I have yet to meet a Muslim who accepts that this is his social identity. Ask him what his nationality is - British as he has a passport (no probs!) or ask him where he's born - Britain (no probs!) - but his identity is not British.

It's interesting that modernists don't accept the English identity - no doubt it's harder to play around with nationality, passports and the English identity to confuse Muslims! No Muslim I've come across accepts this identity - so why the British identity?

British national identity contains:
- a homeland being the british isles
- a history or collective memories being that of its kings and queens, enlightenment, victorian period and modernity with figures like Chaucer, Shakespeare, Henry VIII, Churchill, Chaplin, Newton, Einstein, Beckham etc
- culture being the pub, skirts, bowler hats, union jack, english, egg and bacon, christmas, bank holidays, easter etc
- political authority being with parliament, laws being man made, courts enforcing man made laws, troops fighting for queen and country, loyalty to the country and its laws etc
- a homeland being the british isles
- a history or collective memories being that of its kings and queens, enlightenment, victorian period and modernity with figures like Chaucer, Shakespeare, Henry VIII, Churchill, Chaplin, Newton, Einstein, Beckham etc
- culture being the pub, skirts, bowler hats, union jack, english, egg and bacon, christmas, bank holidays, easter etc
- political authority being with parliament, laws being man made, courts enforcing man made laws, troops fighting for queen and country, loyalty to the country and its laws etc

Islamic identity:
- homeland - dar al-Islam (that used to stretch from Andalus to China - divided by the colonialists!)
- history being that of Adam(as) to the ProphetPeace and Blessings of Allah be upon him, Khulafah Rashida, Ummawiyyah Khilafah, Abassiyya Khilafah, Uthmani Khilafah with figures like Umar(ra), Abu Hanifa, Bukhari, Ghazali, Salahadin, Tariq bin Ziyad, Suleiman etc
- culture being halal/haram food - with zamzam water/dates having significance, hijab/jilbab, white flag with shahadah in black, arabic language, the mosque, Eid, Ramadhan etc
- political authority being sovereignty with Allah, authority with people, unitary leadership with one Caliph, shariah laws, qadi based judiciary enforcing sharia, troops fighting jihad for Allah's sake, one ummah, loyalty to Allah etc
- beliefs - Allah, day of judgement, angels, heaven/hell etc

Anonymous1 wrote:

The Prophet(saw) forbids pride and such identities

I notice you subtly decide to use the word and instead of in. Context also matters.

I also assume you reject the hadith that goes "hubbul watani minal iman" "love of your country/homeland is part of iman".

After the hijrah, the prophet used to face Makkah in the evenings and breathe the air because it was coming from that direction. This was a time when Makkah was full of mushrikeen.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Other blatant texts that are violated are those condemning pride in such bonds:
" ...People should give up their pride in nations because this is a coal from the coals of hell-fire. If they do not give this up Allah (swt) will consider them lower than a lowly worm which pushes itself through khur (feces)." [abu Dawd and Tirmidhi].
Narrated by At-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud, "There are indeed people who boast of their dead ancestors; but in the sight of Allah they are more contemptible than the black beetle that rolls a piece of dung with its nose. Behold, Allah has removed from you the arrogance of the Time of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance) with its boast of ancestral glories. Man is but an Allah-fearing believer or an unfortunate sinner. All people are the children of Adam, and Adam was created out of dust." Today we are happy to boast of the dead British ancestors!
He said: "We were on a raid when one of the Muhajirun kicked one of the Ansar. The Ansar said, `O Ansar! Help me! (calling his tribe) and the Muhajir said, `O Muhajirun! Help me! (calling his tribe). The Messenger of Allah heard them and said, "Why are you stirring up something which belongs to Jahilliyah?"
The list of evidences just goes on and on... You seem naive to the fact that bonds are not permitted 100% - the topic is more complex than that!

It tells people to not be proud of them.

Because the bonds are forbidden bonds! Something halal, one can be proud of, something haram, one cannot be proud of it!

Throws your bond theory out of the window!

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

The Prophet(saw) forbids pride and such identities

I notice you subtly decide to use the word and instead of in. Context also matters.

Typo - should be in...

You wrote:

I also assume you reject the hadith that goes "hubbul watani minal iman" "love of your country/homeland is part of iman".

Not relevant to a discussion of identities and bonds as the subject matter is different - one can love the land as the earth belongs to Allah - and one will naturally have an affection with the area they lived in or grew up in - the context of the hadith is where the Prophet(saw) grew up.

Anonymous1 wrote:

Because the bonds are forbidden bonds! Something halal, one can be proud of, something haram, one cannot be proud of it!

