I am not sure there is a paradox – Iqbal not only satirises the concept of nationalism, he actually is severely critical of it, but only in the sense that it has no relevance for a Muslim.

So Iqbal is critical of nationalism as a Muslim, and strongly feels that loyalty to a national identity as opposed to loyalty to the concept of the Ummah is unIslamic, a view that many others before him have also articulated but few have done it as eloquently or with such resonance for a South Asian Muslim.

I think a key difference between the “modern day nationalism” on one hand and the concept of the Ummah on the other is that whilst the former is narrow, constricting and separatist, the latter is inclusive and egalitarian. The whole purpose of the Ummah, as practised in the earliest days of Islam, and as it should still be practised, is that each and every Muslim is an equal member of it, and there is no bar on membership due to race, tribe or nationality. Anyone, anywhere, can be part of the Ummah if only she/he chooses to, and anyone new entrant will then have exactly the same rights, responsibilities and role as every other member of the Ummah.

All of this is of course impossible with ‘modern-day nationalism’, either in theory or in practise, as all nationalism defines itself on narrow, parochial definitions of race, ancestry or geography – all completely inimical to the Islamic concept of the Ummah.

Thank you for stopping by… :-)

1. I agree, the concept of nationhood has certainly not disappeared from Europe, but the ‘nation-state’ as the defining social, political and administrative unit is a thing of the past. Anecdotal evidence makes for a poor argument, but I will request you to indulge me nonetheless – I happened to be sitting with a Norwegian at lunch today, and he bemoaned the fact that Norway had voted against joining the EU in 1994. It was, even at that time, the odd one out amongst the four Nordic countries. The anti-EU brigade in 1994 had given the rationale that as its Eastern neighbours (the Baltic states and so forth) could not benefit from the European project, it would be wrong for Norway to do so. However, that no longer applies, as everyone and anyone, from Estonia to wee Latvia and through Lithuania, is now in the EU or getting there, and Norwegians are thus seriously concerned that in a continent of submerged or amalgamated national identities, they continue to retain theirs. Another referendum will be organised there in the future and of course, the result will be a resounding yes – most continental Europeans seriously believe in the social-democratic European ideal.

2. I wished I could share your optimism that a time will come when Muslim states would “find that their very existence will depend on their willingness and alacrity in reconsidering those lines in the sand” – the Muslim states, as currently structured, would not. In any case, these divisions have been with us since the murder of Sayyedina ‘Uthman, and I doubt they would disappear overnight. Tawaif al-Malooki has been the hallmark of our nation for over a millennium. The ‘Allama may fervently hope that a direct thread would jolt us into unity (as in “aik houn Muslim haram ki paasbani ke liye… neel ke saahil se le kar, taabkhak-e-kashgar”) but such unity would not only be impossible to achieve in the current composition of our Ummah, it would also be unworkable. And in any case, a sizeable minority of the Ummah would not give two hoots about the paasbani of the Haram, as long as it had its Qum, its Karbala and its Najaf!

3. I am not sure I understand your last sentence. I don’t feel that maintaining the sanctity of those lines in the sand drawn by the kuffar is, or should be, a priority. Please elaborate for us simpletons :-)

The Muslim nation is one nation, one ummah. Despite the lines drawn in the sand, this fact is often underlined when a new atrocity is perpetrated in one of our lands by our enemies and the Muslims worldwide irrespective of the color and origin of their passport feel the pain and collectively whimper their protest. I am not so sure, however, that the concept of nation state has disappeared from Europe – not that its appearing or disappearing should have any bearings on how we choose to exist in our part of the world – There is a general march towards a lesser emphasis on the concept, and that is necessitated by harsh economic realities taking shape in the eastern part of the globe, as well as those already threatening from across the Atlantic – harsh for the Europeans that is. When the time comes, and I believe it is upon us already, the Muslim states will find that their very existance wil depend on their willingness and alacrity in reconsidering those lines in the sand. Unfortunately the threats we face, and the misfortunes we suffer are political and ideological and hence far more direct. I continue to hope against hope that a direct threat will jolt us into reality.

Until then however even if we can maintain the sanctity of those lines drawn in sand by our colonials I would not be very disappointed with us.