Ko'pchilik uchun sunniylar va shialar o'rtasidagi parchalanish Ummat tushunchasining zamonaviy dunyoda amaliy emasligini isbotlash uchun yetarli dalildir. Islom tarixi, ozgina istisnolar bilan, musulmonlar o'rtasidagi birlik bilan ajralib turgan bo'lsa-da, bugun ko'plab milliy chegaralar yangi birlikka aylangan, Islomiy Ummat tushunchasi esa asrlar oldin mavjud bo'lgan modelga moslashtirilgan. Bunday parchalanish ham musulmonlarni, ham musulmon bo'lmaganlarni farqlar bilan kurashishning yagona yo'li sifatida dunyoviylikni ko'rishga olib keldi, Islomiy birlik va Xilofat chaqiriqlari esa ba'zilar tomonidan idealistik deb qabul qilinmoqda.

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.

Mohiyatan, bu bahs Islom farqlar bilan qanday muomala qilishi haqida va ko'plab guruhlar, mazhablar va millatlarning mavjudligi jahon miqyosidagi musulmon birligiga ega davlatning mumkin emasligini anglatadimi, degan savolga tegishli.

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?

Shuni tushunish uchun aniq anglash kerakki, islom dunyosi bunday ixtiloflarga duch kelgan birinchi xalq emas. AQShda 1861-yilda fuqarolar urushi bo‘lib o‘tgan. Bu Amerika Qo‘shma Shtatlari bilan janubdagi o‘n bir shtatdan tashkil topgan Konfederativ Shtatlar o‘rtasidagi shiddatli, hududiy ziddiyat edi. Bu shtatlar 1860-yilda Avraam Linkoln AQSh prezidenti etib saylangandan so‘ng Ittifoqdan chiqishga intilgan edi. Britaniya bugun Shotlandiyaning 2013-yilga borib ajralib, mustaqil davlatga aylanish ehtimoli bilan yuzma-yuz kelmoqda. Ushbu ikki ziddiyatning hech birida sekulyarizmning xalqni birlashtirish qobiliyati haqida hech qanday munozara bo‘lmagan. AQShdagi fuqarolar urushi uning tarixining bir qismi hisoblanadi va maktablarda o‘qitiladi.

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.

Islom turli xalqlar, urf-odatlar, madaniyatlar, tillar va turli fikr maktablari bilan notanish emas. Islom yerlari kengaygan sari turli mazhabdagi xalqlar ham islom davlatining fuqarolariga aylandi. Abbosiylar hukmronligi ostida islom davlati boshqa dinlarga mansub aholi yashaydigan, bosib olingan hududlarga yetdi, u yerda mahalliy aholining olimlari va mutafakkirlari bilan tortishuvlar yuzaga keldi. Aynan shu tortishuvlar oqibatida aqliy ilmlar, ya’ni islom aqidasini o‘rganish rivojlandi. Bu rivojlanish islom e’tiqodini aqliy dalillar bilan asoslash zaruratidan ham kelib chiqqan edi. Natijada ilmlar tarmoqlarga bo‘lindi va islom ilmlari shunga muvofiq turli yo‘nalishlarga ajralib ketdi.

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.

Bu fanlar ko‘plab masalalarni o‘rgandi va futuhotlar har safar yanada kengayganida boyib bordi. Natijada davlatdagi ko‘plab musulmonlar o‘zlarini fanlarga, ilmlarga, o‘qish va tadqiqotga bag‘ishlay boshladilar. Islom yurtlari ichida ko‘p qirrali islomiy madaniyat shakllandi va odamlar uni o‘rganishga o‘zlarini bag‘ishladilar, shuning uchun u xalifalikni yuksaltirish uchun xizmat qildi. Har bir olim, qaysi madaniyat sohasiga ixtisoslashganidan qat’i nazar, har bir yozuvchi, adabiy yondashuvi qanday bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar, har bir matematik, olim yoki hunarmand ushbu to‘qnashuv tufayli Islomni bahslashib, uni ifodalab berardi.

