Kufikia mwaka 1924, kuangamizwa kwa utawala wa Kiislamu kulizaa majimbo mengi ya Kiislamu ya kubuni, yaliyotegemea utaifa kama msingi wa kuwepo kwao. Hata hivyo, majimbo haya yalikuwa mbali sana na "uhuru" ambao waasisi wake walipigania dhidi ya Khilafah ya 'Uthmaniyya. Kwa hakika, ahadi za uhuru zilizotolewa na Magharibi zilikuwa uongo mtupu, na kwa kweli ilikuwa mtego mbaya ambao Waislamu waliuangukia. Lengo halisi la Magharibi lilikuwa kuikoloni dunia ya Kiislamu kitamaduni, lakini Dola ya Kiislamu ilipokuwa karibu kufikiwa na makucha yao, walikubali kwa uchache wowote isipokuwa uvamizi wa kimwili wa ardhi ya Waislamu. Hili waliliweka rasmi katika Ibara ya 22 ya Ligi ya Mataifa baada ya Vita vya Kwanza vya Dunia, kwamba: "Jamii fulani zilizokuwa za himaya ya Kituruki zimefikia hatua ya maendeleo yao ambapo uwepo wao kama mataifa huru unaweza kutambuliwa kwa muda, kwa sharti la kupewa ushauri na msaada wa kiutawala na mamlaka iliyopewa jukumu hilo, hadi watakapoweza kusimama peke yao."11

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

Bila shaka, "ushauri wa kiutawala" ulilazimika kukubaliwa na mataifa ya kizalendo yaliyoundwa hivi karibuni, jambo ambalo kwa Uingereza na Ufaransa halikuwa kitu kingine zaidi ya uvamizi. Uingereza ilichukua Iraq, Palestina na Transjordan, wakati Ufaransa ilichukua Syria na Lebanon. Kilichobaki cha "dola huru ya Kiarabu" ya Sharif Hussain, iliyojulikana kama Ufalme wa Hijaz, kiliunganishwa katika kile kinachoitwa sasa Saudi Arabia mwaka 1925.

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.

Kwa hiyo, inaonekana wazi kwamba licha ya kuundwa kwa majimbo mengi ya kizalendo katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu, Waislamu bado wako nyuma ya dunia nyingine. Ingawa nchi za Kiislamu hazitawaliwi tena na Magharibi, udumavu tulioupata ni mkubwa kiasi kwamba tumekuwa watumwa wa kiuchumi wa Magharibi kwa maana halisi, jambo ambalo ni baya zaidi. Tangu wakati huo zimefanyika juhudi nyingi za kuwafufua Waislamu, lakini hakuna hata moja iliyofanikiwa.

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.

Utaifa umeacha historia ndefu ya kushindwa katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu. Yafuatayo ni baadhi ya mifano ya majaribio yaliyoshindwa ya kuwainua Waislamu kwa msingi wa utaifa.

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.

Misri Gamal Abdul Nasser wa Misri ni mfano wa kawaida wa kushindwa huku. Nasser alishika madaraka mwaka 1954 na akaanza kueneza maono yake kwa Misri. Katika kitabu chake *The Philosophy of Revolution* alieleza majukumu makuu matatu ya Misri: kuwa kiongozi wa ulimwengu wa Kiarabu, wa ulimwengu wa Kiislamu, na wa mataifa ya Kiafrika yenye ngozi nyeusi yanayopigania uhuru.

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.

Matumaini ya Nasser ya kuwaunganisha Waarabu yalitegemea hasa utaifa wa Kiarabu. Alifikiri kwamba Waarabu wangeungana kwa sababu tu wana lugha moja, mavazi yanayofanana na historia moja. Hata hivyo, Nasser aliweza kuamsha utaifa wa Kiarabu kwa kiwango ambacho hakuwahi kuonekana kabla. Kutaifishwa kwa Mfereji wa Suez mwaka 1956 na kuunganishwa kwa Misri na Syria mwaka 1958 ili kuunda Jamhuri ya Kiarabu ya Muungano, na hivyo kuleta pamoja nchi mbili kati ya zenye umuhimu mkubwa wa kimkakati Mashariki ya Kati, kulizidi kuongeza wito wake wa 'Uarabu'.

