For many the Sunni and Shi’ah fracture is sufficient evidence that the concept of one Ummah is no longer practical in the modern world. Whilst Islamic history has been characterised by unity with the odd schism amongst Muslims, today many national boundaries have become the new unity, with the Islamic concept of Ummah predated to a model that existed centuries ago. Such a schism has led to both Muslims and non-Muslims to view secularism as the only way to deal with differences, whilst calls for Islamic unity and the Khilafah are perceived by some to be idealistic.

In essence the debate is about how Islam deals with differences and does the existence of many groups, sects and nations mean a pan-global state with Muslim unity is impossible?

In understanding this it must be clearly understood that the Islamic world is not the first nation to have such differences. The US suffered from a Civil War in 1861 which was a bitter, sectional conflict between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, formed of eleven southern states which moved to secede from the Union after the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States. Britain today is facing the prospect of Scotland separating and becoming an independent country by 2013. Both conflicts never saw any discussion on secularism’s ability to unify people. The civil war in the US is considered a part of its history and taught in its schools.

Islam is no stranger to different peoples, customs, cultures, languages and different schools of thought. As the Islamic lands expanded people of different denominations all became Islamic subjects. Islamic rule under the Abbasids reached lands where the inhabitants of other religions clashed with the thinkers and scholars in the conquered territories. It was this clash that resulted in the development of the rational sciences, i.e. the studying of the creed of Islam. The development was also due to the need for presenting the Islamic belief with rational evidences. As a result, disciplines became divided into branches and Islamic disciplines became diversified accordingly.

These disciplines dealt with many issues and were enriched every time the conquests expanded further. As a result many Muslims in the state began to devote themselves to the disciplines, sciences, study and research. A multi-faceted Islamic culture took shape within the Islamic lands, so the people dedicated themselves to learning it to elevate the Khilafah. Every scholar, whatever type of culture he or she specialised in, and every writer, whatever their literary approach, and every mathematician, scientist or artisan, would debate and articulate Islam due to this clash.

This led to the emergence of a variety of groups, sects and differences of opinion, only a handful of which were considered to have gone outside the fold of Islam. However, such sects which went into the hundreds were not considered a division amongst the people. In fact under the Abbasids, Baghdad became a centre for intellectual and revolutionary ideas. Thinkers from various backgrounds and learning were welcomed and given a platform to debate. This resulted in a pristine understanding of Islam by society as Islam was withstanding the various tests thrown at it. Hence the existence of diverse groups and sects actually strengthened the understanding of Islam rather than being a source of problems. This was because the differences were on understanding the Islamic sources, which were going through the period of being catalogued and codified. The existence of multiple groups and sects actually aided this.

The division in the Muslim world today is down to two issues. The first is the weakness that overtook Muslims in understanding Islam and the second was encapsulated by Professor David Fromkin, expert on Economic History at the University of Chicago. He highlights very clearly in his book that much of the situation in the Muslim world stems from the colonial era. He says:

‘Massive amounts of the wealth of the old Ottoman Empire were now claimed by the victors. But one must remember that the Islamic empire had tried for centuries to conquer Christian Europe and the power brokers deciding the fate of those defeated people were naturally determined that these countries should never be able to organize and threaten Western interests again. With centuries of mercantilist experience, Britain and France created small, unstable states whose rulers needed their support to stay in power. The development and trade of these states were controlled and they were meant never again to be a threat to the West. These external powers then made contracts with their puppets to buy Arab resources cheaply, making the feudal elite enormously wealthy while leaving most citizens in poverty.’34

Creating divisions in the Muslim world by establishing ‘small, unstable states’ was a deliberate policy by the European colonialists to ensure the Muslim world never can unite. France and Britain prior to World War 1 had already carved up the Middle East amongst themselves. They drew lines on paper maps and created Transjordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran. Pakistan, India and Afghanistan were later created which separated people who had lived for hundreds of years together. It is such colonial polices which have now ballooned into multiple problems. Each nation was appointed with rulers who were subservient to both Britain and France. The Saud family actually collaborated with the British to destroy the Khilafah in return for leadership of the Hijaz.

