One kind of nation we know with boundaries, constitution, rules. If there is a strong hostile nation with fanatic beliefs in front of your land, you must need to forge a nation of other like minded to defend yourself. You don't have choice to live without nation.
Another kind of nation exists in the world, the nation of Ummah. Ummah is armed and acts on every other group like a nation, while other groups claim to follow liberalism and in that pursuit become fragmented further.
A narrative has been set in by Islamists and pseudo liberals, in which all blame shifts to non-Muslim groups, and all the victimhood is milked by Ummah. Ummah gets the license to act savagely on their victims with impunity. Because by default something comes to global masses as wrong, like genocide of Yazidis, it is act of single group ISIS, it is not a problem if none of the Muslims counter ISIL. But if one person gets killed in Gaza in retaliatory attack on Hamas group, Muslims identify everyone in the world who doesn't oppose it as criminal. A seemingly negligent thing like French govt banning Burqa, creates uproar all over the world, but Saudi govt forcing every female (even non-Muslims) to wear burka in public is taken as part of culture.
Just notice, when USA and NATO attacked TALIBAN in Afghanistan, in the towns and cities of India Muslims rioted and dubbed it as attack on Islam. USA attacked Vietnam also, and that was much more prolonged war. Vietnamese and Asians did not call it attack on Asians or attack on Buddhist. If victim happens to be Muslim, it is attack on Ummah. But if perpetrator like TALIBAN acts with impunity, it has nothing to do with Islam, it is a local case. Taliban and Al-Qaeda had global support of Muslim ummah. I remember when I was in training ship in 2009, fight breaking out between an Indian guy and Indonesians, because all Indonesians considered Bin Laden to be hero, and were cheering the terrorists during a Hindi movie.
Muslims burned the shops and property of Hindus, when USA attacked Saddam Hussein, Muslims termed it as war on Islam. But the very same USA was supplying arms and intelligence to Pakistan in 1965 and 1971 wars, weapons which USA supplied to Mujahedeen were used in Kashmir against Hindus and even as India and Pakistan fought another war in 1999, American govt kept supplying F-16 etc to Pakistan. But we did not call it American war on Hindus. We did not start boycotting American products because America was Pakistan's ally. We don't call attacks by Pakistan as war by Muslims on Hindus.
On 9th May 2021, there were skirmishes in Jerusalem between Israeli police and Palestinians which hogged over all the internet. One day before Taliban attacked killed 85 female children in a school in Madrasa. But it was not even noticed. Idea is that Muslims can do anything to fellow Muslim and non-Muslim, it is not important. But a non-Muslim can not be allowed to touch a Muslim, no matter whatever is price the non-Muslim have to pay. So hundred times more Muslims get killed in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya etc. But these are of no concern, only few deaths in fight between Israel and Hamas are of concern.
Ummah is Not Just an Innocent Brotherhood Concept
Our genes comes from ancestors, but the conscious us is only one each one of us. And we the conscious ones are not always what our ancestors were. Our history is relevant because we still are not omniscient and 99.9% of us cant guide themselves independently even in adulthood, we need that cooperation, sync of identity to work as a team, to exist as cooperative units. But suppose my ancestors 50 generations ago killed ancestors of some friend! If we both are mature, it will have no meaning, even if it happened 5 generations ago. And what if someone I consider bad, his ancestors were my ancestors 50 generation ago!
But it is a practical necessity to understand history. Because there are big elephants in the room, in the of respect for their culture, those big teams are protected from any criticism. The sole agenda of those big teams is to swallow every other individual or team. A team can not be good or bad by some definition. Every team will have both good and bad aspects. But by nature of things, a powerful group when it wants can always get a label of absolute good and its opponents universally bad. For any objection, scrutiny, criticism to be relevant, to be taken into consideration, it must come from another strong team.
Examples is Islamophobia. Those who propounded of these terms assume that Islam as a team is always a force of good, and it should not be brought under scrutiny. Which is far from truth, most of Islamic countries are very bad examples when it comes to human rights and respecting the cultures of kafirs. No criteria has been used for such conclusions, it has not come from some deep study about the merits and outcome; it has been solely derived from convenience to bow to brute force of numbers possessing sheer fanaticism and wealth of oil rich Arabs. All the doubts are to be muzzled, all must submit, then only peace will prevail.
They use the aphorisms, all religions are good (when they need to justify their favorable bias towards one), all religions are bad (when they need to attack others), as a tool to create false equivalences in favor of one. Both of above they use to attack against freedom of thinking and expression. And then they use freedom of expression to attack other cultures, weak teams in narrative, which are their targets. So they coined the term Islamophobia and use it not only for legitimate grievances but as a political tool to muzzle any scrutiny.
