Do you put nationality before religion or vice versa?

[Knight_Rider]

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.

Biru, nationality means zilch. Tomorrow when you are in a western country (or may already be), you will be the first in the queue to get the Foreign passport. Where do all the national pride goes on opportunities like these?

 

[Local.Dada]

Biru, nationality means zilch. Tomorrow when you are in a western country (or may already be), you will be the first in the queue to get the Foreign passport. Where do all the national pride goes on opportunities like these?

Of course I would have said absolutely in agreement had the argument been if you would put your family ahead of religion and nation.

If a radical guy puts a sword to my kids throat or my parents head I would absolutely do whatever it takes to save them even if it goes against my religion. Who cares

Similarly a country is where I am living raising my family, earning my living. So to protect my family I am willing to die for the country if it means my family will be safe.

So not sure what point you are trying to make with the passport question?

Sure I moved to a country for a better life for my family and if it means picking that over anything else it is a no brainer for me.

 

[Local.Dada]

I think most people here who are picking religion are 2nd gen migrants. They have no clue what their parents or previous gen have gone through to move to a place that provides their kids with better life. They probably don’t have the appreciation for that struggle.

I am sure if they ask their parents the same question they will get a different answer.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I think most people here who are picking religion are 2nd gen migrants. They have no clue what their parents or previous gen have gone through to move to a place that provides their kids with better life. They probably don’t have the appreciation for that struggle.

I am sure if they ask their parents the same question they will get a different answer.

My parents would be even stronger in their answer of putting religion above nationality. I wouldn't be guessing.

 

[DeadBall]

I think most people here who are picking religion are 2nd gen migrants. They have no clue what their parents or previous gen have gone through to move to a place that provides their kids with better life. They probably don’t have the appreciation for that struggle.

I am sure if they ask their parents the same question they will get a different answer.

Especially in the UK. I was quite surprised to see the number of people with identity crisis there as opposed to the US or Canada. Most of the people I knew intimately (as in family and family friends) were Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and they were really confused, as the saying goes, na ghar ka na ghaat ka. Not sure about the Indians though, they seemed pretty self assured but I mostly interacted with them in social surroundings though.

 

[minamino]

Especially in the UK. I was quite surprised to see the number of people with identity crisis there as opposed to the US or Canada. Most of the people I knew intimately (as in family and family friends) were Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and they were really confused, as the saying goes, na ghar ka na ghaat ka. Not sure about the Indians though, they seemed pretty self assured but I mostly interacted with them in social surroundings though.

Indians gel with British people easily and contrary to notion here that Indians are not attractive, my whole lecture is crazy for an Indian girl and she's by far the most attractive girl in the whole class and perhaps the uni too.

 

[Local.Dada]

My parents would be even stronger in their answer of putting religion above nationality. I wouldn't be guessing.

They moved from a place called “Islamic republic of Pakistan” founded exclusively for subcontinent Muslims to a different country where most things considered un-Islamic like eating pork and consuming alcohol are common, different language, different culture, different race, different view points to most things considered taboo in Islam etc etc etc.

Not judging but doesn’t sound that obvious to me that they picked religion over everything else. So not sure where you are getting your conviction from.

 

[DeadBall]

Indians gel with British people easily and contrary to notion here that Indians are not attractive, my whole lecture is crazy for an Indian girl and she's by far the most attractive girl in the whole class and perhaps the uni too.

Your tharkiness aside , I wasn't talking about attractiveness. What I meant was I did not have any close Indian relatives or friends during my time there unlike in the UAE etc, so I didn't really know if it was just a show they were putting up or if they had identity issues too.

 

[minamino]

Your tharkiness aside , I wasn't talking about attractiveness. What I meant was I did not have any close Indian relatives or friends during my time there unlike in the UAE etc, so I didn't really know if it was just a show they were putting up or if they had identity issues too.

How could you have Indian relatives unless you're married to an Indian? My brother has a lot of Indo-Pak friends but all of them are first gens. As I have said, British Indians gel better with British people than other communities.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Of course I would have said absolutely in agreement had the argument been if you would put your family ahead of religion and nation.

If a radical guy puts a sword to my kids throat or my parents head I would absolutely do whatever it takes to save them even if it goes against my religion. Who cares

Similarly a country is where I am living raising my family, earning my living. So to protect my family I am willing to die for the country if it means my family will be safe.

So not sure what point you are trying to make with the passport question?

Sure I moved to a country for a better life for my family and if it means picking that over anything else it is a no brainer for me.

So if your upmost loyalty is with the country that gave you the passport.
And You picked that country because it was the most lucrative place for you to earn your living and raise your family.

You are saying that you will sell your Loyality to the highest bidder. Right?

 

[DeadBall]

How could you have Indian relatives unless you're married to an Indian? My brother has a lot of Indo-Pak friends but all of them are first gens. As I have said, British Indians gel better with British people than other communities.

