Compatibility of Islam and European Nationalism

Discussion in 'Religion & Spirituality' started by Plantagenet, 14 November 2013.

  1. Plantagenet

    Plantagenet Heroic Member

    What are your thoughts on the compatibility of Islam and European nationalism? For me, it seems an outlandish idea considering the historical antagonism between the two groups, though of course that was when Europe was Christendom, which is no longer the case for the majority today. There's also the case that, aside from Bosniaks and a few other European converts, most of Islam constitutes non-European races. Furthermore, Islam, while absorbing some Persian Aryan and Greek traditions, is largely an expression of the Semitic spirit.

    However, it is well known that many National Socialists converted to Islam during and after World War II, with Johann von Leers perhaps being the most famous. In addition, I suppose on a completely theoretical level, there is nothing in Islamic univeralism that states one must be stripped of their racial, ethnic, cultural, or linguistic heritage. There is also the fact that many leftists and Western liberal critics characterize Islam as a very absolutist, right-wing, and even fascistic religion. One could theorize that if somehow those characteristics could be congealed with a pro-European racial and cultural stance, a synthesis may be possible, but I remain doubtful of such a possibility, especially on a large scale.

    What are your thoughts? Is Islam always to be the enemy of the Europe? Could a Islamic European nationalism ever exist, or is the entire notion a contradiction in terms?
     
    Last edited: 14 November 2013
    • Interesting Interesting x 4
  2. Bellerophon

    Bellerophon Senior Member

    The effects of a mass ethnic European conversion to Islam would be catastrophic. The already waning energies of allegiance and affinity for home and hearth being transformed and redirected toward an alien force and ethos would inevitably erode what little tradition in practice we have left and place that faith (and it's leaders in the Mid-Orient) in a position superior to (or perhaps even in replacement of) the Nation.

    Setting aside this absurd portrait of betrayal featuring purported nationalists subscribing to a foreign tradition and faith, the idea of Faustian man submitting to Allah (and this is what Islam means: to submit) seems rather uncharacteristic of the Culture of Will.

    They're right, one must understand that Islam is fundamentally a Puritanical (that is to say, invasive and legalistic) sect that gained supremacy over the spotted communities of Christians, Gnostics, Zoroastrians, Neoplatonists, etc. in that region. The concepts of "politics" and "religion" are one and the same to the Magian; it is understandable that such a mode of thought would come across to a passive observer as "right-wing".

    It should be our directive to revive the inner, spiritual life of our people, but not at the cost of identity or the whims of a foreign people's system of tabu.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Yes, I agree with Bellerophon here. I think there is some sort of common misconception on the right that we have to take on the roles that our enemies assign us. It's a bit like neo-nazi skinheads who hate Negroes (edit: of course disliking them is all right, but my point is about hating other races rather than loving your own), but it's fairly widespread - a sort of acceptance of negative values due to the fact that they are dismissed by our enemies. I'm not sure if I can properly explain it in the context, but I hope you understand what I mean.
    There are many issues with Islam which I think makes it into a very unattractive faith. Most of my issues are the same as those I have with Christianity (slave mentality, dualism, negative view on the woman etc), only they are even more exaggerated in Islam. Of course there are some superior branches of Islam, like Sufism, but that can probably be argued with any system of faith.
    However, I do think that cooperating with adherents of Islam is possible and might be necessary. After all, they largely do hold anti-modernist values (I think this should be differentiated from anti-western - the Cathedral equates modernity with the West which as we know is absolutely false) and working together against modernity could be very positive. I find the notion that Islam is bent on conquering the west to be quite ridiculous (I am not saying that that might not be the result - but it is certainly not the intent).
     
    Last edited: 14 November 2013
    • Like Like x 6
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. KingOvGermania

    KingOvGermania Senior Member

    I don't think Plantagenet was suggesting Europeans converting to Islam as "Compatibility" - he was just using an example with the National Socialists. I myself would never convert to Islam, but in all fairness, he was probably referring to semi-Traditionalist currents within Islam, Sufism's influence on the Perennial Philosophy, opposition to modern, Western values, et al., not being dismissed or embraced but understood. I agree on finding the inner, spiritual life of our People, so to speak, but that doesn't mean other peoples can't do the same... that said, I do understand the concerns related to it.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  5. Plantagenet

    Plantagenet Heroic Member

    Yea, a mass conversion would certainly not be ideal and would effectively destroy what it means to be European, traditional or otherwise, but what I was wondering, as KOG pointed out, if anyone thought it were possible to simultaneously be a Muslim (such as a Sufi) whilst holding pro-European views at all. It seems on the one hand that there is an idea of "universal brotherhood" among the Islamic community, but then again the Muslims themselves often have nationalist sentiments, i.e. Turks and Persians often don't like Arabs and insist on maintaining their own identity. Similarly I know Arabs largely dislike Negro Muslims. So at least in theory it doesn't seem that Islam and racialism or nationalism are incompatible. Ultimately it seems in my view such a positioning for a European would be problematic for reasons I explained earlier, namely the historical antagonism between Islam and Europe.

    Though one interesting thing to consider in the arena of nationalists politics and its relation to Islam is that often people laud Western values of secularism, humanism, scientism, egalitarianism, feminism, consumerism, etc. as what should be defended against Islam. I obviously think this is misguided since what is really occurring is modern Westerners hating everything that is traditional, religious, moral, patriarchal, etc. in Islam, taken to the extreme though they often are.

