Accountancy Forum

so many people think that it's the religion actually which is the cause of bloodshed but history and current events suggests that it's the nationalism ( misunderstanding oneself belonging to a superior race).
as history shows us, most bloody wars were fought becasue one human thought himself to be superior. like 1st and 2nd world wars, and various invasions of japanese in 16th to 19th centuries on china, killing so many people. invasions of genghis khan (if my spellings are correct, as i am from urdu medium school, we used to call him changez khan there, lol) and his decendents. invasions of alexander, the great for domination of greeks over iranians and later rest of the world. expeditions of colonial powers,like spanish( abit religion was involved), english potuguese, dutch and the french. in most recent times the horrific incidents in rawanda, where huto and tutsi tribes were fighting, and more than 300,000 people were killed.
and then the killings of arabs by jewish race. many people think that judaism is a religion, it's true. but more than being a religion it's a race, because there are so much restrictions if a person who is not a jew to become a jew. orthodox doesn't allow it at all, however some reformists do allow, but still they are not accepted in the community (my personal opinion). that's why jews don't preach. wallah i am not against jews, don't think that, please.
and there are numerous other examples which suggest that nationalism is the major cause of bloodshed. so it means if a person is against nationalism or try to weaken this sentiment he or she is a benefactor of humanity. what u people think?????
p.s. i don't get the chance of reading my posts after writting and i don't like too as well, so please don't wast your time in mentioning my gramatical and spelling errors.[D]

inta habieba omri, malikta omri

1. what is the difference b/w "nationalism" and "fanaticism" ?

2. when almost every religion preaches "tolerance", why dont ppl tolerate other religions ?

if anybody can answer these quetions, then he can surely call himself an "intellectual". I am not one.

Khuda Kher Karay

Ice Blue

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Ice_Blue
 
1. what is the difference b/w "nationalism" and "fanaticism" ?

2. when almost every religion preaches "tolerance", why dont ppl tolerate other religions ?

if anybody can answer these quetions, then he can surely call himself an "intellectual". I am not one.

Khuda Kher Karay

Ice Blue
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
1. Nationalism is generally a government propoganda tool, fanaticism is love of ones country to an absurd extreme.Nationalism is a BOND, which binds people together. Where as Fanaticism is NOT a BOND, rather a description or an adjective, i.e. like Fundamentalism, Radicalism, Racism, Defeatism etc etc.

Hence it is erroneous to compare the 2. And individual could be a nationalist, and a fanatic at the same time.

Regarding Nationalism being a Bond, it is a temporary bond based on Tribalistic tendencies. It is an emotional bond resulting from the Survival instinct and hence resulting in the love for dominance over others.

The only correct bond that binds people together is an ideological bond.

2. Tolerance is an over used word. People don't tolerate other religions because the organized major religions tend to take a "my turf" approach. YOU MUST BELIEVE US, or you're soul is damned to HELL!

Tolerance is also one of the most dangerous influences in Pakistan today. But that's another thread.

---------------------------------------------
âLittle minds are tamed and subdued by misfortune; but great minds rise above it.â

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">posted by ice_blue
1. what is the difference b/w "nationalism" and "fanaticism" ?

2. when almost every religion preaches "tolerance", why dont ppl tolerate other religions ?

if anybody can answer these quetions, then he can surely call himself an "intellectual".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
instead of waiting for that "intellectual" we better give our own opinions. and that's what we are supposed to do here.
1. i think nationalism is that people living in a certain geographical location start (somehow) believing that they are better than the others. as mustafa kamal (i don't know much about him) has said something like ,"thanks God for creating me as a Turk". and these sentiments, depending mostly on political environment, sometimes get more extreme and at times a bit moderate. some power-hungry people use these sentiments for thier vested interests, like they use religious and economic issues.
and fanaticism is belief that the opinion of a certain individual or a group should be enforced on others. like people preach that their brand of islam should be enforced, or like some sections of hindus want to enforce hindutava in india etc etc.
2. yes i haven't heard about any religion which doesn't require its followers to tolerate other beliefs but don't know why people don't tolerate other opinions. well, it's an evil thing and we do many evil things, don't know why?? must be something to do with the shaytan, lol.
i would never like to fight and die for a national cause (if it's not just) or to enforce my opinion on others. inshallah!!![)] we will discuss this topic in detail later[D]

