What's new

Do you put nationality before religion or vice versa?

minamino

minamino

Local Club Star
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Runs
2,049
For me, I put humanity before anything else so I’m a human being first, then my culture and then comes religion for me
 
Interesting because most Muslims identify as Muslims first before humanity, Country or least of all Culture.
 
How can you be Muslim before humanity? You have to be a human to have a religion right?
 
Jeez you have a lot of questions.

I'd identify as a muslim before a Pakistani
 
Nationality and religion is same for the residents of Islamic republic of Pakistan unless you are a non-Muslim.
 
Countries (and nationalities) are artificial, man made demarcations. They have no real meaning and can change several times, even during an individual’s life time.

To take pride in nationality is a little foolish.
 
Knight_Rider said:
Countries (and nationalities) are artificial, man made demarcations. They have no real meaning and can change several times, even during an individual’s life time.

To take pride in nationality is a little foolish.
Click to expand...

A lot of things can change during the course of a lifetime. The only thing in this case which can’t be changed is humanity
 
Nationality comes last. As others have said .. it fosters a kind of healthy tribalism but at the end of day, it's nothing but a construct.
 
minamino said:
A lot of things can change during the course of a lifetime. The only thing in this case which can’t be changed is humanity
Click to expand...

Title of this thread asks to choose from nationality and religion but here you are preaching humanity.:jimmy
 
minamino said:
A lot of things can change during the course of a lifetime. The only thing in this case which can’t be changed is humanity
Click to expand...

Bruv, we are all humans so stop trying to derail the thread by saying humanity comes first.
For a muslim, islam is the most humane path
For a Christian, Christianity is the most humane path
Etc.

So it doesn't make sense to put the so called humanity in front of religion as your religion itself is the most humane
 
Knight_Rider said:
Countries (and nationalities) are artificial, man made demarcations. They have no real meaning and can change several times, even during an individual’s life time.

To take pride in nationality is a little foolish.
Click to expand...

That's very true.
East Pakistanis are now Bangladeshis.
Some British Indians are now Pakistanis.

The USSR split into several different countries.

All of this happened in under 80 years
 
Religion comes first for me.

My Islamic identity is much more important to me than my Bangladeshi identity or Canadian identity.

However, I am loyal to both Bangladesh and Canada.
 
Last edited:
minamino said:
How can you be Muslim before humanity? You have to be a human to have a religion right?
Click to expand...

You are confused amongst all this, you started the thread asking religion over nationality or vice versa and then bringing in humanity topic, be clear about what you are really asking about
 
TrentDevil said:
You are confused amongst all this, you started the thread asking religion over nationality or vice versa and then bringing in humanity topic, be clear about what you are really asking about
Click to expand...

I guess by humanity he means the core set of values, which are core to all religions. Like: kindness, honesty, compassion, tolerance etc and I agree with him.

I ve met Atheists and other non-believers, who were wonderful human beings and exemplary in many regards (just refuse to adhere to any certain type of religious methodology). I sometimes think that such individuals are actually “more religious” than many others, so they should be given credit for that.
 
Knight_Rider said:
I guess by humanity he means the core set of values, which are core to all religions. Like: kindness, honesty, compassion, tolerance etc and I agree with him.

I ve met Atheists and other non-believers, who were wonderful human beings and exemplary in many regards (just refuse to adhere to any certain type of religious methodology). I sometimes think that such individuals are actually “more religious” than many others, so they should be given credit for that.
Click to expand...


The main reason for that is that people who claim to be uber religious and have become chacha choudhri of the religions(across all religions) are the people who know absolutely zilch about the religion of whom they are masquerading as Khalifas. That has actually led to many people turn against religion (in a way) and prefer not to associate themselves with any religion. There is no leading light to pull people out of the dark created by these wannabe religious savers, and those who can actually make an impact prefer to be low key bcz someone is a second away from issuing fatwa against him and next thing you hear is that someone got killed while on a morning walk.
 
Last edited:
Neither.

These are artificial constructs used to maintain centralised control over the masses.

