A DIALOGUE ON SOME

 INTELLECTUAL ISSUES

CONCERNING THE ALIEN TRENDS

The need for a normative standard

I was talking with my friend about the need for us to return to Islamic faith, legislation, values, behaviour, culture and civilisation, so that we can be happy in our life on earth and so that we earn the hereafter. Upon that he spoke with frankness and said : "The truth my friend is that we experience hesitation and bewilderment in the face of  the numerous  and various calls and principles; some of which draw us to the right, others to the left, yet others to the east and others to the west. So, some advocate Islam, others advocate nationalism and yet others socialism.

Amongst those who advocate Islam, we find narrow-minded ones and we find more lenient ones. As to those who advocate nationalism there are those who are broad-minded and those who are narrow-minded. As to the ones who call for socialism, there are extremists and there are moderates.

Each one of these trends coats his ideas with the best attributes, and frees them of all flaws. Those who read or listen to all this are uncertain about all the books, theses and articles they read and all the lectures, presentations and discussions they hear. So tell me by God : what can man do in the face of these principles and ideas, and these right-wing and left-wing trends? "

I said : "What do people do when they disagree about the length of a piece of cloth, or about the weight  of a piece of cake, or the volume of  some quantity of wheat?" Then my friend replied : "They refer to a standard they have agreed upon, such as the meter for the measurement of distances and lengths, the kilogram or the pound in the evaluation of weights, the litre and the keddah in the weighing of grains etc. As a result the disagreement is dissipated and the quarrel is resolved.

Then, I said : "This is what we need to do also in what concerns moral matters; that is, we need a reference to agree upon and which we can refer to for our ideas, opinions and values. Only then can we claim to be together and for our view to be united. Then, my friend said : "The problem lies in who is going to design this magical standard which weighs sayings and ideologies, which measures beliefs, which helps distinguish maturity from temptation, and differentiates being on the straight path from being astray.  Who can pretend to be able to set this standard?  And who will accept him when he pretends that? "

I said : "As for us Muslims, we, in fact, have such a standard in hand. It has not been set up by humans.  Human beings are incapable of setting such a standard.  It is a standard that has been set by Allah, it has been sent from the Creator to the subject : "(This is) a Scripture the revelations whereof are perfected and then expounded.  (It cometh) from One Wise, Informed"(1) "I have left you with that which if you cling to it you will never err: The Book of Allah and my Tradition". The basic responsibility of the Prophets is to set these standards for the humans, so that they can refer to them when they disagree, and to return to when they deviate. In the Glorious Qur'an, it is said : "Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed" (2). "We verily sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance, that mankind may observe right measure"(3) Most surprisingly we do not refer to this heavenly norm, to the Islam which Allah Almighty has bestowed upon us, and has approved of as the appropriate religion for us. We discarded it, and we set out to  seek formal advice and reference elsewhere, "Whoever wants guidance elsewhere (than the Qur’an), will be misled by Allah".

My friend said in surprise : "Do we have to refer to Islam and the Qur'an for all our ideas and opinions?" I said : "Yes, that is as soon as you become a Muslim and believe in Allah and his Prophet. This is the meaning of : "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His Prophet". Therefore, as soon as you accept Allah as your God, and Mohammed  as His Prophet, the Qur'an as your leader, then it is your duty to refer to Allah, His Prophet and Book in matters that are difficult for you to resolve, or in matters that people disagree with you about. No faith is accepted without this condition. "And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair"(4), "But nay, by thy Lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make thee judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which thou decidest, and submit with full submission" (5) .

Then, my friend said : "Does this mean that we have to refer to Allah’s commands in all our matters, be they social, political or economic. It makes sense to refer to Allah’s commands in religious matters, in faith, worship and morality. As to the changing and evolving life matters, why should we not use our human logic, or extract it from the experience of others". I said : "The division of what Allah commanded into what is religious and what is not religious, is an erroneous division, and is not founded on any sound basis. Do you want us to obey Allah, when He says, "establish worship"(6), since prayers are matters of religious concern; and when He Says : "and pay the poor-due"(7), we then say "Pardon us God, but this is a money and worldly matter, so let us deal with it alone, without your guidance and your revelation, oh! God."

