Opinion | Between Ummah And Nation: The Muslim World’s Struggle With Nationalism
The tension between past empires and modern nationalism remains a challenge, but as the world evolves, this challenge can be overcome. The key lies in disowning and confronting radical voices, preventing them from dominating the narrative
Whenever political turmoil arises in the Muslim world, Muslims across the globe tend to react, driven by a natural sense of solidarity. It is common for people to sympathise with those who share their faith. The concept of Ummah signifies a spiritual unity among Muslims, but this unity does not always extend to political matters.
As a result, many Muslims find themselves under scrutiny, often questioned about where their loyalties lie—whether they prioritise their religious identity over their national citizenship. Understanding this perception of anti-nationalism requires a psychological and analytical approach. Though not a widespread phenomenon, in places where it does exist, it has influenced political representation, sometimes allowing extreme voices to overshadow moderate voices within the community.
related stories
Expansion of Muslim empires and centralised rule
After the passing of Prophet Muhammad, the Muslim community chose Abu Bakr as the first Caliph. In fact, they prioritised selecting a leader before even performing the Prophet’s funeral. After Abu Bakr’s death, Umar Ibn Khattab was elected as the next Caliph. His leadership, however, came to a tragic end when he was assassinated by an Iranian named Feroz Abu Lulu.
Following Umar’s assassination, a small group of influential figures—just over six of them—gathered behind closed doors to decide on the next leader. They chose Uthman ibn Affan as the third Caliph. However, his rule faced internal strife, and during a period of civil unrest, he was assassinated by a rebel group known as the Khawarij.
After the assassination of Uthman, Ali ibn Abi Talib was chosen as the fourth Caliph. However, his rule was also marked by conflict, and he was eventually assassinated in 661 CE, by Ibn Muljim, a member of the Khawarij sect that opposed both Ali and his successor Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufiyan.
Following Ali’s death, Muawiyah laid the foundation of the Umayyad Empire. A brilliant statesman, he ruled for 20 years, successfully stabilising the region by controlling civil wars and defeating the Romans. Under Umayyad rule, the empire expanded significantly—Tariq ibn Ziyad led the conquest of Spain, while Muslim forces also advanced into Africa.
At the same time, Christian and Persian empires were vying for power. As a result, numerous wars—often framed as holy wars—took place as these empires sought to expand their influence.
Historically, both the Caliphate system and Muslim empires functioned under centralised rule, leaving little room for individual opinions or democratic governance. Unlike modern democracies, which often struggle or fail in many nations, Muslim societies were traditionally governed by Caliphs, Sultans, kings, or military rulers, who maintained control through centralised authority.
After the Umayyad Caliphate, power shifted to the Abbasids, followed by the Fatimids (originally from Egypt), then the Ayyubids, and eventually the Turks. The Ottoman Empire, which emerged as the dominant Muslim power, ruled for centuries before losing its influence after World War I, leading to its eventual collapse.
Religious identity, political borders, and colonialism
Christian empires were structured around emperors and viceroys, while Muslim empires were led by a Caliph or Sultan, who appointed Emirs to govern distant regions. Religious conversions occurred frequently, and opposing the ruler’s authority—whether an emperor or a Sultan—was often considered treason, punishable by imprisonment or death.
During this period, there were no strict borders as seen today. Muslims and Christians could travel freely within their respective empires without passports, visas, or immigration restrictions. For example, Syed Ahmed Barelvi from India took over 800 people on 10 ships to Makkah for Hajj, where they lived for two years without any visa system. Religious identity often determines one’s national identity.
Foreign powers ruled over and colonised indigenous populations. Within the Islamic empire, Zakat (charity tax) was imposed on Muslims, while Jizya (a tax on non-Muslim subjects) was levied on non-Muslims under Islamic rule.
The world was once divided into British, German, Spanish, and Turkish colonies. At times, Muslim and Christian empires would exchange soldiers and form alliances based on mutual interests.
However, with the end of World War II, these empires crumbled, giving rise to independent nations. A global effort was made to allow indigenous people to govern their own lands, marking the end of colonial rule, invasions, and imperial dominance. This shift laid the foundation for modern democracy, where nations embraced self-rule and sovereignty.
Rise of Islamism and its consequences
In December 1917, the Arabs lost Palestine when it surrendered to the British forces, leading to the British Mandate of Palestine. As the British Empire began retreating from its colonies, it played a key role in partitioning lands—creating Pakistan as a Muslim-majority state and later facilitating the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state in 1948. The birth of Israel was seen as a humiliating defeat by many Arabs and Muslims, fuelling deep resentment.
In their search for political and ideological strength, many Muslim intellectuals explored communism and socialism, but these movements failed to restore their past influence. This led to the rise of Islamism, a religious-political movement aimed at reviving the lost glory of Islam and re-establishing Muslim rule. Over time, Islamism became a powerful political tool.
One of the earliest organised Islamist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, was founded in Egypt in 1928.
Meanwhile, thinkers like Maulana Maududi from India and Allama Iqbal, along with others who later escaped to Pakistan, promoted the idea of a pan-Islamic identity. Their slogan, “Cheen-o-Arab hamara, Hindustan hamara, Muslim hain hum, watan hai sara jahan hamara" (China and the Arab lands are ours, India is ours, we are Muslims, and the entire world belongs to us), reflected a vision of Islamic unity and dominance beyond national borders.
They emphasised global Islamic unity and rejected the concept of nationalism, viewing it as a divisive force. The renowned poet Allama Iqbal captured this sentiment in his verse: “In taza khudaon me bada sab se watan hai, jo pairahan iska hai, woh mazhab ka kafan hai." This translates to: “Among the new false gods, the greatest is the nation. Whoever wears its robe has wrapped the shroud of religion."
This idea fuelled a belief that loyalty to a nation over religious identity was a betrayal of Islam. Even today, this sentiment persists, as seen in statements by Pakistani cricketers, who often declare that Pakistan’s victory is a victory for the Muslim Ummah.
Over time, slogans like “Nationalism is Kufr" (disbelief) and “Nationalism is Haram" (forbidden in Islam) became widespread in certain ideological circles. Muslims who openly expressed patriotism or prioritised their national interests were often accused of disbelief or apostasy, leading to their marginalisation within some Islamist movements.
This idea gained significant traction through Dr Israr Ahmad, whose teachings were widely propagated among Indian Muslims by Dr Zakir Naik and his Peace TV network. Dr Israr Ahmad was an outspoken advocate of the Ghazwa-e-Hind ideology—a prophesied war against India—and repeatedly denounced nationalism as a form of disbelief (Kufr).
He went so far as to insinuate that Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, India’s first education minister, was a Kafir (disbeliever) for opposing the creation of Pakistan and supporting Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s vision of a united India.
Interestingly, while the rejection of nationalism was not as deeply rooted among Indian Muslims, it found strong resonance among Arabs, where it remains a widely accepted belief until the recent past.
As a result, there was a surge of foreign militias and Mujahideen joining conflicts such as the Afghan-Soviet War, the Afghan-US War, the wars in Chechnya and Bosnia, the Syrian Civil War, and separatist movements in Kashmir. Many young men from Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Sudan, and Somalia were drawn to these battlefields, often destroying their passports to ensure they could never return home.
This phenomenon alarmed these governments, as they feared that battle-hardened fighters might return and destabilise their own countries. In response, these nations began promoting nationalism as a countermeasure. They introduced and emphasised National Day celebrations, glorified their history and cultural identity, and instilled a sense of national pride to counter the appeal of pan-Islamist movements.
Nationalism in Muslim-majority states
A Saudi scholar from the Salafi-Hanbali school of thought, Khaled Al-Raddadi, wrote a book titled Al-Wataniyah (The Nationalism). In this work, he argued—using evidence from the Quran and Hadith—that a Muslim must be loyal to his nation.
Al-Raddadi challenged the idea that nationalism is a modern or Western concept, asserting instead that it has existed since the beginning of civilisation—“as old as the sun". His arguments aimed to counter the belief that nationalism is incompatible with Islam, encouraging Muslims to embrace both religious and national identity.
Even though the old empires have officially collapsed, they continue to exercise influence through soft diplomacy to project their cultural and religious superiority.
For example, the Vatican actively sponsors Catholic priests, even in countries where Christianity is restricted, such as Saudi Arabia. According to Brian Daniel Francisco, a Filipino Christian living in Saudi Arabia, their local priest, Paul Raj, an Indian Christian, is financed by the Vatican to lead Mass and Christmas celebrations in secret.
Similarly, Saudi Arabia once heavily financed Muslim preachers in the West and Southeast Asia, though it has largely scaled back this practice in recent years. Meanwhile, Turkey funds Islamic centres in France, and Iran sponsors religious institutions across the West and Southeast Asia.
At the heart of this influence struggle is a deeper competition: who will be the true leader of the Muslim world? The rivalry between Arabs, Persians, and Turks continues, with each seeking to revive their historical empires and extend their religious and geopolitical influence.
Challenge for secular nations
The challenge of encouraging Muslims to prioritise their national interests remains a key concern for secular nations. While the majority of Muslims are deeply patriotic and actively demonstrate their loyalty to their countries, tensions arise when major events unfold in the broader Muslim world.
Conflicts such as the Israel-Palestine crisis, the US-Afghan war, revolutions in Egypt, Syria, and Tunisia, military coups, or elections in Pakistan often evoke strong emotional responses. These events sometimes lead to divided loyalties, where religious solidarity competes with national identity, making it difficult for secular governments to maintain a unified national stance.
As a matter of fact, Muslim ulema (scholars) in every Muslim-majority country largely align their teachings with the narratives set by their respective intelligence agencies and governments.
For example, Saudi scholars advocate for policies that serve Saudi national interests, while Pakistani scholars, regardless of their school of thought, often promote narratives aligned with ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence). Similarly, Turkish and Iranian scholars use their influence to shape public opinion in favour of their respective national agendas.
In essence, religious discourse in these countries is often deeply intertwined with state interests, with scholars playing a key role in shaping public perception and loyalty.
Interestingly, in the Russia-Ukraine war, both Chechen Muslims fighting alongside Russian troops and Muslims supporting Ukrainian forces are followers of Sufism. Despite sharing the same religious tradition, their loyalties are shaped by national interests, highlighting how geopolitical realities often outweigh religious unity.
India’s sovereign approach to global politics
Historically, India has never expanded its borders through conquest, nor has it sought to impose its rule over foreign lands. Instead, India has consistently upheld a sovereign policy, focusing on self-governance rather than territorial expansion.
In a 2023 conference, Prime Minister Narendra Modi proudly highlighted India’s independent foreign policy, emphasising that the country has reached a position where it can engage with any nation on its own terms.
He stated that India can freely engage with Israel without upsetting the Arab world, support Palestine without seeking Israel’s approval, import oil from Iran without worrying about Saudi Arabia’s reaction, and strike deals with Saudi Arabia without Iran’s involvement. Likewise, India can engage with both Russia and the United States as it sees fit.
This reflects India’s pragmatic and sovereign approach—a nation that values its independence and refuses to be dictated by external pressures. While India may express solidarity or goodwill towards global issues, its political decisions remain rooted in national interest, rather than external influence or emotional inclinations.
Role of Indian Muslims in nation-building
Indian Muslims are the second-largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia. They have the opportunity to work alongside any government or political party in power, contributing to India’s progress and national pride.
Rather than looking to other Muslim countries with a Messiah syndrome, Indian Muslims can lead by example, showing the world how to thrive in a diverse, democratic nation. With India producing top engineers, doctors, IT professionals, and entrepreneurs, they have the potential not just to uplift their own community but also to extend a helping hand to others, becoming a source of inspiration for Muslims globally.
The tension between past empires and modern nationalism remains a challenge, but as the world evolves, this challenge can be overcome.
The key lies in disowning and confronting radical voices, preventing them from dominating the narrative. At the same time, the victimhood mindset must be abandoned, and the community must take ownership of its issues to drive meaningful reforms from within. Only through self-reflection and proactive change can a balanced and forward-looking approach be achieved.
Zahack Tanvir is an Indian-origin activist and founder of The Milli Chronicle, a UK-based publication. With expertise in geopolitics and counter-extremism, he provides insights into global affairs. He holds certifications in Counterterrorism from the University of Leiden of the Netherlands, and Georgetown University of Washington DC. He tweets under @ZahackTanvir. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
- Location :
- First Published: