Nationality versus Faith

[Shadow_muaythai]

So this is an open question to PPers of all faiths and religions... What comes first for you, your culture/nationality/patiorism etc or your faith and religion?

This question was raised in my head after watching the current situation unfold in the middle east. Theres been a lot of talk around why other nations have not got involved or done much to help the plight of the palestinians. As a muslim nation, is it right to stay "we are just protecting our own people and interests" or do they have a moral bound duty to come to their aid of fellow muslim nations? Its evident to see how many in the west will back another nation with a similar ideology based off just that.

 

[FearlessRoar]

In my opinion, nationality comes first because an Indian Muslim living in India is not loyal to Pakistan. He openly speaks against Pakistan, and there are other examples like Afghans speaking against Pakistan. Therefore, as a Pakistani, I always prioritize nationality.

 

[Red-Indian]

Family - Cultural community - Nationality is the order I think I accept. I guess some folks also add faith in there but even trying to set aside my bias as an atheist, I don't see why it should evoke loyalty before something like say region, language or even continent. Religion should be a private matter not a reason why you would show loyalty to people in another family, community, country etc.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The question should really be nationality versus ideology, because not everyone is religious.

 

[Red-Indian]

The question should really be nationality versus ideology, because not everyone is religious.

Agreed. I had an ex-Jewish (agnostic) colleague in the States who was fervent in his support for Israel. He'd never lived there and had only visited only once but was really passionate. I had debates with him about his motivations and he'd always default to the 'Nation of the Jewish people...we have to support each other'.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

For me faith comes before nationality.

 

[JaDed]

I used to think nationality but now being an immigrant faith is equally important to me.
I want to say they are equal to me now.

 

[Shadow_muaythai]

As a muslim we have this concept of being an "ummah" which essentially means we have no sense of nationalism, we are one united body under the banner of islam (this is how it is supposed to be in the teachings of islam) I know the abrahamic religions have this unity amongst themselves, not sure how other belief systems navigate this

 

[Mockingbird]

As a muslim we have this concept of being an "ummah" which essentially means we have no sense of nationalism, we are one united body under the banner of islam (this is how it is supposed to be in the teachings of islam) I know the abrahamic religions have this unity amongst themselves, not sure how other belief systems navigate this

If that’s the case, why are you deporting the Afghanis from Pakistan? And why is Pakistan not supporting the Uighurs against China? Why discriminate against Shias? Does faith/ideology really trump everything including national interest in the Muslim world?

 

[Shadow_muaythai]

If that’s the case, why are you deporting the Afghanis from Pakistan? And why is Pakistan not supporting the Uighurs against China? Why discriminate against Shias? Does faith/ideology really trump everything including national interest in the Muslim world?

Im not deporting anybody from anywhere... I cant speak on behalf of every muslim in the world and how they act, rather im just expressing a point made in the religion and the teachings of it. You need to understand that pakistan is not a golden shining beacon of islam, infact i dont believe there is one on the planet.

Just a point id like to make to all PP'ers who might take this as an opportunity to turn this thread into a muslim vs hindu debate... Dont judge any belief system based on the followers which observe it... rather go to the teachings themselves and then judge.

 

[Statpadder Inc]

I know the abrahamic religions have this unity amongst themselves,

Don't think this exists among Christians. Christian countries in the west are secular and atheist and christianity is dying in that part of the world

 

[deltexas]

Nationalism any day. No comparison honestly.

 

[Suleiman]

Nationality is temporary. Pakistan may exist today but may or may not exist 5-10+ years from now. Besides, what does it even stand for these days? Corruption? Mob mentality?

Nah.

Islam first. Always. Can’t speak for other faiths, no disrespect to them, but I can’t speak for other faiths on this topic other than my own.

In our belief, nationality, creed, race, social class etc are irrelevant and what unites us is Islam.

A lot of us Muslims sadly have fallen off that mindset in recent times… but it wasn’t always like that and won’t always be like this.

 

[RexRex]

Family and faith first. Nationalism is a bit of joke these days, given how people are immigrating all over the world and getting new identities.

 

[Red-Indian]

Im not deporting anybody from anywhere... I cant speak on behalf of every muslim in the world and how they act, rather im just expressing a point made in the religion and the teachings of it. You need to understand that pakistan is not a golden shining beacon of islam, infact i dont believe there is one on the planet.

Just a point id like to make to all PP'ers who might take this as an opportunity to turn this thread into a muslim vs hindu debate... Dont judge any belief system based on the followers which observe it... rather go to the teachings themselves and then judge.