They have systems in place that indoctrinate you from birth, religion more so than nationalism, but ultimately both are have a negative impact on the individual and society at large.

Make no mistake about it religion is a remnant of our tribalistic past.
 
Knight_Rider said:
What exactly does Nation mean? And why you think it should come first?
Click to expand...

Nation comes first it has a physical existence with clear boundaries in the 3d world. An entity which we can see, feel, realize.

Religion is an imaginary entity.
 
Itachi said:
Nation comes first it has a physical existence with clear boundaries in the 3d world. An entity which we can see, feel, realize.

Religion is an imaginary entity.
Click to expand...

But, border keeps on changing. There was no such thing called India 100 years ago. It was under British Empire. Before that, it was divided into multiple kingdoms.
 
sweep_shot said:
But, border keeps on changing. There was no such thing called India 100 years ago. It was under British Empire. Before that, it was divided into multiple kingdoms.
Click to expand...

So? when it was multiple kingdoms, nationality was attributed to each kingdom.

when it was british empire, nationality was the whole british empire.

When it is india, the nationality is attributed to india.
 
Religion first, and with that comes humanity automatically.
 
Itachi said:
So? when it was multiple kingdoms, nationality was attributed to each kingdom.

when it was british empire, nationality was the whole british empire.

When it is india, the nationality is attributed to india.
Click to expand...

Point is, religious identity is permanent while national identity is temporary.
 
Actions speak louder than words. Where you live is often a good indicator of what you actually put first. If I was religious, I'd probably want to be in an Islamic country, of if I was a devout Hindu, then India. Of course I realise that there is the argument that you can still be a Muslim or whatever else in a non-Islamic country, but why would you if you put faith first?
 
sweep_shot said:
Point is, religious identity is permanent while national identity is temporary.
Click to expand...

every enetity is relative. There is nothing called "constant" in this world.

If religion was a "constant" entity, there wouldn't have been so many prophets. There wouldn't have been so many religions. Abrahamic religions itself would have been united as one.
 
Itachi said:
So? when it was multiple kingdoms, nationality was attributed to each kingdom.

when it was british empire, nationality was the whole british empire.

When it is india, the nationality is attributed to india.
Click to expand...

Nationalities change very quickly.
Pakistanis were British Indians a few decades ago.
But religion doesn't change.

Judaism is still Judaism
Christianity is still Christianity
Islam is still Islam
 
Ronaldo7 said:
Nationalities change very quickly.
Pakistanis were British Indians a few decades ago.
But religion doesn't change.

Judaism is still Judaism
Christianity is still Christianity
Islam is still Islam
Click to expand...

"nationality changes quickly." So?

I change clothes too many times in a day. I could wear a shirt or t shirt or even a blazer. But still i am wearing "cloth". I don't see what's the issue in this.
 
Well, I strongly oppose the concept of nationalism and patriotism, so I identify as a Muslim way more than I identify as a Pakistani.
 
Ronaldo7 said:
Nationalities change very quickly.
Pakistanis were British Indians a few decades ago.
But religion doesn't change.

Judaism is still Judaism
Christianity is still Christianity
Islam is still Islam
Click to expand...

Religion doesn’t change?
 
Itachi said:
"nationality changes quickly." So?

I change clothes too many times in a day. I could wear a shirt or t shirt or even a blazer. But still i am wearing "cloth". I don't see what's the issue in this.
Click to expand...

You can't be loyal to something that keeps on changing.

You might be an Indian one day, a pakistani the next day and a Bangladeshi the next.

But you'll ALWAYS stay a christian, a muslim or a Hindu (if you don't convert)
 
Nationalism can't be taken seriously as borders keep on changing. Maybe a natural disaster can wipe out the whole country. Many things can happen.
 
Last edited:
Ronaldo7 said:
Not as quickly as nationalities was my point.
Click to expand...

That’s because the nation state is a new concept. But empires preceded religions and were used to impose religious beliefs on the masses, either through violence or patronage.
 
Ronaldo7 said:
You can't be loyal to something that keeps on changing.

You might be an Indian one day, a pakistani the next day and a Bangladeshi the next.

But you'll ALWAYS stay a christian, a muslim or a Hindu (if you don't convert)
Click to expand...



loyalty is with respect to the nation (whatever the nation is).

So one person is loyal to "X" country one day, then it is merged with "Y" country then he is loyal to "Y" country and then it is converted to "Z" country by adding/removing many states and then he is loyal to "Z" country.

What is the issue in that? His loyalty too doesn't change. His loyalty to his nation in each case is intact.
 
Itachi said:
loyalty is with respect to the nation (whatever the nation is).

So one person is loyal to "X" country one day, then it is merged with "Y" country then he is loyal to "Y" country and then it is converted to "Z" country by adding/removing many states and then he is loyal to "Z" country.

What is the issue in that? His loyalty too doesn't change. His loyalty to his nation in each case is intact.
Click to expand...

Issue is, historically they don’t merge, they have been subjugated.

Loyalty isn’t earned it’s demanded.
 
If religion is more important for people, why Bangladesh was liberated even though Pakistan was a Muslim country so was the majority of Bengalis? It's confirmed that a lot of people put culture before religion. I am one of them, I wouldn't mind wearing kurta shalwar in front of my non-Muslim friends but i would never preach them about the religion.
 
My granddad was born during British rule. So, he was a British during his early days. Bangladesh then joined Pakistan and so he became Pakistani. Bangladesh got liberated and he died as a Bangladeshi.

So, in a matter of few decades, he went through three different nationalities while his religion remained the same.

This is the point I am raising. Faith is permanent while nationalism is temporary.
 
sweep_shot said:
My granddad was born during British rule. So, he was a British during his early days. Bangladesh then joined Pakistan and so he became Pakistani. Bangladesh got liberated and he died as a Bangladeshi.

So, in a matter of few decades, he went through three different nationalities while his religion remained the same.

This is the point I am raising. Faith is permanent while nationalism is temporary.
Click to expand...

And how do you think he ended up a Muslim?
 
miandadrules said:
And how do you think he ended up a Muslim?
Click to expand...

Are you implying everyone in subcontinent was forced to accept Islam? I don't think so. Truth is we can't know for sure.

Anyway. I am happy that my ancestors chose to be Muslims.
 
Last edited:
sweep_shot said:
Are you implying everyone was forced to accept Islam? I don't think so. There are many who choose it voluntarily.
Click to expand...

But you don’t know the rationale behind the reason he became Muslim.

Thus despite all your bravado you’re premise is in very shaky ground.
 
sweep_shot said:
Are you implying everyone in subcontinent was forced to accept Islam? I don't think so. Truth is we can't know for sure.

Anyway. I am happy that my ancestors chose to be Muslims.
Click to expand...

Who said they chose it?

Do you every try and verify anything you believe as true?
 
If a person is not loyal to the nation he/she lives in, then the person is a traitor. You may disapprove some of the policies of the government, but if you put your religion above the law and the constitution, then you do not have any right to live in that nation.
 
To be honest, I have never cared much about nationality or patriotism. It's the last refuge of the scoundrel after all. Religion is I guess a little bit more important but not significantly so. Everyone is a human at the end of the day and there's not a great deal of difference between people at the end of the day. It's why I find all the squalid nationalism displayed on this forum so devastatingly putrid and distasteful.
 
Ronaldo7 said:
The key word here is "everyone"

stop being biased.

Not EVERYONE was forced
Click to expand...

Please elaborate on how the masses were converted?

Were they presented with scrolls of literature analysing the various aspects and after decades of research and deliberation they converted?

The overwhelming majority were converted through conquest or patronage.

So, I agree stop being biased.

More than happy for you provide literature to the contrary, as you have obviously researched this in great detail.
 
I’m not a nationalist but if I ever given a choice of promoting my culture or religion, I’d choose the former.
 
miandadrules said:
Please elaborate on how the masses were converted?

Were they presented with scrolls of literature analysing the various aspects and after decades of research and deliberation they converted?

