Islam and Nationalism: A Theoretical Paradigm
Dr.K.M.Sajad Ibrahim
Nationalism has been a relatively modern concept which can be traced to the period of French revolution and Jean-Jacques Rousseau as one of the greatest advocates. In the nineteenth century, nationalism celebrated its golden period, as was seen in the American nationalism promoted by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. The background for the origin of nationalism was rooted with the need for strengthening the unity of people living in a geographical area against colonialism and imperialism as well as for promoting the rule of nations. This spirit gradually developed into universal phenomena seeking the greater consolidation of the interest of nations in their relations with other. Hence nationalism provided the much needed fervour to generate a spirit among the people of a nation which was remained in vacuum since the renaissance and reformation period. Moreover, the capitalist forces while promoting liberalism also acted as emissary for nationalism in order to control the people in a most effective way for providing stability to government.
A number of writers have made immense contribution for the concept nationalism. While explaining nationalism, Karl Deutsh, the American Political Scientist, made reference to ‘social communication’.[i] His contribution attracted attention to the basis of the nation as being a pattern of transactions which marked it off from other nations, thus broadening the focus from languages to all kinds of social and economic data. Another landmark contribution to the study of nationalism, especially in the British context, was made by Michael Hechter. He pointed out that modernization and increased contact between ethnic groups within a state will not necessarily create ethnic unity, but will be just as likely to lead to ethnic conflict. This is because the inequalities between the regions in a country will relegate peripheral regions to an inferior position, leaving the core region dominant. The reaction to this in the peripheral regions will be hostility to the core, and if these regions are also national in character, this will take the form of nationalism. Thus Hechter viewed Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism as the result of internal colonialism by the English core.[ii]
Ernest Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism represents type of theory which stresses the primacy of material conditions in shaping political thought and social change. He proposes a fundamentally economic reason for the rise of nationalism. It explains how nation-states and nationalism emerged strongly at the time of industrialisation in Europe, when breakdown of feudalism had taken place.[iii] Benedict Anderson in book, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, is more of a ‘constructivist’ and a ‘contextualist’ than a ‘primodialist’ but unlike Gellner, he is concerned to explore the psychological appeal of nationalism which is close to a primordial approach. He says:
The nation is imagined as limited because even the largest of them, encompassing perhaps a billion living human beings, has finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nations…it is imagined as a community, because regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings.[iv]
Anthony D. Smith’s book, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, focuses on ethnicity as the precursor of nationalism, and gives an explanation of the transition from ethnic identities and loyalties to those relating to nations. He emphasizes the continuity between ethnic identities and loyalties on the one hand and nationhood and nationalism on the other. Smith does acknowledge the changes which made ethnicity into nationalism, and his explanations resemble that of Gellener and Anderson. For example, the decline of religion, rise of the centralized and bureaucratic state, and the pressures of the industrial economy are necessary for ‘ethnic’ to be mobilized and politicized into nations.[v] Greenfeld in her book, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity discusses the sociological aspects of nationalism. She says that “nationalism lies at the basis of the world”, because it is the “constitutive principle of modernity”. This is because modernity breaks down the old “society of orders” and replaces it with an open, socially mobile one. In such society, nation and nationalism are essential ingredients, since they provide status and dignity, where previously they were based on aristocracy, the church and wealth.[vi]
All the above theories seek to explain how nationalism came to dominate world politics in the modern period with different circumstances, including the time and place. Jayantanuja Bandyopadhya observes that the ruling class “used the modern means of mass communication to promote nationalism as a particular ideology so as to camouflage the total ideology represented by the system and structure of the societies over which they exercise hegemonic control. Gradually, the masses of people have fallen victims to the relentless process of propaganda and indoctrination”.[vii] Bandyopadhya while considering the role of religion in promoting nationalism said, “the rituals of nationalism which resemble those of religion include worship of the national flag and the numerous sacred rituals connected with it, the sanctity of the national anthem and the rituals connected with its singing and those connected with national holydays, festivals and feasts, symbols including birds and beasts, sacred places, buildings, structures, tombs, images, relics, and icons in the form of statues”.[viii]
Islam and Nationalism
The relation between Islam and nationalism has been a topic of heated debate in the modern period. There are two schools of thought in this respect viz. traditional and modern. The thinkers and scholars who respect traditionalism were not ready for any compromise in recognizing the concept of nationalism along with the practice of Islam since both of them are stated as contradictory to each other. The traditional view points are represented by Jamaluddin Afghani, Rashid-al-Ghannouchi, Abd-al-Rahman Azzam, Hassan Al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb etc. Moreover, the leading Shia and Sunni scholars strongly supported the traditional belief. On the other hand, modern interpretation is offered by Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani, Abul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mohammad Fadhel Jamali, Musthfa Kemal etc.