Because I have Indian relatives from my Pak side of the family who remained in India? Also I mentioned friends of which I had a lot in regards to the UAE (something you should know about) and other non UK, Pakistan or Indian places. The whole India Pakistan thing goes on the back burner when you know you could be deported for it and everyone becomes bhai bhai.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Especially in the UK. I was quite surprised to see the number of people with identity crisis there as opposed to the US or Canada. Most of the people I knew intimately (as in family and family friends) were Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and they were really confused, as the saying goes, na ghar ka na ghaat ka. Not sure about the Indians though, they seemed pretty self assured but I mostly interacted with them in social surroundings though.

Na ghar ka na ghatt ka fits better on those who are willing to do whatever to imitate and please the Gora Saab and Indians are at the fore front of that.

Trying to preserve your cultural, religious and linguistic identity is exactly the OPPOSITE of that!
You can perfectly well integrate in a functional society without totally giving up your identity.

 

[minamino]

I know some British Indians who don't really care about their Indian roots (coconuts) yet there are some who try to brag about it but none of them are on extreme level of nationalism.

 

[DeadBall]

Na ghar ka na ghatt ka fits better on those who are willing to do whatever to imitate and please the Gora Saab and Indians are at the fore front of that.

Trying to preserve your cultural, religious and linguistic identity is exactly the OPPOSITE of that!
You can perfectly well integrate in a functional society without totally giving up your identity.

True to an extent but UK is the new ghar in this example. The British don't really accept you as one of their own and you are faced with all sorts of abuse even if you really love the country so you have to double down on the religious part to compensate for the nationality part.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Hmm, British should accept people who have a different religious and cultural background. If they don’t, its their problem. As long as people agree with civic values and are law abiding, its perfectly fine.

We are not slaves owned by the Brits and Many Brit asians in 60s were brought over to work for the Industrial revival Britain i.e. for the benefit of the country (more than anything else). You don’t have to sell your soul and then expect to be respected for your own identity.

Look at the Black slaves in various parts of the British empire, their native identities were totally wiped out and now after more than a century they are still without any identity and culture what so ever.

 

[miandadrules]

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.

Why does someone have to be from your country for you to care?

 

[Local.Dada]

Why does someone have to be from your country for you to care?

Why do you have Miandad rules as your user name? Why not Gavaskar,Sachin,Lara,Ponting,Viv Richards etc etc etc

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

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.

When something bad happens to someone, of course people will feel bad if they hear about it. But we feel worse when its people who we are closest to. Its basic tribalism. So this includes religion and culture.

So for a Pakistani Muslim if we hear something bad happening to an Indian Muslim we will feel worse than we would about a Chinese, Myanmar, or Darfur Muslim. Since our culture is closer to an Indian Muslim.

And our culture to an Indian Muslim is even closer than it is to a Pakistani non Muslim. That's why people cared more about Babri Masjid, than the mandirs that were destroyed in retaliation.

Im not saying its right, but that's just how they feel.

And its not only Pakistanis who do this, this is done by people all over the World.

In America which is White majority, we have thousands of young black people who die in inner cities due to violence. There is very little media coverage regarding this. When there is a shooting where whites die its breaking news often for weeks.

Same thing when a white women goes missing, non stop media coverage. Very little media coverage if the same thing happened to a black women.

 

[Local.Dada]

So if your upmost loyalty is with the country that gave you the passport.
And You picked that country because it was the most lucrative place for you to earn your living and raise your family.

You are saying that you will sell your Loyality to the highest bidder. Right?

Are you serious?

I don’t know about you but most normal people have families, professions/jobs/careers, responsibilities, bills to pay, hobbies and then may be time for religion/spirituality.

No offense but the very fact that you think that people can just pick a lucrative place to live just like that and get a passport shows that you have no idea what it took to get you to where you live today.

Anyways back to the topic religion/ spirituality is just a part of your life may be varies how much you allocate to it. If religion is someone’s full time thing either that is their profession like a priest/preacher or you don’t have any thing else going on like the things I mentioned job, responsibilities etc. and probably they might be getting an easy paycheck from their government or something.

As far as country goes there are reasons to pick it over a lot of things for the reasons mentioned in previous posts.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Yep am serious and trust me i ve been through the drill in life to be where I am today.

I am just making it clear that for some ppl like yourself Loyality and affiliation mainly depends on the material gain. Which is why i think ppl like you are always open for offers from the highest bidder.

Similarly others may have other non-material values and you dont have right to criticise them for making their choice.

 

[miandadrules]

Why do you have Miandad rules as your user name? Why not Gavaskar,Sachin,Lara,Ponting,Viv Richards etc etc etc

No significance.

I don’t care more for Miandad than I do Gavaskar as a human being. Their suffering would be equal for me.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

No significance.

I don’t care more for Miandad than I do Gavaskar as a human being. Their suffering would be equal for me.

If your loved one is suffering, vs the loved one of someone else, there pain would be equal for you?

 

[miandadrules]

If your loved one is suffering, vs the loved one of someone else, there pain would be equal for you?

Even though I know what your alluding you’ll need to be more specific.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Even though I know what your alluding you’ll need to be more specific.