While I've heard that argument before i.e. don't judge the practical implementation of the religion/ideology/economic theory and see the basic logic. I find it a bit specious. To me it's a bit like the Communists saying communism is perfect in theory...people just aren't able to follow it. For me, if that's the case after a few tries, the theory should remain in the textbook and we need to look at what's happening in the real world and judge based on that.

 

[Mockingbird]

Im not deporting anybody from anywhere... I cant speak on behalf of every muslim in the world and how they act, rather im just expressing a point made in the religion and the teachings of it. You need to understand that pakistan is not a golden shining beacon of islam, infact i dont believe there is one on the planet.

Just a point id like to make to all PP'ers who might take this as an opportunity to turn this thread into a muslim vs hindu debate... Dont judge any belief system based on the followers which observe it... rather go to the teachings themselves and then judge.

If no country is following religion as it is meant to be & everybody looks for national or political exigencies to form alliances, whats the point of bringing in an ideal state argument- something which is theoretical & impractical?

 

[Shadow_muaythai]

i dont believe its impractical or marely theoretical. You can use this argument if in theory it has never worked... however with islam we know throughout history that an islamic empire has worked, very successfully at that. I am only answering on islam because it is what i know, i just wanted to see how other faiths and ideologies perceive this view of a united nation under the banner of religion and how much value that holds.

 

[Suleiman]

While I've heard that argument before i.e. don't judge the practical implementation of the religion/ideology/economic theory and see the basic logic. I find it a bit specious. To me it's a bit like the Communists saying communism is perfect in theory...people just aren't able to follow it. For me, if that's the case after a few tries, the theory should remain in the textbook and we need to look at what's happening in the real world and judge based on that.

Thing is from a religious perspective as Muslims, as a human being you are in a constant struggle between good and evil. That is the “test” of this life.

Islam is the standard. The prophets are the standard.

We as regular non prophets do our best to hit that standard, will we ever be perfect and hit that standard? No. That is the part of being human.

And at the end of it all whether you pass the test of life or not is going to come down to how often in your life you were on the side of good and how often you were on the side of evil…. You don’t have to be 100% perfectly angelic with no sins on your record to attain that… That’s where it gets deep though because sometimes one good deed can erase years and years of evil and vice versa… but that is based on God’s judgement.

But that’s what I meant earlier on in this thread… faith is timeless. God has been communicating to us the same core values and tenants since the beginning of mankind. Nationality for the most part is a worldly and fleeting concept of identification.

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

For a Muslim the only acceptable answer should be faith comes first

If that isn't the answer then your faith is simply hanging on by a thread

 

[Mockingbird]

i dont believe its impractical or marely theoretical. You can use this argument if in theory it has never worked... however with islam we know throughout history that an islamic empire has worked, very successfully at that. I am only answering on islam because it is what i know, i just wanted to see how other faiths and ideologies perceive this view of a united nation under the banner of religion and how much value that holds.

Pardon my knowledge of Islamic history, but which Islamic empire are you referring to?

As a Hindu, I am not interested much in a Hindu empire or anything. Religion is only one of the parameters which binds people together- nationality, language, culture, race, sect is equally important. Even if you bind people together on one parameter, people will always fight on a differentiating one.

 

[Red-Indian]

For a Muslim the only acceptable answer should be faith comes first

If that isn't the answer then your faith is simply hanging on by a thread

Obviously that's not the real case for any typical Hindu, Muslim, Christian etc.

Hindus choose to live in India which refuses to declare itself a Hindu Rashtra and makes no laws protecting stuff like the caste system that's enshrined in scripture
Muslims choose to live in countries which not only are not Shariah compliant but actually pay taxes which are used to fund the enemies of Islamic nations e.g. Israel
Christians live in countries that allow stuff like homosexuality that's banned in the Old Testament

In real life, except for a few extremists in each religion, everyone values family, community ad country before religion. I agree that's the right way to look at it even if folks like you claim it means their faith is hanging by a thread.

 

[Red-Indian]

Thing is from a religious perspective as Muslims, as a human being you are in a constant struggle between good and evil. That is the “test” of this life.

Islam is the standard. The prophets are the standard.

We as regular non prophets do our best to hit that standard, will we ever be perfect and hit that standard? No. That is the part of being human.

And at the end of it all whether you pass the test of life or not is going to come down to how often in your life you were on the side of good and how often you were on the side of evil…. You don’t have to be 100% perfectly angelic with no sins on your record to attain that… That’s where it gets deep though because sometimes one good deed can erase years and years of evil and vice versa… but that is based on God’s judgement.

But that’s what I meant earlier on in this thread… faith is timeless. God has been communicating to us the same core values and tenants since the beginning of mankind. Nationality for the most part is a worldly and fleeting concept of identification.