And when Allah says : "Lo, your God is one and the same, so be honest to Him and repent to Him", then we say "we have heard you and are obeying you". Then when He Says : "Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed"(8), we respond : "We have heard you and we are disobeying.  Oh! God, the forbidding of the consumption of wine is dangerous for the tourist activity, and is a restriction on the freedom of the individual, so let us be free in drinking it."

When  Allah says : "And guard yourselves against a day in which ye will be brought back to Allah"(9),  we would say, what a piece of advice!. When He states two verses earlier than the previous one : "Observe your duty to Allah, and give up what remaineth (due to you) from usury, if ye are (in truth) believers. And if ye do not, then be warned of war (against you) from Allah and His messenger"(10). Then we would say : "As to this one, no! Our era cannot do without usury, and the wheel of economics cannot turn without the usurious interests. And when God Says : "O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you"(11), we say, "we have heard you and are obeying you"; and when He States in the same Surah and in the same context : "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered"(12), we say there is neither hearing nor obeying in this case, since the decision of punishment should remain of our prerogative and not yours, so let us decide in these situations according to our judgements and not yours, since we are more cognisant of our interests than you are.

No my friend! Everything that Allah has Decreed as religion must be followed, respected and executed.  Ignoring part of it harms all of it. It is similar to the fine doctor's prescription to the patient, which is a complementary set of medicines. The omission of one of the medicines makes the harm of the rest of the medicines greater than their beneficial effect. So Allah has Warned against disregarding some of the commands and wisdom that we find in His Holy Book. As a result of the luring of the people of the Scripture, atheists and idolaters, Allah Almighty said : "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee"(13).  So He Warned against seduction away from some of the commands that came from Allah. Allah Has Cursed the hypocrites who have backed down after they had become aware of the right path and Satan persuaded them and dictated to them, so He Said in the explanation of what happened to them : "That is because they say unto those who hate what Allah hath revealed : We will obey you in some matters; and Allah knoweth their secret talk" (14).

My friend exclaimed: "What you are saying is correct, but not all people are Muslims, so that they can refer to the standards of Islam to resolve their disagreements".

I said, "As to the non-Muslims, there is a specific argument concerning them.  I am now speaking about the people who have adopted Islam as their religion, and are still declaring that they are Muslims, but consider themselves above the commands of Islam. I am speaking to those who read and hear Allah's Message as it is stated : "And in whatsoever ye differ, the verdict therein belongeth to Allah" (15). "And if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day"(16).

I am speaking to those who have read in the Glorious Qur'an : "Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed : such are disbelievers"(17). "Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are wrong-doers" (18)"Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers"(19)

I would like you to realise that these verses do not address themselves only  to the governors and judges, but also to all those who have used in their thinking and their behaviour a faith other than Islam, a book other than the Qur'an, and a guide other than Mohammed (PBUH) as a standard. Such people will have to choose from one or all of the attributes mentioned in the three verses of the Qur'an to describe themselves :  disbeliever, wrong-doer and evil-liver :

Had it been only one arrow I would have avoided it,

But it is one arrow, and a second and a third.

Are these rites..., or new faiths and religions?!

My friend said : "We have accepted Islam as a standard for our thoughts and values, and the Qur'an as a reference in all our affairs, so what does Islam say about these new theories and ideologies, whose advocates have become quite active recently? Such theories wear the stamp of innovation, liberation, rebirth, progress, revolution and rebellion. Can Islam be open enough to tolerate these ideologies and sign with them a treaty of peaceful coexistence? Or will Islam refute and deny them, and refuse to coexist with them? Is it acceptable for the Muslim individual or group to adopt one of these ideologies, or use it as his guiding light and become an advocate for it?  How can all these questions relate especially to an ideology such as the one known as 'Revolutionary Socialism'?

