The end of Islamic rule in 1924 created many artificial Muslim states that used nationalism as the basis for their existence. However, these states were far from the ‘independence’ that their creators fought for against the ‘Uthmani Khilafah. Indeed, the promises of independence by the West were outright lies and in reality, it was a vicious trap that the Muslim fell in. The real intent of the West was to colonise the Muslim world culturally, but when the Islamic State came within the reach of their claws, they settled for nothing less than the physical invasion of Muslim Land. This they enshrined in Article 22 of the League of Nations after the 1st World War, “Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of their development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory, until such time as they are able to stand alone.”11

Naturally, the ‘administrative advice’ had to be taken by the newly formed nationalistic states, which according to Britain and France meant nothing short of invasion. Britain took over Iraq, Palestine and Transjordan, while France took Syria and Lebanon. All that was left of Sharif Hussain’s ‘independent Arab state’, known as the Kingdom of Hijaz, was absorbed into what is now Saudi Arabia in 1925.

It can be seen, therefore, that despite the creation of many nationalistic states in the Muslim world, Muslims still lag behind rest of world. Although Muslim countries are no loner colonies of the West, the stagnation that we have suffered is so severe that we have literally become economic slaves to the West, which is far worse. Attempts have been made since then to revive the Muslims but none of them have succeeded.

Nationalism has left a trail of failure in the Muslim world. Some examples of failed attempts to revive the Muslims based on nationalism are presented below.

Egypt Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt is a classical example of such failure. Nasser came to power in 1954 and began to propagate his vision for Egypt. In his book The Philosophy of Revolution he outlines the three main roles of Egypt as the leader of the Arab world, the Muslim world and of the black African nations struggling for independence.

Nasser’s hope of uniting the Arabs primarily hinged around Arab nationalism. He imagined that the Arabs would unite simply because they had a common language, dress and history. However, Nasser did manage to arouse Arab nationalism to the extent never seen before. The nationalisation of the Suez Canal in 1956 and the merger between Egypt and Syria in 1958 to create the United Arab Republic, bringing together two of the most strategic countries in the Middle East, further boosted his call of ‘Arabism’.

The call for ‘Arabism’, however, was also accompanied by reckless socialist economic policies that crippled the country. Also, as the Ummah learnt later, Nasser was nothing more than a pawn in the struggle between Britain and America in the Middle East.

Although Nasser was seen to be publicly backed by the former Soviet Union, in reality he was an agent of America12.

The breakup of the United Arab Republic in 1961, and the triumph of Israel in the 1967

war, when it captured Sinai from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank from Jordan, put an end to Nasser’s ‘Arabism’. This great nationalistic experiment had failed and to this day the Arab world is still divided into many states.

Turkey Turkey, being the seat of the ‘Uthmani Khilafah, is one of the countries that was deeply affected by nationalism. The vision of Mustapha Kamal to forge a nation based on nationalism did materialise but it failed to progress in any substantial way. Neither the nationalistic policies of Kamal’s Republican People’s Party in the past, nor those of the secular Motherland Party or the Socialist Democratic Populist Party now, are ever going to return Turkey to its former glory. Instead, Turkey is gradually slipping towards civil strife as Kurdish nationalism takes root.

Kamal’s attempted revival based on Turkish nationalism has left Turkey in the cold.

The area which was once honoured as the capital of the leading state of the world, the Islamic State, has now become the diseased state, left for nowhere; it is not accepted by the Europeans nor by the Middle East. Nationalism has brought nothing but humiliation for Turkey, yet despite this, the Turkish government still persists with Turkish nationalism.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States Saudi Arabia and the various states in the Gulf reflect a classical case of nationalism that was nurtured by the West, especially Britain. The powerful tribes were mobilised from these areas against the ‘Uthmani Khilafah through financial deals and promises of independent states.

The British first used Sharif Hussain and his sons Faisal and ‘Adbullah to revolt against the Khilafah. These revolts were instigated through the assistance of the famous British agent T. E. Lawrence13, who was trying to harass the Islamic State’s forces and disrupt their communications on the right flank of General Allenby’s army advancing from Egypt during 1917. However, when Sharif later fell out of favour with the British, they replaced him with ‘Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, who was also being financed by the British in his struggle to gain control.

