identity crisis شناخت کا مسئلہ Tv Debate HD Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

A traveller who wanders in the light and darkness in search of the Creator. Human. How much more does he have to think? If the purpose of art is only to satisfy the beauty of man, then is religion's objection to this right or not? If all incidents occur under natural causes, then is there a God who controls the rotation of the stars or not? Who all does he have to worship now? If the purpose of religion is only to attain paradise after death, then does it have any effect in today's practical life or not? Will his quest ever come to an end? Ghamidi Assalam-o-Alaikum, welcome to the programme Ghamidi.

Ladies and gentlemen, the political development of humans which started from the cities of Athens and Sparta in Greece, has gained acceptance in the majority of the world in the form of a modern national state which was formed during the reign of the emperors. And a national identity has naturally taken place But the problem is that the people of different religions living in that modern national state, especially the people of different religions generally find their national identity contrary to their religious identity. Because a modern national state does not accept religion as its foundation.

Today, through our partner and respected Javed Ahmed Ghamidi's mutual conversation, we will try to find the answer to this question. Is this national identity contrary to religious identity? Or is religious identity stronger than national identity? And then we will also see that under the influence of economic interests, is the national identity, the religious identity, a personal matter of an individual, and is it affecting the religious order of society? Or not? This is the topic of our discussion today. Ghamidi Sahab, Iraq, Spain, and then Syria.

In these countries, from the separate caliphates of the Muslims, to the establishment of Bangladesh, is there any evidence that the national identity is a stronger factor than the religious identity? It has always been stronger. Nations are formed on the basis of colour, on the basis of generations, on the basis of cultural traditions. After that, people adopt a religion, and that too becomes a means of identification for them.

But in general, other interests prevail over it, and it weakens. Hence, the same things that humans generally adopt under their natural needs and interests, they establish their own government on the basis of it. So Ghamidi Sahab, can we infer from this, that the concept of Pan-Islamicism of the Muslims, like the slogan announced by Sultan Abdul Hameed II at the time of the death of the Ottoman Empire, is it actually Utopia? I think that this is the situation now.

You can wish for it, you can aspire for it, but it should become a form of practise. In the old times, conquests became a means of it. i.e. a conqueror conquered a huge area, like the sons of Genghis Khan did.

They broke the foundation of Baghdad's Sultanate. The Khilafat of the Muslims which was already established in the form of Abbasid Khilafat was abolished. After that, they established their own government.

Since that government was established through conquests, and it was established on the basis of conquests, hence a large Sultanate was established. But even in the time of that Sultanate, there were small states around it. Then you know that there was a division among them as well.

The Khwarazmshahi Sultanate came into existence. The Seljuk Sultanate came into existence. The Mughal Sultanate came into existence.

Even then the Ottoman Empire was established. The Safvi government was established in Iran. Even then the Ottoman Empire was established.

The point is that the Islam which is based on theory, gives the lesson of Masawat, in which any Arab, non-Arab, black and white, have no superiority except for Taqwa. But practically the situation is not in accordance with it. According to historians like Tabri and Hasham, during the time of the Quraish, the Ansar did not show any particular zeal to hand over power to the Quraish.

And this is the tribal identity which later becomes the basis of the religious identity. So Ghamidi Sahab, even then, their tribal and national identity was based on religious identity? That the Quraish were instructed to hand over power? See, the power will be handed over to the one who will have the identity of the people. Sometimes it is on the basis of tribes, sometimes on the basis of parties.

Sometimes it is on the basis of personalities. It is the same in our country as well. Since it was a tribal society, the Quraish already had the authority and leadership.

People trusted the Quraish. But Ghamidi Sahab, that authority and leadership was coming from the time of Ignorance. It remained even later.

The reason for that is that if the Ansar had any majority, it was only in Madinah. The authority of the Quraish was established on the whole of the Arabian Peninsula. As long as the Sultanate of the Prophet Muhammad was limited to Madinah, the Ansar had an influence on most of the decisions.

Ghamidi Sahab, it was also suggested that one of the Caliphs should be from the Ansar, and one of the Caliphs should be from the Muhajireen. This is absolutely impossible. The political system in the world can never be run by two people.

Even now, you see that there are hundreds of states. Is the world experiencing this? That two people are running it together? You elect only one person. There are many countries in which many nations are populated.

