How does Islam view the concept of the nation-state and the idea of nationalism? What is the history of the concept of the nation-state and how did it came into being? What are the moral grounds for or against the idea of the nation-state in Islam? Perhaps this post will not truly answer all these questions but the points that follow will eventually give an impetus to the reader to reach to their own conclusions on the issue, insha’allah.
We must first of all note that the concept of the nation-state is pretty much absent in Islam, during the establishment of the first Islamic State in the world (Madinah) and throughout the political history of the Caliphate era. This is in the spirit of the following hadith, where it is reported in Sahih Muslim whereby `Abdullah ibn `Amr ibn al-’As narrated that he heard the Prophet Muhammad (P) say, “He who gave the bai’ah (oath of fealty) to a leader, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart has to obey him as long as he can. If another comes to dispute with him (his authority) strike the neck of that person.” Thus from the very beginning of Islam, there can only be one ruler and one Ummah under the ruler, hence the idea of ummatism, which in an Islamic state is not an assimilation of religious values at the expense of nationalism but independent, autonomous communities swearing fealty to the ruler. The idea of nation-states and thus nationalism only emerged out of 18th-century Europe which was rife with factionalism and racism, squabbling amongst themselves. After the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire, artificial nation-states such as Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria were created as a result of colonialism, at the behest of the colonial powers.
As Ismail al-Faruqi correctly notes, the colonial powers through their project of nation-states had successfully fragmented the Ummah into some fifty or more nation-states and set them out against one another. The boundaries that were created were designed to create perpetual friction for every state with its neighbours. The Muslim world has always been in conflict with this arrangement but it was the eventual creation of hostile “foreign states” such as the Zionist entity of Israel into the body of the Ummah that has been a real stab at its heart and its global aspirations. The territory of Israel, right from its inception, is seen as a foreign aberration by the Muslim world.
Some may argue that “nationalism is not racism”, but that is as misguided as to say that Zionism (which is secular Jewish nationalism in reality) is not racism. One may also argue that the twin evils of Fascism and Nazism was borne out of extreme nationalism in pre-World War II Italy and Germany respectively. In both examples one can see how the nation-state is exalted above all else and anything or anyone which contradicts the aspiration of the nation-state in question is thus against the aspirations of the nation-state in toto. While we are not trying to state here that nationalism is the same as Zionism, or that nationalism is the same as Fascism or Nazism, one must no doubt concede that the roots of these ideologies began from the seeds of desire for a nation-state, the struggle based on nationalism and nationalist ideology.
13 responses so far ↓
__earth // Nov 10, 2006 at 2:51 pm
You said:
I’m sorry but did you realize that you just make a circular reasoning? Of course nationalism is a struggle based on nationalist ideologies…
If nationalism is racism, consider American nationalism. What kind of racism is American nationalism? White racism? What if the American nationalist is a black? What if the nationalist is an Indian? Would all of those people with different skin are automatically racist because they’re American nationalist?
What about European nationalism which in itself most likely consists many races that once went to war against each other? That’s racism too?
The idea nationalism depends on the idea of a nation. Nationalism concentrates on the nation, not the race(s) that make up the nation. The make-up of the nation could consists of one race or many but the make-up itself is irrelevant to nationalism. Race and nation are not only two different words, they are two different ideas. For instance, Malaysian nationalism is not necessarily Malay nationalism. Surely, you could see the difference between the nouns Malaysia and Malay, couldn’t you?
Equating nationalism with racism is a failure to see the difference between the idea that puts the nation as the higher political unit and the race as the highest political unit.
It’s better to know the exact definition first before actually using.
Wikipedia has an entry to clarify your confusion. Compare the whole bunch of nationalism with its parent word “nationalism”.
And yes, blame the everybody else for everything bad that has befallen Muslim world. The problem with Muslims is that they refuse to look into themselves and solve the problem. They’re more interested in assigning blame. After hundreds of years, some Muslims still haven’t done assigning blame. Amazing.
Talking about your opposition to nation-state, again, you merely seek to replace nation-state with a super Islamic nation-state. It’s just like how your ummatism is just another assimilation policy. An Islamic nation-state is no different from a simple nation-state, except an increased probability for dictatorship.
mrq // Nov 10, 2006 at 4:59 pm
dude, that guy not even come at the main point yet, why the hell did you blast him off at part 1. be patient and let’s see what he has got in his mind first. after that go and write whatever you want, and please come with a better ideas if you disagree with something. we want to hear what you’ve got too.
peace =)
Islam and the Concept of the Nation-State » Critical Thoughts // Nov 11, 2006 at 1:32 am
[...] November 11, 2006 Part 1 of Islam and the Concept of the Nation-State. An interesting read, indeed. It would be interesting to see what Part 2 will entail. I am sure it will be incorporating some arguments refuting those who support the idea of the nation-state. [...]
__earth // Nov 11, 2006 at 3:08 am
MRQ, in economics or any other field, if the initial assumption is flawed, the only way to reach the right conclusion is by accident. But that would be doing the right thing for the wrong reason, if the right conclusion is reached at all..
If the initial assumption is flawed, why do we need to wait for the conclusion?
kakiblog.com » Islam and the Concept of the Nation-State (Part 2) // Nov 12, 2006 at 12:53 am
[...] Continuing where was left off on the issue of Islam and its view of the nation-state, what was discussed on “ummatism” and the historical and moral failure of the nation-state is not new. These issues and more were discussed by the late Dr. Ismail Raji al-Faruqi, whose scholarly prowess and masterful analysis I have a great respect for. I have yet to come across a serious challenger to his ideas outlined in Al Tawhid: Its Implications for Thought and Life (Issues in Islamic Thought, No 4), and it would be very interesting if a secularist or an Islam liberal would be able to pull off a feat like that (something that I seriously doubt that they are able to). [...]
julthefool // Nov 12, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Islam and the Nation State…
The relationship between nationalism/the nation-state and the Abrahamic religions is one that has made me wonder…
Kakiblog has posted something about “Islam and the concept of the nation-state”, saying that “the concept of the na…
julthefool // Nov 12, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Actually, I would argue that Islam, and Christianity also to a certain extent, was a precursor to the nation-state.
More details here if you’re interested: http://www.julthefool.com/index.php?/archives/125-Islam-and-the-Nation-State.html
Enma Ai // Nov 13, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Actually, the concept of nation-state did not emerge out of 18th century Europe as you claimed and it had less to do with racism than religious bigotry. The idea originated back in 17th century Europe, particularly in 1648 when the Treaty of Westphalia was signed by European leaders in order to ameliorate the effects of the Thirty Years War between European Catholics and Protestants. 1648 is also usually considered the starting point for the study of modern international relations, i.e. within the context of nation-state sovereignty system.
california home lender loan mortgage rate // Dec 5, 2006 at 10:50 pm
california home lender loan mortgage rate…
california home lender loan mortgage rate…
Famvir // Dec 7, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Famvir…
Famvir…
buy prevacid // Feb 23, 2007 at 11:03 am
buy prevacid…
buy prevacid…
vegas style casino // Mar 5, 2007 at 8:28 pm
vegas style casino…
vegas style casino…
jak // Aug 15, 2007 at 12:40 am
This site truly amazing!!!
Leave a Comment