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.

Bu holat turli guruhlar, mazhablar va fikr ayirmachiliklarining paydo bo‘lishiga olib keldi, ulardan atigi bir nechtasi islom dinining doirasidan chiqib ketgan deb hisoblandi. Biroq yuzlab sonlarga yetgan bunday mazhablar xalq orasida parokandalik deb qaralmadi. Aksincha, Abbosiylar davrida Bag‘dod ilmiy va inqilobiy g‘oyalar markaziga aylandi. Turli kelib chiqishi va ilmga ega bo‘lgan mutafakkirlar qabul qilindi hamda ular bahs-munozara qilishi uchun maydon berildi. Natijada islom dinini jamiyat tomonidan sof va to‘g‘ri tushunishga erishildi, chunki islom unga qaratilgan turli sinovlarga bardosh berib turardi. Shu sababli turli guruhlar va mazhablarning mavjudligi islomni tushunishni kuchaytirdi, muammolar manbai bo‘lmadi. Buning sababi shundaki, ayirmachiliklar islomiy manbalarni tushunishdagi farqlardan iborat edi, ular esa shu davrda tartibga solinib, kodifikatsiya qilinayotgan edi. Turli guruhlar va mazhablarning mavjudligi aynan shu jarayonga yordam berdi.

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.

Musulmon dunyosidagi bugungi parokandalik ikki masalaga bog'liq. Birinchisi — musulmonlarning Islomni tushunishda yuz bergan zaaflari, ikkinchisi esa Chikago universitetining iqtisodiy tarix bo'yicha mutaxassisi, professor Devid Fromkin tomonidan aniq ifodalangan. U o'z kitobida Musulmon dunyosidagi vaziyatning ko'p qismi mustamlakachilik davridan kelib chiqqanini juda aniq ko'rsatadi. U shunday deydi:

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:

Usmonli imperiyasining boy boyliklarining katta qismini endi g‘oliblar o‘z qo‘liga oldi. Shuni esda tutish kerakki, islom imperiyasi asrlar davomida xristian Yevropasini bosib olishga urinib kelgan edi. Shuning uchun mag‘lub xalqlarning taqdirini hal qilayotgan kuchlar, albatta, bu davlatlar hech qachon o‘zlarini uyushtirib, G‘arb manfaatlariga yana tahdid sololmasligini qat’iy istashgan. Asrlar davomida merkantilizm tajribasiga ega bo‘lgan Britaniya va Fransiya kichik, barqaror bo‘lmagan davlatlar yaratdi, ularning hukmdorlari hokimiyatda qolish uchun ularning yordamiga muhtoj edi. Bu davlatlarning rivoji va savdosi nazorat ostida edi, ular G‘arb uchun boshqa hech qachon tahdid bo‘lmasligi kerak edi. Keyin bu tashqi kuchlar o‘z qo‘g‘irchoqlari bilan arab resurslarini arzon sotib olish bo‘yicha shartnomalar tuzdi, natijada feodal elita katta boylikka ega bo‘ldi, fuqarolarning aksariyati esa qashshoqlikda qoldi.34

‘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

Mustamlakachi Yevropa davlatlari musulmon dunyosida "kichik, barqaror bo'lmagan davlatlar" yaratish orqali bo'linish keltirib chiqarish siyosatini ataylab olib borgan, shunda musulmon dunyosi hech qachon birlasha olmasligi uchun. Birinchi jahon urushidan oldin Frantsiya va Angliya Yaqin Sharqni o'zaro bo'lib olishgan edi. Ular qog'oz xaritalarda chiziqlar chizib, Transiordaniya, Suriya, Saudiya Arabistoni, Kuvayt, Iroq va Eronni vujudga keltirdilar. Keyinchalik Pokiston, Hindiston va Afg'oniston tuzildi, natijada yuz yillar davomida birga yashab kelgan xalqlar ajratib yuborildi. Aynan shunday mustamlakachilik siyosati hozirgi ko'plab muammolarning kelib chiqishiga sabab bo'ldi. Har bir davlatga Buyuk Britaniya va Frantsiyaga bo'ysunuvchi hukmdorlar tayinlandi. Su'ud oilasi esa Hijoz hokimiyati evaziga Xilofatni yo'q qilishda ingliz mustamlakachilari bilan hamkorlik qildi.