For example, look at India. Look at America. Countless nations are populated.

Historically, we also see that the majority of the Prophets belonged to the Ibrahimi generation. So Ghamidi Sahab, why on the basis of a particular generation, does Allah elect the Prophets? And this generational pride later turns into tribal and national pride, and then undermines the religious identity. There are two phases to this.

The first phase is when a Prophet is appointed The Quran has stated this. And it is stated that we have given guidance to every nation through a Prophet. After that, the progeny of Syedna Ibrahim A.S. and his entire progeny were chosen, so that they are populated in a particular area.

The guidance of Allah should be presented to the people and this should reach the whole world. So this is the second phase. And this started 4000 years ago.

The world has started a long time ago. So the chain of the Prophets continued in the same way The Quran has stated that we have sent a Prophet to every nation. Fa Iza Jaa Rasooluhum Qudhia Bainuhum Bil Qist.

And the decision of Allah is made for every nation. The number of nations is countless, and in the Holy Book we get mention of only 27 or 28 Prophets. The Holy Book mentions the Prophethood of the Israelites when it was made special.

It does not mention the previous ones. Ghamidi Sahab, the point here is a bit confusing. On one hand, the standard of superiority is Taqwa, in which no black, white, Arab or non-Arab has superiority over each other.

And on the other hand, the standard of Prophethood is to be attributed to a particular generation. Ghamidi Sahab. It is not that you get the status of Prophethood.

The status of Prophethood is given by Allah by His choice. Ghamidi Sahab, Allah could have even distributed among the different generations of the Prophets. As a result, a lot of disorder would have arisen.

By selecting the generation of Syedna Ibrahim A.S., he was made an example, so that the whole nation would be the bearer of the flag of Deen. He should follow the laws of Deen and the Shariah of Deen. This is a very wise method.

He gave a responsibility to a nation, and as a whole, the whole nation was chosen for Prophethood. This has been stated by the Quran. Innallah Hastafa Aadama Wa Nuhan Wa Aala Ibrahima Wa Aala Imrana Alal Aalameen.

i.e. there was a time of the world in which Adam and Noah were chosen. And there was a time in which the whole family of Ibrahim, the progeny of Ibrahim or the children of Ibrahim were chosen. They were given this status on merit.

Ghamidi Sahab, in March 1971, Islamabad launched a formal military attack on Dhaka. Along with a well-known religious worker, the government agencies of Pakistan also killed the leftist students and intellectuals And then, as a protest against this incident, Faiz wrote his famous poem, Gurdalood Aankhe. Ghamidi Sahab, is this incident a proof that the national identity never lets the religious identity rise? It happens.

See, the point is that whatever things are present in a person, whether it is his moral requirements, his interests, his desires, he acts in accordance with those things. And generally, since religion is giving a moral teaching, it wants to elevate you from these things. It says that you should have faith on the moral values, you should keep high moral principles in mind, then generally, there is a conflict between them.

And the story that you have narrated, it happened on both sides. i.e. when they got the chance, they killed them. When they got the chance, they killed them.

It was an unfortunate incident that happened to us. And it became clear from it that humans are humans. No matter how much you train them, anyway, they have a Satan within them, who appears on such occasions.

Ghamidi Sahab, it is also said that religion is the stubbornness of nationalism. And nationalism is the stubbornness of socialism. That is why, logically, religion and socialism should stand together.

But the problem is that religion and socialism also seem to negate each other. So Ghamidi Sahab, can we say that nationalism is using religion as a tool against socialism? The thing is, whether it is nationalism or socialism, if you talk about Islam or religion, then it will decide between truth and falsehood. It does not negate nationalism.

It is wrong that Islam wants to make Islam the basis of nationalism. What Islam has said about itself has been stated in the Quran. Innamal Muminuna Ikhwa.

Muslims are brothers among themselves. You have a parallel relationship with Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. To be a nation is not a requirement of religion.

You can be any nationality. When you make nationalism the basis of truth and falsehood, at that time, Islam will draw your attention. It will say that you are speaking wrongly.

So you do not consider nationalism to be a conflict with religious identity? When there is a conflict between national identity and religious identity on moral principles, then religion will object to it. If you say that my nation, whether it is truth or falsehood, I have to support it, then religion will object to it. Because what is the declaration of religion? It has been stated in Surah Maida and Surah Nisa.