    Somewhat related, and I am sure many of you may have already read this, but for those who haven't, here is a summary of Evola's views on Islam:

    http://www.claudiomutti.com/index.php?url=6&imag=1&id_news=130
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Olavsson

    Olavsson First Lieutenant Staff Member
    1. Lumine Boreali Gentlemen's Club
    2. Neoplatonism

    We already seem to agree that a mass-conversion of the European civilization to Islam would be undesirable. Even laying aside the question about the value of the Islamic tradition itself (some currents and elements are acceptable, but the tradition taken as a whole is much too flawed in my personal opinion), which is bound to be approached with varied perspectives and interpretations, the truth remains that such a mass-conversion would de facto imply the submission of Europe and its spirit to another civilization. That can only be seen with dread by a person such as me.

    Of course, it would be possible for those who wish to combine a version of Islam with ethno-racial particularism and political sovereignty for instance, to do so. Iranians have no problem with being proud of their Persian origins even with Islam being their dominant religion. Or let us not forget the black nationalists of the Nation of Islam movement. But the question is, why would Europeans want that? Is that at all a necessity or a need to begin with? Islam may have its metaphysical truths, but does it have anything that no other, more culturally and historically suitable tradition can offer, even more elusively seen from a spiritual perspective? We should remember that Islam, despite of its claim to universal validity - and exclusivity with regards to its monopoly on the absolute truth - after all originated as an expression of Arab political-cultural-religious imperialism, and this from its very beginning. Arabic is its holy language, its main Prophet was an Arab war lord and conqueror ... and its most holy of religious centres, to which all true Muslims are expected to pay visit during a pilgrimage at least once in their lifetime, is situated in Saudi-Arabia. Can Islam, at least in its exoteric religious aspects, really be detached from 'Arabism', if I may use such a word?

    I agree that such (loose) alliances could be formed when it is clear that a common interest is shared in one area or the other, this whether we are talking about Muslim organizations or even states (Alexandr Dugin is into this sort of thinking). The primary obstacle I can see with this, is that many Muslims, even if opposing liberal Modernity just like us, want to replace the liberal version of globalism with their own Islamic globalism. And these people mostly have a hard time accepting that Europe might not want Muslim immigration into her own civilizational sphere. (At least I can't think of any good examples of an opposite tendency.)

    The aim at world domination and religious hegemony is inherent in the Islamic tradition, originating in its doctrinal childhood and the religious absolutist will to conquer. A devout Muslim (now I'm not thinking of a tiny minority of deeply esoteric Sufis or anything like that) cannot but believe in Islam as the only answer and see as his duty to convert the rest of the world (or parts of it) whenever at all possible. The view of some moronic 'counter-jihadists' who see the entire Islamic world as a united front against 'the West' is obviously flawed. But in Islam as a tradition, this conquering instinct and fanatical belief in one's monopoly on religious truth is ever-present. It isn't like Europe hasn't been dangerously close to being conquered by Islamic empires at earlier times. This isn't a great danger today, as the Muslim world is pretty weak and disunited. The only problem is the immigration flow that "we" ourselves (or, more correctly, the political elite) are allowing. But to conclude, I disagree that the aim of genuine Islam is not to spread itself by any means possible in order for Allah's true will to be followed on the entire planet that He Himself created. In fact, I will take the opposite approach from you in this case and question whether it isn't rather the case that conquering the West and everywhere else is actually more likely to be the intent than the result.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Kratoarchist

    Kratoarchist Member

    As others have suggested, Muslims have been a historical enemy of Europe for centuries, and conversion to their tradition is neither necessary nor desirable. In theory, it would be possible to adapt the practices of Islam to European culture, but as a non-Muslim, I'm not in any hurry to see that happen.

    For the time being though, Islam is generally considered to be a foreign religion in our society. However, this doesn't necessarily make them our enemies, and certainly not our greatest threat. When their goals happen to coincide with ours, there's no reason we should reject a temporary alliance with non-fundamentalist Muslims. The Jewish elite see Europeans and Muslims as two of their greatest enemies, and have much to gain by pitting us against each other.

    I recognize the fact that fundamentalism is a greater problem in Islam than in any other religion for whatever reason, and it would be difficult to work with people who believe we're possessed by demons, but I expect there's also a good amount of traditional and moderate Muslims we could cooperate with.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  8. I also think that there are so-called fundamentalist traditionalists, who are militant anti-modernists (what our media depicts as anti-western, but is in reality a wish to preserve their traditional ways and stave off the American invasion - be it with bombs or with coca-cola - of their home-countries); I do not see why we shouldn't co-operate with these elements (as long as they are pluralists who are not bent on conquering the west or anything like that).
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. VedicViking

    VedicViking Third Lieutenant Sustaining Member
    1. Britons

    That's the crux of it. I want to see Europe unified around Europe - the idea; not have it submit to Islam - the idea. Which of course is no reason we can't learn from Islam and its culture.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. On a practical note:
    I have no qualms about co-operating with muslim nationalists in their own country. But that is a far as I would be willing to go. Most that could have been said has already been said, but I'd like to add that the ' small fundamentalist minority' is a fiction.
    You may be familliar with the following database on muslim opinions:
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm showing quite clearly that the ideas that would be considered by most europeans, progressives and reactionaries alike, barbaric.
    Stoning, amputation and honor killings have a stunningly broad support-base in the muslim community.

    Also, the idea that only a small minority of muslims would like their host-countries to be conquered seems flawed, for example:
    http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschl...igranten-hoffen-auf-muslimische-Mehrheit.html

    Most of the muslims I've encountered treat every westerner as "the other" ( and rightly so, if only our people would do the same to them) regardless of the values of the westerner they choose to harass.
    Most moderate muslims, I think, are not compatible to the western traditionalist/nationalist cause, they seem to adhere to their traditions out of cultural habit, not out of conviction.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice