How to Unify the Muslim Ummah?

[Taimoor Gondal]

How to Unify the Muslim Ummah?
(Redefining the Ummah)

As the world goes deeper into new violence and volatility and Muslim societies struggle to find new ways out of a pervasive dis-empowerment, definitions of terms and interpretations of words became more than academic, semantic exercises. How these are understood and perceived directly shape attitudes, and in most cases, motivate actions. When particular words and terms are portrayed in a specific way and when this portrayal is popularized through textbooks in schools and colleges, through the mass media, through mosques and through public discourse and discussions, even incorrect, distorted and misleading representations became accepted as the actual meaning of certain phrases.

Some words are better conveyed when seen in context. For example, with reference to “conservatism” and “moderation”, it may be accurate to say: The conservatives in Islam have custody of their own drawing rooms. It is only when this situation is reversed that we will move closer to true Islam.

Definitions of terms like “fundamentalism”, “terrorism”, “jihad” are important. It is inevitable to remove misconceptions about these terms. Several significant clarifications have already been made by mass media and some scholars. These clarifications have helped correct distortions historically perpetuated through the false “Orientalism” of the west, and more recently, post 9/11 through the mass media.

In this brief comment, it is intended to reflect on only three terms: “Muslim Ummah”, “enlightened moderations” and “secularism”. Human being exists on two basic planes: the spiritual and the physical. Seen as people who share the irreducible articles of faith in Islam, the term “Muslim Ummah” correctly describes the spiritual affinity that all Muslims feel. However, when the same term is applied to the physical a secular state is conceptually flawed. It distorts the direction of the debate which shapes the political development of Muslim nations. At present there are at least seven different kinds of states in the Muslim Ummah:
a) Hereditary monarchies without elections (Saudi Arabia).
b) One-party dominated democracies (Egypt).
c) Multi-party democracies with military domination (Pakistan).
d) Authoritarian systems of partials democracies (Central Asian Republics).
e) Multi-party democracies with civilian supremacy (Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia).
f) Multi-party democracies with religious councils wielding veto powers (Iran).
g) Secular democracies (Turkey).

Such a wide diversity of political systems wholly or partially explains the inability of the OIC to go beyond lip service to act purposefully in applying collective force for the resolution of the crises facing the Ummah. Before attempting to restructure the OIC, Muslim states should initiate internal restructuring to make their political systems more participative, to bring their governance closer to the original democratic core of Islam.

Turkey is possibly the only dominantly Muslim country that has categorically adopted secularism as its basic political system. Yet in some respects, Turkey has gone to excessive and unreasonable lengths in the name of secularism such as by its own ban on hijabs. Even now, the military retains on ultimate veto power that it is not in keeping with pure secularism. There are some African countries, and some North African/Arab countries (Algeria) that may also come close to some aspects of Turkey. Of all 50 plus members of the Ummah, only two or three states show the capacity to combine their predominantly Muslim identity with truly Islamic values such as democracy, pluralism, respect for minorities, regularity of elections, peaceful transfer of power on a non-hereditary basis.

Two of these states are Turkey and Malaysia, with some reservations, for example, the suppression of Muslim Kurds in Turkey, the use of a draconian Internal Security Act in Malaysia. Both countries are either overtly secular of quasi-secular. Is their relatively fast development and their progressive modernity due to their being secular of quasi-secular? Or, in other words, because both are more truly Islamic in practice than “religious” or theocratic states?


To answer this question, there is a need for ijtehaad on this subject, through candid, tolerant debate in the Muslim Ummah to reflect on the synergy between Islam and secularism: to galvanize a new level of participation and dynamism in the effort to shape a new kind of state and political system for the Muslim Ummah.