One of the early fathers of modern Islamic political movement, Jamaluddin Afghani, describes Islam as a religion “which constitutes a nation, a culture or a civilization, form its basis and foundation, and provides the most secure bond that holds it together”.[ix] In the words of Rashid-al-Ghannouchi, the contemporary scholar of Islam, “Islam as a religion, as a faith, as a way of life, as a belief, as a social and political system is rooted in tawhid, the unity of God and the unity of human kind”.[x] The Islamic concept of ummah (Community) originated under Prophet Mohammed in the seventh century. Mohammed was the first citizen of this nation, its teacher and its guide. Prophet established the first state and Islamic ummah after his migration from Makkah to Madinah. Many scholars remark that the Islamic state is universal in nature. It does not recognize any geographical, linguistic or racial barriers.[xi]
The hard line view of Islam on nationalism was explained by Naqvi in his book, Islam and Nationalism:
Nationalism is incompatible with Islam, both schools having opposite ideologies. These two assume two totally opposite poles in their spirit, essence, direction and goal….The Quran has explicitly rejected the basis of nationalism, and states that language, colour and race are no criteria for unity and privilege. The only criteria are belief and virtue. A common ideology is the basis of the unity of the Islamic ummah, not race, country, language or even culture. The goal of nationalism is to create national units, whereas the goal of Islam is universal unity. To nationalism what matters the most is loyalty and attachment to the homeland, whereas to Islam, it is God …. Nationalism’s vision about society and politics is quite opposite to that of Islam, and these two cannot go together. That is why the nationalists of other Islamic lands regard separation from Islam a condition for nationalism to succeed, even if they do not utter it.[xii]
It is stated that the ultimate goal of Islam is to establish a universal monotheistic society which goes beyond geographical, racial, lingual and cultural boundaries, and joins them all in one country. Moreover, Islam condemns the division of mankind on the basis of territorial and racial differences
The leaders of Islamic movements in the Arab world vehemently oppose nationalism. Hasan Al-Bana (1906-1849), the founder and leader of the broadest Islamic movement in the world, the Muslim Brotherhood, centred in Egypt, considered nationalism as the most dangerous enemy of the Islamic movement. Similarly, Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), the leading intellectual of the Egyptian Islamic movement and theoretician of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Fahiyakan, the leader of the Lebanese Islamic Movement linked with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, also rejected all types of nationalism. A semi-government organisation in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim World League (Rabitat al Alam al-Islam) calls to espouse Islam over and against national considerations. Later under the leadership of King Faisal, this organisation fought against Arab nationalism of Nasser.[xiii]
The writings of the hard line view demonstrate that the basic objection to recognise nationalism is the fear that the snowballing of nationalism would affect the loyalty to God. Since Islam basically stands for monotheism and prohibits all types of worship except single God, the hardliners were not ready to provide any room for nationalism or any other ideology which promotes attachment other than God. However, the events in world politics and nationalism have made an impact on Arab and Islamic countries as well. As a result modern nationalism took root in the Arab and Islamic countries with two different forms, one based on local nationalism, defined by country, and other known as pan-Arab nationalism supporting the unity of language and culture throughout the Arab world. Hence new thinking developed among Islamic intellectuals who declared that nationalism and patriotism are inevitable parts of modern period and these sentiments have nothing to do with basic concepts of Islam.