It has been stated there, la yajrimannakum shanaanu qaumin ala Allah ta'adilu eidilu huwaa qarabul Ittaqwa. Remember, you have to be the bearer of truth and justice. You should not be influenced by the enmity of any nation that you talk about injustice.

Do justice, this is the nearness of Taqwa. Alright, we will now take the discussion to the audience. Yes, you ask.

Ghamidi Sahab, a point that arises here is that the religion that the Muslims followed, they called themselves the religion of Fitrah, i.e. Islam. And what perspective did Islam create in this matter? That there are twenty black people sitting in one place, and one white person is sitting there, and one of those black people is a Muslim, and that white person is a Muslim. So it was said, go and sit with that white person.

Fitrah was negative. The attraction of the white person was with the white person. The attraction of the black person was with the black person.

Islam violated this psychology. On one hand, where Islam needed its own perspective, it needed its own survival, so it made itself the religion of Fitrah. But where it needed its own stability, there it said, go and get the white and black people matched.

Because of this, there was a lot of confusion in the world. The history that you have narrated, where did it happen? Islam has never done this. It has eliminated all the differences between the white and black people.

And it has made one principle as the basis of differentiation, and that is Taqwa. See, there are many foundations of relationships. There is a relationship of humanity in which all of us are bound.

Islam has described it as, Kullukum Min Aadam Wa Aadamum Min Turaab. Remember, you are all the children of Adam, and Adam was from the mid-team. Saying this, it has told the whole of humanity that their forefathers are the same.

This is what the Quran has said. The Quran has declared, remember this, that Allah has created you from a single soul. Wa Bassa Minhuma Rijalan Kaseeran Wa Nisaa.

And from that, many men and women have been spread in the world. This is the relationship of humanity. After this, another relationship comes into existence, and that is your national relationship.

That too is a requirement of Fitrah. In that, a little preference is established as per the nation. Hence, the Quran has declared, Ja'alnakum Shau'uban Wa Qaba'ilal Ita'arafu.

These are the nations and groups within you, we have made them so that your identity remains intact. A human being cannot destroy his or her roots in this whole river of humanity. He has to rise above it and to establish his identity in it.

Then a new relationship is formed, which is formed on the basis of your religion. There are many relationships within this too. There are relationships of community.

You see, all humans are one. All humans are the children of Adam. All humans are my brothers.

If I get to know right now that there has been an accident on a motorway, and 10 people have been killed in that accident, I will be sad, I will be sad too. But when will my emotions be satisfied when I will be told that your father has been killed. Your sister has been killed.

Ghamidi Sahab, I have a question for you. The Bihari Muslims who are living in the refugee camps in Bangladesh, they are still eager to come and live in Pakistan. Even though they have Muslim brothers in Bangladesh, why do they still want to come and live here? Doesn't this make them more powerful than the religious groups? They have natural emotions.

They want to come here. We should have welcomed them. I think we have given proof of criminal negligence in this matter.

When they were citizens of Pakistan, and they wanted to come to Pakistan, we should have opened our doors for them. We should have welcomed them. This is right.

But even in Bangladesh, they have Muslim brothers. What is their problem? They have to make this decision. Now they are making this decision.

They have made this decision due to compulsion. Look, where does a person want to live? To make this decision, religious foundations are not enough. It is possible that a Kashmiri, while living among Kashmiris, feels more comfortable for himself.

It is possible that while living among my fellow people, I feel more comfortable for myself. So on the basis of language, on the basis of generation, on the basis of colour, on the basis of your culture, you feel a closeness. We, the people of Punjab, feel a little indifference from Sindhi culture.

Sindhi culture feels a little indifference from us. So this is a very natural thing. The way to get rid of it is not that you stick to it and follow someone.

For this, there are natural means. People meet, form a relationship with each other, the language becomes integrated, the cultural traditions become integrated, then a form of unity and unity is formed between them. So these are very natural things.

Islam does not impose restrictions on any of these things. It has never said that Islam is based on nationalism. It has said that all nations can exist, communities can exist, sects and tribes can exist, wherever the Muslims are, they are brothers and sisters.

So a relationship of community was established, not of nationalism, but of brotherhood. This difference should be understood very well. If the people of Marrakesh want to form their own government, then this is not forbidden in the spirit of Islam.