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’.

Hata hivyo, wito wa 'Uarabu' ulikuwa pia umeambatana na sera za kiuchumi za kijamaa zisizo za busara, zilizoidhoofisha nchi. Pia, kama Ummah ulivyojifunza baadaye, Nasser hakuwa zaidi ya kibaraka katika mapambano kati ya Uingereza na Marekani katika Mashariki ya Kati.

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.

Ingawa Nasser alionekana kuungwa mkono hadharani na Umoja wa Kisovieti wa zamani, kwa kweli alikuwa wakala wa Amerika.

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

Kuvunjika kwa Jamhuri ya Kiarabu ya Muungano mwaka 1961, na ushindi wa Israel mwaka 1967

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

Vita vya mwaka 1967, wakati Israel ilipoiteka Sinai kutoka Misri, Milima ya Golan kutoka Syria na Ukingo wa Magharibi kutoka Jordan, viliweka kikomo kwa "Uarabu" wa Nasser. Jaribio hili kubwa la kizalendo lilishindwa, na hadi leo ulimwengu wa Kiarabu bado umegawanyika katika nchi nyingi.

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.

Uturuki Uturuki, kama kitovu cha Khilafah ya ‘Uthmani, ni moja ya nchi zilizoathiriwa sana na utaifa. Maono ya Mustapha Kamal ya kuunda taifa lililojengwa juu ya utaifa yalitimia, lakini hayakuendelea kwa namna yoyote ya maana. Sera za kitaifa za Chama cha Watu cha Kijamhuri cha Kamal huko nyuma, wala zile za Chama cha Nchi Mama chenye msimamo wa kisekula au Chama cha Kidemokrasia cha Kijamaa cha Watu cha sasa, hazitawahi kurudisha Uturuki katika utukufu wake wa zamani. Badala yake, Uturuki inateleza taratibu kuelekea machafuko ya kiraia huku utaifa wa Kikurdi ukiota mizizi.

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.

Jaribio la Kamal la kufufua taifa kwa msingi wa utaifa wa Kituruki limeiacha Uturuki katika hali ya upweke na kukosa msaada.

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

Eneo ambalo wakati mmoja liliheshimiwa kama mji mkuu wa taifa kiongozi duniani, Dola ya Kiislamu, sasa limegeuka kuwa dola iliyougua, iliyoachwa bila mwelekeo; halikubaliwi na Wazungu wala na Mashariki ya Kati. Utaifa haujaleta chochote isipokuwa udhalilifu kwa Uturuki, lakini licha ya hayo, serikali ya Uturuki bado inaendelea kushikilia utaifa wa Kituruki.

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 na nchi nyingine za Ghuba zinaakisi kisa cha kawaida cha utaifa uliolelewa na Magharibi, hasa Uingereza. Makabila yenye nguvu katika maeneo hayo yalihamasishwa dhidi ya Khilafah ya ‘Uthmaniyyah kwa mikataba ya kifedha na ahadi za kuwa na nchi huru.

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.

Waingereza kwanza walimtumia Sharif Hussain na wanawe Faisal na 'Adbullah kuanzisha uasi dhidi ya Khilafah. Uasi huu ulichochewa kwa msaada wa wakala maarufu wa Uingereza T. E. Lawrence, aliyejaribu kuvuruga vikosi vya Dola ya Kiislamu na kuharibu mawasiliano yao upande wa kulia wa jeshi la Jenerali Allenby lililokuwa likisonga mbele kutoka Misri mwaka 1917. Hata hivyo, Sharif alipoanguka kwa upendeleo wa Waingereza baadaye, walimbadilisha na 'Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, ambaye naye alikuwa akifadhiliwa na Waingereza katika harakati zake za kutaka kudhibiti eneo hilo.

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.

Kufikia mwishoni mwa mwaka 1927, familia ya Al-Saud ilikuwa imefanikiwa kupata udhibiti wa sehemu kubwa ya Rasi ya Arabia, na katika mwaka huo huo, mkataba ulitiwa saini na Waingereza, ambao waliipa familia hiyo mamlaka kamili, kwa malipo ya Al-Saud kutambua utawala wa Waingereza juu ya Falme za Sheikhdom za Ghuba: Qatar, Bahrain, Falme za Kiarabu na Oman. Mwaka 1932, Rasi ya Arabia ilipewa jina la Ufalme wa Saudi Arabia.

