.

[Lynx]

Come on guys go on easy on those straw men you've created out of Pygo's post :(

Anyway, I agree with the the OP insofar as we shouldn't have X race vs Y race vs Z race; however, I don't think nationalism itself is an evil. We have to remember that different countries have different cultures that have created unique identities and I don't see anything wrong with being proud of one's cultural identity and wanting to preserve that cultural identity. Of course, as I said, it isn't any good to have citizens of certain countries thinking that they are superior to another group of people (or even worse, acting upon this thought) but being nationalistic does not necessarily mean this sort of thing has to happen.

[Argamemnon]

Salaam



Such drivel

Take a good look, this is how far an atheist (of the dawkinite variety) will go to distort history to suit his own prejudices.

WW 1 and WW 2 had nothing to do with faith. Did the Pope order it? Did the Archbishop of Canterbury order it? Was it launched for theological reasons? No. but it was primarly launched for 'secular' reasons, namely territory, prestige, economic interests the usual. Germany and England are both 'protestant' nations right? Why would Italy ally with Protestant nations since they were 'Catholic'.

Incidentally if you look at the Crimea war the the great european powers actually sided with the Ottoman empire against their 'Christian brothers' in Russia. This was in the 1850s

Remember the Russian revolution when eventually bolshvieks took power - what ideology and slogans did they use exactly to impose their 'order?'

Same could be applied to world war 2. Again fought for control of world resources. Religion played an incidental part. After all why would the (Christian) USA side with the (Marxist) Soviet Union? Why during the war did the USA make oil deals with Saudis?

Same could be said during the Cold War. Which had to do with the USA maintaining the captialist system and keeping the 3rd world in check, (same with the Soviet Union which wanted to maintain its own system and keep its own population in check).

Incidentally When liberation theology took off in latin America it was smashed by the USA, the fact that Christains were being massacred didnt bother them.

Now if you arguing about whether its used as propoganda then yes particularly in world war 1 and should be strongly condemed, but the same could be said about secular ideologies like 'human rights' 'freedom'. How many have died in the name of 'democracy'? Just because ideas are misused for whatever reason doesnt make them wrong.

so the idea that 'religion' (whatever that means) is responsible for (these) wars and if it was to 'disappear' then we all be holding hands and singing 'Kumbayah' is laughable and displays a real shallowness in understanding history.

Absolutely brilliant, my thoughts exactly...

:w:

[Ramadhan]

Take a good look, this is how far an atheist (of the dawkinite variety) will go to distort history to suit his own prejudices.

I don't know why you bother with him.

He's been here for more than 4 years and yet learnt nothing about Islam and continue to hurl baseless claims and lies about Islam in other threads, and he's been known to stretch truth and logic to suit his opinions. He said he's anti tribalism, and yet posts after posts it is very clear that he has such blind faith and absolute allegiance in his atheism teachings in expense of facts and evidence and would take sides of atheists even if it makes him sound like an idiot.

[KAding]

Salaam

Such drivel

Take a good look, this is how far an atheist (of the dawkinite variety) will go to distort history to suit his own prejudices.

WW 1 and WW 2 had nothing to do with faith. Did the Pope order it? Did the Archbishop of Canterbury order it? Was it launched for theological reasons? No. but it was primarly launched for 'secular' reasons, namely territory, prestige, economic interests the usual. Germany and England are both 'protestant' nations right? Why would Italy ally with Protestant nations since they were 'Catholic'.

Incidentally if you look at the Crimea war the the great european powers actually sided with the Ottoman empire against their 'Christian brothers' in Russia. This was in the 1850s

Remember the Russian revolution when eventually bolshvieks took power - what ideology and slogans did they use exactly to impose their 'order?'

Same could be applied to world war 2. Again fought for control of world resources. Religion played an incidental part. After all why would the (Christian) USA side with the (Marxist) Soviet Union? Why during the war did the USA make oil deals with Saudis?

Same could be said during the Cold War. Which had to do with the USA maintaining the captialist system and keeping the 3rd world in check, (same with the Soviet Union which wanted to maintain its own system and keep its own population in check).

Incidentally When liberation theology took off in latin America it was smashed by the USA, the fact that Christains were being massacred didnt bother them.

Now if you arguing about whether its used as propoganda then yes particularly in world war 1 and should be strongly condemed, but the same could be said about secular ideologies like 'human rights' 'freedom'. How many have died in the name of 'democracy'? Just because ideas are misused for whatever reason doesnt make them wrong.

so the idea that 'religion' (whatever that means) is responsible for (these) wars and if it was to 'disappear' then we all be holding hands and singing 'Kumbayah' is laughable and displays a real shallowness in understanding history.

I would tend to agree, though some ideologies are harder to abuse in this regard than others.

However, the fact remains that many religions suffer from the exact same problems as nationalism, namely that it separates rather than unites people. If we wish to dismiss nationalism on those grounds (as the OP seems to do), we should also do the same with many religions in my view.

[Ramadhan]

If we wish to dismiss nationalism on those grounds (as the OP seems to do), we should also do the same with many religions in my view.

Are you then advocating to abolish all nation-states?

[KAding]

Are you then advocating to abolish all nation-states?

Well, like I implied in an earlier post. In an ideal world we would all be liberals and agree with each other on the fundamentals and have no need for borders ;).

But in reality there are regional differences between people. And we want people to be able to expess these differences in local government (read: nation-states). So no, I don't want to abolish nation-states.

The point I wanted to make is exactly that being against nationalism on grounds that it divides people also means we'd need to abolish other ideologies that similarly divide people. Obviously this just isn't realistic!

[Pygoscelis]

So in short, abolishing nationalism is no more than a dream

Agreed. Tribalism is very basic to human nature. We do the same with our immediate family units, or countries, our religion, even our species. And if space aliens came to visit us, I'm sure we'd be xenophobic towards them and do it to them too. We can't end it. We can only contain the negative effects of it and point it out where it threatens to do harm. Something akin to Nazism could take hold in America - only it would be called something like "Patriotism", where "Real Americans" hunt down "Terrorists" as the final solution instead of the blue eyed blonde haired germans being held up as ideal and the jews and gypsies and homosexuals being hunted down.

[Pygoscelis]

Come on guys go on easy on those straw men you've created out of Pygo's post :(

I was going to respond the the post, but frankly I lost count of these false claims attributed to me. I don't think I said a single thing he's arguing against in his post, so there is nothing really to respond to.