When they talk about human rights, they say aphorisms like "all humans are inherently good" etc, such talks are meant only for public events. They suggest that all humans are good. Their goodness and hence their rights are absolute, they only do bad when they are under compulsion, so there is always some reason. So spin masters in media talk about son of headmaster, chartered accountant...as if their absolute human right was violated. Human rights are not absolute. They say human goodness, they don't say goodness of living creatures. How many court cases have been filed against animals and birds? When was it that a group of apes conspired to kill some old lady and rob bananas from her hut? Apes do that only in movies and cartoons. When was it that five tigers conspired to teach a lesson to villagers? Humans have wiped out thousands of other species, plants etc. Humans have endangered the climate. Humans have made nuclear weapons, and the biggest arsenal of nukes is held by the country which boasts the torch of liberty. R**ists, murderers, thieves, cheats, all the bad things are done by human beings, and so many laws has been created to protect humans from other humans, not from animals or shark, or bird or spiders. Courts, police station, locks, anti-virus on computer. But they say it other way. Humans are always good, it is animals and birds who may not be. A guy said man kind pays for the meat of chicken. I said mankind pays to mankind for the rights over chicken-kind. Another guy says we eat chickens because it is cycle of nature, they will become overpopulated. We are doing natural duty to control them from flooding the earth. Now who decided the merits of his argument? He himself. Was there a chicken party to it? No. Chickens have no power to argue, so whatever man says is right. So a correct version would be "a group of men with all the power in their hands, justified the fate of chickens in the following way..... and anyway Chickens had no say in it, men themselves were court, and judge." Its should not be said "XYZ is truth", it should be said: "ABC feels that XYZ is truth". Here we see that it is not about right and wrong, but about who wields power. Debate of right and wrong comes only when both groups or a group and an individual have parity in terms of power, verbal, physical, mental, material...in all ways. The one who is powerful who has a voice, he is the judge and he decides what is right/true and that becomes true. So truth/justice = power. Human beings thing they are only species worthy of having power to judge. Their protection alone is important. There are no laws to protect animals.
Freedom of speech: Root speech, for whom it is meant? One who can speak. What does it do, what does it help? Even dogs and birds speak by making some sounds, but they can’t communicate in effective way. Why do we speak? We speak to explain ourselves, and it depends on whether the others will listen and understand or not. It only helps those who have skill to speak intelligibly and to influence others.
Root of success of FOE is empathy, for that one without voice is also taken care only when there is empathy. Second is accurate knowledge of things (in the minds of all listeners), about which speech is made. That is an ideal condition. Otherwise it becomes a tool in the hands of eloquent, who start telling masses what is truth and they tell what they want them to believe to be true, not what is true in absolute.
A belief without universal human empathy doesn’t warrant universal freedom, for followers of that belief will use that freedom for subjugating and eliminating others and to override freedom of others.
I mean that if Lions and Tigers have to be caged, and can't have absolute freedom, if cobra and pythons are to be caged, street dogs have no absolute freedom, then human beings can't have absolute human rights, freedom to do whatever they want. Why only talk about human rights, not about animal rights, bird rights, reptile rights? Those who propound the idea of absolute human right, they do it on the inherent basis of goodness of human intention, and human ability for critical intelligence. A normal individual's critical intelligence (needed to claim the truthfulness of his/her speech/ideas), ability for judgement of right and wrong, and intentions have repeatedly proven to be imperfect. So with such imperfections there can't be absolute human rights. So human beings and their groups have to be brought under scrutiny, their activities, their routines. Justice, truth depend not on empty words but on how rigorously the facts were studied before arriving at the conclusion and how they were executed. Most freelancers are experts of jargon. And they use jargon as it suits them, to justify whatever they want.
Belief, more of it in some group is not a good thing as a rule. With more belief comes the resistance to any rational enquiry. And belief has to be questioned because belief is the cause of action, and we repeatedly see some kind of action coming from one particular group. If there are five groups living at one place, one of them is highly emotional/religious, it also means that only one group will not be questioned, because beliefs can't be questioned, beliefs are treated by such blind followers as proof, they take their experience as veritable proof. The idea that all religions are good, beliefs can't be questioned stems from another normal belief that all beliefs/emotions are good, always lead to good. But that is not the case.
By end of century every third human will be Muslim. There are more than 36 countries on this planet where Muslims form more than 90%, 21 countries where Muslims are largest religious groups and yet the laws in these countries are not about protecting tiny minorities, laws are for protecting Islam. For them Islam is only thing worth protecting, not other religions/cultures. So even Muslims living in developed countries who want special rights, and complain all the time, never talk about how their own home countries treat others. Muslims pose highest danger to Muslim and Non Muslims, Muslims are 90% of terrorist groups, killing other Muslim or Non-Muslims for the sake of Islam, but they always blame non-Muslims, "Islam Khatre me Hai (Islam is in danger)". What is at stake is their belief, that Islam is only perfect thing, rest everything is false.
