Hey guys.. SalamS..
Keeping in view the recent trends in Islamiyat, please share your opinions, relevant topics, articles, essays and other study material. This will not only help us, it will also lessen our efforts. I hope every member will participate.

See this;

http://www.cssforum.com.pk/css-compu...otes-urdu.html

__________________
Love is my Shield,Truth is my Sword,Brain is my Crown,Smile is my Treasure and I'm a Queen;
Quitters never win and Winners never quit..!!!

ISLAM AND NATIONALISM

Asghar Ali Engineer

(Secular Perspective, November, 2002)



What is relation between Islam and nationalism? Does Islam approve of nationalism or rejects it. Many Muslim theologians and intellectuals maintain that Islam does not approve of nationalism. Islam, they maintain, is an international religion and cannot be confined to any territorial limits. The noted poet from India Muhammad Iqbal said in one of his verses that what is nation (watan) is Islam’s shroud (kafan).

What Iqbal means to say is that nationhood is death of Islam. Muslims constitute an ummah and ummah cannot be confined to any territorial limit. However, Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani, the eminent Islamic theologian from India, maintained that nation is a geographical concept whereas ummah is a religious or spiritual concept. Muslims are ummah and are, in that sense, an international community. But, the Maulana says, one should not confuse between the concept of nation and the concept of ummah. The former is a political category whereas the latter is a religious category.

Thus it is interesting to note that Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani who was also the president of the Jami‘at al-‘Ulama-I-Hind', refused to support two nation theory propounded by Jinnah and his Muslim League. He, instead supported the composite nationhood (Muttahida Qaumiyyat) and had written a book called Islam aur Muttahida Qaumiyyat (i.e. Islam and Composite Nationalism).

It is quite interesting to note that Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani quoted, in his above book, the covenant which the Prophet (PBUH) drew up with people of Madina belonging to different religions and tribes (it is called the Mithaq-I-Madinah). The Maulana called it the predecessor of the modern concept of nation. The Prophet drew up the covenant between different religions (Jews, Muslims and pagans) and various tribes (Jewish, Muslim and Pagan) and described this composite community as ummah wahidah i.e. one community. Thus the Prophet (PBUH) transcended the boundaries of religion to constitute a geographical community.

Again, the concept of nation is certainly of modern origin. It originated in Europe in 17th century after the Protestant movement challenged the authority of Catholic Church. These nations came into existence on the basis of common language and culture and a sense of shared history. After break up of the Papal authority there was no common religious bond and this religious bond was replaced by common language and culture.

It has also been maintained by many Muslims that in Islam religion cannot be separated from politics thus maintaining unity of religion and politics. These theologians and intellectual thus deny legitimacy of secular nationalism completely. They think that secularism has no place in Islam and secular politics should be completely rejected. Like nationalism, secularism too, is a modern concept and one cannot find any precedence for secularism in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

But we find both nationalism and secularism in many Muslim countries. Turkey, for example, is both secular as well as a nation state. Even Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world today is a secular nation. Many such examples can be multiplied. It would be very difficult to find unanimity of opinion on such controversial issue. What is needed is ijtihad and creative and imaginative thinking which does not clash with fundamentals of Islam.

In fact right in the beginning of Islam there was no political theory. There was, as we have shown in our book The Islamic State, there was no concept of state in the Qur’an or in the hadith literature. The very concept of state did not exist among the Arabs. It is tribal chiefs who took all decisions in Mecca through a tribal council called mala’. There were no state institutions like the police or army even after the Prophet of Islam established a political unit in Madinah. It would be difficult to describe it as a full-fledged ‘Islamic State’. Everyone worked voluntarily inspired by moral and spiritual teachings of Islam and under the direct guidance of the Holy Prophet.

There were no defined functions nor there were state functionaries maintained by the state funds. All these functions were purely morally inspired and only reward expected was in akhirah i.e. the Hereafter. If one fought against the enemies it was also voluntary courting martyrdom for a moral cause and, if won, could get a share in the defeated enemy property as per the well- established tribal practice.