By the end of 1927, the Saud family had managed to secure control of most of the Arabian peninsular, and in the same year, a treaty was signed with the British who gave the family complete authority in return for the Saud’s recognition of British suzerainty over the Gulf Sheikhdoms of Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Oman. In 1932, Arabian peninsular was named Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Since then the Saud family has kept a very tight control of the area, establishing the authority on a tribalistic structure. The entire government is run by the members of the Saud family, which is currently in excess of five thousand.

As for Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Oman, Britain had installed its agents as rulers even before the demise of the Islamic State in 1924. Al-Said family signed treaties with Britain in 1891, al-Sabah of Kuwait signed in 1899, al-Thani family followed suit in 1915 and various local rulers of United Arab Emirates also followed the same pattern.

The installation of these families as rulers by the British returned the Arabian peninsular to the pre-Islamic days when various tribes were ruling the region. This form of governmental structure has not revived the Muslims of this region. Indeed, dividing the area on nationalistic lines has obliterated any hope of progress because the rulers are all too busy trying to secure their positions. Despite the fact that the Arabian peninsular has income from oil that far exceeds even the Western countries has not resulted in any form of progress. Except the oil, there is no industry or any plans to establish one. The money that oil has brought since the 1940’s has been siphoned off to the Swiss banks accounts and Investment Houses of the Western nations. Nationalism has not elevated these states, rather, it has subjected them to the control of the Kuffar more than ever before.

Iran The rise of Iranian nationalism can be traced back to the 19th Century during the infiltration of the missionary movement in the Islamic State. Since then Iran also had its share of foreign intervention, occupations and collaborations. However, the key period that need to be highlighted is the period since the eruption of the so-called ‘Islamic Revolution’ in 1979, which transformed the entire shape of the society.

The ‘Islamic Revolution’ eradicated the Iranian monarchy of the Shah and replace it with what is claimed to an Islamic system. Close examination of Iran shows that it is still very far from the system that Islam calls for. Although jilbab and khimar are common, as well as the beards and the sound of adhan, the laws that are applied still reflect non-Islam. Also, the constitution of Iran stipulates that the head of the state can only be an Iranian. This clearly contradicts Islam because tribe, race or colour are not conditions for the post of the head of the state. So the revolution in Iran has not uprooted nationalism, instead, it has further strengthen it.

Pakistan Pakistan was created in 1947 be to an entity for the Muslims in the Indian subcontinent.

Although the vision given to the masses was that Pakistan would be an Islamic State, in reality, Pakistan was carved-up as a secular nationalistic state. On August 11, 1947, Pakistan’s constituent assembly met in Karachi for the first time and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who was elected to preside over the meeting, said, “I think we should keep in front of us our ideals and you will find that in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State...”14

When a Muslim ceases to be a Muslims in the political sense, it means that Islam will not play any part in running the state, but he keeps his rituals of worships, he becomes a secular person since secularism is to divorce the deen from the state. So Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan was that of a secular nation. Furthermore, the Muslims were encouraged to rally behind a nationalistic slogan, ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ (Long live Pakistan), which is heard even to this day in Pakistan and outside.

The creation of Pakistan was meant to unify and revive the Muslims. However, this experiment was flawed right from the start as differences emerged between East and West Pakistan. Despite the fact that more than half of the Muslims in united Pakistan spoke Bengali, the ruling elites in West Pakistan adopted Urdu as the state language, Urdu being the language spoken in West Pakistan. Added to this was the fact that Bengali people were seen as an inferior race, and responsibility of governance was thus exclusively in the hands of West Pakistan. Most of the industrial development was also carried out in the Western wing and the Bengali people became very alienated. These factors, and the campaign by India to destroy the unity of the Muslims, led to a power struggle between East and West Pakistan. At its zenith, this power struggle became the struggle of two races, namely, the ‘Pakistanis’ and the ‘Bengalis’.

Nationalism reached climax in 1971 when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto refused to relinquish power after Mujibur Rahman, from East Pakistan, won the General Elections with a slim majority. Mujibur Rahman went on to create a Bengali state called Bangladesh, thus completing the destruction of united Pakistan.

Carving-up united Pakistan on nationalistic lines did not solve any problems for the Muslims. Disunity has made the Muslims weak militarily and economically, especially Bangladesh which continues to suffer from wide-spread crippling poverty and corruption even to this day.

In summary, we can conclude that nationalism has never worked for the Muslims. It did not provide unity, progress nor harmony but created disunity, instability and dependence on foreign nations and organisations like the UN and the IMF.