If your mother and someone else's mother were involved in a car accident, and were both in an equal amount of pain, would you care more for your mother well being, or would both women's pain be equal for you?

 

[Local.Dada]

No significance.

I don’t care more for Miandad than I do Gavaskar as a human being. Their suffering would be equal for me.

Maybe not as a human being but the fact that you love Miandad comes from a place of bias. In this case nationalistic bias. Doesn’t it?

He was a great batsman but there are at least 15-20 batsmen ahead of him in the history of world cricket.

However you probably picked him because you are a fan of Pak team and he won your team a lot of games. Nothing wrong with that. Makes total sense.

However it doesn’t make sense to cheerlead for someone like Amla only because he checks of some boxes in terms of appearance or he is very religious. That never made sense to me.

That’s the point I am alluding to. I don’t know where we have a disconnect.

 

[Local.Dada]

Yep am serious and trust me i ve been through the drill in life to be where I am today.

I am just making it clear that for some ppl like yourself Loyality and affiliation mainly depends on the material gain. Which is why i think ppl like you are always open for offers from the highest bidder.

Similarly others may have other non-material values and you dont have right to criticise them for making their choice.

Material gain?

You probably work for free and what the hell are non-material values.

Aren’t people praying to god to reach heaven/avoid hell anyways?

Why don’t people try to be a good citizen were ever they live that should solve half of world problems

 

[Knight_Rider]

Material gain?

You probably work for free and what the hell are non-material values.

Aren’t people praying to god to reach heaven/avoid hell anyways?

Why don’t people try to be a good citizen were ever they live that should solve half of world problems

I suggest re-reading my post and think, repeat the loop. Eventually the penny will drop.

 

[miandadrules]

If your mother and someone else's mother were involved in a car accident, and were both in an equal amount of pain, would you care more for your mother well being, or would both women's pain be equal for you?

I’d care for both. It’s the way my mother raised me. Obviously my feelings for my mother are stronger but that wouldn’t impact on my decision and certainly not my actions.

Let’s put it another way, if the boot was on the other foot I’d hope someone would be there for my mother, regardless of race, colour or creed.

In fact there is a threshold of suffering that once we go beyond it is doesn’t matter what the relationship is.

 

[miandadrules]

Maybe not as a human being but the fact that you love Miandad comes from a place of bias. In this case nationalistic bias. Doesn’t it?

He was a great batsman but there are at least 15-20 batsmen ahead of him in the history of world cricket.

However you probably picked him because you are a fan of Pak team and he won your team a lot of games. Nothing wrong with that. Makes total sense.

However it doesn’t make sense to cheerlead for someone like Amla only because he checks of some boxes in terms of appearance or he is very religious. That never made sense to me.

That’s the point I am alluding to. I don’t know where we have a disconnect.

My username isn’t due to my love for Miandad.

You have to prove bias in my actions or posts, not by what you derive from my username.

I have no qualms with him being regarded in the top 20. That’s probably where I’d put him. His value to the Pakistan was immense and he brought us great memories. Equally, he has been a bitter old man since his retirement.

I see the point you are making but I find it lacking.

No doubt we have affinity for those around us and those who have loved us. But that shouldn’t impact on ones actions.

 

[Itachi]

I’d care for both. It’s the way my mother raised me. Obviously my feelings for my mother are stronger but that wouldn’t impact on my decision and certainly not my actions.

Let’s put it another way, if the boot was on the other foot I’d hope someone would be there for my mother, regardless of race, colour or creed.

In fact there is a threshold of suffering that once we go beyond it is doesn’t matter what the relationship is.

I don't understand why people make various instances as exclusive. Why not both?

Just because I care about my mother doesn't mean I don't care about my wife.

Its not like there's 100 unit of love which you can distribute it to people in limited amount.

If two people are involved in car accident, why not take both to the hospital?

If you have limited financial standing, of course you will care more about your mother but how does it denotes humanity is lost?

 

[miandadrules]

Maybe not as a human being but the fact that you love Miandad comes from a place of bias. In this case nationalistic bias. Doesn’t it?

He was a great batsman but there are at least 15-20 batsmen ahead of him in the history of world cricket.

However you probably picked him because you are a fan of Pak team and he won your team a lot of games. Nothing wrong with that. Makes total sense.

However it doesn’t make sense to cheerlead for someone like Amla only because he checks of some boxes in terms of appearance or he is very religious. That never made sense to me.

That’s the point I am alluding to. I don’t know where we have a disconnect.

I don’t have an issue with people having an affinity for Amla either. It’s ones prerogative but it doesn’t mean you place above others simple because of his religious observance.

 

[Nadeemp]

Na ghar ka na ghatt ka fits better on those who are willing to do whatever to imitate and please the Gora Saab and Indians are at the fore front of that.

Trying to preserve your cultural, religious and linguistic identity is exactly the OPPOSITE of that!
You can perfectly well integrate in a functional society without totally giving up your identity.