Such artificial boundaries have today become the lens through which many Muslims view the world. Hence the problem in the Muslim world to a large extent was an organised affair by the colonialists where initially they segregated Muslims physically, and then they ensured any ideas of Muslim unity would never arise by creating national flags, national independence days and national anthems.

Unity in the past was built upon Islam and it turned the Islamic lands into prosperous societies which welcomed all and excelled in various fields. Hence the absence of Islam, which is what the colonialists worked for, is the reason why over 50 nations exist where one nation once stood.

It is not Islam that is the cause of divisions but the absence of Islam that causes problems. A pertinent example of this is the attempts by the Western world in imposing secularism as the model to deal with the Sunni and Shi’ah problem. Such an approach is alien to the people involved in the conflict and rather than solving the conflict it is in fact placing it in the private sphere ensuring it has no influence in polices in the public sphere. The original dispute over the successor to the Prophet Muhammad وسلم وآله عليه الله صلى can in reality only be solved by assessing the Islamic evidence in this regard, from this perspective only Islam can ever be the solution. The actions of some Muslims in the past against the Prophet’s وسلم وآله عليه الله صلى family, the actions of Mu’awiyah and history generally are not sources of Islamic jurisprudence and hence cannot be the reference point. The reference point in this case would be the Qur’an and the hadith and naturally different interpretations can occur here, which is the case with all jurisprudence. However, interpretation is not a limitless process and there are rules for interpretation.

In every ideology there exists difference of opinion on solutions built upon the creedal tenets. In democratic countries, numerous schools of thought have arisen due to differences in interpretation.

In the US today we have Democrats and Republicans. In the UK we have Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. Across the Western world we have neoconservatives as well as libertarians, Fabians, environmentalists and Christian Democrats. All differ in the manner that liberal ideas should manifest themselves but they all have secularism – the Capitalist creed - as their basis. Economics is also prone to such difference with the Keynesian school, advocating government intervention, against the Monetarists. Socialism also had a number of schools of thought built upon their creed. Advocates of Socialism saw the injustice that resulted from the concept of ‘Freedom of Ownership’ and concluded that the difference in private ownership between people was the problem that required a solution. One school of thought (the communist school)

advocated practical equality in everything and absolute abolition of private property. Another school of thought (the agrarian socialists) proposed abolishing private property in agricultural land only. Then came a third socialist school of thought (known as state Socialism) where private property was transferred to public ownership in the name of public interest i.e. nationalization in every situation where public interest called for it.

Many academics and researchers in the West have presented papers on the Sunni-Shi’ah schism and have used it as a basis to undermine the concept of one Ummah. However, such actions have contributed to a process of change that has been gaining momentum for decades and is just coming to the boil now in the Muslim world.

We are currently witnessing the Muslim Ummah openly rejecting Capitalism and individualism all over the world as one body. Even the Muslims in Palestine, themselves under occupation, held marches and rallies in solidarity with the Muslims of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Ummah feels revulsion when the concept of ‘freedom of expression’ is used to attack Islam, as can be seen in the case of the cartoons printed against the Prophet وسلم وآله عليه الله صلى in Europe.

The Ummah globally has clearly seen that the traitor rulers are not representatives of her. In fact a widening gulf now exists between the rulers and the Ummah. Considering the lengthy period of decline the Ummah underwent she has never been so united. All that remains in the final part of the jigsaw which protects unity is a state.

A government built upon the ideals society believes in, ensures unity is created and protected. The Sahabah dealt very harshly with the Khawarij who introduced foreign ideas into Islam which would have created disunity. The return of the Khilafah is today considered well on the horizon, with various think tanks and experts including the CIA national intelligence have predicted the emergence of the Khilafah. Without a state it is virtually impossible to have unity. Without central government the US civil war would have resulted in two countries in North America. Without a government there would have been no union between England and Scotland. It is a state that brings unity amongst people. Without it unity is virtually impossible. As Islamic history has shown Islam has detailed rules for unity and integration and actually has a successful track record of uniting people from different backgrounds. The disunity we see today was created by the West and continues to be fed by them.