I'm an atheist but I respect such views. I think that's a fair way to look at religion. Respect your faith and do the best you can. Leave the rest to whichever god you believe in.

I think the only point I'm making is that what it really translates to in real life is that you have to place your family, community and country first atleast in your actions if not your mind (though I think it's in your mind as well for most people). Next comes the loyalty to your religion. If your country asks you to do something like pay taxes - a chunk of which will be sent to a country that is making war on people of your religion, you're not going to refuse or leave the country ASAP. You'll be angry but recognise that country comes first, pay your taxes and try to change your country's mind in whatever small way you cam.

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

Obviously that's not the real case for any typical Hindu, Muslim, Christian etc.

Hindus choose to live in India which refuses to declare itself a Hindu Rashtra and makes no laws protecting stuff like the caste system that's enshrined in scripture
Muslims choose to live in countries which not only are not Shariah compliant but actually pay taxes which are used to fund the enemies of Islamic nations e.g. Israel
Christians live in countries that allow stuff like homosexuality that's banned in the Old Testament

In real life, except for a few extremists in each religion, everyone values family, community ad country before religion. I agree that's the right way to look at it even if folks like you claim it means their faith is hanging by a thread.

Putting Islam first does not make one an extremist, I'd say it's arguably similar for other religions but other religions lack structure and don't even provide solutions for day to day living

 

[Red-Indian]

Putting Islam first does not make one an extremist, I'd say it's arguably similar for other religions but other religions lack structure and don't even provide solutions for day to day living

If you say so. I'm not going to get into an argument with you over which religions have structure, which don't, which provide solutions for day to day living etc. As far as I'm concerned, I don't take any of them seriously except as sociological case studies.

On the other hand, your profile name indicates you're a Muslim who lives in Britain. You're well aware that a portion of your taxes go towards supporting Israel. Yet I doubt you would consider leaving Britain because you have a certain loyalty to the country. You may not agree with every policy it espouses and everything it does but you have a certain loyalty and love for it. I would also wager that you're a Muslim that does his best to live by the religious principles. It's just that like any sane, logical person, you place family, community, country before religion. That's all the point I'm making since that's what the thread is about.

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

If you say so. I'm not going to get into an argument with you over which religions have structure, which don't, which provide solutions for day to day living etc. As far as I'm concerned, I don't take any of them seriously except as sociological case studies.

On the other hand, your profile name indicates you're a Muslim who lives in Britain. You're well aware that a portion of your taxes go towards supporting Israel. Yet I doubt you would consider leaving Britain because you have a certain loyalty to the country. You may not agree with every policy it espouses and everything it does but you have a certain loyalty and love for it. I would also wager that you're a Muslim that does his best to live by the religious principles. It's just that like any sane, logical person, you place family, community, country before religion. That's all the point I'm making since that's what the thread is about.

The discussion raised the question, tbf it did not specify whether it was based theoretically or practically

Of course there will be limitations such as the examples you have provided as the solutions to those issues are not so straightforward

It's your comment about an extremist placing religious first or the inference that anyone that places religion first to be insane or illogical that is absurd

 

[Red-Indian]

The discussion raised the question, tbf it did not specify whether it was based theoretically or practically

Of course there will be limitations such as the examples you have provided as the solutions to those issues are not so straightforward

It's your comment about an extremist placing religious first or the inference that anyone that places religion first to be insane or illogical that is absurd

Fair enough. If you find the word 'extremist' pejorative, I'll withdraw it. I'll put it it this way - for anyone except the rare exception, it's family, community and country before religion.

You made the comment earlier that for any Muslim who doesn't say faith comes first, their faith is hanging by a thread. Despite being a person of no faith, I disagree with that. You can be a Muslim in Pakistan who believes Pakistan should stay far away from the Palestine-Israel conflict, look to it's own interests and not get involved simply because Palestinians are part of some mythical Ummah. I don't think it means your faith is hanging by a thread because you placed country over faith.

 

[Justcrazy]

In my opinion, nationality comes first because an Indian Muslim living in India is not loyal to Pakistan. He openly speaks against Pakistan, and there are other examples like Afghans speaking against Pakistan. Therefore, as a Pakistani, I always prioritize nationality.

They speak against administration of Pakistan, the Government , the policies , NOT against Islam.

 

[Justcrazy]

If that’s the case, why are you deporting the Afghanis from Pakistan? And why is Pakistan not supporting the Uighurs against China? Why discriminate against Shias? Does faith/ideology really trump everything including national interest in the Muslim world?

In surah Hujirat , Allah swt says to Bedounis , that you have entered Islam , but faith has not entered your heart.