People change religion , languages all the time. The muslims in the sub continent were Hindus/Buddhist a while back. Do you think the were confused to do so?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

People change religion , languages all the time. The muslims in the sub continent were Hindus/Buddhist a while back. Do you think the were confused to do so?

People dont change religion and language all the time. Its a very rare event.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I’d care for both. It’s the way my mother raised me. Obviously my feelings for my mother are stronger but that wouldn’t impact on my decision and certainly not my actions.

Let’s put it another way, if the boot was on the other foot I’d hope someone would be there for my mother, regardless of race, colour or creed.

In fact there is a threshold of suffering that once we go beyond it is doesn’t matter what the relationship is.

Keeping this example lets say your mother and this other women have to be in the hospital for a month. And lets say this other women has no family. You visit your mother every day in the hospital and she asks you to get her Biryani. Will you go to the other women and ask her if she wants anything? Every day?

And lets say you spend 30 minutes talking to your mother in the hospital. Will you spend 30 minutes also talking to the other women? If you pay your mothers hospital bill, will you also pay the other women's bill?

Some thoughts to ponder. Its perfectly ok to love your family more. That does not mean we don't have sympathy to others, but one can only do so much.

 

[miandadrules]

Keeping this example lets say your mother and this other women have to be in the hospital for a month. And lets say this other women has no family. You visit your mother every day in the hospital and she asks you to get her Biryani. Will you go to the other women and ask her if she wants anything? Every day?

And lets say you spend 30 minutes talking to your mother in the hospital. Will you spend 30 minutes also talking to the other women? If you pay your mothers hospital bill, will you also pay the other women's bill?

Some thoughts to ponder. Its perfectly ok to love your family more. That does not mean we don't have sympathy to others, but one can only do so much.

I’m sorry but I don’t think this a good analogy when one is discussing nation states.

As regards to biryani for my mother. She raised me to share my food with someone who needs it or not to eat it. Yes I would ask her everyday if there is no one there for her. But like I said this isn’t a valid analogy.

Would I pay her bills? Absolutely, if I had the means. I wouldn’t think twice. It’s a human being,

Once again your conclusion belies the topic at hand. It’s not about distribution of sympathy nor going beyond your means to help others.

It’s about putting individuals above others purely based on a tribal allegiance. That is immoral.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I’m sorry but I don’t think this a good analogy when one is discussing nation states.

As regards to biryani for my mother. She raised me to share my food with someone who needs it or not to eat it. Yes I would ask her everyday if there is no one there for her. But like I said this isn’t a valid analogy.

Would I pay her bills? Absolutely, if I had the means. I wouldn’t think twice. It’s a human being,

Once again your conclusion belies the topic at hand. It’s not about distribution of sympathy nor going beyond your means to help others.

It’s about putting individuals above others purely based on a tribal allegiance. That is immoral.

Ok let me try another with different example. Pakistanis who live abroad, send alot of charity money back to Pakistan. There are other poor countries as well. In fact there many countries which are poorer than Pakistan. What other reason can that be to send money to Pak instead of other countries besides from tribal allegiance.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Indians gel with British people easily and contrary to notion here that Indians are not attractive, my whole lecture is crazy for an Indian girl and she's by far the most attractive girl in the whole class and perhaps the uni too.

It's not the girls who are considered unattractive, it's the men. Several Indian women have gone on to get fairly glamourous roles in both USA and British entertainment scene. Can you say the same for the men?

 

[miandadrules]

Ok let me try another with different example. Pakistanis who live abroad, send alot of charity money back to Pakistan. There are other poor countries as well. In fact there many countries which are poorer than Pakistan. What other reason can that be to send money to Pak instead of other countries besides from tribal allegiance.

I’m sorry, what point are you trying to make?

 

[Invincible Gujjar]

religion comes first and then obviously my gujjar heritage which is very important to me I always try to promote my culture and heritage. I hate my nationality who would want to be an Indian.a third world poor country

 

[Local.Dada]

It's not the girls who are considered unattractive, it's the men. Several Indian women have gone on to get fairly glamourous roles in both USA and British entertainment scene. Can you say the same for the men?

Hmmm. Tough to answer what one considers an attractive trait in men. Without naming names I see a lot of Pakistani men make icons out of avg players who they consider handsome but based on the intellect they have displayed not sure if they can hold a 2 minute conversation with most educated and suave women.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Hmmm. Tough to answer what one considers an attractive trait in men. Without naming names I see a lot of Pakistani men make icons out of avg players who they consider handsome but based on the intellect they have displayed not sure if they can hold a 2 minute conversation with most educated and suave women.

I'm assuming you avoided answering the question because the answer would have been no.

 

[troodon]

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.

The concept is that you have to be loyal to the country that you currently reside in (especially if you are a citizen of the country).

You can change your citizenship a million times, but you have to be loyal to the current nation that you are a citizen of.

 

[Knight_Rider]

The concept is that you have to be loyal to the country that you currently reside in (especially if you are a citizen of the country).

You can change your citizenship a million times, but you have to be loyal to the current nation that you are a citizen of.