If your neighbor keeps gun, you cant afford to not know about it, not prepare to defend. A strong unified Ummah will say they have right to stay united, and that they are victim. But it is not that innocent. Their right means denial of rights and death for others. It depends on how they interpret their right. If you interpret from their point of view then Kashmiri Hindus did not have right to be protected, Kashmiri Hindus were labeled evil even without pelting a single stone, and they were peaceful even after committing genocide on entire Kashmiri Hindu population. In their interpretation the unprovoked mass killing of Hindus in 1947 and 1971 was right, and they are peaceful even when they have wiped entire non Muslim populations. In their interpretation, Hamas firing rockets on civilians in Israel is a form of protest but Israel attacking Hamas sites sites to safeguard themselves after giving prior warning to evacuate civilians is an act of terror.
In the picture below, you can see why praying together five times a day helps Islam and Muslims. All these people pray together, same prayers (I bear witness that no-one is worthy of worship but Allah, the One alone, without partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His Messenger).
And all these people will fight together. Even if one were to assume that they mean no harm, it should still scare a sane person to the hell, because these people wont change and would do anything for their views, while time and situation changes and you will be alone defending yourself from their wrath in the time when there is disagreement. As you can read in Kalma, these people don't believe in the liberalism. The have made the vow for the first (Kalma), not for the second (below).
Ummah uses its strength and voice to creative a narrative in which they are always to be seen as victim. You cant object it on ground of facts. This is to create cover for creating some absolute control on narrative. Ummah went on spreading hateful messages about Trump. One Muslim senior from college was telling "Americans are all criminals, they will pay the price for electing this devil". What right Ummah has to criticize American citizens when they themselves run apartheid Islamic states?
Why does the world discusses Israel-Palestine every day, but most people don't even know about Darfur? Not that Israel-Palestine awakes their humanity etc, and Africans origin people in Darfur were not human, but because world acts under the pressure and pays obeisance to Ummah.
In most of Islamic countries Apostasy is punishable offense. But they want special rights, accuse every other nation on earth of Islamophobia.
Some of the crimes Ummah has committed:
(1) Islamic Nations and Arab World
Ummah pursues terrorism on the front of civic rights, liberty. Muslims all over the world where they are in Minority ask for equal rights, special concessions to make them feel better. While Muslims practice apartheid.
Countries with Muslim majority label themselves as Islamic republic or Islamic kingdom etc. They do not give equal rights to non-Muslim citizens. Most gulf countries don't give any citizenship to non-Arabs at all. There are millions of people of Indian ancestry who were born in those countries, who have never seen India in their lives. But they will never become citizen of those gulf countries. While in the west if Muslim are not given citizenship in five years, leftists and Muslims will cause a havoc. Non Arabs are universally treated as third class people, white people being the second class in the Arab world.
In most of Islamic countries you cant marry a Muslim woman without converting to Islam. In another level of racism, Arabs forbid, non-Arabs to marry Arab woman on their countries.
The OIC has 57 member states. How would you react to an organization of white majority countries? To a constitution which gives separate rights to whites and non whites as was the case in South Africa? Constitution of most of these countries are based on Islamic tenets, discriminating against non-Muslims. They seek to influence politics, opinions and human rights across the world. If non Muslim groups were to organize on religious basis on such large scale, it will attract severe non acceptance and harangue from left liberals.
Muslims all over the world, are not protesting to make their countries, 57 of them liberal. They are protesting to make liberal countries more liberal.
As a part of apartheid practiced by Muslims, non Muslims are barred from coming close to Mekka and Medina in a circle of 100s of miles.
Check the proceedings and declarations of OIC, it is about anything but politics. So when the ummah gathers, all they talk about is politics, they act like a second UN, giving one-sided judgements on Kashmir, India, Israel etc. But they don't want others to defend themselves. They call everyone else, Islamophobia.
(2) Genocide in Armenia
Turkey killed 1-1.5 million Armenian who were Christians. Normally when victim are Muslim, Muslims and leftists' of the whole world take up arms ang psychological weapons against them. But when victims are non-Muslim and perpetrators are Muslim, it is brushed aside as a local matter. Worse reasons are sought to justify it. So they defang any collective reaction from any non-Muslim group. While they themselves act collectively.
Armenian genocide was no less horrific than Nazi holocaust of Jews. But we never hear about it, because perpetrators were Muslims and victims were Christian.
(3) Genocide in Darfur
Approximately 3 million people of black race and Christian faith were killed by Arabs in Darfur in western Sudan.
(4) Genocide of Yazidis
5000 Yazidi people were killed and nearly 10000 abducted by ISIL in Syria. Muslims of the world maintained pin drop silence.
(5) Massacre and eviction of Christians from Syria, Lebanon, Egypt.
(6) Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh which is still continuing.
Nearly 500 thousand Hindus and Sikhs were forcibly evicted from Muslim majority areas of Jammu and Kashmir in 1990s.
1 million Hindu and Sikh were killed during partition of India. In 1971, west Pakistani army killed between 1-3 million people in East Pakistan, most of the killed were Hindus.