Throws your bond theory out of the window!

Except that the groupings of ansar and muhajiroon continued to exist after the incident you mentioned. If they were not allowed, the prophet would not have tired until they were destroyed.

Anonymous1 wrote:

Not relevant to a discussion of identities and bonds as the subject matter is different - one can love the land as the earth belongs to Allah - and one will naturally have an affection with the area they lived in or grew up in - the context of the hadith is where the Prophet(saw) grew up.

I was born and bred in the UK. This is my homeland.

More to add actually - there is a famous hadith about two girls singing to hadhrat aisha that Hadhrat abu bakr (ra) rebuked for singing (so they were not children, but girls - the whople mercy to children thing comes there, but this is an aside) but the prophet mentioned that they should continue... guess what they were singing about?

They were singing about a battle that happened in the history of the madinans. Now if your mentioned ahadith were the only ones to go off, then here, the prophet wopuld have at the very least told the girls to sing about something else.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Because the bonds are forbidden bonds! Something halal, one can be proud of, something haram, one cannot be proud of it!

Throws your bond theory out of the window!

Except that the groupings of ansar and muhajiroon continued to exist after the incident you mentioned. If they were not allowed, the prophet would not have tired until they were destroyed.

Noone says groupings and bonds cannot exist or all are forbidden; the family is a group with bonds, it is permitted by Islam. For every grouping you need evidence - what is your evidence socio-political bonds such as national identities are permitted?

//I was born and bred in the UK. This is my homeland. //
You village, town, city, region, nation, continent are your homeland - read the previous comment about such labels and usages being permitted.
In the national identity, the notion of homeland goes beyond this - it stipulates the homeland for a nation should be that nation's land, it should be delineated by fixed non-movable borders - all the territory within it become beloved to the nation.
Compare that to the hadith you use to try justifying this concept - the hadith does not cover this concept at all and the city you are born in does not justify love for such a entity but love for the town or region you are from.

You wrote:

More to add actually - there is a famous hadith about two girls singing to hadhrat aisha that Hadhrat abu bakr (ra) rebuked for singing (so they were not children, but girls - the whople mercy to children thing comes there, but this is an aside) but the prophet mentioned that they should continue... guess what they were singing about?

They were singing about a battle that happened in the history of the madinans. Now if your mentioned ahadith were the only ones to go off, then here, the prophet wopuld have at the very least told the girls to sing about something else.

Yes and Tabari wrote the history of the Pagans, Ibn Ishaq wrote of the Pagan Arabs prior to Islam - what does that prove? We can write about history or speak of it. Your example (maybe you can actually cite the reference and the actual wording of the text) indicates young children can incorporate it onto their songs - just liek the Prophet(saw) allowed them to play with dolls of living creatures. It is not proof for nor can we have our socio-political bonds based on such concepts as Islam has provided legislation for how our common socio-political bonds and identities should be built - namely, around Islam.

Your are desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel! It's so patently obiovus the British/English identity is kufr yet you are so desperate to adopt it. Even the most uneducated Muslim in Birtain is aware we could be kicked out of this society any time and most have maintained land and property abroad for such an eventuality - just a tiny minority believe Western slogans that we are here permanently, and they are so civilised, mature and tolerant of an ideology opposed to their ideology - and as such, try embracing such nonsensical identities - as I said, look at hinduism, it's a better identity and closer to Islam than the British/English identities

so your issue is nations being "dileneated by fixed non moveable borders"?

You do realise that the Britain is an island right?

You wrote:

so your issue is nations being "dileneated by fixed non moveable borders"?

You do realise that the Britain is an island right?

Britain is an island - but you may not be aware that Northern Ireland (which is occupied Ireland if you bother to read its history!) is also part of Britain!

The borders of the Islamic State, Dar al-Islam, the homeland of the Muslim and Islam, are not to be fixed - as jihad is ongoing till the day of judgement, continually expanding the state...

Yet Hadhrat Umar Farooq was willing to allow the borders to be fixed against Persia, using the mountain range there as a natural border.

He only changed this when the Persians decided to ally themselves with others in order to wage war with the Muslims.

Later, the Muslims went into sindh only because the kingdom there was not willing to offer Muslims security (this was after an incident I believe where Muslims had been slaughtered).

Is world domination your goal? Is this something you have got from the Islamic sources? the only defense I have heard of this before was a weak one: "empires are meant to expand", so I am interested in hearing the evidences for your view here.

Maybe you can provide the references for that as I personally believe it's another fabricated historical event...

When the Prophet(saw) and his companions were expanding the state as were their successors hoping to be the prophesised ones who would liberate Rome or Constantinople, so that Islam would rule the world, I do not believe Umar fixed the borders of the state and ceased the expansion. You may want to consider this fact from scholars who have researched that period before replying:

"During his reign Levant, Egypt, Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, Fezzan, Eastern Anatolia, almost whole of Sassanid Persian Empire including Bactria, Persia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Caucasus and Makran were annexed to Islamic Empire. Accordiong to one estimate more than 4050 cities were captured during these military conquest." - Ref: Medieval Islamic Civilization, J W Meri p.844

Another question, do you love your home town/city/region? (the prophet loved Makkah even though it was full of mushrikeen at the time. More, the qiblah was changed by God to the ka'bah because the prophet wanted it so, even though at the time it was full of idols.)

Quote:

The borders of the Islamic State, Dar al-Islam, the homeland of the Muslim and Islam, are not to be fixed - as jihad is ongoing till the day of judgement, continually expanding the state...

any references for this?

Where's the Umar reference?

I like my hometown - it's where I grew up and I have memories there. I don't however conflate that liking with a socio-political bond as all people in the country/region are not from where I grew up - I for instance have no love of some of the larger cities and some cities I have no knowledge of them at all. Thus there is no common bond here of love of the "homeland" but love of disparate territories/regions. I like Paris, Islamabad and Tangiers too but there are not part of this homeland definition!

The references exist throughout the seerah and the life of the companions - too many - all called other nations to Islam and they joined the Islamic state as it is forbidden for Muslims to have more than one leader (Imam/Caliph etc).

Anonymous1 wrote:

Maybe you can provide the references for that as I personally believe it's another fabricated historical event...

Why do you personally believe it to be fabricated without first looking into it?

Maybe wikipedia is not the best of sources, but from there:

Qaqa moved to Hulwan and laid siege to the city which was captured in January 638.[16] Qa’qa sought permission for operating deeper into Persian land, i.e. main land Iran, but Caliph Umar didn’t approve the proposal and wrote a historic letter to Saad saying:

"I wish that between the Suwad and the Persian hills there were walls which would prevent them from getting to us, and prevent us from getting to them.[17] The fertile Suwad is sufficient for us; and I prefer the safety of the Muslims to the spoils of war."

It gives the source for this to be " Al Farooq, Umar By Muhammad Husayn Haykal. chapter no:5 page no:130"

//Yet Hadhrat Umar Farooq was willing to allow the borders to be fixed against Persia, using the mountain range there as a natural border.//
//"I wish that between the Suwad and the Persian hills there were walls which would prevent them from getting to us, and prevent us from getting to them.[17] The fertile Suwad is sufficient for us; and I prefer the safety of the Muslims to the spoils of war."//

This reference does not support that Umar was willing to fix borders against Persia.

That is your interpretation of this citation. If I had to (and I would not as there is no full text here and one would need to consider all relevant information including the fact Umar had no fixed borders!) I would say he is expressing a desire to have some means of providing protection for the lands inside Islam and Muslims even if that meant limiting skirmishes fought for booty - it does not even indicate that he imposed anything fixed!

Given the fact Umar brought over a thousand towns into the Islamic state during his reign, he did not believe in fixed borders as armies were invading lands outside the state and annexing them! No companion believe in fixed borders - what was under the Islamic state's authority belonged to Muslims and were surrounded by ever expanding borders, temporarirly fixed after each phase of expansion - what was outside, was targetted for annexation through the dawa!

You should be careful of alleging kufr western ideas to the companions especially basing it on snippets of texts you find in wikepedia (of all sources! - generally put together by unknown amateurs with no credibility).

(I love it when you skirt round facts as if it was a slalom course.)

The context is that in the war with Persia, a Muslim army wanted to chase the retreating and defeated Persian army, but they was denied permission because Hadhrat umar (ra) did not want conquest (and booty) just for the sake of conquest and booty.

He mentioned the want of peace and safety as his primary concerns. He wanted the mountains to be like a wall so that neither side would encroach on the other - he wanted a border, something you disagree with.

I am not alleging kufr ideologies to the companions. It is you who is alleging that their ideologies are kufr because you were short of atleast this one fact. This is why phrases like "kufr ideology" should be sparingly and carefully used as otherwise you might become unstuck as you have in this case.

I am not that the companions held "kufr ideologies", but I am using their example as proof that the ideologies are not kufr, as the knew better than me, better than you.

You wrote:

(I love it when you skirt round facts as if it was a slalom course.)

