قال الله تعالى

 {  إِنَّ اللَّــهَ لا يُغَيِّــرُ مَـا بِقَــوْمٍ حَتَّــى يُـغَيِّـــرُوا مَــا بِــأَنْــفُسِــــهِـمْ  }

سورة  الرعد  .  الآيـة   :   11

ahlaa

" ليست المشكلة أن نعلم المسلم عقيدة هو يملكها، و إنما المهم أن نرد إلي هذه العقيدة فاعليتها و قوتها الإيجابية و تأثيرها الإجتماعي و في كلمة واحدة : إن مشكلتنا ليست في أن نبرهن للمسلم علي وجود الله بقدر ما هي في أن نشعره بوجوده و نملأ به نفسه، بإعتباره مصدرا للطاقة. "
-  المفكر الجزائري المسلم الراحل الأستاذ مالك بن نبي رحمه الله  -

image-home

لنكتب أحرفا من النور،quot لنستخرج كنوزا من المعرفة و الإبداع و العلم و الأفكار

الأديبــــة عفــــاف عنيبـــة

السيـــرة الذاتيـــةالسيـــرة الذاتيـــة

أخبـــار ونشـــاطـــاتأخبـــار ونشـــاطـــات 

اصــــدارات الكـــــاتبــةاصــــدارات الكـــــاتبــة

تـــواصـــل معنــــــاتـــواصـــل معنــــــا


تابعنا على شبـكات التواصـل الاجتماعيـة

 twitterlinkedinflickrfacebook   googleplus  


إبحـث في الموقـع ...

  1. أحدث التعليــقات
  2. الأكثــر تعليقا

ألبــــوم الصــــور

e12988e3c24d1d14f82d448fcde4aff2 

مواقــع مفيـــدة

rasoulallahbinbadisassalacerhso  wefaqdev iktab
الثلاثاء, 08 كانون1/ديسمبر 2015 07:35

New Ideas

كتبه  Mr Bernard Lewis
قيم الموضوع
(0 أصوات)

Chapter 7

New Ideas

Middle East, Bernard Lewis

In the traditional Islamic world, as in Christendom, nations and countries often had a strong sense of national and regional identity. The three major peoples of Middle Eastern Islam, the Arabs, the Persians and the Turks, were proudly conscious of their national heritage-their language and literatures, their history and culture, their presumed common origins, their distinctive manners and customs. There was also a natural attachment to the land of one’s birth-love of country, local pride, homesickness, are all familiar in Islamic as in Western literature. But these carried no political message, and at no time before the intrusion of Western ideas was the idea accepted or even known that the nation or the national homeland was the unit of political identity and sovereignty. For Muslims, their identity was the Faith, and their allegiance belonged to the ruler or dynasty that ruled over them in the name of that Faith.

Both patriotism and nationalism were alien to the world of Islam. Alike in the titulature of monarchs and in the writings of historians, nation and country neither delimited sovereignty nor defined identity. The introduction of these ideas, as Ali Pasha observed, was devastating in its impact.

Patriotism-not just the natural love of one’s place of birth, but a political and, if necessary, military duty owed to one’s country and payable on demand to its government-is deep-rooted in Western civilization, with its origins in ancient Greece and Rome. In Britain, France, and later the United States, it became associated with two other ideas: the unification of the diverse elements of the population of the country in a single national allegiance, and the growing conviction that the people, rather than Church or State, is the true and only source of sovereignty.

Patriotism welded the numerous peoples that inhabited Britain and France-sometimes speaking different languages, sometimes professing divergent religions-into united and powerful nations. Some Ottoman observers of the European scene felt that such an idea could also serve to bind together the different ethnic and religious communities of the Ottoman Empire in a common loyalty to their homeland and as a matter of course, to the Ottoman state which governed that land.

The patriotic idea was taken up at e slightly later stage in Egypt, which had many advantages for this purpose. Egypt, more than any other country in the region, is sharply defined by both geography and history. Consisting of the valley and delta of a single river, it possessed, despite its Arabization and Islamization, a continuing identity through the millennia and a degree of homogeneity and centralization that were unique in the region. The progress of this new idea of patriotism defined by country was also helped by the ambitions of the Khedivial dynasty, which had established a virtually autonomous state in Egypt under the nominal suzerainty of the Ottoman sultanate. The khedives had an obvious interest in an ideology which would promote the idea of a distinctive Egyptian entity, to be expressed in separate nationhood and statehood. It was much easier to see Egypt as a country, as a nation in the Western sense of the word, than the polyglot and pluralistic Ottoman Empire of the nineteenth century. But even in Egypt, the acceptance of this new identity was slow, gradual, and contested, and has by no means been fully accepted by all Egyptians even at the present day.

From the mid-century onwards, patriotism was followed and in large measure superseded by a very different idea-nationalism. Patriotism had served well in Western Europe, where country and state on the one hand, and nation on the other, became virtually identified. It did not fit the very different conditions in Central and Eastern Europe-the fragmentation of Germany, the ethnic diversity of Austria-Hungary, the “prison-house of nations” of the empire of the tsars. Patriotism in such a situation could mean support for the status quo- and for increasing numbers, that was  becoming unacceptable. The idea of the nation, defined not by country and status but by language, culture and presumed common descent, corresponded much more closely to the realities of the Middle East, where nationalism of the Middle European Kind was at one more intelligible and more acceptable than the liberal patriotism of the West.

Both patriotic and nationalist ideas, when introduced to the Middle East, were associated with libertarian and opposition movements. In general, patriotism tended to reinforce, nationalism to subvert, the existing political order. For the patriot, the independence of his country is axiomatic, and freedom is concerned with the status of the individual in the country. For the nationalist, the state may alien and oppressive, and both country and nation subject to foreign, sometimes also divided rule. Freedom means the ending of these aberrations and the achievement of national independence and unity.

The first to feel the influence of these new ideas were the non-Muslim subjects of the Empire-more open to ideas emanating from Christian Europe, more easily persuaded that the government that ruled them was an alien tyranny. And not only the government. The same process can be seen within the Greek millet, which, under the old dispensation, had united all Orthodox Christians of the Empire. In the nineteenth century, non-Hellenic adherents of the Greek Orthodox Church began to chafe under an ecclesiastical authority whose higher ranks of which were occupied almost entirely by ethnic Greeks. First the Balkans peoples, the later-with rather less success-Arabic-speaking Orthodox Christians in Syria, demanded a greater say in their own communal affairs, and in their ecclesiastical organization. The new nationalist ferment was disrupting the Greek millet. It later destroyed the Ottoman Empire.

قراءة 1568 مرات آخر تعديل على الجمعة, 11 كانون1/ديسمبر 2015 14:54

أضف تعليق


كود امني
تحديث