The existence of different behaviors, tastes, cultures, moods and thoughts among people from region to region, the feeling of self-respect centered on these has been there for a long time and will continue to be in the future. Islam does not deny these differences. There is nothing wrong with maintaining what is not in conflict with the Shariah. Rather, it is important to keep these differences in mind in order to unite the Ummah politically. But tribal and regional identities cannot be mixed with nationalism and nationalism.
.
Nationality and ethnicity are two different things. There is a difference between being an ethnic Kachin and being a Burmese. There is a difference between being ethnically dumb and being ‘Indian’. There is a difference in ethnicity between Chakma, Marma, Mro and 'Bangladeshi' nationality. There is a difference between ‘Saudi’, ‘Kuwaiti’ or ‘Jordanian’ nationalities being tribal Qurayshi, Khayrazi or Tamimi.
.
In many cases, the identity of 'nationality' conflicts with the identity of 'ethnicity'. Nationality seeks to unify all other identities on the basis of a particular state. And many do not like it. Many of the Kurdish ethnic groups in Iraq, Syria and Turkey do not like national identity based on these states. They want a separate state. For similar reasons, the Seven Sisters of India fought for decades. Bengalis or Baluchis want to separate from the state of Pakistan. The Pashtun tribes on both sides of the Durand Line do not differentiate between Pakistanis and Afghans. They think Pashtun and Muslim identities are enough.
.
Similarly, regional and ethnic identity is not nationality. My grandfather died in 1994, Rahimahullah. Regionally, he is from Chittagong. The clan identity is Syed. But what is his nationality? What was his nationality in 1920? What was in 1970? And what was his nationality in 1990? He has only one regional or ethnic identity. There is no change in it. But his nationality has changed twice in his lifetime. How did regional, ethnic and tribal identities and nationalities become one?
.
Yugoslavia was formed in 1917 and disbanded in 1992. Suppose someone from that region was born in 1915 and died in 2000. How many times did his nationality change? And how many times did the regional and ethnic identity change? Many more such examples can be given.
.
The Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman caliphates were dynastic. There were two parts to the identity of the people under this regime -
.
A) Muslim identity, original identity
B) Regional and tribal identity - Hijazi, Shami, Quraish, Tamimi etc.
.
They had no idea of Umayyad, Abbasid or Ottoman nationality (although this strange thing was created in today's Saudi Arabia). The Abbasids replaced the Umayyads and did not change the identity of the people. Only the ruler has changed and the bayah has changed.
.
Nationality, on the other hand, does not fall into either A or B above. It is a completely different concept, linked directly to the state as a political entity. Today's ideas of nationalism and nationalism come from the concept of modern state and nation-state. Where nationality and nation-state have specific meanings. There are certain ideas about governance, allegiance, and sovereignty that come from liberal-secular philosophy. They were born in Europe, two and a half hundred years ago. These ideas later spread to the rest of the world through colonialism.
.
In the modern state, ‘nation’ is an imaginary and artificially created community. Whose definition and boundaries are arbitrary & inconsistent. The idea of this community or community called race has been created to dominate all other identities. To prioritize allegiance to everything else (religion, tribe, region). Loyalty to the country and the nation will prevail over everything else. And that will be the embodiment of the country and the nation through allegiance to the 'state'.
.
In the modern nation-state, the country is seen as a source of supreme loyalty, sanctity and authority. Patriotism and loyalty to the country are given as the highest values. Work that is not valid in any other case becomes valid if done ‘for the country’. Religion, clan, ideology or honor cannot be fought for. But it can be done for the country. In the last two hundred years alone, not as many people have died in the nationalist war as in the four hundred years of the Crusades and the Crusades. Yet it is sacred worship!
.
There is no point in distinguishing this idea of keeping the country or state as the center of ultimate values, authority and identity from the secular-liberal philosophy of enlightenment and rule. The role of nationalism cannot be denied behind the fall of the Khilafah, the division of the Muslim Ummah into various 'states' and the spread of the concept of regional-centric political thought instead of the feeling of ummah. Regional and ethnic identities were present in the Muslim Ummah from the very beginning. None of the divisions formed on the basis of these for 1300 years have made the Ummah so severely damaged, weakened and helpless as has been the result of a hundred years of nationalism.
.
Ignoring all this, the hadith of love for Makkah or ‘what is formerly a regional and tribal identity is nationalism today’ indicates a very shallow, reductive and frankly thoughtful laziness
0 Comments