The context is that in the war with Persia, a Muslim army wanted to chase the retreating and defeated Persian army, but they was denied permission because Hadhrat umar (ra) did not want conquest (and booty) just for the sake of conquest and booty.

He mentioned the want of peace and safety as his primary concerns. He wanted the mountains to be like a wall so that neither side would encroach on the other - he wanted a border, something you disagree with.

I do not agree with temporary borders - read what I have written above as this is another straw man argument of yours - I am against fixed borders that the kufr ideologies of nationalism and nation states introduced. Prior to that, the Islamic Caliphate and even feudalism did not have fixed borders - borders of nations could vary based on the power of the state and how far it could be projected.

This is how the companions operated and no amount of dodgy interpretations of what the companions did or their "INTENTIONS" can prove such dodgy ideologies. Umar never meant that he wanted a fixed border as you are arguing - the border at best would be temporary for the security of Muslims and their lands.

One can see the borders of the rest of the state including the one he wanted to temporarily impose were far beyond the state he inherited! Decisive proof on the matter!

I am not alleging kufr ideologies to the companions. It is you who is alleging that their ideologies are kufr because you were short of atleast this one fact. This is why phrases like "kufr ideology" should be sparingly and carefully used as otherwise you might become unstuck as you have in this case.

you're using the term "strawman"

there is nothing in the letter that said the holding off of hostilities was only temporary. The idea of an impenetrable wall on the other hand gives me the impression of permanence.

I would disagree - there is equally nothing in the letter to indicate permanence.

However from the rest of his policies and the expansion of the borders around the state, including into PERSIA, this makes it clear cut, he and the companions did not believe in permanent borders.

I would disagree there. From my reading of the situation, I see clear intent.

The further conquest of Persia proper was carried out because it had made an alliance to try and defeat the Muslims, so had become an a threat. Even then, the conquest did not go further and continue conquering lands.

Anonymous1 wrote:

I would disagree

You wrote:

I would disagree

Don't you think it's time you focused on what you do agree on?

The 'textual integrity' of the Quran?
The oneness of Allah?
The beauty found in the laughter of a child?

‘”And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends of one another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.” (Quran 9:71)

Narrated AbuHurayrah: Allah’s Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) said: “Verily, Allah would say on the Day of Resurrection: ‘Where are those who have mutual love for My Glory’s sake? Today I shall shelter them in My shadow when there is no other shadow but the shadow of Mine.’” – Sahih Muslim

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

I would disagree

You wrote:

I would disagree

Don't you think it's time you focused on what you do agree on?

The 'textual integrity' of the Quran?
The oneness of Allah?
The beauty found in the laughter of a child?

‘”And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends of one another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.” (Quran 9:71)

Narrated AbuHurayrah: Allah’s Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) said: “Verily, Allah would say on the Day of Resurrection: ‘Where are those who have mutual love for My Glory’s sake? Today I shall shelter them in My shadow when there is no other shadow but the shadow of Mine.’” – Sahih Muslim

Uhkay, ignore my heartfelt speech then -_-

It was well said. Mashallah.

You wrote:

It was well said. Mashallah.

Ty

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

You wrote:

It was well said. Mashallah.

Ty

LOL! Rawrsy!

You wrote:

I would disagree there. From my reading of the situation, I see clear intent.

The further conquest of Persia proper was carried out because it had made an alliance to try and defeat the Muslims, so had become an a threat. Even then, the conquest did not go further and continue conquering lands.

Which blows your argument out of the water - permanent borders do not expand - temporary ones can! Even if Persia had made an alliance, permanent borders would mean the Muslims return to their "PERMANENT IMPENETRABLE" walls - like the West do when they finish thier wars!

The intent was not to pursue the Persians. reality caught up where was was fought. and even in the modern world, there are plenty of border disputes.

Mught I remind you of the recent creation of Kosovo? or would that be too inconvenient for you?

The borders are stable because the countries have agreements and they are at peace. This is what happens.

If there was ever a situation where neighbouring countries were at war and one side was able to dominate another sufficiently (and also carry off its foriegn relationships sufficiently), borders can and will change.

Look at Somalia. a big chunk of it has declared independence and formed the Somaliland.

For someone with a Masters degree... you surprise me.

You wrote:

The intent was not to pursue the Persians. reality caught up where was was fought. and even in the modern world, there are plenty of border disputes.

Maybe you should refute my post - not just write for writing's sake... borders at Umar's time of the state expanded - shows they were not fixed! Imposing your own intentions on him and his policies and history and stating them as fact is naive and goes against the facts. Fixed borders do not increase or decrease - some borders maybe disputed in the modern world, but that is the exception that proves the case.