If the people of Bangladesh want to form their own government, then this is not an illegal thing. However, there should be a brotherly relationship between us and them. We should consider them as brothers.

And this brotherly relationship can be on the basis of other things, or on the basis of religion as well. Ghamidi Sahab, you just talked about a religious brotherhood which exists or can exist between different Muslim countries. But practically, the situation is the exact opposite of this.

When the national interests of a state clash with its religious identity, then a huge friction is created. For example, in the war against terrorism, Pakistan decided to support the USA keeping its national interests in view. i.e. they compromised their religious identity and preferred their national interests over their national identity.

Why? Religious brotherhood does not mean that in political matters, you must support each other. In political matters, I can have one opinion and you can have another. The issue of Palestine is a political issue.

It is possible that someone may not agree with my point of view. Someone may disagree with someone else's point of view. So why do you bring such disagreements under discussion It means that you want to say that a Muslim should support a Muslim in any case, even if he is standing in the wrong place in your opinion.

You ask. European countries and the Britain and the US, they do provide the nationalities to the non-Muslims and even the Muslims. They do think that Pakistani nationals are among the notorious ones.

Even then, if you fulfil all their requirements, they do give you nationality. On the other hand, if a Muslim keeps on working in any Arab country or UAE or any else, but they don't bother even to give him the nationality of their own country. So what do you think? Doesn't this affect our solidarity and uniformity? The more you suffer, the more I suffer.

I wish this did not happen. I wish there was such a relationship of brotherhood between the Muslim countries that a Muslim would rise from here and settle in any country he wishes. Our resources would be shared.

We would see our enemies as a common enemy. We would defend ourselves as a common enemy. But these are all dreams.

These are very good desires which unfortunately are not being fulfilled. And we are ashamed of this. The result of this is that we have lost our identity.

And the result of this is that we are living a life of imprisonment in the world. All of this is the result of this. What kind of initiative should we take about this? Because it is an international issue and among the basic ones.

We should give prominence to our high status. We should say the same to the Muslims. I have told you that till the time we do not have a true democratic society, all these things will remain the same.

The big issue is that what should be the basis of a government? Should it be a personal government? Should it be a class government? Should it be a sect of scholars? I say that the demand of Islam is that we establish a democratic society. Wherever democratic governments will be established, such issues will start to end. As we have seen in the recent cartoon controversy, not only we have faced it, but other Islamic states have also faced it.

So this shows our religious interest, our aggressive attitude. But if on the other hand, in order to exist in this world, this attitude of ours will not allow us to do so. So in this regard, what should we do? In this regard too, we should train our people.

We should tell them that if such situations arise in the world, then you should not adopt a strategy. You have to adopt a method of argumentation. You have to remain patient and steadfast on your position.

You have to clarify the mistakes of others. To the extent that the conscience of the whole world stands with you. I always say to the Muslims that by adopting this attitude, they harm their religion and their community.

They should instead of adopting a method of protest and chaos, they should speak with reason and argumentation. They should present their point of view like a dignified nation. Yes, you may ask.

When will we start working on this training? So many years have passed, the Quran has come, the Sunnah has come, the Hadith has come. But till now we have not been able to reach the level of training. When will this training take place? The Quran and Sunnah is a chemical formula.

You have to use it. You get up and start working on it. Light a candle and other people will also join in this light.

Ghamidi Sahab, the thing is that from Australia to America, and then from Asia to Africa, all the 1 to 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, they are associated with different nationalities. So Ghamidi Sahab, in your opinion, is it possible to convert them into a collective entity in the Muslim Ummah? See, why is it necessary? People should live in their own communities, in their own communities, in their own countries. There should be emotions of brotherhood and brotherhood within them.

They should be able to think as a Muslim. Ghamidi Sahab, this has never happened in history that such emotions are born. Because national interests keep on colliding with each other.

I will dare to disagree with you in this. In my opinion, whenever you give people a chance to make a decision, today you give a chance to the people of Turkey to make a decision. Give a chance to the people of Saudi Arabia to make a decision.

The results will be completely different. Go to the people and see. Ghamidi Sahab, in Iraq, two Muslim groups are thirsty for each other's blood.