In the Islamic world, nationalism first appeared in the Ottoman lands as Muslim peoples achieved the status of nationhood one after another.[xiv] Under the influence of western institutions and values in the late ninetieth and early twentieth centuries, some Muslim intellectuals like Mustafa Kemal of Egypt, Namik Kemal of Turkey and Abul Kalam Azad of India claimed that a synthesis of nationalism and Islam is possible in resolving many issues of the world. These people favoured a dual identity, an Islamic and a geographical (in some cases it is political) identity for Muslim societies. The contradiction between nationalism and Islam was waned during the anti-colonial struggle to fight against the common enemy. Both secular nationalists and Islamic ummah played significant roles in formulating the bond and resistance against European colonialism in Muslim countries. Muslim masses believed that nationalism to be the same as ummahism, as an expression of strong resistance to social and political tyranny, or to the colonial influence of the west, and as an instrument to eliminate oppression of governments upon the people.[xv]
Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani, the eminent Islamic theologian from India, held that nation is a geographical concept where as ummah is a religious concept. He said that the former is a political category whereas the latter is a religious category. It is also interesting to note his stand when a separate identity of Indian Muslims sought during the freedom struggle. Maulana, who was also the President of Jami`at al-Ulama-i-Hind, rejected the two nation theory of Jinnah and the Muslim League. He rather supported the composite nationhood (Muttahida Quamiyyat) and had written a book called Islam aur Muttahida Quamiyyat (i.e. Islam and Composite Natiionalism). In this book, Maulana quoted the covenant which the Prophet drew up with people of Madina belonging to various religions and tribes. According to Maulana it is the predecessor of the modern concept of nation. While drawing up the covenant between different religions (Jews, Muslims and Pagans) and various tribes, the Prophet described this composite community as Ummah Wahidah i.e. one community. Thus the Prophet transcended the boundaries religion to constitute a geographical community. In the modern period nationalism is an accepted phenomenon throughout the Islamic world. All the Islamic community accepted this reality. In the contemporary world a Muslim cannot freely go to another Muslim country without valid travel documents. The Muslims throughout the world do not constitute a political community. It was possible only in early period of Caliphate when Muslims could move from one part of the Caliphate to another part without any restriction.[xvi]
In the twentieth century many Muslim countries promoted separate nationalism for the unity and interests of the nation. The Turkish nationalism under Kemal Ataturk, Arab nationalism of Nasser of Egypt, Indonesian National Movement, Palestinian nationalism, Lebanese nationalism etc. are some of the classical examples of twentieth century nationalism in the Islamic world. While nationalism was basically secular in Turkey and Indonesia, Islam was also used as a part of national spirit in Arab nationalism and Palestinian nationalism. Even the Islamic revolution of Iran in 1979 was regarded a kind of nationalism although it stressed the spirit of Islam. Islamic revolution was conducted in Iran to change the ruler and not for unity of Islamic countries of the world. This revolution was not supported by many Arab countries especially, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Moreover, nationalism has been given some prominence since Islam as a religion could not resolve the rifts among Shias, Sunnis, Kurds etc. Hence for promoting peaceful coexistence of all these different sects of Islam in Islamic countries, nationalism provided an important means.
[i] Karl Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundation of Nationality (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1966).
[ii] See Michael Hechter, Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536-1966 (London: Routledge &Kegal Paul, 1975).
[iii] See Ernest Gellener, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford; Blackwell, 1983).
[iv] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983), p.16
[v] Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986).
[vi] Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (London: Harvard University Press, 1992)
[vii] Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya, Nationalism Unveiled (New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1990), p.52.
[viii] Ibid. p.42. This remark is relevant in the present vande mataram controversy in India.
[ix] Ahmet Davutoglu, Alternative Paradigms: The Impact of Islamic and Western Weltanschaungs on Poltical Theory (Lauham, M.D: University Press of America, 1994),p.76.
[x] Rashid Al-Ghannouchi, The Right to Nationality Status of Non-Muslim Citizens in a Muslim Nation (USA: Islamic Foundation of America, 1990), pp.4-5.
[xi] Muhittin Ataman, “Islamic Perspective on Ethnicity and Nationalism: Diversity or Uniformity?”, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol.23, No.1, April 2003, p.91.
[xii] Ali Muhammed Naqvi, Islam and Nationalism cited at http://al-islam.org/islamandnationalism/
[xiii] Ataman, n.11, p.98.
[xiv] Hamid Enayat, Modern Islamic Political Thought : The Response of Shi`i` and Sunni` Muslims of the Twentieth Century (London: I.B.Tauris, 2005),p.112.
[xv] Ibid. p.97.