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.

Tangu wakati huo, familia ya Saud imeendelea kudhibiti eneo hilo kwa ukali mkubwa, ikiimarisha mamlaka yake juu ya muundo wa kikabila. Serikali nzima inaendeshwa na wanachama wa familia ya Saud, ambao kwa sasa idadi yao inazidi elfu tano.

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.

Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Falme za Kiarabu (United Arab Emirates) na Oman: Uingereza ilikuwa tayari imewaweka mawakala wake kama watawala hata kabla ya kuanguka kwa Dola ya Kiislamu mwaka 1924. Familia ya al-Said ilitia saini mikataba na Uingereza mwaka 1891, al-Sabah wa Kuwait walitia saini mwaka 1899, familia ya al-Thani ilifuata mwaka 1915, na watawala mbalimbali wa maeneo ya Falme za Kiarabu nao walifuata mtindo huo huo.

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.

Kuwekwa kwa familia hizi kuwa watawala na Waingereza kulirudisha Rasi ya Arabia kwenye zama za kabla ya Uislamu, wakati makabila mbalimbali yalipokuwa yakitawala eneo hilo. Muundo huu wa kiserikali haujawafufua Waislamu wa eneo hili. Kwa kweli, kuligawa eneo hilo kwa misingi ya utaifa kumeondoa kabisa matumaini yoyote ya maendeleo, kwa sababu watawala wote wamejishughulisha mno na kulinda nafasi zao. Licha ya ukweli kwamba Rasi ya Arabia ina mapato ya mafuta yanayozidi hata yale ya nchi za Magharibi, hayo hayajazaa maendeleo yoyote. Isipokuwa mafuta, hakuna viwanda wala mipango yoyote ya kuanzisha viwanda. Fedha ambazo mafuta yameleta tangu miaka ya 1940 zimeelekezwa kwenye akaunti za benki za Uswisi na kwenye Kampuni za Uwekezaji za mataifa ya Magharibi. Utaifa haujayainua mataifa haya; badala yake, umeyaweka chini ya udhibiti wa makafiri zaidi kuliko wakati wowote uliopita.

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 Kuinuka kwa uzalendo wa Kiirani kunaweza kufuatiliwa hadi karne ya 19, wakati wa kuingia kwa harakati ya kimishenari katika Dola ya Kiislamu. Tangu wakati huo Iran pia ilipata sehemu yake ya uingiliaji wa kigeni, uvamizi na ushirikiano na mataifa ya kigeni. Hata hivyo, kipindi muhimu kinachopaswa kusisitizwa ni kipindi tangu kuzuka kwa kile kinachoitwa ‘Mapinduzi ya Kiislamu’ mwaka 1979, ambayo yalibadilisha kabisa muundo mzima wa jamii.

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.

"Mapinduzi ya Kiislamu" yaliondoa utawala wa kifalme wa Shah nchini Iran na kuweka mahali pake kile kinachodaiwa kuwa mfumo wa Kiislamu. Uchunguzi wa karibu wa Iran unaonyesha kuwa bado uko mbali sana na mfumo ambao Uislamu unaulazimisha. Ingawa jilbab na khimar ni jambo la kawaida, pamoja na ndevu na sauti ya adhana, sheria zinazotumika bado zinaakisi mambo yasiyo ya Kiislamu. Pia, katiba ya Iran inaweka sharti kwamba mkuu wa nchi anaweza kuwa raia wa Iran pekee. Hili wazi linapingana na Uislamu, kwa kuwa kabila, rangi au ngozi si masharti ya cheo cha mkuu wa nchi. Kwa hiyo mapinduzi ya Iran hayajang'oa ukabila; badala yake, yameuimarisha zaidi.

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 iliundwa mwaka 1947 kama nchi kwa ajili ya Waislamu wa bara Hindi.