I said : "You have just asked about a very serious matter, towards which every Muslim has to define his personal stand, and every Muslim scholar has to clarify the judgement of Allah and His Prophet about it, without any ambiguity or flattery."  I will not discuss now the content of these ideologies and calls, the ideas and theories, and the correct or wrong rules that it contains. The objective discussion of all ideas  and ideologies has been undertaken elsewhere. Suffice it here to discuss the general form and essence of all these ideologies.

These theories and ideologies are essentially new religions, which discard the content of religion, but keep its shape. They ironise the unseen that has been mentioned by Islam, and the mentality of the Muslims and their overwhelmingly warm faith which make up the essence of Islam, and at the same time has all the characteristics of a religion.

What are the characteristics of Islam? They reside in Islam being a revolution over  pre-Islamic ideals and values, whose aim is to rid humanity from them. They also reside in faith in a set of ideas whose validity cannot be subject to discussion and a set of values whose fairness cannot be subject to doubt. It is loyalty to an idea which does not accept a partnership, and an allegiance which does not accept competition, a pride which does not allow flattery, a sacrifice which does not accept restraint and firmness which does not accept backing down.

These are the main characteristics of the traditional religions, and what they require from their worshippers. This is also what the secular revolutionary ideologies require from their supporters.

They all consider that religion is ignorance that  we must free ourselves from and that its ideas, ideals and values are nothing but reactionary and old matters that we must rebel against, and that we must weigh against the new ideas.  Anything that agrees with the new ideas will be integrated as part of their ideology, and will be used to militate for its objectives, and anything that does not will be crossed with a red pen.

These ideologies do not accept to take one aspect  of life or society and reform and improve it. They consider themselves comprehensive, absolute and universal, exactly like religion. So they call for a radical and revolutionary change, which destroys what is old, and changes the concepts and sets new values for people, as well as a new code of behaviour, new concepts and new systems.

One of the scholars and frank supporter of these ideologies says, after a detailed explanation : "Thus, when the revolutionary ideologies want to undertake a complete revolutionary  movement, they find it necessary to turn the whole society into a crowd, i.e. individuals who no longer have roots or traditions. They also find it necessary to contradict the current social organisation, and encourage any destructive movement or attitude which contributes to the tearing apart of its values. These ideologies also have to support every change that may lead to uprooting all old  traditions, systems and values.  When they take up power and start to run the state, they use all political means, and all available technological and scientific means to achieve the complete destruction of all social structures, systems and relations. All this is done under the assumption that if the individual loses all his links with the old values and systems he becomes revolutionary" (The Revolutionary Ideology by Dr. Nadiim Baitar).

Some people have named these ideologies, 'secular religions', 'atheistic religions', or 'religious secularism'.  It is in this context that Julian Huxley wrote his Religion without revelation.  

The advocates of these theories and ideas were frank when they referred to them as faiths, thus they refer to the socialist faith, the communist faith, the nazi faith, the Ba'th faith, the nationalist faith. Faith is a lighter way of expressing the concept of religion. Had we wanted to achieve greater frankness we would have referred to 'the socialist religion', 'the Ba`th religion', 'the nationalist religion', etc.

There are authors who try to explain these convictions in such a way as to make them palatable to the religiously practising peoples. For instance, socialism has a mere economics ideology which it relates to a humanistic philosophy which requires the intervention of the state in order to organise  the social and economic relations according to a particular system. The socialist writers who are objective did not accept this accommodation or shall we say falsification. They described it as a complete conviction, which organises all instinctive and practical human and life matters.

Dr. Munif Razzaz, who was elected as Secretary General of the Arab Socialist Ba`th Party for several years, states in his book Studies in Socialism, which was published in 1960 : "It is wrong to construe Socialism as a mere economic system. Socialism provides economic solutions for various matters.  These solutions are only one aspect of many of Socialism.  So, to understand socialism from this point of view only is an erroneous understanding which does not reach the depth of the ideology, nor does it acquaint itself with the bases upon which socialism is founded, nor does it aspire to the distant hopes that Socialism aims at.

