Muslim clerics push for flags to be flown on mosques

[Sweetness]

^^I dont like it...why? Because the whole point of a Masjid and Islam is no differentiating. Putting a flag of Lebanon on a Masjid in "Australia" and others like that is like creating barriers. Its not just Lebanese Muslims in the Masjid. You can have Pakistani's, Indians, Arabs, Lebanese, Africans etc in ONE Masjid..so why would u put a flag of different country than what your in? Doesn't make sense...
So I think its wrong.

I agree, I think any flag other than the the country you are in is wrong also.

 

[syilla]

So what do you think about flags outside the mosques in pakistan, and lebanese flags outside a mosque in Australia?

i understand you sis...i'm also surprised by their reaction on nationalism and flag (when i was new here). I guess the nationalism being potrayed are totally different then what we are used too.

i love my country too...thats all. nothing more than that. :embarrass

 

[Sweetness]

i love my country too...thats all. nothing more than that. :embarrass

I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

You can have pride for your country...but theres a strict limitation on it.
Cause, no offense, but I knew a lot Afghani's and Palestinians and even Pakistani's have too much pride for their country, that it appeared very ignorant. It made me disgusted and want to puke. Sorry but yea, I dont like it. I like my country, but I aint crazy about it:X

 

[khushnood]

this whole patriotism idea is wierd.i'd rather b true to my beleifs than birthplace.nationalism just creates more barriers than bridges

 

[north_malaysian]

I agree, I think any flag other than the the country you are in is wrong also.

that's why almost all mosques in Malaysia (whether it's a Malay-speaking mosque, English-speaking mosque or Tamil-speaking mosque) have only Malaysian flags...

 

[Malaikah]

^Why do they have any flag at all?

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

this whole patriotism idea is wierd.i'd rather b true to my beleifs than birthplace.nationalism just creates more barriers than bridges

exactly!
i jus hate the idea of a flag on a Masjid...

 

[KAding]

this whole patriotism idea is wierd.i'd rather b true to my beleifs than birthplace.nationalism just creates more barriers than bridges

No more than religion if you ask me.

Besides, I always find it bizarre that Muslims dislike nationalism so much, since Islam is highly nationalistic. After all Islam has all the attributes of an nationalist ideology. Thats why Muslims in the West always struggle with this dual loyalty towards their current state and their nation, that is the Ummah.

Islam has:
* A common identity and a sense of brotherhood
* Common myths about heritage and history
* A desire to self-rule (the Ummah)
* It is exclusionairy, non-Muslims do not belong to the Muslim nation
* Institutions that order public life

This is everything nationalism is. Islam is indeed against all non-Islamic nationalism, but only because it has to compete with it. In the same way the French nationalism and American nationalism are essentially mutually exclusive. But that doesn't mean French nationalism is not nationalism.

 

[- Qatada -]

Hey kading.


Non muslims are allowed to live in the Islamic State, like i've discussed with you in the past aswell.


Islaam prohibit's assabiya though, which is tribalism/nationalism which may push a person to the extent where they place that before their religion. Which mean's we are allowed to follow our culture so long as we don't follow the aspects which contradict islaam.


We as muslims have pride in our islamic history because of the fact that it applied the law of Allaah. Which meant the muslims were allowed to practise their religion openly without feeling threatened. There is nothing wrong with being proud of that. And Allaah Almighty knows best.


Regards.

 

[KAding]

^Why do they have any flag at all?

To create a sense of brotherhood I would think. To steer the collective towards a common goal. To enhance cooperation between all citizens of the nation and prevent treason.

You see, Malaysia is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country. When you insist on putting Islam first and destroy any national identity you are essentially doing what many here are accusing nationalism of doing, namely creating rifts, cleavages and differences. Suddenly 40% of the population will not belong to the nation anymore, since they are not Muslim. They will be excluded and will start relying more on their own ethnic and religious groups and foreign countries.

Nationalism is there for a reason in countries like Malaysia. If there were no common identity, there would be considerable obstacles to cooperation. After all, how could the collective be mobilized for the good of the whole community? Why would buddhists fight and serve to protect Muslims and vise versa for example? Putting Islam first does not dissolve cleavages, it only creates new ones and in multi-ethnic and multi-religious regions it creates more of them than it dissolves.

 

[KAding]

Hey kading.

Non muslims are allowed to live in the Islamic State, like i've discussed with you in the past aswell.

True, and with considerable rights. But they are residents, not citizens. They do not have the same status as Muslims and there are restrictions, so they are not equal. They are by definition not part of the nation of Islam, the Ummah, they are merely residing in a territory controlled by it. Just like a Frenchman can reside in New York and not be a citizen.

Islaam prohibit's assabiya though, which is tribalism/nationalism which may push a person to the extent where they place that before their religion. Which mean's we are allowed to follow our culture so long as we don't follow the aspects which contradict islaam.

We as muslims have pride in our islamic history because of the fact that it applied the law of Allaah. Which meant the muslims were allowed to practise their religion openly without feeling threatened. There is nothing wrong with being proud of that. And Allaah Almighty knows best.

Regards.

Maybe the problem is that apparently Islamic scholars have decided to say 'tribalism=nationalism', since during the time of Mohammed, there was no such thing as nationalism. I am not sure if that is so valid. Tribes are on a very small scale, with small populations and simple social structures. Nationalism thinks bigger (like Islam), it united people not just because of local heritage, but often also because of ideology. Tribalism is incompatible with nationalism, and nationalist have frequently tried to suppress tribalism because of it. Just like Islam is doing.

 

[- Qatada -]

True, and with considerable rights. But they are residents, not citizens. They do not have the same status as Muslims and there are restrictions, so they are not equal. They are by definition not part of the nation of Islam, the Ummah, they are merely residing in a territory controlled by it. Just like a Frenchman can reside in New York and not be a citizen.

Maybe you could get proof for that claim? From reliable islamic sources.


By the way - if the non muslims who lived in the islamic state had their blood and honor protected by the muslims. Isn't that showing that their actually worth something there?

Or how about the time when Ali [the khalifah/caliph] lost his shield in the battle of Siffeen, he found out that a jew had got hold of it. He wanted to prove that it was his shield, the judge asks him for evidence, and Ali doesn't have sufficient evidence. So the muslim judge rules that the jew keeps the shield.

Maybe the problem is that apparently Islamic scholars have decided to say 'tribalism=nationalism', since during the time of Mohammed, there was no such thing as nationalism. I am not sure if that is so valid. Tribes are on a very small scale, with small populations and simple social structures. Nationalism thinks bigger (like Islam), it united people not just because of local heritage, but often also because of ideology. Tribalism is incompatible with nationalism, and nationalist have frequently tried to suppress tribalism because of it. Just like Islam is doing.

If you study the history of arabia, you'll realise that tribalism was actually more worse, for instance - tribes would fight for decades just to get a well of water off the other tribe.

Tribes may be at a smaller scale, but nationalism is just that - except its at a greater scale. Islaam broke all these barriers and we actually see muslims all uniting under one banner instead of splitting themselves up. So for instance at the time of the Messenger of Allaah, he had companions who were arab, persian, roman/white, ethiopians etc. From different backgrounds, different ethnicities etc.



Now if we're born in the UK, US, Netherlands or anywhere that doesn't mean we should challenge people from other countries. Rather Islaam unites them together, so long as they are at peace with the muslims. Whereas we as muslims in the west are told to put our nation of birth before our morals which we have through Islaam.

That's why the common question is repeatedly asked, what really is a British Muslim? Is it someone who wakes up in the morning smoking a cigar? Going to the pub to get drunk? Being a hooligan in the soccer games? Or can we have our morals which we get from Islaam while agreeing that we are british at the same time?



Regards.

 

[Muezzin]

And now back to flags.

 

[Cognescenti]

Bummer...I thought was an intersting discussion of the surrogate nationalistic features of Islam.

 

[north_malaysian]

Nationalism is there for a reason in countries like Malaysia. If there were no common identity, there would be considerable obstacles to cooperation. After all, how could the collective be mobilized for the good of the whole community? Why would buddhists fight and serve to protect Muslims and vise versa for example? Putting Islam first does not dissolve cleavages, it only creates new ones and in multi-ethnic and multi-religious regions it creates more of them than it dissolves.

I think it's kind of true.... because before 1969 (Racial riots happened on 13.05.1969), the Chinese and Indians dont see themselves as Malaysians... even they have Malaysian citizenship.

From what I've heard before, if Malaysian team had a competition against India or China, the Indians would support India and Chinese would support China... not Malaysia.

But nowadays, the Chinese and Indians prefer to call themselves as Malaysians.