Similarly, for internal law and order or security there was no police or para- military force. Even the offenders tended to treat their offence as offence against Islamic morality rather than against the state and more often than not, they voluntarily presented themselves for punishment so that they are not punished in the Hereafter by Allah. Obviously such a moral dispensation cannot qualify as a state. It was moral rather than political community.

Since we cannot call it a state it cannot qualify for a term like the Islamic state. This term will not be found even during the Umayyad or Abbasid period. The Umayyad or Abbasid political establishments were known as Caliphate rather than Islamic State. The terms like the Islamic State or Islamic nation are modern day terms. The word khilafat also does not connote any concept of state but of succession to the Prophet.

The mode of succession also was full of controversy. There was no unanimity among Muslims as to who or how one would succeed to the Prophet, through nomination or election? It was this question which brought about formal split among the Muslims. Those who are known as Sunnis maintained that succession should be through bay‘ah (pledge of loyalty) of the believers and those called Shi‘ahs maintaining that the Prophet (PBUH) had nominated his successor.

Thus the concept of Islamic state cannot be traced to Qur’an or Sunnah as no such concept existed in those days. The Caliph was treated as the supreme leader of Muslims who led them in religious as well as worldly matters. Again, he was more of a religious and moral leader than a political one. His primary duty was to guide the believers in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah and by evolving ijma‘ (consensus) among them on controversial matters. The khilafat did have well defined concept of functions, rights and duties. The whole discourse was a moral and not a political discourse. The word siyasah also came into existence much later and was derived from the function of tending and controlling horse. A ruler was also thought of tending and controlling people. There was no such division as the state and civil society.

The concept of civil society is also a modern concept when people got civic rights and the whole political discourse became discourse of rights, not of duties. Those who propound the theory of Islamic state lay stress mainly on duties of believers, not of their rights. One cannot think of modern state without the concept of rights. In the theory of Islamic state the whole discourse – whether it pertains to the rulers or to the people – is a moral discourse and in terms of duties.

Modern democracy cannot function without the concept of, as pointed out, rights. In the Islamic discourse minorities are treated as dhimmis i.e. responsibility of the Muslims to protect them and to provide them the security of life and property. Thus Muslims have duty towards minority but there is no concept of minority rights as such. In modern nation state minorities have well defined rights and they can sue the state if these rights are denied to them.

Thus it will be very difficult to talk of Islamic State in the early period in the modern sense. All modern Muslim states are territorial states with well-defined territorial limits whereas we find no such concept in earlier political theories like those of Mawardi who is first major political thinker among the Muslims.

When the khilafat came into existence after the death of Holy Prophet there was no concept of territorial limits. Islam was essentially confined to the Arabian Peninsula. When the first caliph Abu Bakr took over as the first caliph Islam had not spread outside Arabia but then began the Muslim conquests and soon entire Roman (Byzantine) and Iranian (Sassanid) empires were humbled and large parts of their territories became part of Islamic Caliphate.

It was even theorised, after incorporation of these territories that there can only be one caliph, not even one. The caliph was also known as Amir al-mu’minin i.e. the leader of the believers and there could be only one leader of all believers, not two. Thus the whole concept was of (religious) belief, not of territory at all. During the Umayyad period this concept of one caliph for entire Islamic world persisted but this became irrelevant when the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads and Umayyads established a parallel caliphate in Spain. Again this had to be justified that there could be two Amirs of believers.

It was just the beginning. Subsequently more and more rulers came into existence and territory rather than religion, became fundamental category. Now each ruler had well defined territory over which he ruled. The moral also began to be overshadowed by the political. The political had of course established its predominance over the moral of early caliphate during the Umayyad period itself. There was hardly any Islamic teaching which was not violated by them. It was far from being an Islamic regime. It was perceived to be quite tyrannical and all prominent companions and companions of the companions of the Prophet were against the Umayyad regime. It was during such regime that a hadith began to be circulated that to be Islamic it was enough if prayer (salah) was established which the Umayyads did. All other cardinal principals of Islam like justice, equality, compassion, piety etc. were not necessary. Still the Umayyad rulers claimed to be caliphs. The Umayyads also spread the doctrine of jabr (divine determination) as against that of qadr (freedom) to establish that what was happening was inevitable and out of divine will and nothing could be done about it, it being the divine will.