What if you have multiple nationalities? So you will need switch loyalties on rotational basis?

 

[troodon]

What if you have multiple nationalities? So you will need switch loyalties on rotational basis?

That is why I don’t believe in dual citizenships. It’s a joke that someone can be loyal to both nations. The best they can do is keep quiet when it comes to a tussle with both nations.

 

[Nadeemp]

People dont change religion and language all the time. Its a very rare event.

Almost everyone in Pakistan at one point another religion. Everyone west of saudi at one point was another religion

 

[Ronaldo7]

Almost everyone in Pakistan at one point another religion. Everyone west of saudi at one point was another religion

Religions take millenniums to change while countries change their identity a few times every couple of centuries

Know the difference mate

 

[Nadeemp]

Religions take millenniums to change while countries change their identity a few times every couple of centuries

Know the difference mate

The change of religion was pretty rapid in the subcontinent . However the pace of religion change has not effect on my original question

 

[Nadeemp]

Na ghar ka na ghatt ka fits better on those who are willing to do whatever to imitate and please the Gora Saab and Indians are at the fore front of that.

Trying to preserve your cultural, religious and linguistic identity is exactly the OPPOSITE of that!
You can perfectly well integrate in a functional society without totally giving up your identity.

Going by that logic. When the people in the subcontinent changed from Hindu/Buddhist to Islam. Were they trying to please the “Arab sahib”. Were they imitating the “Arab sahib”. Are Pakistanis at the “ fore front of that”!

 

[KingKhanWC]

They moved from a place called “Islamic republic of Pakistan” founded exclusively for subcontinent Muslims to a different country where most things considered un-Islamic like eating pork and consuming alcohol are common, different language, different culture, different race, different view points to most things considered taboo in Islam etc etc etc.

Not judging but doesn’t sound that obvious to me that they picked religion over everything else. So not sure where you are getting your conviction from.

lol.

A Muslim can practice his/hers religion just as well in the UK. They moved because they were poor, now they have more than most but from day 1 until now , their faith has never altered. Yes don't judge when you haven't a clue, stick to why RSS are living in the UK.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Almost everyone in Pakistan at one point another religion. Everyone west of saudi at one point was another religion

If you go back far enough everyone in planet Earth had another religion, included Arabs, Hindus, Jews, etc. However this is an extremely rare event. The religion in whats now Pakistan is Islam for the last 1,000 years.

 

[Nadeemp]

If you go back far enough everyone in planet Earth had another religion, included Arabs, Hindus, Jews, etc. However this is an extremely rare event. The religion in whats now Pakistan is Islam for the last 1,000 years.

So are pakistani muslims “Arab sahib” What’s the difference between “gora sahib” and “Arab sahib”

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Your original point was that people change religion all the time. If the last 1,000 years your family has had one religion that shows that religion does not change all the time. Its a very rare occurrence.

Pakistanis have Muslim parents, Muslim grand parents, Muslim great grand parents, Muslim great great grandparents, Muslim great great great great grandparents, etc. It has nothing to do with Arabs or goras. Islam is simply their ancestral religion for a very very very long time, and its an important part of our culture.

And Pakistanis don't subscribe to this view that your religion has to originate in the country that you live in. So they don't view Islam as the Arabs religion.

 

[Nadeemp]

Your original point was that people change religion all the time. If the last 1,000 years your family has had one religion that shows that religion does not change all the time. Its a very rare occurrence.

Pakistanis have Muslim parents, Muslim grand parents, Muslim great grand parents, Muslim great great grandparents, Muslim great great great great grandparents, etc. It has nothing to do with Arabs or goras. Islam is simply their ancestral religion for a very very very long time, and its an important part of our culture.

And Pakistanis don't subscribe to this view that your religion has to originate in the country that you live in. So they don't view Islam as the Arabs religion.

I think you are dodging the question. What’s the difference between the two I mentioned. There are Pakistanis who are third maybe 4th generation in the U.K.

 

[Nadeemp]

I think you are dodging the question. What’s the difference between the two I mentioned. There are Pakistanis who are third maybe 4th generation in the U.K.

I would. Say the term Arab sahib or gora sahib don’t hold much water in the context you used.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I think you are dodging the question. What’s the difference between the two I mentioned. There are Pakistanis who are third maybe 4th generation in the U.K.

I answered it. Pakistanis don't view Islam as an Arab religion, so they are not mimicking "Arab Sahib" by being Muslims. And the religion that the "gora sahib" have is also practiced by the "Arab Sahib", the "African Sahib", the "South American Sahib", etc. They don't view is it necessary to change their religion because they are living in another country. Its just a personal choice.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I’m sorry, what point are you trying to make?

It was in response to this statement of yours. " It’s about putting individuals above others purely based on a tribal allegiance. That is immoral."

Are Pakistanis who live abroad immoral in sending charity money back to Pakistan. There are other poor countries as well.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

The concept is that you have to be loyal to the country that you currently reside in (especially if you are a citizen of the country).

