Islam gave Man the Idea of Nationhood

In pre-Islamic times people lived in tribes and loyalty was to the tribe in quite an amoral way. That was because if your tribe did not protect you, then you would have no protection at all as an individual. 


It could be said that with Islam came the origins of nationhood.


Tribes can be people of the same race. 


Different tribes can agree to put their differences aside and become a nation. 


Do they have to be of the same race?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah suggests that a nation just means people of different races agreeing to regard themselves as one despite tribal and racial differences as long as they agree to adhere to a common set of rules and a common outlook on morality.


From this idea came the idea of a nation being bigger and better than a tribe, because only a nation is in fact small enough to care and big enough to matter.  


Apart from giving the warring tribes of Arabia a bigger and better concept of human organisation, I like to think that the Koran is a kind of tick list of success or failure. The more your society adheres to it, the more likely you are to be successful.


Of course there are plenty of Muslim nations who do call themselves Muslim but do not in fact do what the Koran says. 


There are even nations that are unconsciously Muslim, and I would suggest that Britain in a previous age was more Muslim then than now, even though there are more Muslims here now.


The more Koranic commandments your society follows, the more likely it is to be peaceful and flourishing.  


The more it strays from the Koran, the more disordered and self-destructive it becomes.  


Gaddafi's troubles had a lot to do with not fixing the divisiveness of the tribal system in Libya. He thought it was enough to prefer his own dominant tribe, when it was in fact necessary as an act of nation-building to abolish the tribal system altogether.


We too are also far astray from the right path.

A definition of the National Interest , the Nation and Nationalism

The only thing that should matter for those who call themselves nationalists is whether something is for or against the national interest.

My definition of the national interest is the long term good of the nation. 

The nation consists of different groups within which there are competing interests to be wisely and fairly balanced.


It is a matter of practical politics as to whom one includes and excludes from being a member of that nation.  


Ethno-nationalism is a contradiction in terms for it is, as far as I can see, but tribalism and racial preference.  It is not working in Israel, the caste system (also based on birth origins) in India is socially divisive and pernicious, and apartheid did not work in South Africa.  The writing is therefore on the wall for these morally bankrupt ideologies who are only promoted by those who are "well born".  


Britain is still a white majority country and so whatever benefits the majority of white people could be said to be in the National Interest.

In my view, the policies that would most benefit the nation would be policies crafted to encourage the lower middle classes, ie those who aspire and those with a work ethic.  This would include the small independent businessmen, the man in the white van, the Asian owner of your local corner shop.  Policies that favour trade unions and big business are therefore against the national interest.  

This would mean a meritocratic educational system that is keen for excellence to flourish  rather than one that has an ideological imperative to impose equality of failure while hiding the failure of education in this country.  This would mean selective education, the end of mixed ability teaching, and the rigorous implementation of streaming according to ability.  


This will make the Liberal Left gnash their teeth, rend their garments and tear their hair, but we need to tell them in no uncertain terms where to go and which of their orifices they can stuff their toxic ideology up. 

The way forward is reasonably clear. To me anyway.