[xvi] Asghar Ali Engineer, “Islam and Nationalism”, Secular Perspective, November 2002, cited at http://ecumene.org/IIS/csss94.htm
Nationalism has been a relatively modern concept which can be traced to the period of French revolution and Jean-Jacques Rousseau as one of the greatest advocates. In the nineteenth century, nationalism celebrated its golden period, as was seen in the American nationalism promoted by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. The background for the origin of nationalism was rooted with the need for strengthening the unity of people living in a geographical area against colonialism and imperialism as well as for promoting the rule of nations. This spirit gradually developed into universal phenomena seeking the greater consolidation of the interest of nations in their relations with other. Hence nationalism provided the much needed fervour to generate a spirit among the people of a nation which was remained in vacuum since the renaissance and reformation period. Moreover, the capitalist forces while promoting liberalism also acted as emissary for nationalism in order to control the people in a most effective way for providing stability to government.
A number of writers have made immense contribution for the concept nationalism. While explaining nationalism, Karl Deutsh, the American Political Scientist, made reference to ‘social communication’.[i] His contribution attracted attention to the basis of the nation as being a pattern of transactions which marked it off from other nations, thus broadening the focus from languages to all kinds of social and economic data. Another landmark contribution to the study of nationalism, especially in the British context, was made by Michael Hechter. He pointed out that modernization and increased contact between ethnic groups within a state will not necessarily create ethnic unity, but will be just as likely to lead to ethnic conflict. This is because the inequalities between the regions in a country will relegate peripheral regions to an inferior position, leaving the core region dominant. The reaction to this in the peripheral regions will be hostility to the core, and if these regions are also national in character, this will take the form of nationalism. Thus Hechter viewed Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism as the result of internal colonialism by the English core.[ii]
Ernest Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism represents type of theory which stresses the primacy of material conditions in shaping political thought and social change. He proposes a fundamentally economic reason for the rise of nationalism. It explains how nation-states and nationalism emerged strongly at the time of industrialisation in Europe, when breakdown of feudalism had taken place.[iii] Benedict Anderson in book, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, is more of a ‘constructivist’ and a ‘contextualist’ than a ‘primodialist’ but unlike Gellner, he is concerned to explore the psychological appeal of nationalism which is close to a primordial approach. He says:
The nation is imagined as limited because even the largest of them, encompassing perhaps a billion living human beings, has finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nations…it is imagined as a community, because regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings.[iv]
Anthony D. Smith’s book, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, focuses on ethnicity as the precursor of nationalism, and gives an explanation of the transition from ethnic identities and loyalties to those relating to nations. He emphasizes the continuity between ethnic identities and loyalties on the one hand and nationhood and nationalism on the other. Smith does acknowledge the changes which made ethnicity into nationalism, and his explanations resemble that of Gellener and Anderson. For example, the decline of religion, rise of the centralized and bureaucratic state, and the pressures of the industrial economy are necessary for ‘ethnic’ to be mobilized and politicized into nations.[v] Greenfeld in her book, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity discusses the sociological aspects of nationalism. She says that “nationalism lies at the basis of the world”, because it is the “constitutive principle of modernity”. This is because modernity breaks down the old “society of orders” and replaces it with an open, socially mobile one. In such society, nation and nationalism are essential ingredients, since they provide status and dignity, where previously they were based on aristocracy, the church and wealth.[vi]
All the above theories seek to explain how nationalism came to dominate world politics in the modern period with different circumstances, including the time and place. Jayantanuja Bandyopadhya observes that the ruling class “used the modern means of mass communication to promote nationalism as a particular ideology so as to camouflage the total ideology represented by the system and structure of the societies over which they exercise hegemonic control. Gradually, the masses of people have fallen victims to the relentless process of propaganda and indoctrination”.[vii] Bandyopadhya while considering the role of religion in promoting nationalism said, “the rituals of nationalism which resemble those of religion include worship of the national flag and the numerous sacred rituals connected with it, the sanctity of the national anthem and the rituals connected with its singing and those connected with national holydays, festivals and feasts, symbols including birds and beasts, sacred places, buildings, structures, tombs, images, relics, and icons in the form of statues”.[viii]
Islam and Nationalism
The relation between Islam and nationalism has been a topic of heated debate in the modern period. There are two schools of thought in this respect viz. traditional and modern. The thinkers and scholars who respect traditionalism were not ready for any compromise in recognizing the concept of nationalism along with the practice of Islam since both of them are stated as contradictory to each other. The traditional view points are represented by Jamaluddin Afghani, Rashid-al-Ghannouchi, Abd-al-Rahman Azzam, Hassan Al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb etc. Moreover, the leading Shia and Sunni scholars strongly supported the traditional belief. On the other hand, modern interpretation is offered by Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani, Abul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mohammad Fadhel Jamali, Musthfa Kemal etc.
One of the early fathers of modern Islamic political movement, Jamaluddin Afghani, describes Islam as a religion “which constitutes a nation, a culture or a civilization, form its basis and foundation, and provides the most secure bond that holds it together”.[ix] In the words of Rashid-al-Ghannouchi, the contemporary scholar of Islam, “Islam as a religion, as a faith, as a way of life, as a belief, as a social and political system is rooted in tawhid, the unity of God and the unity of human kind”.[x] The Islamic concept of ummah (Community) originated under Prophet Mohammed in the seventh century. Mohammed was the first citizen of this nation, its teacher and its guide. Prophet established the first state and Islamic ummah after his migration from Makkah to Madinah. Many scholars remark that the Islamic state is universal in nature. It does not recognize any geographical, linguistic or racial barriers.[xi]
The hard line view of Islam on nationalism was explained by Naqvi in his book, Islam and Nationalism:
Nationalism is incompatible with Islam, both schools having opposite ideologies. These two assume two totally opposite poles in their spirit, essence, direction and goal….The Quran has explicitly rejected the basis of nationalism, and states that language, colour and race are no criteria for unity and privilege. The only criteria are belief and virtue. A common ideology is the basis of the unity of the Islamic ummah, not race, country, language or even culture. The goal of nationalism is to create national units, whereas the goal of Islam is universal unity. To nationalism what matters the most is loyalty and attachment to the homeland, whereas to Islam, it is God …. Nationalism’s vision about society and politics is quite opposite to that of Islam, and these two cannot go together. That is why the nationalists of other Islamic lands regard separation from Islam a condition for nationalism to succeed, even if they do not utter it.[xii]
It is stated that the ultimate goal of Islam is to establish a universal monotheistic society which goes beyond geographical, racial, lingual and cultural boundaries, and joins them all in one country. Moreover, Islam condemns the division of mankind on the basis of territorial and racial differences
The leaders of Islamic movements in the Arab world vehemently oppose nationalism. Hasan Al-Bana (1906-1849), the founder and leader of the broadest Islamic movement in the world, the Muslim Brotherhood, centred in Egypt, considered nationalism as the most dangerous enemy of the Islamic movement. Similarly, Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), the leading intellectual of the Egyptian Islamic movement and theoretician of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Fahiyakan, the leader of the Lebanese Islamic Movement linked with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, also rejected all types of nationalism. A semi-government organisation in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim World League (Rabitat al Alam al-Islam) calls to espouse Islam over and against national considerations. Later under the leadership of King Faisal, this organisation fought against Arab nationalism of Nasser.[xiii]
The writings of the hard line view demonstrate that the basic objection to recognise nationalism is the fear that the snowballing of nationalism would affect the loyalty to God. Since Islam basically stands for monotheism and prohibits all types of worship except single God, the hardliners were not ready to provide any room for nationalism or any other ideology which promotes attachment other than God. However, the events in world politics and nationalism have made an impact on Arab and Islamic countries as well. As a result modern nationalism took root in the Arab and Islamic countries with two different forms, one based on local nationalism, defined by country, and other known as pan-Arab nationalism supporting the unity of language and culture throughout the Arab world. Hence new thinking developed among Islamic intellectuals who declared that nationalism and patriotism are inevitable parts of modern period and these sentiments have nothing to do with basic concepts of Islam.