Socialism is a life ideology, not an economic ideology. It is an ideology which deals with economics, politics, upbringing, education, society, health, morality, literature, science, and history. It covers all aspects of life, big and small. To be a socialist means that you have a socialist understanding of all these matters, and that you are a socialist militant in all these aspects."

The author insists that this comprehensive view is not limited to socialism; it is the basis of the other social ideologies. The author motivates the comprehensive view of the social ideologies and the width of its extent, in the sense that it applies to all domains and has solutions to all problems, as follows:  "... The reason behind this comprehensive view is that life itself is one whole matter and is a single current, which does not recognise the divisions that our minds create in order to make the understanding of the realities of life easier.  While doing this, our minds forget afterwards that these divisions are of their doing and think that life was divided in such a way since infinity. Life does not know such a thing as economics which is isolated from such a thing as sociology, and such other thing as politics. Life is completely linked, but our incapable mind, which is infatuated with analysis and study, will not be able to undertake such analysis and study if it had to face life as one undivided entity.    It has to divide life into aspects and states, and into kinds of relations, and calls part of it economics, another part politics, and other parts sociology, morality, religion, history and literature, science, and so forth to the end of this chain, if it does have an end... Life, is like a river, is one continuous and related entity.  The same can be said about the life of any society, be it small or big, be it a nation or a family, be it a government or a political party. The attitude of a society towards political freedoms influences its attitude towards economics and economic systems. It will also influence its attitude towards political freedoms, and colonialism, and behaviour, education, literature, history and so forth to the end of this chain which never ends".

The author concludes by stressing this comprehensive characteristic of socialism and writes : "In this sense, the word 'socialism' becomes one that is not limited to reforming a particular economic situation only, but it conveys the notion of a complete outlook on life with all its aspects. In such case, socialism is not a particular economic situation, and does not only aim at a particular economic situation, but it is a socialist understanding of all aspects of life.  Thus, when I say that I am socialist, I have stated my attitude not only towards the economic situation within which I am living, but also towards all aspects of life which affect me and which I affect."

It is this same line of thought that was followed in the book entitled The Socialist Call in Egypt during Nasser's period. They proclaimed it as a complete faith which organises all aspects of man's life, and guides his thoughts, behaviour, philosophy of existence and history.

We may take here the example of Kamal Ad Diin Rif`at, the 'Secretary of Promotion and Thought' in the Arab Socialist Union, whose words were considered at that time, as the official view coming from the official leadership.  He states in an article published by the Akhbar Newspaper of 18/3/1962: "Socialism is not a fixed system, in other words, it is not a mere economic system, or a social system, or a political system. All these complete each other and make up the socialist thought or socialist system."

Dr. Jamal Sa`id, confirms this meaning in his book Arab Socialism and its Place in the Socialist Systems that "It, i.e. Arab socialism, is not characterised as an economic movement only, but as a human ideology and system, which aims at erecting a new society.  It does not merely aim at the removal of the ownership of the means of production from the individuals to the state or the society as a whole. It is not merely control over the national economy and its orientation towards the interest of the overall population. It is not a mere social or economic reform, but it surpasses all of this to the extent of the theoretical and practical solutions to the problems of the individual and those of the society.  It is the construction of a society in which all guarantees are insured, it is the society of self-sufficiency and justice, the society of work and equal opportunity, the society of productivity and services".

Some of the Arab authors explained what  was meant by "Socialism as an ideology of life", and "a style of life" or "a philosophy which links all aspects of life"; so they said : "The meaning of this is that socialism deals with the life of the human in its totality, because it is a total philosophy as far as the issue of the universe and that of existence are concerned".

Another statement that was made in such context is as follows : " Arab socialism is a whole revolutionary theory, it does not only define the relationship of man with society, but it deals with his life as a whole. It constitutes a complete philosophy towards the issue of the universe and that of existence, assumes that man does not live on bread alone, is not satisfied by simply resolving the issue of his life with people, but aspires to the resolution of the issue of his existence and that of his fate.  The socialist theory does not only constitute a solution to the problem of bread or that of freedom, but that of existence in general"(20).

Then my friend said : "Don't we often hear these people declaring that they respect religion or that they, at least, do not oppose it. So, how do we explain this when we see that they adopt another view or  faith that pretends to include life in its totality, in the same way as religion does?"

I said : "The believers in these faiths and ideologies may say that they do not snub religion or deny it, but then, what is the religion that they do not snub?  It is not a revelation from Allah that He has sent to command His subjects and to which they respond : "We have heard and we are obeying?"  They never say that.  It is referred to as 'the spiritual heritage', 'traditions', or 'the noble ideals' of the nation, or such shallow and flexible expressions which do not add anything to truth. The religion which is acknowledged by such people is one which obeys their theories, and toes their line, and whose advocates obey them, and which defends their faiths and ideas. That is how the hypocrisy of such people is uncovered, and how their strong enmity to religion appears clearly when religion opposes one of their principles or one of their beliefs. That is when they attack religion and declare war upon it and upon its advocates, by campaigns of  false statements and disgraceful publicity sometimes, and by campaigns of assassinations, torture and separation. They  want a religion that is tame, and one which plays the role of the obedient servant, not the obeyed commander.  As to the true religion, they are as far from it as the sky is from earth.

The view of these people of existence is not similar to that of religion, their view of  life is not that of religion, their view of man is not that of religion, and their high ideals are not those of religion. Their real god is matter, their heaven is luxury and their code of behaviour is selfishness.

As to what religion emphasises in terms of worshipping and fearing Allah, and relying upon Him and submissiveness to Him, and aspiring to His paradise, and fearing His punishment, are considered by these 'liberals' and 'revolutionaries' as 'reactionary' behaviour which should not be allowed to remain.

These ideologies do not approve of the existence in their societies of those people who were described  in the Qur'an as obedient : "Those who say: Our Lord! Lo! We believe. So forgive us our sins and guard us from the punishment of Fire; the steadfast, and the truthful, and the obedient, those who spend (and hoard not), those who pray for pardon in the watches of the night"(21) "And who spend the night before their Lord, prostrate and standing, and who say : Our Lord! Avert from us the doom of Hell; lo! The doom of hell; lo! The doom thereof is anguish, lo!  It is wretched as abode and station"(22). Therefore do not be betrayed by what you hear and what you read about the faith of these people in religion and about their lack of enmity towards it. They only say that to flatter the religious crowds and win their hearts while awaiting for the opportunity that will allow them to break the neck of religion, following the adage  which advises one to pretend that you are of your enemy's faith until you take hold of him.

This is the typical attitude of  any revolutionary ideology towards any religion. It may be useful in this context to bring up the example of what happened in Germany and Italy between nazism and fascism and the catholic religion. This example will allow one to know what happens and what might happen in our country between Islam and the new revolutionary ideologies.  In this case I am only quoting, and not deducing.

Nazism and fascism wanted to use religion in the service of revolutionary ideologies, and make it obedient of their commands. In each one of  them, the ideology made a new claim, which overshadows everything and makes everything take a secondary role in comparison to it.  All this is stated clearly in the writing of both ideologies, but especially in the writings of the Nazis.

An agreement was signed between the church and the Nassau government in 1933, after it had been impossible to link between the two, because the country, and any country for that matter, could not have two absolute faiths.  So it was not easy for that agreement to draw the curtain on the fascist war between the two sides, in spite of the several attempts which both sides made to keep it discrete.

On the basis of the nazi propaganda, the young German generation used to grow believing in the absolute priority of the nation, and in the state being more important and greater than any religion, and that allegiance to the nation and the state takes priority over anything and any other religious allegiance (contemplate!).