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.

Shunday sun'iy chegaralar bugungi kunda ko'plab musulmonlar dunyoqarashining asosiy ko'zgusiga aylandi. Shu sababli musulmon dunyosidagi muammoning katta qismi mustamlakachilar tomonidan uyushtirilgan ish edi: avvaliga ular musulmonlarni jismonan ajratdilar, so'ngra milliy bayroqlar, milliy mustaqillik kunlari va milliy madhiyalar yaratish orqali musulmonlar birligi haqidagi har qanday g'oya paydo bo'lmasligini ta'minladilar.

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.

Oʻtmishda birlik Islom asosida qurilgan edi va bu Islomiy yerlarni barchani qabul qilgan, turli sohalarda yuksalgan farovon jamiyatlarga aylantirdi. Shu sababli, mustamlakachilar intilgan Islomning yoʻqligi bir paytlar bitta millat turgan joyda bugun 50 dan ortiq davlatning mavjud boʻlishining sababidir.

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.

Islom bo‘linishlarga sabab bo‘lmaydi, balki Islomning yo‘qligi muammolarga sabab bo‘ladi. Buning yaqqol misoli — G‘arb dunyosining sunniylar va shialar muammosini hal qilishda model sifatida sekulyarizmni joriy etishga urinishlaridir. Bunday yondashuv ushbu nizoda ishtirok etayotgan odamlarga begona bo‘lib, nizoni hal qilish o‘rniga uni shaxsiy sohaga surib qo‘yadi va jamoat sohasidagi siyosatga ta’sir qilmasligini ta’minlaydi. Payg‘ambar Muhammad ﷺ vorisi haqidagi asl janjalni haqiqatda faqat shu masalada Islomiy dalillarni baholash orqali hal etish mumkin; bu nuqtai nazardan faqat Islom yechim bo‘lishi mumkin. Payg‘ambar ﷺ oilasiga qarshi o‘tmishdagi ba’zi musulmonlarning harakatlari, Mu‘oviya harakatlari va umuman tarix Islom fiqhining manbalari emas, shuning uchun ular asosiy mezon bo‘la olmaydi. Bu holda mezon Qur’on va hadis bo‘ladi, va tabiiyki, bu yerda turli talqinlar paydo bo‘lishi mumkin, bu barcha fiqhda bo‘lgani kabidir. Biroq talqin cheksiz jarayon emas va talqin qilishning qoidalari mavjud.

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.

Har bir mafkurada e'tiqodiy asoslarga tayangan yechimlar bo'yicha fikrlar ixtilofi mavjud. Demokratik mamlakatlarda talqinlardagi farqlar tufayli ko'plab maktablar paydo bo'lgan.

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.

Bugungi kunda AQShda Demokratlar va Respublikachilar bor. Buyuk Britaniyada esa Leyboristlar, Liberal demokratlar va Konservatorlar bor. G'arb dunyosi bo'ylab neokonservatorlar, shuningdek libertarianlar, fabiyachilar, ekologlar va xristian demokratlar mavjud. Ular hammasi liberal g'oyalar qanday namoyon bo'lishi kerakligida farq qiladi, ammo ularning barchasi asos sifatida sekulyarizmga – kapitalistik e'tiqodga ega. Iqtisodiyotda ham shunday farqlar bor: davlat aralashuvini ma'qullovchi Keynscha maktab bilan Monetaristlar o'rtasida. Sotsializm ham o'z e'tiqodi asosida qurilgan bir qancha maktablarga ega. Sotsializm tarafdorlari "Mulk erkinligi" tushunchasidan kelib chiqadigan adolatsizlikni ko'rdilar va odamlar o'rtasidagi xususiy mulkdagi farqni yechilishi kerak bo'lgan muammo deb hisobladilar. Bir maktab (kommunistik maktab)