In the Islamic world, nationalism first appeared in the Ottoman lands as Muslim peoples achieved the status of nationhood one after another.[xiv] Under the influence of western institutions and values in the late ninetieth and early twentieth centuries, some Muslim intellectuals like Mustafa Kemal of Egypt, Namik Kemal of Turkey and Abul Kalam Azad of India claimed that a synthesis of nationalism and Islam is possible in resolving many issues of the world. These people favoured a dual identity, an Islamic and a geographical (in some cases it is political) identity for Muslim societies. The contradiction between nationalism and Islam was waned during the anti-colonial struggle to fight against the common enemy. Both secular nationalists and Islamic ummah played significant roles in formulating the bond and resistance against European colonialism in Muslim countries. Muslim masses believed that nationalism to be the same as ummahism, as an expression of strong resistance to social and political tyranny, or to the colonial influence of the west, and as an instrument to eliminate oppression of governments upon the people.[xv]
Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani, the eminent Islamic theologian from India, held that nation is a geographical concept where as ummah is a religious concept. He said that the former is a political category whereas the latter is a religious category. It is also interesting to note his stand when a separate identity of Indian Muslims sought during the freedom struggle. Maulana, who was also the President of Jami`at al-Ulama-i-Hind, rejected the two nation theory of Jinnah and the Muslim League. He rather supported the composite nationhood (Muttahida Quamiyyat) and had written a book called Islam aur Muttahida Quamiyyat (i.e. Islam and Composite Natiionalism). In this book, Maulana quoted the covenant which the Prophet drew up with people of Madina belonging to various religions and tribes. According to Maulana it is the predecessor of the modern concept of nation. While drawing up the covenant between different religions (Jews, Muslims and Pagans) and various tribes, the Prophet described this composite community as Ummah Wahidah i.e. one community. Thus the Prophet transcended the boundaries religion to constitute a geographical community. In the modern period nationalism is an accepted phenomenon throughout the Islamic world. All the Islamic community accepted this reality. In the contemporary world a Muslim cannot freely go to another Muslim country without valid travel documents. The Muslims throughout the world do not constitute a political community. It was possible only in early period of Caliphate when Muslims could move from one part of the Caliphate to another part without any restriction.[xvi]
In the twentieth century many Muslim countries promoted separate nationalism for the unity and interests of the nation. The Turkish nationalism under Kemal Ataturk, Arab nationalism of Nasser of Egypt, Indonesian National Movement, Palestinian nationalism, Lebanese nationalism etc. are some of the classical examples of twentieth century nationalism in the Islamic world. While nationalism was basically secular in Turkey and Indonesia, Islam was also used as a part of national spirit in Arab nationalism and Palestinian nationalism. Even the Islamic revolution of Iran in 1979 was regarded a kind of nationalism although it stressed the spirit of Islam. Islamic revolution was conducted in Iran to change the ruler and not for unity of Islamic countries of the world. This revolution was not supported by many Arab countries especially, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Moreover, nationalism has been given some prominence since Islam as a religion could not resolve the rifts among Shias, Sunnis, Kurds etc. Hence for promoting peaceful coexistence of all these different sects of Islam in Islamic countries, nationalism provided an important means.
[i] Karl Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundation of Nationality (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1966).
[ii] See Michael Hechter, Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536-1966 (London: Routledge &Kegal Paul, 1975).
[iii] See Ernest Gellener, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford; Blackwell, 1983).
[iv] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983), p.16
[v] Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986).
[vi] Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (London: Harvard University Press, 1992)
[vii] Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya, Nationalism Unveiled (New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1990), p.52.
[viii] Ibid. p.42. This remark is relevant in the present vande mataram controversy in India.
[ix] Ahmet Davutoglu, Alternative Paradigms: The Impact of Islamic and Western Weltanschaungs on Poltical Theory (Lauham, M.D: University Press of America, 1994),p.76.
[x] Rashid Al-Ghannouchi, The Right to Nationality Status of Non-Muslim Citizens in a Muslim Nation (USA: Islamic Foundation of America, 1990), pp.4-5.
[xi] Muhittin Ataman, “Islamic Perspective on Ethnicity and Nationalism: Diversity or Uniformity?”, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol.23, No.1, April 2003, p.91.
[xii] Ali Muhammed Naqvi, Islam and Nationalism cited at http://al-islam.org/islamandnationalism/
[xiii] Ataman, n.11, p.98.
[xiv] Hamid Enayat, Modern Islamic Political Thought : The Response of Shi`i` and Sunni` Muslims of the Twentieth Century (London: I.B.Tauris, 2005),p.112.
[xv] Ibid. p.97.
[xvi] Asghar Ali Engineer, “Islam and Nationalism”, Secular Perspective, November 2002, cited at http://ecumene.org/IIS/csss94.htm
