"You have sunk low"

TFTD: In 1962, the Muslims were warmly addressed as having "sunk low to the depths of spiritual descent, material & intellectual backwardness and political decline" and told "the Islamic relationships in your society have been completely eradicated and their place has been taken by the Capitalistic relationships, ie the relationships of the systems of Kufr" and that "the bond of Islamic brotherhood between the Islamic peoples has been severed, replaced by the bond of nationalism, ie the bond of tribalism and partisanship".

Q: Assuming this was accurate at the time, how true is it today?

Comments

[Abu Hasan]

I think that its less true today. In the sense of the brotherhood of the global Ummah has grown and the bond of nationalism has significantly weakened. Muslims today across the world feel the pains and the anguish of the Muslims across the globe.

This is demonstrated by a number of reactions to events;

For example, the Earthquake in Pakistan. This resulted in loads of money ceing collected across the Muslim World.

The affinity of Muslims to the suffering of the Muslims in Palestine and Iraq.

We see that everytime there is some kind of problem in the Muslim world we see Muslims rally together such as when the carrtoons insulting the honour of the one from whom honour is sought our habib Muhammad (saw).

In terms of political decline I thnk that Musharaf has done some good for the economy of Pakistan, though he has certainlt not helped developing stability in Pakistani politics.

I think that the Muslims are yearning for a sincere leadership that will stand for the intrest of miuslims and not be lapdog of the western masters. What that means in reality is that the muslims today are looking for any kind of sincere political leadership, whether that is islamic or not is a point of dispute. I am sure there are many here with many diverse view what that leadership should be.

In terms of capitalist relationaships i feel that this is done upon a very shallow basis in the muslim world. So I can't comment as it is irrlevant if its changed or not.

At times it can be extremely ant-western and anti-capitalist and at times adopting them wholesale when it may be normal.

[Abu Rami]

So did the warm call have a positive effect on the backward Muslims?

Or is it simply a case of better communications in a globalised world?

While what Abu Hasan commented above is true, my experience is that the Arab national identities only took root in the generation born in the 1960's. Many states only came into existence in the 60's and 70's.

So while the "brotherhood" bond may be more apparent today, the nationalistic/patriotic bond is certainly alive and well today. People define themselves by their state affiliations first and foremost.

Indeed, we are now witnessing the emergence of new ethnic identities in the Middle East and north Africa, each demanding political rights, recognition, and independence.

I'm not commenting on whether this is a good or a bad thing, but non-Aqeedah bonds certainly do exist in a big way.

[Toppled Pyramid]

Salam my dear brother abu Hasan,

Nationalism is a bond involving the concept of citezenship. It means (in the modern nation state sense) swearing ones loyalty to a particular nation state (or having loyalty assumed by birth), and nothing more.

It does not involve any notion of ethnicity (asabiyyah [tribalism]), because many people from different ethnicities can give loyalty to a nation state (as they do in Britain). Therefore, by this definition of nationalism (ie: acquiring nationality of a state via swearing loyalty to it) would you not agree that even the HT Caliphate model would practice nationalism?

This is because it would grant citizenship/nationality to any person (regardless of ethnicity or religion) who swears allegiance to the state?

Therefore, nationalism, by THIS definition that is practised today, is not a problem in itself, and is definately not Kufr.

The problem, therefore, is simply the multiplication of such states that Muslims swear allegiance to (ie: become nationals of) and not the actual act of loyalty to a "nation" itself.

Once it is understood that nationalism by THIS definition as is practised today, is not Kufr in itself, rather the problem is the multiplication of states that are owed allegiance to. The next question becomes, is the multiplication of these states Kufr, or just Haram?

The Sahih Muslim Ahadith that oblige one ruler for Muslims are are not Qati'i in the Thubut (proof) or Dalalah (meaning).

They are not Qati'i in the Thubut because they are Ahadith al-Ahad. These are Thanni al-Thubut and thus the Hukm that emanates from them can only but be Thanni (see Nitham al-Islam by Shaykh Nabhani [rh] chapter on Hukm Shari'i).

Moreover, they are Thanni in the Dalalah too. This is because scholars such as al-Shawkani (in Sayl al-Jarrar)and al-San'ani (in Subul al-Salam) and ibn Khaldun (in his Muqaddimah al-Tarikh, as is even quoted by HT on the K.com site, though they have not elaborated on the implication that he didn't make the permissability of two Imams (leaders) conidtional to 'necessity' in his quote [contrary to what is claimed], and that he explicitly seperated the opinion of those who said that the Ahadith were restricted only to two Imams in one locality/land [balad] from those who said that two Imams were only allowed if there was a distance between them, thus there is an opinion quoted by L.com of Ibn Khaldun that the Ahadith only apply to two Imams in ONE locality/land [balad], and this opinion completely slips under the HT radar on that site!!)
So, based on that, the Dalalah of these Sahih Ahadith is also Thanni.

However, even if the Dalalah wasn't thanni, then the fact that the Thubut is Thanni, means that the Hukm cannot but be Thanni, according to Usuli principles, held even by HT.

Now, I am NOT saying that disunity is good. I am saying that it is not KUFR, merely haram at best.

My dear brother Abu Hasan, wouldn't it therefore be true that the whole "bonds" discussion has less to do with Kufr or Islamic bonds, because the whole thing is not Qati'i, and therefore its opposite isn't Kufr; and more to do with better or worse political organisation of our Muslim societies? You may think that the existence of many Muslim countries is bad, and Haram,, and you have the right to think that (and so do I), but it is not posisble in my view to prove that it is Kufr by Qati'i evidences.

Therefore, if the nationalist bond merely means loyalty to a state, and the multiplicity of states is not Kufr but Haram...then the nationalist bond (that is rife amongst Muslims) of loyalty to many different states , though bad, cannot be called a Kufr.

Moreoever, both Nationalism and citezenship are modern phenomena, which aren't discussed in Shari'i texts explicitly. Therefore, our reconciliation with them is only ever going to be a process of politilcal interpretation reconciled with an Ijtihad.

And so the issue becomes one of political argumentation about what is best practically, and not as much about whether this or that bond is Kufr or Islamic?

Would you agree?

Wassalaamu alaykum

[Toppled Pyramid]

Abu Hasan where are you? ....Does anyone else wish to comment on my above post?

[obi 1]

back from the dagaba system, seems like you dont have much people to talk to toppled pyramid mybe the point is so ludricuse it aint even worth commenting on

[master Windu]

Toppled Pyramid why do you have such a hang up with HT you write as if the only people you are addressing or want to address is HT, you keep arguing that if someone has a itjihad and it is ikhtilafi then it has to be accepted so why dont you just except hts views and make excuses for them the way you make excuses for the rulers. IF you were sincere to your view then this would be the position you take.

[Abu Rami]

Toppled Pyramid, it looks like you've used this quotation as an opportunity to let loose against some HT-related phantom that clearly means a lot to you.

While I don't wish to discuss the fiqhi nitty gritty with you, I'll make a few passing comments - just because you asked :-)

1. The nationalism described in the quotation is not the same as the citizenship/patriotism you describe. It was the nationalism of the 19th century that lead to the formation of the nation states of the 20th century, and citizenship and patriotism developed after that.

2. The quotation did not imply that nationalism is Kufr. It didn't even claim explicitly that nationalism is Haraam.

[Rashad Zaman Ali from Sheffield]

advice: from one in need of advice and aid form Allah: Let us try not to imply insincerety and allude to it. Itdoesn't benefit anyone on teh board neither practically nor in teh akhirah except the person whom you think is insincere as they will be rewarded by Allah for your accusation and you will lose out; something that you don't want especially if you think the other person is wrong in a pretty major kind of way...

[Rashad Zaman Ali from Sheffield]

Master Windu: It is becasue it is an ijtihad that it is not dsaid that HT are on kufr rather they have a point of view BUT they can NOT impose their point of view nor remove the rulers and force it upon the society and then create civil war to bring other authorities under tehir ocntrol; as it is just apoint of view and there are otehr points of view and it is not a matter of kufr.

If they changed that and merely propogated tehir ijtihad then who could have a qualm with people who live for Islam - something which they do do - but unfortunately they are insistent that their point of view is the only point of view and anyone saying otherwise is upon kufr, an agent, insincere etc.

I hope that this is clear.

[Toppled Pyramid]

Abu Rami,

Yes..I concede. I was actually making a point about what is said by the very same people today...that an example of Kufr in the current states is their "nation state" status.

Obi 1: I challenge you to actually try and address the issues, and stop sloganeering. It's nice to see that you have some dutch courage whilst on the net, but I would really like to dicsuss and learn for the sake of my Lord, so bro...if you cannot answer the issues, then hold your tongue before you embarrass yourself further.

[Abu Hasan]

Asalaam

Sorry for not responding earlier. Brother Abu Rami you mentioned that in the older generation the bond of nationalism is strong as many of this generation were the childern of the 50s anmd 60s , the era when many arab states gained their newfound 'freedoms from the colonialist. Many arab nationalist parties were formed and were the Buzz of the time. Gamal Abdul Nasser was the great arab hope that failed to save Palestine and unite all the arabs. After this period the bond of arab nationalism was considerably weakened and withered away. I have travelled to many muslim
countries and apart from the gulf countries, not felt the non-aqueeda bonds in any of the muslim countries. It is undeniable that the bond of islamic brotherhood has gained over the bond of nationalism. What do Egyptians,morrocans,sudanese,syrians love about the idea of their respective natinality? Go to the government sites for these countries and see the weak attempts to find their people something to be proud of before islam. It is laughable. The bond of Islam is what unites these people, In Ed Hussains book he talks about the syrians fighting in Iraq, He talks about the hate of the suadis for British. This is not due to nationalism but the bond of islam that drives muslims to feel the pain of other muslims. So I fail to see the point " People define themselves by their state affiliations first and foremost"

[Rashad Zaman Ali from Sheffield]

I have actually lived in; travelled through; and worked with many peoples from the Muslim lands; such as Saudi; Egypt; Syria; Jordan; Sudan; Qatar; Turkey.

Even within these countries such as in Syria there is a different perspective and prejudices held by non-Kurds to Syrian Kurds. In Turkey their perspective on Arabs and Kurds is well known (As is the faamous love the Turkish society has towards secular Turkish Nationalism).

I mean I know how much the Saudi's pride themselves over other nations.

Or how the Egyptians see themselves as the intellectual leaders of the Arab states and see themselves as leaders.

Or how the Bangladeshis "love" teh Pakistanis!

Or even the wonders of the Indian Muslims who support the Indian Cricket team over the pakistanis (something that I know bothers the Indian Islamists!) but then again they do have an Indian-Muslim President!

They are generally happy with their respective lands, borders and have their own stereotypes of each other, they do not demand the tearing down of tehir borders, so for all intensive practical political purposes; the nation state bond is strong, healthy and alive. This is especially the ase in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India.

Let us not mistake the Muslims fealty and sentiments of spiritual brotherhood, and sharing teh pains of their brethren across the globe, mistaken for a non-existent ideologocal bond which politically supercedes tehir patriotic political ideas and political system.

They don't see a contradiction between being Egyptian/Syrian/Turkish/Secular-Turkish/Saudi/Kurdish/Socialist-Kurdish/Salafi-Saudi/ and Muslim.

Only some of the the extreme Islamists would have an identity problem with I dunno, say being Muslim or British and end up fly posting all the Muslim houses in his city after taking their addresses down from the council register ;-).

Most people wouldn't have that hang up. Most people don't think that there is a contradiction as they don't politicise their identity with an expansionist totalitarian state as a part of their identity in the name of the Ummah.

[Abu Hasan]

Asalaam

I agree with you to a point, but the concept of nationalism in south east asia is taught in schools at a very young age, by the singing of the national anthem. Like you mentioned many nationalities have particular likes and dislikes towards others. The different nationalities that were found in Afghanistan after 9/11 does however indicate that a "non-existent ideological bond which politically supercedes thier patriotic political ideas and political system' might actually exist

[rashad ali]

I don't think any society carries it at a social level and it is certainly not a conviction in any of these societies and not public opinion that permeates in any of the disparate society's in the Muslim world - certainly not strong enough to create change.

[Abu Hasan]

I think it exists in the underlying fabric of society, it justs needs greater creative political work to bring it to the surface.

[Rashad Ali]

Its just difficult to see and feel as well as prove; it's even more difficult to live political life according to it; I think in Hizbi terms its sounds like an intangible spiritual bond.... one that people have faith exists; They know it in their hearts deep down....