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)

...mutlaq tenglikni barcha narsada ilgari surdi va xususiy mulkni mutlaqo bekor qilishni talab qildi. Boshqa bir maktab (agrar sotsialistlar) faqat qishloq xo‘jaligi yerlaridagi xususiy mulkni bekor qilishni taklif qildi. Keyin uchinchi sotsialistik maktab paydo bo‘ldi (davlat sotsializmi deb ataladi), unda xususiy mulk jamoat manfaati talab qilgan har qanday holatda, ya’ni milliylashtirish yo‘li bilan, jamoat manfaati nomidan davlat mulkiga o‘tkazildi.

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.

G'arbdagi ko'plab olimlar va tadqiqotchilar sunniy-shia ajralishi haqida maqolalar e'lon qilib, bu ajralishni ummat tushunchasini zaiflashtirish uchun asos sifatida ishlatganlar. Biroq, bunday harakatlar o'nlab yillar davomida kuchayib borayotgan va hozir musulmon dunyosida qaynab chiqayotgan o'zgarish jarayoniga hissa qo'shgan.

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.

Biz hozir musulmon ummatining kapitalizm va individualizmni butun dunyoda yagona jamoa sifatida ochiqdan-ochiq rad etayotganini guvohi bo'lmoqdamiz. Hatto o'zi bosqinchilik ostida yashayotgan Falastindagi musulmonlar ham Afg'oniston va Iroq musulmonlari bilan birdamlik bildirib, yurishlar va mitinglar o'tkazdilar. Ummat "so'z erkinligi" tushunchasi Islomga hujum qilish uchun ishlatilganda nafrat his qiladi, buni Yevropada Payg'ambar ﷺ ga qarshi chop etilgan karikaturalar misolida ko'rish mumkin.

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.

Ummat global miqyosda hukmdorlarning uning vakillari emasligini aniq ko‘rdi. Aslida hukmdorlar bilan Ummat o‘rtasidagi tafovut kundan-kunga kengayib bormoqda. Ummat uzoq yillar davomida tanazzulga yuz tutganini hisobga olsak, u hech qachon bunchalik birlashgan bo‘lmagan. Birlikni himoya qiladigan jumboq bo‘lagining eng so‘nggi qismi hali bo‘lmasa-da, bu birlikni saqlab turadigan davlatdir.

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.

Ideallarga asoslangan hukumat, jamiyat ishongan ideallar asosida birlikni vujudga keltiradi va himoya qiladi. Sahobalar bo‘linishga olib keladigan chet g‘oyalarni Islomga kiritgan Xavorijlarga nisbatan juda qat’iy munosabatda bo‘lganlar. Bugungi kunda xalifalikning qaytishi yaqin ko‘rinmoqda deb hisoblanadi: turli analitik markazlar va mutaxassislar, shu jumladan AQSh Milliy razvedka boshqarmasi (CIA), xalifalikning paydo bo‘lishini bashorat qilmoqdalar. Davlatsiz birlikka erishish deyarli mumkin emas. Markaziy hukumat bo‘lmaganida, AQSh fuqarolar urushi natijasida Shimoliy Amerikada ikkita davlat paydo bo‘lgan bo‘lar edi. Hukumat bo‘lmaganida Angliya bilan Shotlandiya o‘rtasida ittifoq ham bo‘lmas edi. Odamlar o‘rtasida birlikni ta’minlaydigan aynan davlatdir. Davlatsiz birlik deyarli imkonsizdir. Islom tarixi ko‘rsatganidek, Islomda birlik va integratsiya uchun batafsil qoidalar mavjud hamda u turli kelib chiqishdagi odamlarni birlashtirishda muvaffaqiyatli tajribaga ega. Bugungi kundagi bo‘linishlarni G‘arb yuzaga keltirgan va u bugun ham uni oziqlantirib kelmoqda.

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.