The Abbasid dynasty proved no better. It should also be seen that both Umayyads as well as Abbasids were dynastic rule and had nothing to do with the earlier Caliphate model which was far from being dynastic. The Khilafat was close to elective principle than the dynastic principle. It was because of its elective principle that it was held sacred by Muslims, particularly Sunni Muslims. The Caliphs, unlike the Umayyad and Abbasid rulers, were far more committed to Islam, its values and its teachings. So at all these stages it hardly makes any sense to call these establishments (early Khilafat, Umayyad and Abbasid rules as Islamic State.

In fact, as pointed out before, the very term Islamic State is a modern one coined during the colonial period in nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The medieval period had no concept of state. This concept is fairly modern one. A modern state has a constitution, well -defined powers and a political structure. As against the state there is notion of a civil society which also has its well-defined role and notion of rights. As far as ‘Islamic state’ is concerned it is very difficult to define its structure.

For example the ‘Islamic State’ of Saudi Arabia has no constitution or democracy. The Saudi rulers maintain that the Qur’an is their constitution. There is no concept of civil society in Saudi Arabia as citizens have no rights, they only have duties. Maulana Maududi, on the other hand, talks of ‘theo-democracy’ rather than democracy. In this ‘theo-democracy’ too, there is no notion of civil society or human rights. The state cannot even legislate as the Shari‘ah is the only legislation and no one has power to alter it. And according to the Islamists, Shari‘ah is very comprehensive divine legislation and so there is no need for any legislation except on some subsidiary matters.

Iqbal, the noted poet, was supporter of ijtihad and thought that the parliament in an Islamic State would bring about necessary changes in Islamic Shari‘ah t6hrough ijtihad i.e. creative interpretation of the Islamic law. Thus as far as Iqbal is concerned, the Parliament shall have legislative powers but as for other Islamic thinkers it will have hardly any legislative powers.

No wonder than that in most of the Islamic countries there is either no democracy, parliament etc. or quite controlled kind of democracy. But all these states in Islamic countries do have well-defined territories and no Islamic country is prepared to cede an inch of its territory. That clearly means that these countries do have well- defined territorial limits. Nation is defined within well-defined territorial limits. Thus nationalism has been accepted by all Islamic countries in the Islamic world. They have also accepted the concept of citizenship as territory alone cannot make a nation.

Thus nationalism is an accepted phenomenon throughout Islamic world. And the nation states exist in all Muslim countries. It is also true that a Muslim from one Muslim country cannot freely go to another Muslim country without valid travel documents and these documents will permit him a limited stay in the host country. This is precisely what Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani points out in his book Muttahida Qaumiyyat Aur Islam that the concept of ummah cannot be political but religious and spiritual.

Muslims throughout the world do not constitute a political community. It was possible only in early period of caliphate – during what is called the period of Khilafat-I-Rashidah when Muslims could move from one part of the Caliphate to another part. There were no restrictions. But when many Muslim rulers emerged on the scene restrictions began to appear. And now in modern nation-states no Muslim can go and settle in any other Muslim territory unless permitted to do so according to the rules. Thus the concept of the modern nation state has been universally accepted by all Muslims including the Islamists. Ummah, no longer means and Islamic political community.

The religious minorities in these Muslim nation states are no longer treated as per the Shari‘ah concept of dhimmis but as citizens according to the constitutional provisions of the country. The nation state, be it Muslim or otherwise, is a political and not a religious entity. And citizenship rights are given not on the basis of religion but on the basis of birth in a particular territorial state.

Even Saudi Arabia, which claims that the Qur’an is its constitution, does not allow Muslims from other parts of world to settle in its nationally defined territory. Even for the purpose of Haj one has to obtain visa. Had the Saudi Government followed the Qur’anic model, it should allow all those Muslims, whoever wishes to settle down in its territory as all Muslims are an ‘ummah’. But the Saudi Arabia does not allow any non-Saudi Muslim to settle down in its territory. How can then it claim that Qur’an is its constitution?

Thus in modern times the concept of ummah can only be spiritual and religious and not political. Islam, as a religion, is followed by Muslims holding very different nationalities and enjoying different degrees of political rights in their nation states. The territorial spread of these Muslim states is such that even a confederation is not possible. Also, despite belonging to one religion Islam their mutual relations are not always cordial. In many cases they are hostile and antagonistic.

Let alone all Islamic states, even the Arab states cannot come closer and form a confederation. Iraq invaded Kuwait and Arab states were divided into two hostile camps and even invited the USA to invade Iraq and compel it to vacate Kuwait. Many Arab states support the USA in its campaign against Iraq. Had there been acceptable concept of one ummah in political sense such developments would not have occurred. The European nations have created European Union despite different languages and cultures and absence of shared sense of history. But though there is common language Arabic, one religion and one culture, Arabs have not been able to form any such Union of Arab States, let alone of all Muslim countries.

It should also be stressed that except some on the extreme fringe, Muslims generally no longer talk of one ummah in political sense. Nationalism and Islamic State has by and large., come to be accepted throughout the Islamic world. Also, despite having common Shari‘ah law there are greatly differing political and social needs for legislation and body of legislations in these Islamic countries differ widely form each other. Except a few Muslim countries like the Saudi Arabia Islamic criminal code has been almost abandoned in most of the Muslim countries. It was done so in the colonial period.

It is true that some Muslim countries are trying to bring back the Islamic criminal code but it is more to win political legitimacy by undemocratic rulers than a felt religious need of the Muslim masses. Many Muslim countries like the Sudan and Nigeria have significant proportions of non-Muslim (Christian) population and it creates great difficulties to apply Islamic criminal code to these non-Muslim citizens.

As Muslims have accepted notion of nationalism they should also strive to re-think various connected legal issues through the process of ijtihad and evolve new body of legislation fit for modern composite nation states. Today majority of Muslims in the world live as religious minorities in several non-Muslim countries. And, most of them enjoy all citizens’ rights (though there may be some or the other difficulties) the Muslim majority countries should also treat their non-Muslim minorities as equal citizens not only as a reciprocal measure but as a matter of principle.

It is true that the concept of dhimmi was quite progressive one when Islam established its hegemony in the world in 7th and 8th century but today, with modern concept of citizenship of a nation state, it is certainly inadequate. Thus the concept of dhimmi should be replaced with the concept of citizenship for non-Muslim citizens in all Muslim majority countries.

Also, Islam had evolved the principle of full freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, which was most modern in its content and this should be practised unambiguously by all Muslim political regimes. The Holy Prophet of Islam had given full freedom of faith to not only Jews, but also to pagan Arabs in Madinah through the Covenant of Madinah. This needs to be followed meticulously by the modern political regimes.

Lastly, as nation states have been fully accepted by all Muslim countries they should also accept democratic way of governance which too, is quite in keeping with the Qur’anic spirit and the spirit of Sunnah. Dictatorship, dynastic or military rule is, on the contrary, quite contrary to the spirit of Islam.

Institute of Islamic Studies and Centre for Study of Society and Secularism

Nationalism is a concept alien to Islam because it calls for unity based on family and tribalistic ties, whereas Islam binds people together on the `Aqeedah, that is belief in Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saaw). Islam calls for the ideological bond. Grouping the Muslims on tribalistic lines is clearly forbidden. It is narrated by Abu Da'wud that the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said,
"He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyyah or who dies for `Asabiyyah."
And in another Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saaw) referring to nationalism, racism, and patriotism said:
"Leave it, it is rotten." [Muslim and Bukhari] and in the Hadith recorded in Mishkat al-Masabith, the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said,
"He who calls for `Asabiyyah is as if he bit his father's genitals"
Also, the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said, narrated by At-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud,
"There are indeed people who boast of their dead ancestors; but in the sight of Allah they are more contemptible than the black beetle that rolls a piece of dung with its nose. Behold, Allah has removed from you the arrogance of the Time of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance) with its boast of ancestral glories. Man is but an Allah-fearing believer or an unfortunate sinner. All people are the children of Adam, and Adam was created out of dust."
Also, the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said,
"Undoubtedly Allah has removed from you the pride of arrogance of the age of Jahilliyah (ignorance) and the glorification of ancestors. Now people are of two kinds. Either believers who are aware or transgressors who do wrong. You are all the children of Adam and Adam was made of clay. People should give up their pride in nations because that is a coal from the coals of Hell-fire. If they do not give this up Allah (swt) will consider them lower than the lowly worm which pushes itself through Khara (dung)." [Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi]
There are many examples in the Seerah where the Messenger of Allah (saaw) had rebuked those who upheld nationalism. One one occasion a party of Jews conspired to bring about disunity in the ranks of the Muslims after seeing the Aus and Khazraj within Islam. A youth from amongst them was sent to incite remembrance of the battle of Bu'ath where the Aus had been victorious over the Khazraj, and he recited poetry to bring about division between them. As a result there was a call to arms.
When the news reached the Messenger of Allah (saaw), he (saaw) said,
"O Muslims, remember Allah, remember Allah. Will you act as pagans while I am present with you after Allah has guided you to Islam, and honored you thereby and made a clean break with paganism; delivered you thereby from disbelief; and made you friends thereby?"
When they heard this they wept, and embraced each other. This incident clearly highlights how the messenger of Allah (saaw) rebuked any forms of tribalism. Allah (swt) then revealed,
"O you who believe! Fear Allah as He should be feared and die not except in a state of Islam with complete submission to Allah. And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of Allah (i.e. Qur'an), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favors on you; for you were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace you became brothers; and you were on the brink of the pit of fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah make His signs clear to you that you may be guided." [Surah Al'Imran (3); ayah 102-103]
It is narrated by Qatada that Ibnu Abi Hathim said that in the verses quoted above Allah (swt) has ordered the Muslims to hold fast to the book of Allah, His Deen, and to his covenant, and He has forbidden the Muslims to divide amongst themselves and to dispute with each other.
In another incident, Jabir ibn `Abd Allah al Ansari, narrated what happened at the watering place of al Muraysi which led to the Munafiqun stirring up the traces of `Asabiyyah and seeking to destroy the unity of the Muslims. He said: "We were on a raid when one of the Muhajirun kicked one of the Ansar. The Ansar said, `O Ansar! Help me! (calling his tribe) and the Muhajir said, `O Muhajirun! Help me! (calling his tribe). The Messenger of Allah (saaw) heard them and said,
"Why are you stirring up something which belongs to Jahilliyah?"
The Messenger of Allah (saaw) did not deal with the situation only by speaking to his men, but he walked with the men all that day until nightfall, and through the night until morning and during the following day until the sun distressed them. Then he halted them, and as soon as they touched the ground, they fell asleep. He did this to distract their minds from what had transpired.
It is transmitted by at-Tabarani and al-Hakim that in one incident some people spoke very lowly about Salman al-Farsi. They spoke of the inferiority of the Persian in relation to the Arabs, and upon hearing this the Messenger of Allah (saaw) declared,
"Salman is from us, the ahl al-bayt (the Prophet's family)."
This statement of the Messenger of Allah (saaw) disassociates all links based on lineage and tribal considerations.
It was also transmitted, in two different versions, by Ibn al-Mubarak in his two books, Al-Birr and As-Salah, that some disagreement occurred between Abu Dharr and Bilal and Abu Dharr said to Bilal, "You son of a black woman." The Messenger of Allah (saaw) was extremely upset by Abu Dharr's comment, so he (saaw) rebuked him by saying,
"That is too much, Abu Dharr. He who has a white mother has no advantage which makes him better than the son of a black mother."
This rebuke had a profound effect on Abu Dharr, who then put his head on the ground swearing that he would not raise it until Bilal had put his foot over it.
These incidents demonstrate that tribal ties have no place in Islam. Muslims are commanded to stick together and not to disassociate themselves from each other just because they come from different tribes. The Messenger of Allah (saaw) also said,
"The believers, in their love, mutual kindness, and close ties, are like one body; when any part complains, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fever." [Muslim],
"The faithful are like one man: if his eyes suffers, his whole body suffers." [Muslim],
"An Arab is no better than a non-Arab. In return, a non-Arab is no better than an Arab. A red raced man was not better than a black one except in piety. Mankind are all Adam's children and Adam was created out of clay." [Al-Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Abu Musa]
Meaning that the Muslims, whether they are of Chinese, African, European or Asian origin, are one Ummah and they cannot be separated from each other. No tribalistic ties should ever break their unity.
Furthermore, Allah (swt), says,
The Faithful are but brothers..." [Surah Al-Hujurat (49): ayah 10]
And the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said,
"The Faithful are to one another like [parts of] a building - each part strengthening the others"
and
"Every Muslim is a brother to a Muslim, neither wronging him nor allowing him to be wronged. And if anyone helps his brother in need, Allah will help him in his own need; and if anyone removes a calamity from [another] Muslim, Allah will remove from him some of the calamities of the Day of Resurrection; and if anyone shields [another] Muslim from disgrace, Allah will shield him from the disgrace on the Day of Resurrection." [Al-Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of `Abd Allah ibn `Umar]
Some people claim that the Messenger of Allah (saaw) approved of nationalism because during the migration to Madinah, he (saaw) said about Makkah with tears in his (saaw) eyes,
"You are the most beloved land of Allah to me."
However, this saying has nothing to do with nationalism, and this can be seen from the full saying which people often do not quote,
"You are the most beloved land of Allah to me because you are the most beloved land of Allah to Allah."
The Messenger of Allah's (saaw) lover for Makkah was based on the noble status that Allah (swt) has given to Makkah, and not because he (saaw) was born there. All Muslims should have this love and affection for Makkah because it is the most beloved land in the sight of Allah (swt). After all, the Muslims pray towards Makkah and go there to perform Hajj there as it houses the Ka'ba. The above saying of the Messenger of Allah (saaw) therefore has nothing to do with nationalism. If Rasoolillah (saaw) and the Muhajireen amongst the Sahabah (raa) were tied to the homeland (of Makkah), they would have settled in Makkah after it became part of the Islamic State.
Not only does Islam forbid people from grouping on nationalistic ties, but it also prohibits the establishment of more than one state, whether these states are based on nationalism or otherwise. The only state that is allowed for the Muslims is the Islamic State, which is a state that is governed exclusively by Islam. Allah (swt) addressed the Messenger (saaw),
"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you" [Surah Al-Madinah (5): ayah 48]
and,
"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you." [Surah Al-Maidah (5): ayah 49]
The speech of Allah (swt) to the Messenger (saaw) is a speech to his (saaw) Ummah unless specific evidence comes to restrict this. In this case, there is no such restriction, and so it becomes obligatory for the Muslims to rule according to Islam. And ruling according to Islam leaves no room for nationalistic constitutions whatsoever because what is applied, and what forms the criteria for judgement, is the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Messenger (saaw).
Ruling according to Islam can only be achieved in one state, with one Khalifah. It is reported in Muslim that `Abdullah ibn `Amr ibn al-'As narrated that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saaw) say,
"He who gave the bay'ah to an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart has to obey him as long as he can. If another comes to dispute with him (his authority) strike the neck of that person."
Abu Said al-Khudri narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said,
"If a bay'ah is taken for two Khalifahs, kill the latter one."
And `Arfaja said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saaw) say,
"If someone comes to you when you are united over one man and wants to break your strength and divide your unity, kill him."
This unity of the Muslims was clearly highlighted in the document that the Messenger of Allah (saaw) wrote when he established the Islamic State in Madinah. In this document, which was to regulate the relationships of Muslims and non-Muslims in the Islamic State, the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said regarding the Muslims,
"Allah's covenant amongst them is one" and "The Believers are brothers to the exclusion of others" and "The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made with believers are fighting in the way of Allah."
These statements serve to indicate that Muslims are one body and they are not to be treated separately. Furthermore, the obligation of having one state, and not many nationalistic states, also comes from the Ijma' of the Sahabah. When the Messenger of Allah (saaw) died, the Sahabah (raa) convened to discuss the appointment of the Khalifah in the courtyard of Bani Sa'ida. One person had proposed that the Ansar should elect their own Amir and the Muhajireen their own, but Abu Bakr (ra) narrated the Hadith that forbids the Ummah from having more than one leader. Thus, the Sahabah (raa) never allowed more than one ruler and their consensus is a legitimate evidence for us.
Islam therefore leaves no room for the Saudi state, and Egyptian state, a Malaysian state, an Iraninan state, or a Pakistani state. Islam calls for one state with one ruler where all Muslims are bound by the `Aqeedah of Islam. And this is a matter deciddd by Islam to which we must submit to, for Allah (swt) says,
"O mankind, verily We have created you from a male and a female, and made you peoples and tribes, so that you may recognize each other. Verily, the most honored of you to Allah is (he who) safeguards himself against evil with full awareness of Divine Laws. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware." [Surah Al Hujurat (49): ayah 13]
This verse was revealed immediately after the triumphant entry of the Prophet (saaw) into Makkah. After the declaration of immunity to the Quraysh, the Prophet (saaw) requested Bilal (ra) to give the Adhan. A group of three new Muslims were observing the proceedings when Bilal (ra) was asked to make the Adhan. One of them remarked how happy he was that his parents were not present to see such a disgusting sight. Another one, Harith bin Hisham commented that the Prophet (saaw) couldn't find anybody other than a black crow to make the Adhan. The third one, Abu Sufyan, abstained from making any adverse comment, stating that if he said anything, Allah (swt) would send a revelation to Muhammad (saaw) addressing his statement.
Allah (swt) sent Jibreel (as) to inform the Prophet (saaw) of the discussion that had just taken place. The prophet (saaw) asked the three men about their conversation, who confirmed to the Prophet (saaw) what Jibreel (as) told him. The verse of the Qur'an was subsequently revealed.
Because these individuals from the Quraysh were differentiating between themselves and Bilal (ra), Allah (swt) revealed this verse, concluding that the only criteria that Allah (swt) uses to judge between Muslims is that of Taqwa, which Bilal (ra) had and of which they were devoid of. This verse destroys the basis of nationalism in Islam.
In the first part of the Ayah, Allah (swt) revealed to humanity that all human beings were created from a single pair - Adam and Eve. This statement clearly refutes any claim of certain people that humans came from animals through the process of evolution or any other such claim.
The part of the Ayah, "..and made you peoples and tribes, so that you may know each other..." is usually misinterpreted as `nations and tribes' to justify the differences created by the existing borders, specifically in the Muslim World. In addition, such misinterpretations are also used to encourage Muslims to foster pride in these affiliations.
Unfortunately, these Muslims quickly jump to conclusions without looking at what Allah (swt) says. The errant understanding of this Ayah attempts to legitimize the current situation of the Muslim Ummah as many nations - divided and powerless - resulting from the destruction of the Khilafah state on March 3rd, 1924 by the puppet of the Kuffar, Mustafa Kamal.
Furthermore, such a misunderstanding lends legitimacy to the continued division of the already divided Muslim lands that occurred throughout the twentieth century, with the division of the Indian Subcontinent into Indian, Pakistani and Kashmiri regions; the further division of Pakistan into two countries with the creation of Bangladesh; and the renting asunder of the last Islamic Khilafah by the British agent Sykes and the French agent Picot during World War I in which they used the pencil and ruler to divide the Muslim Ummah.
"It is not for a believer (male or female) that when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any choice in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in plain error." [Surah Al-Ahzab (33): ayah 36]
And those who still uphold nationalism, remember what Allah (swt) says,
"And let those who oppose the Messenger's commandment beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials,afflictions,...) befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them." [Surah An-Nur (24): ayah 63]

There is no concept of Nationalism In Islam in Quran And Hadith!!!