Hitler used to be very careful of opposing or fighting against religion in an open fashion (contemplate carefully), but he gave the theoreticians of the party the freedom to express their opposition and their fight against religion.  Rosenburg, the nazi philosopher, drew a clear picture of the attitude towards religion of the new regime in his sayings : "When the national socialist puts on his shirt, and becomes one of the soldiers in Hitler's army, he discards his religion by his faith in his master".  Knut also wrote: "Catholicism is one of the old remains of a decadent culture which time has excused".

The enmity of fascism and nazism towards religion was unclear at the beginning, because at the time they were fighting Communism, the open atheist.  This is what misled many, and made many of the heads of the Catholic and Protestant church leaders stand in their side : because they saw in them a new meaning of religion. But the matter was the exact opposite of that. At the beginning they both followed a policy which was very far from the atheism of the Communist movement. Soon it became obvious to the observers that they only tolerated the existence of religion and the keeping of the churches as an instrument to serve the objectives of their new beliefs. Thus, we see that the fight arises between them and religion, when the latter tries to hold onto something which contradicts their faith.

Strategic political considerations may impose on the revolutionary movements - as it did on the fascists and the nazi - and to some extent on the communists - to make some settlements with the current religions. This strategy cannot, however, be compatible for a long period of time with their basic rule of opposition to religion. For these revolutions to take place, it is necessary for them to be opposed to religion, which itself claims comprehensiveness. There is no possible agreement between the two; and each agreement can only be temporary while waiting for the final battle, which must end in the absolute victory of one of them. The revolutionary ideology, is itself a new religion which competes with the other religions in the control of the souls of people.  Thus, its life itself is linked with its final victory which it may be able to achieve over the religions(23).

Is it possible after all this for a religion which respects itself, to accept to coexist with these ideologies, or yet these new religions? How can this coexistence be if they do not accept to coexist with religion, and approve of its existence only as a servant, follower or instrument?

The original question is no longer valid if we discuss it in the following fashion : Is it possible for the Muslim individual or society to adopt a new religion such as socialism, or secular socialism.  The answer is clear and known.  Allah Almighty said : "Allah hath not assigned unto any man two hearts within his body"(24). "And  seeketh as religion  other than the surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter"(25).

The nationalist call in the view of Islam

My colleague asked me, "now that the attitude of the new ideologies and philosophies, which became religions without revelations, is clear to us, I would like to ask what is your opinion about nationalism?

I responded, what nationalism do you mean? Do you mean the Turkish Turanian nationalism, or the Syrian Phoenician nationalism, or the Egyptian Pharaonic nationalism, or the Iraqi Achouri nationalism, or the Moroccan Berber nationalism, or the Kurdish nationalism... ?

My friend interrupted me, "God Save me from those narrow national feelings which break the unity of the Arab nation, and split its entity, and create hurdles within it.  There is  only one nationalism for me, it is Arab nationalism."

I said : "You mean that there are kinds of nationalism, those which are allowed and those which are banned by religion. If it is the Syrian nation as that  advocated by Anton Saada in Syria and Lebanon, Pharaonic as the one advocated by his likes in Egypt, Kurdish as the one advocated by some in Iraq, Berber like the one fabricated by the French colonialist in Morocco, all these are unacceptable.  If nationalism is an Arab one as the one advocated by certain Khawaajat. or others this is a nationalism that is both allowed, clear, unambiguous and we have no objection to it.

We must first agree about the principle of nationalism and its legitimacy: Is it right or wrong, is it reasonable or unreasonable, can we accept it or reject it in whole or only in part?"

Then my friend said : "This is correct"

I said : "But before that, we must agree about the meaning of the word nationalism and its connotation. Pronouncing judgement on something before defining its meaning and its connotations with utmost precision, is hastiness and craziness that is not expected from reasonable people.  In the past, men of logic used to say: judging something is part of its conception."

My friend said : "You are right again!"

