Bahrain
Indonesia
Iran
Jordan
Kuwait
Qatar
Kazakhstan
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Malaysia
Pakistan
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Niger
Benin
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chad
Comoros
Djibout
Egypt
Gabon
Gambia
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Now people keep telling me about the unity of Muslims, now tell me which of these countries have intervened with what is going on in Lebanon? Do they not care, or are they afraid to defend their own kind?
Ėk Gusā Alhu Mėrā
The One Lord, the Lord of the World, is my God Allah.
Dhan Guru Arjan Dev Mahraaj Ji!
Kal Meh Bėḏ Atharbaṇ Hū Nā Kẖuḏā Alhu Bẖa.
In the Dark Age of Kali Yuga, the Atharva Veda became prominent; Allah became the Name of God.
That's what defines muslim is that we should do the right and forbid the wrong. Our concern does just come out our deen, but the conciouseness in us, that we are brothers and sisters, and it is not base in nationality. Even if we take the view of right and wrong, it is still the same that we as shpuld help the people who are being opressed, who been driven from their home and land.
I wish this were true. Maybe it's indeed the theory behind Islam, I am not knowledgable enough to judge. But clearly in practise Muslims care more about Muslims than about others. Not in an effort to 'forbid the wrong', but simply because they are Muslims. People who belong to this group ('Muslims') apparently are more 'valuable' in this mindset than those that do not belong to this group. If you look at the topics on this forum it is simply undeniable that Muslims care about other Muslims suffering half a world away, but do not care about non-Muslims suffering half a world away. This is IMHO a natural, but nevertheless ethically corrupt position and it is exactly the same ill that befalls nationalism.
I believe the reason for this is exactly because of this nationalism that aims at 'uniting' all Muslims in a political and ideological unit, being the Ummah. From my perspective Islam appears very good at creating an 'us' vs. 'them' outlook on life, heck, just take the concept of 'Dar al-Islam' and 'Dar al-Harb'. Sure, it is not based on ethnicity or race, but then neither is, say, American nationalism.
Let me give you an example. Imagine you have this beutiful house and I come and kill few of your family members, some fled in terror, and I move in. My uncle Sam who may or may not be related to me recognise it as my home although it is your home, and call you shall respect it as my home and let me live in peace in what was your home rightfully. Would you agree to that?
No. But we are talking about the involvement of those who are really not affected (ie. Muslims who do not live near Israel). An illustration: Muslims did not become involved when Hutus took Tutsi homes in Rwanda. Why? Because they were not Muslims I would think, they did not belong to your 'group'. Nevermind that it is the same wrong and 'doing right' would require intervening, it still won't happen. It's the exact same reason why Americans didn't intervene in Rwanda either, for example.
So I really don't accept that the Islamic concept of 'brotherhood' is anymore valid than one based on traditional nationalism, in fact it's exactly the same.
I wish this were true. Maybe it's indeed the theory behind Islam, I am not knowledgable enough to judge. But clearly in practise Muslims care more about Muslims than about others. Not in an effort to 'forbid the wrong', but simply because they are Muslims. People who belong to this group ('Muslims') apparently are more 'valuable' in this mindset than those that do not belong to this group. If you look at the topics on this forum it is simply undeniable that Muslims care about other Muslims suffering half a world away, but do not care about non-Muslims suffering half a world away. This is IMHO a natural, but nevertheless ethically corrupt position and it is exactly the same ill that befalls nationalism.
Well this is not entirely correct. Their are muslim NGO and e.t.c that provide
aid towards people of other nationality and faith. The reason muslim show more concern towards those of muslim on other countries is because they been subject to oppression for a long time, most of the muslim in the u.k and even non-muslim hearts goes towards people of palestian, Iraq and other countries in the middle east, because what has been going through those land in history, another factor is because it has more coverage.
If their was not all those atrocities happening in the middle east than most of the muslim, especially the practicing ones will look towards the suffering of other people, and some do, but our resources is so much, and with nationalistic goverment promoting their tribalism to the ignorant mass.
I believe the reason for this is exactly because of this nationalism that aims at 'uniting' all Muslims in a political and ideological unit, being the Ummah. From my perspective Islam appears very good at creating an 'us' vs. 'them' outlook on life, heck, just take the concept of 'Dar al-Islam' and 'Dar al-Harb'. Sure, it is not based on ethnicity or race, but then neither is, say, American nationalism.
Note: Islam is not based on nationalism. Their is no you and us. Their is right and wrong.
Well you can argue that nationalism creates an "us" vs "them", but in Islam it is not us vs them, it is doing the right and forbidding the wrong, and it doesn't undermine the practice of other faith or freedom those so called democratic views or secular views which in fact finds element in Islam. For example education, (Islam does not prohibits science, maths e.t.c in contrary to western view, but what it prohobits is stuff like pornography, viewing women as sex object e.t.c no matter how much the western people say they don't I personally know what is the view of western men since I practically grew up with them.)
No. But we are talking about the involvement of those who are really not affected (ie. Muslims who do not live near Israel). An illustration: Muslims did not become involved when Hutus took Tutsi homes in Rwanda. Why? Because they were not Muslims I would think, they did not belong to your 'group'. Nevermind that it is the same wrong and 'doing right' would require intervening, it still won't happen. It's the exact same reason why Americans didn't intervene in Rwanda either, for example.
Well you can argue that ost muslim don't know what is going on in those land, but I did here muslim speak against those, and I know I did post concerning this topic.
Do you know what caused the Hutsies and Tutsi massacre?
Nationalism (trbalism), in some degree, even though they where practically of the same faith and even same race.
Do you know who promoted this some kind views?
So I really don't accept that the Islamic concept of 'brotherhood' is anymore valid than one based on traditional nationalism, in fact it's exactly the same.
Not really. One is unfiying, cross boundaries and imaginary lines on a map, costums e.t.c and the other is Tribalism.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts.
Sign Up
Bookmarks