There is only one nationality, but there is a problem with the religious interpretation. See, these things happen. The way to get rid of these things is to allow the democratic process to go on.

If you allow the government to change according to the democratic ways in Iraq, and do not interfere, whether it is internal or external, then you will see that after a while the traditions will be stable. With us, the problem is that we have been subjugated. We do not have the people within us to let the democratic system go on.

We do not have the people within us to let the democratic system go on. Ghamidi Sahab, we have seen that in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Jews and Christians do not have their religious freedom. They are punished for their religious beliefs.

In Egypt, we have seen that the missionaries are mistreated. So, in your opinion, if such a treatment is given to a community, then the community will not be able to benefit from its people? They will not be able to bring their abilities to fruition? If such a treatment has been given to a community, then it is wrong. The point of view of Islam in this regard is that when you make an agreement with a non-Muslim community, and they join you in citizenship, then this agreement gets the protection of Allah and His Prophet.

The Prophet has said that when you make this agreement with a non-Muslim community, and if you go against it, then on the Day of Judgement, I will appeal against you on behalf of that community. So, if such a treatment has been given to a community, then it is against the laws of Islam. In our country, thanks to Allah, this will never happen.

In the last few days, there was a FATA operation. A Muslim brother killed another Muslim brother. Why did he kill him? He did not want to kill him, but he killed him.

Why did he kill him? Because he had someone else's influence on him. Now, the same influence has become good. How? That we will come and remove the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, what will be our identity here? That we have listened to someone else and killed our own country, our Muslim brothers, our religious brothers. And on top of that, because of someone else's influence, because of the influence of the next person, we have listened to him. So, is this Nationalism? The thing is that we are now subjugated.

The world is ruled by some other people. The power of the world has been snatched from us. In the realm of subjugation, you cannot make independent decisions.

So, you have to stand on your own two feet, to the extent that you can make your own decisions. And to stand on your own two feet, two things are required. One is that you should not be dependent on others economically.

You should not have to show gratitude to others. And the second is that the world is at a much better place in terms of knowledge. You should also try to be equal to them in the realm of knowledge.

The law of nature is infinite. As long as others are ruling over you, I say this with great regret, in our society, there is a lot of talk of sovereignty and self-determination. This is never achieved by small nations in the world.

When big empires are established in the world, when superpowers come into existence, then they rule in such a way. If the world was bound by moral principles, then why is there a veto in the United Nations? The world is not bound by moral principles. It speaks in the language of power.

So you too develop power within yourself. This will be the power of knowledge. Get rid of your poverty.

This will be the economic power. After this, you can make your own decisions. On the one hand, you talk about Shura, and say that when democratic traditions flourish in a society, then we get a better ruler.

On the other hand, differing from this, the Quran says, Atiullaha wa atiur Rasoolu wa ulil amr minkum Dominate among yourselves those who are Ulil Amr, those who are Haqmeen. It is not necessary that Haqmeen should always come forward in democratic ways. On the other hand, you talk about a globalised Islamic view.

And the Mufakir-e-Islam, Dr. Allama Iqbal says, that among these new Gods, there is a great nation, and its followers are the shroud of religion. So you tell us, should we listen to the Mufakir-e-Islam, the Quran, or you? These are two completely different things. One is how the ruler should come into existence.

This has been stated in the Quran in Surah Shura. There it is said, Amruhum Shura Bainahum The foundation of the collective system of Muslims is consultation and opinion. The government will be formed on the basis of the opinion of the people.

It will be established on the basis of the support of the people. And if it is deprived of their support, it will lose its legitimacy. This is the democratic principle under which the rulers will be established.

When the government is established, then what should be our attitude towards it? Should our attitude be that of law-abiding? Should it be that of rebellion? The Ayah which you have recited, there the second thing has been stated. There it has been stated that we have to obey Allah. We have to obey the Prophet of Allah.

And along with it, we have to obey the law which is established in the country, the government which is established in the country. Otherwise, it will spread like a pomegranate. The rebellion of Iran then became illegal.

See, the point is that if a tyrannical government is established, then it has been established by violating the principles of Islam. It is a monarchy, a monarchy, or a monarchy. For this reason, a rebellion will be carried out against it.

When a rebellion is carried out, those principles will be taken care of which Islam has established in this regard. So what happened there? The monarchy was established. A system of oppression and tyranny was established.