You can change your citizenship a million times, but you have to be loyal to the current nation that you are a citizen of.

I agree you have to be loyal to the country you live in, and obey the laws, but you can still feel closer to people of another country.

For example British Indians and Pakistanis support India and Pakistan respectively in cricket against England.

During the football world cup, i knew a Korean American guy who supported S Korea when they were playing against US. Same thing with a guy from Ghana who supported Ghana when they played against US.

Everyone does it.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The concept is that you have to be loyal to the country that you currently reside in (especially if you are a citizen of the country).

You can change your citizenship a million times, but you have to be loyal to the current nation that you are a citizen of.

This is why I believe in a world without borders. There wouldn't be a concept of loyalty then, people would just go where they felt most at home.

 

[Knight_Rider]

I would. Say the term Arab sahib or gora sahib don’t hold much water in the context you used.

Bro, sorry to say but your argument is a bit Daft because people don’t really change their religions too often. If at all its once in a generation(S) type of thing. Therefore it can not be compared in the context of what identity an individual choses for himself in his life time.

I suggest leave it at this to stop wasting yours and others time.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Religion, which is about my relationship with my Creator is the only thing that matters. Rest are artificial identities. Don't care about nation if it doesn't care about my religion.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Going by that logic. When the people in the subcontinent changed from Hindu/Buddhist to Islam. Were they trying to please the “Arab sahib”. Were they imitating the “Arab sahib”. Are Pakistanis at the “ fore front of that”!

What is this Arab sahib concept? I have never heard the term before, can you expand?

 

[Local.Dada]

lol.

A Muslim can practice his/hers religion just as well in the UK. They moved because they were poor, now they have more than most but from day 1 until now , their faith has never altered. Yes don't judge when you haven't a clue, stick to why RSS are living in the UK.

Based on what you just said, firstly congrats to your family on their rags to riches story. However it seems pretty clear to me that they picked securing the future of their family and future generation took precedence over religion here.

When you take a citizenship of any country you have to pledge allegiance to the nation over anything else including religion and race. There are no caveats.

So obviously people who signed up for that despite having some other preference would be called hypocrites and frauds??? I am not calling anyone that as I said most of the 2nd gen types don’t have a clue what it took for their families to get them there.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Based on what you just said, firstly congrats to your family on their rags to riches story. However it seems pretty clear to me that they picked securing the future of their family and future generation took precedence over religion here.

When you take a citizenship of any country you have to pledge allegiance to the nation over anything else including religion and race. There are no caveats.

So obviously people who signed up for that despite having some other preference would be called hypocrites and frauds??? I am not calling anyone that as I said most of the 2nd gen types don’t have a clue what it took for their families to get them there.

I know following simple Logic is a challenge for some but jfyi: there is good religious freedom in the UK, infact RE is one of the subjects taught in schools, plenty of masjids and Islamic societies everywhere (incl at Universities). Also when you take oath for Nationality you can choose to have 1 non-religious version of Oath. Hence you dont have to give up tour religious affiliation when you acquire British nationality.

This may be difficult for you to comprehend, so read slowly and a few times.

 

[Local.Dada]

I'm assuming you avoided answering the question because the answer would have been no.

Based on how a lot of ugly successful guys have hot trophy wives it doesn’t seem to me like looks are of prime importance for most women.

Now as far as good looking Indian men go, as I said earlier I don’t know what is the standard for a guy to be good looking. I would suggest googling best looking Indian men or something and then may be you can have a blast nitpicking on their features etc or why they are ugly. That’s the best I can do for you. Have fun with it.

As I said there seems to be a benchmark for what is good looking among few folks. Most of not all straight men view other men only in terms of if they are worthy of respect or not.

 

[Local.Dada]

I know following simple Logic is a challenge for some but jfyi: there is good religious freedom in the UK, infact RE is one of the subjects taught in schools, plenty of masjids and Islamic societies everywhere (incl at Universities). Also when you take oath for Nationality you can choose to have 1 non-religious version of Oath. Hence you dont have to give up tour religious affiliation when you acquire British nationality.

This may be difficult for you to comprehend, so read slowly and a few times.

The fact that UK is secular and let’s people follow their religion freely speaks of UK as a secular democracy. Becoming a citizen of a secular country doesn’t mean you have to give up faith or religious affiliation .Who is suggesting that?

You are winning the internet and not in a good way with your posts, Indians getting visa and passports of other countries means they are selling their soul to the highest bidder but Pakistanis doing the same have nothing but pious thoughts in line with their religious beliefs. WOW. I mean from amusement this is turning into a case of concern now.

There are temples and gurudwaras, Synagogues in these countries too, and there are plenty of religious Hindus,Sikhs and Jews as well so what’s your point?

 

[Local.Dada]

Usually in USA people would be apprehensive of saying some of the things said on here because NSA/Big brother will be on to you in a flash.I guess with Boris things will change now, so good luck

 

[Knight_Rider]

The fact that UK is secular and let’s people follow their religion freely speaks of UK as a secular democracy. Becoming a citizen of a secular country doesn’t mean you have to give up faith or religious affiliation .Who is suggesting that?