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

Ingawa lengo lililotolewa kwa umma lilikuwa kwamba Pakistan ingekuwa Dola ya Kiislamu, kwa uhalisia Pakistan iligawanywa kama dola ya kilimwengu ya kizalendo. Tarehe 11 Agosti 1947, bunge la katiba la Pakistan lilikutana Karachi kwa mara ya kwanza, na Mohammed Ali Jinnah, aliyechaguliwa kuongoza kikao hicho, alisema, "Nadhani tunapaswa kuweka mbele yetu malengo yetu, nanyi mtaona kwamba kadiri muda unavyokwenda, Wahindu wataacha kuwa Wahindu na Waislamu wataacha kuwa Waislamu, si kwa maana ya kidini, kwani hiyo ni imani ya kila mtu binafsi, bali kwa maana ya kisiasa kama raia wa Dola..."14

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

Wakati Mwislamu anapoacha kuwa Mwislamu kwa maana ya kisiasa, maana yake ni kwamba Uislamu hautakuwa na sehemu yoyote katika kuendesha dola, lakini yeye anaendelea kushika ibada zake za kiibada; anakuwa mtu wa kidunia (sekula), kwa kuwa usekula ni kutenganisha dini na dola. Kwa hiyo maono ya Jinnah kwa Pakistan yalikuwa yale ya taifa la kidunia. Zaidi ya hayo, Waislamu walihimizwa kukusanyika nyuma ya kauli mbiu ya kizalendo, ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ (Pakistan iishi milele), ambayo bado inasikika hadi leo nchini Pakistan na nje ya nchi.

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.

Uundaji wa Pakistan ulikusudiwa kuwaunganisha na kuwafufua Waislamu. Hata hivyo, jaribio hili lilikuwa na kasoro tangu mwanzo kwa sababu tofauti zilijitokeza kati ya Pakistan ya Mashariki na Pakistan ya Magharibi. Licha ya ukweli kwamba zaidi ya nusu ya Waislamu katika Pakistan iliyoungana walizungumza Kibengali, watawala wa Pakistan ya Magharibi waliichagua Kiurdu kuwa lugha rasmi ya nchi, ilhali Kiurdu kilikuwa lugha inayozungumzwa Pakistan ya Magharibi. Mbali na hayo, watu wa Bengal walionekana kuwa jamii duni, hivyo dhamana ya uongozi wa nchi ilikuwa mikononi mwa Pakistan ya Magharibi pekee. Maendeleo mengi ya viwanda pia yalifanyika katika sehemu ya Magharibi, na watu wa Bengal wakajikuta wametengwa sana. Sababu hizi, pamoja na kampeni ya India ya kuvunja umoja wa Waislamu, zilisababisha mapambano ya madaraka kati ya Pakistan ya Mashariki na Pakistan ya Magharibi. Katika kilele chake, mapambano haya ya madaraka yakageuka kuwa mapambano ya mataifa mawili, yaani, 'Wapakistani' na 'Wabengali'.

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’.

Utaifa ulifikia kilele mwaka 1971 pale Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto alipokataa kuachia madaraka baada ya Mujibur Rahman, kutoka Pakistan Mashariki, kushinda Uchaguzi Mkuu kwa wingi mdogo wa kura. Mujibur Rahman baadaye aliunda taifa la Kibengali lililoitwa Bangladesh, na hivyo kukamilisha uharibifu wa Pakistan iliyoungana.

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.

Kugawanya Pakistan iliyokuwa imeungana kwa misingi ya utaifa hakukutatua matatizo yoyote kwa Waislamu. Mgawanyiko umewafanya Waislamu kuwa dhaifu kijeshi na kiuchumi, hasa Bangladesh ambayo hadi leo hii inaendelea kuteseka kutokana na umaskini mkubwa unaodhoofisha na rushwa iliyoenea.

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.

Kwa muhtasari, tunaweza kuhitimisha kwamba utaifa haujawahi kuwafaa Waislamu. Haukuleta umoja, maendeleo wala maelewano, bali uligawanya, ukaleta kutokuwa na utulivu na kuwafanya wategemee mataifa na mashirika ya nje kama Umoja wa Mataifa (UN) na Shirika la Fedha la Kimataifa (IMF).

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.