The overwhelming majority were converted through conquest or patronage.

So, I agree stop being biased.

More than happy for you provide literature to the contrary, as you have obviously researched this in great detail.
Click to expand...

When the king converts, the people of the kingdom will slowly convert too.
 
Last Monetarist said:
To be honest, I have never cared much about nationality or patriotism. It's the last refuge of the scoundrel after all. Religion is I guess a little bit more important but not significantly so. Everyone is a human at the end of the day and there's not a great deal of difference between people at the end of the day. It's why I find all the squalid nationalism displayed on this forum so devastatingly putrid and distasteful.
Click to expand...

Perfect answer.
 
TrentDevil said:
[/B]
The main reason for that is that people who claim to be uber religious and have become chacha choudhri of the religions(across all religions) are the people who know absolutely zilch about the religion of whom they are masquerading as Khalifas. That has actually led to many people turn against religion (in a way) and prefer not to associate themselves with any religion. There is no leading light to pull people out of the dark created by these wannabe religious savers, and those who can actually make an impact prefer to be low key bcz someone is a second away from issuing fatwa against him and next thing you hear is that someone got killed while on a morning walk.
Click to expand...

That is the biggest crap of an excuse I hear from people who leave a religion, Citing other people's religious behaviour as a the reason why they left, In the End it purely a personal decision About belief you either believe or you don't it as simple as that.
 
As Muslims what is good or bad, or as other would describe as humanity in their case os not defined by us humans but By Allah and his prophet so what was revealed to Us as good we take as good and what is told to us is bad we take as bad.
 
miandadrules said:
Afraid not.

The fact that you can’t even contemplate this, is indicative of the deleterious nature of such ideologies.
Click to expand...

Islam to me is divine and something beyond me to contemplate on. If you have questions on this then go chat with a religious scholar.
 
For me, religion will always come first. No nation is greater than Allah for me.

Muslims generally put nationality/ethnicity before religion however Islam dictates that faith is supposed to triumph over any national, ethnic or tribal ties.
 
AdamM97 said:
For me, religion will always come first. No nation is greater than Allah for me.

Muslims generally put nationality/ethnicity before religion however Islam dictates that faith is supposed to triumph over any national, ethnic or tribal ties.
Click to expand...

Which in itself is tribalistic.
 
The full quote is:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
 
miandadrules said:
Which in itself is tribalistic.
Click to expand...

Of course. Islam, just like any nationality, tribe or ethnicity is tribalistic. Anything that binds a group of people based on social/blood/economic ties and otherwise are tribalistic.
Islam is supposed to triumph over tribes, and by tribes I mean families and communities linked by blood ties.

Islam is supposed to transcend race and ethnicity. That’s not to say that race and ethnicity hasn’t mattered in the history of Islam.
 
Last edited:
AdamM97 said:
Of course. Islam, just like any nationality, tribe or ethnicity is tribalistic. Anything that binds a group of people based on social/blood/economic ties and otherwise are tribalistic.
Islam is supposed to triumph over tribes, and by tribes I mean families and communities linked by blood ties.
Click to expand...

I agree.

But you’re merely substituting one tribe for another. The falls in the system remain and the exploitation still in place.
 
AdamM97 said:
Of course. Islam, just like any nationality, tribe or ethnicity is tribalistic. Anything that binds a group of people based on social/blood/economic ties and otherwise are tribalistic.
Islam is supposed to triumph over tribes, and by tribes I mean families and communities linked by blood ties.

Islam is supposed to transcend race and ethnicity. That’s not to say that race and ethnicity hasn’t mattered in the history of Islam.
Click to expand...

World has always excited in the form of tribes and will continue to, be it nationalism or other forms.

Throwing the word "Tribalism" does not support any argument.
 
AdamM97 said:
Of course. Islam, just like any nationality, tribe or ethnicity is tribalistic. Anything that binds a group of people based on social/blood/economic ties and otherwise are tribalistic.
Islam is supposed to triumph over tribes, and by tribes I mean families and communities linked by blood ties.

Islam is supposed to transcend race and ethnicity. That’s not to say that race and ethnicity hasn’t mattered in the history of Islam.
Click to expand...

How an entity X is a superset of Y when it is a subset of Y itself?
 
miandadrules said:
I agree.

But you’re merely substituting one tribe for another. The falls in the system remain and the exploitation still in place.
Click to expand...

Can anyone truly ever be tribe-less? Humans are made to cooperate and live together.

There are flaws within Islamic societies today, I agree. Our society needs to adapt to modern times.
 
AdamM97 said:
Can anyone truly ever be tribe-less? Humans are made to cooperate and live together.

There are flaws within Islamic societies today, I agree. Our society needs to adapt to modern times.
Click to expand...

No utopian society exists, even for them there is no objective idea of good or bad since they don't believe in a higher power.

What we as humans generally agree with as human rights is basically implanted within us by Allah, for example I think the story of cain he was the first human to kill another human and he covered the body of his dead brother, why did he do this because he knew it was wrong and wanted to hide his crime but for them it is just society's moral evolution over time.
 
Well, my father was born in India finished high school there, then worked in Pakistan and then died in the USA.

People acquire so many citizenships through their life time however hardly people change their religious faith in droves. Based on my observations yes religion carries more value than nationalism.

For the most part, both criteria are chosen by God where you were born or into which religion you were born, you do not decide that.

However, there is a place for both but taking things to the extreme level is not good either. I mean, come on, who we are to judge Dr. Abdus Salam and his relationship with God. Only God is the final judge however when people start acting like Gods(even though they have their set of personal flaws) start deciding who can hold certain positions or who don't as long as if they are loyal to Pakistan, loyal Pakistanis then why not. Their personal faith is their business and they will be judged accordingly.
 
Ted Cruz recently said he was a Christian first and an American latter, and Mike Pence has also said he was a Christian, conservative and Republican in that order. Most Christians in America would choose Christ over country likewise I think everyone should prioritize their faith over nationalism.
 
Islam is a way of life, not something on the side. On the day of judgement, we will be standing shoulder to shoulder, no matter age, nationality, rich, poor.
 
Nationality is a product of chance which is rarely changed by people unless you are Jews and want to move to occupied land.

Religion is also chance but it's up to you if you want to submit or leave.

Its absurd to suggest ones nationality is more important thans one belief of who we are, how we got here and where we are going.
 
Humans are tribal people. We feel more closer to people who are like us. For most Pakistanis wherever they live in the World, they would feel more closer to people in the following order:

1 - To Pakistanis and Kashmiri Muslims.
2 - To other Subcontinent Muslims
3 - To other Muslims else where in the World
4 - To Non Muslim Subcontinent people
5 - To Non Muslims in the rest of the World

With that being said you need to obey the law of whatever country you reside in. And if you cant do that then you need to leave that country.
 
Spot on. I don't know why, but I was in school I always used to hang out with Pakistanis and Muslims. This is the same as my younger cousin, who's six, and has 31 people in his class. Yet his best friends are Pakistani. I live in UK by the way, so we have a very diverse community.
 
So do you care a Christian or Hindu from your own country or for a Muslim from say Afghanistan or even India?

If your answer is the latter than don’t be up in arms over the whole Kaneria controversy.

The question is for people who pick religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Suleiman
Let’s revitalize good relations between Hindus and Muslims like pre colonial times [Goodwill Thread]
Replies
9
Views
379
DeadlyVenom
D
sweep_shot
As you grow older, do you become more fearless?
Replies
13
Views
304
Bhaijaan
Bhaijaan
S
Nationality versus Faith
2
Replies
105
Views
2K
Aang_The_last_airbender
Aang_The_last_airbender
The Bald Eagle
  • Poll Poll
Is US-India-Israel alliance the new Axis powers or Axis of Evil?
Replies
28
Views
652
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
Hitman
You are ISIS's successors: Asaduddin Owaisi to perpetrators of Pahalgam terror attack
2
Replies
95
Views
4K
Devadwal
Devadwal
Back
Top