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

Fair enough. If you find the word 'extremist' pejorative, I'll withdraw it. I'll put it it this way - for anyone except the rare exception, it's family, community and country before religion.

You made the comment earlier that for any Muslim who doesn't say faith comes first, their faith is hanging by a thread. Despite being a person of no faith, I disagree with that. You can be a Muslim in Pakistan who believes Pakistan should stay far away from the Palestine-Israel conflict, look to it's own interests and not get involved simply because Palestinians are part of some mythical Ummah. I don't think it means your faith is hanging by a thread because you placed country over faith.

I don't doubt there will be Pakistanis that are Muslim that won't care one bit about the Palestinians, similarly they'll place numerous other things before faith but is exactly a sign of very weak faith

I'm specifically talking about the Islamic position here, anyone that cares very little about their religion and the rules around it have weak faith, there's no two ways about it. Take a Muslim that drinks alcohol, there will be plenty of them, they are weak in faith and this applies to numerous other examples

The discussion has moved to real example and whilst I recognise there will be conflicts and difficulties, at least theoretically the position has to be Islam first

 

[Red-Indian]

I don't doubt there will be Pakistanis that are Muslim that won't care one bit about the Palestinians, similarly they'll place numerous other things before faith but is exactly a sign of very weak faith

I'm specifically talking about the Islamic position here, anyone that cares very little about their religion and the rules around it have weak faith, there's no two ways about it. Take a Muslim that drinks alcohol, there will be plenty of them, they are weak in faith and this applies to numerous other examples

The discussion has moved to real example and whilst I recognise there will be conflicts and difficulties, at least theoretically the position has to be Islam first

Sure. As long as it's only theory and you're allowed to pick and choose which elements (or interpretations) make sense to follow in the modern world, I'm fine with giving religion due importance in the scale of loyalty.

In practice though, I hope you agree we have to put family, community and country before religion.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Nationality then faith for me.

 

[BouncerGuy]

IMO, for many Muslims, their religion forms a crucial part of who they are. Islam advises its followers to honor and appreciate their cultural and national identities, provided these do not contradict the core principles of the faith.

As a result, it’s quite usual for Muslims to place a high importance on their faith, while simultaneously valuing their cultural and national roots.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Humanity!

 

[ElRaja]

over attachment to any group identity is usually an indicator of lack of a sense of self, yes you can be religious, or a nationalist, or follow some ideology, but if you put anything head and shoulders above your own critical reasoning you walk down a road of dogma.

i will say tho that i see some merit in holding a religious identity over a national one, given religion is a choice, so it naturally stands to reason you might have more in common with other people who choose to be relgious, rather than nationality which lumps you in a common group with people who you may have no common interests with.

fundamentally the promotion of dogmas is essentially serves as a cope mechanism for people who dont feel they have much agency in their own lives to assert themselves vicariously through those who control the narrative of said dogma.

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

Sure. As long as it's only theory and you're allowed to pick and choose which elements (or interpretations) make sense to follow in the modern world, I'm fine with giving religion due importance in the scale of loyalty.

In practice though, I hope you agree we have to put family, community and country before religion.

Not necessarily always in practice though, it will vary from example to example

Take this as an example, a family member has committed a serious crime, would you lie to provide them with an alibi? (I'm aware answering it hypothetically and in reality could very well be different as we don't truly know what we would do until we are in that situation)

I think largely one is able to balance it all anyway

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I value both equally but my religious identity probably defines me more to others.

 

[IndoorCricket]

over attachment to any group identity is usually an indicator of lack of a sense of self, yes you can be religious, or a nationalist, or follow some ideology, but if you put anything head and shoulders above your own critical reasoning you walk down a road of dogma.

i will say tho that i see some merit in holding a religious identity over a national one, given religion is a choice, so it naturally stands to reason you might have more in common with other people who choose to be relgious, rather than nationality which lumps you in a common group with people who you may have no common interests with.

fundamentally the promotion of dogmas is essentially serves as a cope mechanism for people who dont feel they have much agency in their own lives to assert themselves vicariously through those who control the narrative of said dogma.

What you identify with is what you try to protect. A narrow identify will only include a narrow set of people. People cant escape identifying themselves with something. In this case better have a larger identity than religion, faith or nationality.

 

[shaz619]

This is not even a question.

Ash-hadu an la ilaha illa Allah, Wa ash-hadu anna Muhammadan Rasulu-Allah.

I bear witness that there is no God but Allah (swt), and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

After saying this, as a Muslim everything else becomes very small, after saying this, Muslims have no fear except from the Almighty.