You are winning the internet and not in a good way with your posts, Indians getting visa and passports of other countries means they are selling their soul to the highest bidder but Pakistanis doing the same have nothing but pious thoughts in line with their religious beliefs. WOW. I mean from amusement this is turning into a case of concern now.

There are temples and gurudwaras, Synagogues in these countries too, and there are plenty of religious Hindus,Sikhs and Jews as well so what’s your point?

As expected, its hard to get the point across with you. Discussion is futile, as one cannot progress with logical sequence of a debate.

Good luck with whoever is willing to spend time in engaging with you.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Based on what you just said, firstly congrats to your family on their rags to riches story. However it seems pretty clear to me that they picked securing the future of their family and future generation took precedence over religion here.

When you take a citizenship of any country you have to pledge allegiance to the nation over anything else including religion and race. There are no caveats.

So obviously people who signed up for that despite having some other preference would be called hypocrites and frauds??? I am not calling anyone that as I said most of the 2nd gen types don’t have a clue what it took for their families to get them there.

I don't think my parents had to do that, so none of that applies to me. I am just your straight up British citizen same as James or Robert. But maybe King Khan's parents did so he should mind his P's and Q's a bit more.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Based on how a lot of ugly successful guys have hot trophy wives it doesn’t seem to me like looks are of prime importance for most women.

Now as far as good looking Indian men go, as I said earlier I don’t know what is the standard for a guy to be good looking. I would suggest googling best looking Indian men or something and then may be you can have a blast nitpicking on their features etc or why they are ugly. That’s the best I can do for you. Have fun with it.

As I said there seems to be a benchmark for what is good looking among few folks. Most of not all straight men view other men only in terms of if they are worthy of respect or not.

I was just responding to the guy who was bragging about how good looking Indians were. As I already pointed out, there are a few Indian women who have become glamour stars of a sort in popular entertainment. Indan men? Not so much. I don't really have anything to do with it so would I need to google anything?

 

[Vega]

Question in the OP is not comprehensive.

It is not only "Nationalism vs Relgion" thing.

But the hard reality is this that it involves issues like:

1) Humanity vs Nationalism
2) Humanity vs Religion

For me, the most important question is "If you prefer your Religion above the Humanity in you?"

For example, humanity guides us very clearly that everyone should have the right to leave any religion/ideology and should not be killed for it. But if religion asks to kill for leaving it, then there is a clear clash between the religion and the humanity.


What do you prefer in this case? Is it still religion above the humanity?

Another question is, if you could be really loyal to any Secular country if you prefer religion above your country?

That is why Muslims in India and China are not considered loyal to their countries. Even Europeans have this impression too now that Muslims prefer their religion above their country and their loyalties lie somewhere else.

It is again not Non-Muslim countries who doubt the loyalties, but Islamic Sharia does not consider non-Muslims as loyal to it's religious system too and prohibits that any Non-Muslim could become the leader or Judge or have leading positions in army/police.

(Note: Pakistan is an exception here while it does not follow Sharia laws here. For actual Sharia laws, refer to the book "Islamic State" by Modoodi).

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Question in the OP is not comprehensive.

It is not only "Nationalism vs Relgion" thing.

But the hard reality is this that it involves issues like:

1) Humanity vs Nationalism
2) Humanity vs Religion

For me, the most important question is "If you prefer your Religion above the Humanity in you?"

For example, humanity guides us very clearly that everyone should have the right to leave any religion/ideology and should not be killed for it. But if religion asks to kill for leaving it, then there is a clear clash between the religion and the humanity.


What do you prefer in this case? Is it still religion above the humanity?

Another question is, if you could be really loyal to any Secular country if you prefer religion above your country?

That is why Muslims in India and China are not considered loyal to their countries. Even Europeans have this impression too now that Muslims prefer their religion above their country and their loyalties lie somewhere else.

It is again not Non-Muslim countries who doubt the loyalties, but Islamic Sharia does not consider non-Muslims as loyal to it's religious system too and prohibits that any Non-Muslim could become the leader or Judge or have leading positions in army/police.

(Note: Pakistan is an exception here while it does not follow Sharia laws here. For actual Sharia laws, refer to the book "Islamic State" by Modoodi).

Are you saying that it is impossible to be loyal to a non-Muslim country if you are a Muslim? What about famous actors like Shah Rukh Khan or cricketers like Irfan Pathan? Aren't they loyal to India?

 

[Vega]

Are you saying that it is impossible to be loyal to a non-Muslim country if you are a Muslim? What about famous actors like Shah Rukh Khan or cricketers like Irfan Pathan? Aren't they loyal to India?

I believe that Shah Rukh Khan prefers "secularism" over the religion, which makes it easy for him to integrate in the Non-Muslim Indian culture. I don't know about Irfan Pathan's though.

It is the secular values which gives you the ability to become loyal to your country.

While the religious values often clash directly with the national values.

Religious values are counted as one of the prime reasons due to which Muslims are unable to integrate in the local cultures in European countries.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I believe that Shah Rukh Khan prefers "secularism" over the religion, which makes it easy for him to integrate in the Non-Muslim Indian culture. I don't know about Irfan Pathan's though.

It is the secular values which gives you the ability to become loyal to your country.

While the religious values often clash directly with the national values.

Religious values are counted as one of the prime reasons due to which Muslims are unable to integrate in the local cultures in European countries.

But the vast majority of Muslims do integrate into the local culture. Muslims are also capable of having secular values, same as Christians and Jews can.

 

[Vega]

But the vast majority of Muslims do integrate into the local culture. Muslims are also capable of having secular values, same as Christians and Jews can.

Cpt. Rishwat, you are perhaps looking at UK only.

Europeans, in general, believe that only that part of Muslims have integrated who prefer secularism over religion, but as a person gets more and more religious, more and more he becomes against the secular values.

Europeans, in general, also believe that Muslim community stands at the bottom, when it comes to integration.

Europeans, in general, also believe that Muslims, especially the new Salafi movement, openly preaching in their countries that Muslims are not allowed integrate in a local society, they are not allowed to attend their festivals, especially those like Christmas, Easter, Valentines Day etc. Muslims are not allowed to attend their parties which have alcohol (even if they don't offer or compel Muslims to drink).

There is indeed a clash between religion and local culture and local laws. And if you prefer religion over secularist values, then will get involve in this clash with surety.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Cpt. Rishwat, you are perhaps looking at UK only.

Europeans, in general, believe that only that part of Muslims have integrated who prefer secularism over religion, but as a person gets more and more religious, more and more he becomes against the secular values.

Europeans, in general, also believe that Muslim community stands at the bottom, when it comes to integration.

Europeans, in general, also believe that Muslims, especially the new Salafi movement, openly preaching in their countries that Muslims are not allowed integrate in a local society, they are not allowed to attend their festivals, especially those like Christmas, Easter, Valentines Day etc. Muslims are not allowed to attend their parties which have alcohol (even if they don't offer or compel Muslims to drink).

There is indeed a clash between religion and local culture and local laws. And if you prefer religion over secularist values, then will get involve in this clash with surety.

This argument applies on any religious community that wants to stick to their values and culture and this is understood and accepted within the British legal system. The country is secular and allows religious freedom for a reason.

You cant have globalisation and have immigrants when you have the need (for economic revival) and then expect a homogenous and uni-faith society. This is not an era of slavery as 200 years ago.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Based on what you just said, firstly congrats to your family on their rags to riches story. However it seems pretty clear to me that they picked securing the future of their family and future generation took precedence over religion here.

When you take a citizenship of any country you have to pledge allegiance to the nation over anything else including religion and race. There are no caveats.

So obviously people who signed up for that despite having some other preference would be called hypocrites and frauds??? I am not calling anyone that as I said most of the 2nd gen types don’t have a clue what it took for their families to get them there.

They did not, how hard is this for you to understand? In fact moving for a better future was also based on them having the means to practice their faith. You cannot go to Hajj if you have no money. Moving to the UK will not set you back in your faith one bit. I know my family, you don't and I have made my points clear. Move on now.

 

[Knight_Rider]

They did not, how hard is this for you to understand? In fact moving for a better future was also based on them having the means to practice their faith. You cannot go to Hajj if you have no money. Moving to the UK will not set you back in your faith one bit. I know my family, you don't and I have made my points clear. Move on now.

Bro, it aint worth. Let him float on his cloud#9.

 

[ManFan]

Nationalism is shirk.

Its hilarious that people argue over “we’re” better because XYZ.

But tribalism has always been a part of the human race and will always be.

Anyone who thinks it’s immoral is a naive idealist.

When your tribalism trumps your morality and humanity, only then is it immoral.

 

[troodon]

Nationalism is shirk.

Its hilarious that people argue over “we’re” better because XYZ.

But tribalism has always been a part of the human race and will always be.

Anyone who thinks it’s immoral is a naive idealist.

When your tribalism trumps your morality and humanity, only then is it immoral.

Nations exist for a reason. If you are not patriotic to your nation, then nobody around you will trust you.

Do you live in a western country?

 

[Vega]

This argument applies on any religious community that wants to stick to their values and culture and this is understood and accepted within the British legal system. The country is secular and allows religious freedom for a reason.

You cant have globalisation and have immigrants when you have the need (for economic revival) and then expect a homogenous and uni-faith society. This is not an era of slavery as 200 years ago.

Vast majority of other religious groups have become Secular, and thus they have negligible problem in integrations.

While vast majority of Muslims hate the western secular values, therefore Europeans consider that integration is worst when it comes to Muslims.

There are enough to Indians and Chinese and Africans and South Americans as labour force if needed. But the Secular West wanted to rise up against the religious discrimination. But vast majority of Muslims in Europe failed their humanity based plan. And now many Europeans are against that Muslims get the European immigration.