The nation rose up against it. Ghamidi Sahab, the oppression of the 16 crore Muslims of Pakistan, and the oppression of the 22 crore Muslims of India, is an indication of a different kind of conditions. So, in the case of the Indian Muslims, the Shariah of Firka and Fasadat is much less than ours.

So, in the 21st century, what is the role of religion in a modern state? The thing is that in my opinion, a modern state should be a democratic state. In a democratic state, the people will decide. The Parliament will decide.

The point of view of the majority will be manifested. Why should its decisions be made first? For this reason, I consider all the debates that we have had about the Islamic State and the secular state to be completely irrelevant. We should try to establish a democratic state.

To sell the democratic culture in a democratic state. To establish the supremacy of the Parliament. Let the decisions be made on the basis of the majority.

And let those decisions be implemented. If there is a mistake in them, then keep the door of criticism open. And change the opinion of the public.

There is no need for you to decide what religion should do and should not do. The more religious people there are, it will be manifested. The less religious people there are, the less it will be manifested.

And if there is a deviation from religion in the nation, then it is obvious that it will be manifested there too. Do you consider the role of religion as a crucial factor in a modern state? I say that there is no need to decide on this role. This role will be born from the decision of the nation.

If the moral character of a nation is very high, then it will be manifested in the Parliament too. Why do you divide humanity among sects? If there is something that is right for me, then when I am sitting in the Parliament in the majority, how can it be false? I think that all these debates are meaningless. These debates have divided the nation.

It has divided humanity. I consider it to be a great injustice that in Turkey, you have decided that it will be a secular state. Why? What is the reason? Does anyone have the right to make this decision as a secular state? You establish a democratic state.

The Parliament will decide. What will be the basis of the law? Will there be a custom? Will there be a religion? Let this decision be made. Let the people participate in the debate.

If they decide on the level of the Parliament, they will make a wrong decision. We will discuss it tomorrow. Sir, you are talking about giving the opinion of a thousand illiterate people to the opinion of ten literate people.

Actually, there is no issue of illiteracy and non-illiteracy in political matters. The government has to be established on the basis of the people. The people will decide on it.

If you improve the education of your people, raise the mental level of your people, better decisions will be made. Ghamidi Sahab, when in Turkey, for the sake of secularism, lakhs of people protested. And they strongly opposed the party that established the Islamic system.

Because the government of Turkey has educated those people in such a way that now they consider the secular system to be a better system. So Ghamidi Sahab, now on the streets, lakhs of people gather for the sake of secularism. So how do you see this situation? Why did they feel the need to take a case to the court? Why did they feel the need for the army to intervene? You should have let the people decide.

If they are in the millions and crores, and they have the majority, then the decision will be made automatically. A party has come into power under the electoral system. It has the majority.

But Ghamidi Sahab, that majority party has disobeyed the Turkish constitution. That is why the matter is not in the court. That is why I am criticising.

Who are you to impose restrictions on the constitution? Ghamidi Sahab, that party has accepted the constitution in the elections. That is their compulsion. So this means that they are the perpetrators of rebellion.

What can they do? Look, Amir comes here. He breaks the constitution. He launches his PCO.

What do the political parties do? They have to fight the elections to find a way out. You should trust the people. Why do you say that the majority of the people should first decide what the state will be? Let the people decide.

On one hand you talk about democracy, and on the other hand you make decisions. Ghamidi Sahab, the West says that government by the people and government for the people. But the Islamic scholars say that government for the people, but government by the Allah.

This is a difference between the West and the Islamic democracy. This is why the split between national identity and religious identity is created. There is no need for this.

Look, I am a Muslim. If I am a Muslim, and all of you are Muslims, and we are sitting in the parliament, will we ignore our religion? Will we ignore our Allah? There is no need to establish the government of Allah on the state. It should be established on me.

When it is established on me as a Muslim, then you can manifest it. Ghamidi Sahab, can't all these issues be resolved by giving the individual's personal issue to the religion? This will be another tyranny. What right do you have to make this decision? Let people make this decision.

If we abolish the government of Allah, then the concept of sovereignty will be abolished. Then where will Allah come from? Then where will the religion we are talking about come from? It will be born from within me. If I am a Muslim, and I am in the government of Allah, then our religion identity will be abolished.