 

[shaz619]

I shall not fear no man but God.
Though I walk through the valley of death.

 

[Red-Indian]

over attachment to any group identity is usually an indicator of lack of a sense of self, yes you can be religious, or a nationalist, or follow some ideology, but if you put anything head and shoulders above your own critical reasoning you walk down a road of dogma.

i will say tho that i see some merit in holding a religious identity over a national one, given religion is a choice, so it naturally stands to reason you might have more in common with other people who choose to be relgious, rather than nationality which lumps you in a common group with people who you may have no common interests with.

fundamentally the promotion of dogmas is essentially serves as a cope mechanism for people who dont feel they have much agency in their own lives to assert themselves vicariously through those who control the narrative of said dogma.

I think that should be a starting premise. Your own personal critical reasoning, moral compass and sense of right and wrong over everything.

Two further points through.

In practice, I think the vast majority of people (and not just the intellectuals) to varying extents are already free thinkers and do not blindly follow either their family, community, nation or religion. For example almost every religion condones slavery (in certain circumstances). However, I would expect most sane people would refuse to have dealings with anyone who practices slavery. Similary, except the very few weirdos, hardly anyone in real life blindly supports their country in every decision. @Geordie Ahmed already made the point about folks turning in criminals in their own family.

The point about religion being more of a choice than religion is a copout. You cannot chose which country or religion you're born into. But if you fundamentally disagree with either, you can leave them. Both of them lump you into group with limited commonalities so it's your choice how much you want to identify with them.

At the root, perhaps from our caveman brain, humans have a need to belong to something bigger than them. As long as you use your own discretion to the extent of belonging and following, that part of the brain can give you immensely rewarding experiences. It makes my day/week when India beats Pakistan in a cricket match and conversely can ruin those periods when we lose.

 

[KB]

over attachment to any group identity is usually an indicator of lack of a sense of self, yes you can be religious, or a nationalist, or follow some ideology, but if you put anything head and shoulders above your own critical reasoning you walk down a road of dogma.

I think it is right to point to a psychological element but I think there is something more elemental here than mere individual failing.

A historian alert to psychological factors in the making of history, Roger Griffin, summarised it perfectly:

“Once human beings leave the paradise of the womb they become insecure, exiles in an alien and threatening world, so that a significant part of the way they collectively think and act may be interpreted as the result of a deep subliminal drive to overcome the sense of being exposed and vulnerable; to be ‘inside’ rather than ‘outside’; to feel psychologically ‘at home’.”

We might point to the incredible work of the cultural anthropologist, Ernest Becker, in his book, The Denial of Death. We are unique in our self-awareness, but this comes, Becker argued, at the cost of knowing our mortality. Becker argued that in order to protect ourselves from the terror of death, we have created shields - “hero systems” - that take us as individuals beyond ourselves; a system in other words that enables us to to transcend life and indeed death itself and to melt into some higher reality.

Consider the French revolution, which was shaped by Enlightenment values, particularly reason. Yet it was hardly devoid of mythical dimensions. As the famous sociologist, Emile Durkheim, noted “the French Revolution instituted a whole cycle of festivals to preserve the principles that inspired it in a state of perpetual youth.” There was the adoption of a national anthem, a new flag, a new calendar, new rituals such as the Liberty Tree. There were new cults - the Cult of Reason and Cult of Supreme Being. For many revolutionaries, the Motherland was projected as a secular sacred spirit. Relying only on rational argument was not enough. Symbolism and myth were called upon to inspire action, create enthusiasm and to fashion a sense of purposeful unity amongst the mass. There needed to be fire in the blood.

Rituals, traditions, myths, symbols are therefore sources of transcendent meaning, frames of reference, sets of common principles that bind people together and provide a ‘spiritual’ refuge.

Nationalists frequently deployed a repertoire of symbols with nationalism elevated to a form of ‘secular religion’. Italian historian, Emilio Gentile defines ‘secular religion’ as a “developed system of beliefs, myths, rituals, and symbols that create an aura of sacredness around an entity belonging to this world and turn it into a cult and an object of worship and devotion.” Anthony Smith, a scholar who wrote prolifically on the subject of nationalism, noted that a national identity gave “cultural fulfilment, rootedness, security and fraternity” and satisfied a human “craving for immortality.” Smith pointed to the “transcendental dimension” of nationalism which “raises the individual above the earthly round and out of immediate time.”

I end with not with a theorist but a man who wrought destruction on the world: Adolf Hitler. Hitler realised how the power of mass action and feelings of community could transform the impotent ‘little worm’ into a ‘great dragon’: “Mass demonstrations must burn into the little man's soul the conviction that though a little worm he is part of a great dragon."