inta habieba omri, malikta omri

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by abdulmajid
 so many people think that it's the religion actually which is the cause of bloodshed but history and current events suggests that it's the nationalism ( misunderstanding oneself belonging to a superior race).
as history shows us, most bloody wars were fought becasue one human thought himself to be superior. like 1st and 2nd world wars, and various envasions of japanese in 16th to 19th centuries on china, killing so many people. envasions of genghis khan (if my spellings are correct, as i am from urdu medium school, we used to call him changez khan there, lol) and his decendents. envasions of alexander, the great for domination of greeks over iranians and later rest of the world. expeditions of colonial powers,like spanish( abit religion was involved), english potuguese, dutch and the french. in most recent times the horrific incidents in rawanda, where huto and tutsi tribes were fighting, and more than 300,000 people were killed.
and then the killings of arabs by jewish race. many people think that judaism is a religion, it's true. but more than being a religion it's a race, because there are so much restrictions if a person who is not a jew to become a jew. orthodox doesn't allow it at all, however some reformists do allow, but still they are not accepted in the community (my personal opinion). that's why jews don't preach. wallah i am not against jews, don't think that, please.
and there are numerous other examples which suggest that nationalism is the major cause of bloodshed. so it means if a person is against nationalism or try to weaken this sentiment he or she is a benefactor of humanity. what u people think?????
p.s. i don't get the chance of reading my posts after writting and i don't like too as well, so please don't wast your time in mentioning my gramatical and spelling errors.[D]

inta habieba omri, malikta omri
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The tribal instinct can't be understated here.

People cause wars; people pull triggers and press buttons. You can't blame the tribal instinct; or whatever abstract notion might lodge itself into the tribal niche. Gangs fill the tribal niche when there is no structure available. The tribal niche will be filled; and we are ignorant of it, so we are subject to it.

---------------------------------------------
âLittle minds are tamed and subdued by misfortune; but great minds rise above it.â

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by lion_king
 well just to add to the the topic, in history there r a lot of wars fought in the name of religion, like ghuzwa badr,khandak,ohad and so on in thhe islamic history they were fought with religious zeal and not for nationality, other wars were the crusades fought bby musllims and christains .......what will u say to that?????? in all these wars not a specific tribe,community or state was involved
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
i was actually discussiong the causes of bloodshed in human history. and history tells us that major cause is nationalism ( a misunderstanding by a group of people that they are superior from others - desert sleight calls it tribal instinct-). true, wars are fought on the basis of ideology as well, but loss of human life in those wars is no match to the wars fought to fulfill the desire of a nation to rule the world. and history supports it, in only world war I, 8.5 million people were killed and in world war II the figure is normally believed to be over 50 million. and the wars fought in the beginning of islam look skirmishes when we consider other major battles, though later great pitched battles were fought. but my personal opinion is that not more that one million people would have been died in the wars untill the caliphat of Usman (r.a). even during that period more deadly wars were fought between persians and romans ( these wars were fought on the basis of nationhood).
surely crusades are the deadliest wars in human history fought for an ideology but despite all the brutality of crusade forces, human loss in those wars was no match to the slaughter by mongols. mongols on most occasions killed almost the entire population of biggest cities of that time, including samarkand and baghdad. and mongol wars were purely fought with an intention to dominate other nations. It will be interesting to note that by the time the decisive war was fought between mamalooks and mongols ( at shaqhab) a significant portion in mongol army had converted to islam still they were fighting for their nation.
these are few wars that we can count on fingers fought for religion, otherwise human history is more than full with wars and bloodshed. so as people talk about controlling religious fanaticism because it's a threat to human peace (true! it is) we should not ignore the nationalist extremists. simply because history has told us that they are the major cause of human sufferings.

as in Quran
And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth." They said "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, while we glorify You with praises and thanks (Exalted be You as partners) and sanctify You. " He ( Allah) said "I know that which you do not know." (( al-baqra 30))

inta habieba omri, malikta omri

<blockquote id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">originally posted by desert sleet
The tribal instinct can't be understated here.

People cause wars; people pull triggers and press buttons. You can't blame the tribal instinct; or whatever abstract notion might lodge itself into the tribal niche. Gangs fill the tribal niche when there is no structure available. The tribal niche will be filled; and we are ignorant of it, so we are subject to it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
yeah in the end division between people on the basis of geographical dispersion seems to be the soul solution, because people remain responsible for the land they live. but the point is that these divisions are the most significant cause of human sufferings through wars. may be we can suggest that extreme sentiments of nationhood should be negated and people should be told that all human are equal, no group is superior.
o.k friends! any one has a soultion??
p.s. my point of view wasn't that division among nations should be removed, but i wanted to emphasis that it's the major cause of wars. national divisions, we can say is a necessary evil.

inta habieba omri, malikta omri

abdulmajid

Ice_Blue

Desert Sleet

abdulmajid

Desert Sleet

abdulmajid

abdulmajid

abdulmajid