I said : "The word qawmiyya (nationalism) is derived from qawm (folk), and the folk of a man are his kin, i.e. the people with whom he has blood and kinship relations, as is clear from the use of the Qur'an of the word in the context of the dispatching of the Prophets to their folk". Now kinship and genealogies have spread and separated in the land, to the point that there is no longer a nation that is pure in its element, and pure in its genealogy. This is exactly what perplexed the advocates of nationalism in their attempt to give it a precise definition, and in the definition of the basic components that make up the nation.  Is it the land, genealogy, religion, language, history or interest?  Or yet, is it just the will of a people to decide to live together? The advocates of nationalism in the Arab World have ignored religion in its function  of the basis of national union. They are divided between those who rely upon the land relation as is the case of the advocates of Syrian nationalism, and those who rely upon the ethnic relation as is the case of the advocates of the Kurdish or Berber nationalism, and those who rely upon the linguistic link as is the case of the advocates of Arab nationalism.

No matter what the basis upon which nationalism is built, what does promoting it mean?  If it means that man loves his folk, and that he works for their well-being, progress  and rebirth, and that he does his best for their glory and honour, then it is a legitimate matter and is blessed and backed and defended by religion.  If it means that the people unite, and that they stand hand in hand for the defence of  their interests and they help each other in good deeds and faith, then blessed be such call for nationalism.

If it means unity against enemy strikes, and the attacks of the conquerors, then welcome and welcome.  If it means freeing the country from occupation by its enemies, and the improvement of its welfare, then welcome and more. If it means ....

My friend said : "Can nationalism mean more than that?"

I said : "Yes, if the advocates of nationalism in our countries stopped at this point, the disagreement between us and the advocates of nationalism would be only verbal, and we would be with them on the basis of our religion.  Religion considers these matters sacred obligations, which secure the freedom of the country and its development, the  unity of the nation, firmness in the face of the enemies, etc... It also gives the family of the Muslim and his neighbours  a right greater than that of the others over people, thanks to their kinship and proximity. But the truth is that, between us, the advocates of Islam, and the advocates of nationalism, as it is presented by its defenders today, a deep and wide gap, and the difference between us is real and radical. As a result of all this there is no possible intellectual  agreement point between the two sides."

My friend, said : "What are the issues that you and the advocates of nationalism disagree about, I am referring here especially to the advocates of Arab nationalism?"

I said : "We disagree with the advocates of nationalism in many issues, which are crucial for them, but which Islam rejects. As it seems, their insistence upon such  issues is an inevitable matter, because it is for them an ideological and theoretical necessity."

First : They consider nationalism a faith in which one must believe, and towards which one must declare allegiance, for which one must preach, and towards which one must be fanatic. They must also shun those who neither accept nor adopt it. It is a faith which requires allegiance, over and above any other allegiance, even if it is allegiance to Allah, His Prophet and His Book.  Its love must be planted in the depths of our heart, and that should begin from the early age of a child, and that all feelings and emotions should be poured into it.

The system of government should be based within this national faith, and so must be the policy of the state, the methods of education and instruction, the means of culture and information. Their direction must be purely national, their one and only feature must be purely national, and they must rid themselves of all other features.

What we said earlier about nazi and fascist socialism and their like is what we are saying here.  That is, they are new faiths and religions, which work towards controlling the hearts and minds of people and ridding them of old religion. What we are saying here is stated absolutely clearly in the writings  of the advocates of nationalism today.

For instance, this is what  a nationalist writer says :

"Arabic nationalist sentiment started to awaken in the hearts of Arab individuals at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century. The beginning of this movement was marked  by the end of the foreign Turkish authority over Syria and the end of regionalism at the time. This movement was masterminded and led by some eminent Christians, who had no religious and faith linking them with the Turks or Muslim brotherhood. They had a European education which is based on the glorification of nationalism.  Some of the first leaders of this movement were Dr. Faris Namr, Sheikh Ibrahim Al Yaziji and the Lebanese Professor Najib Al Azuri Al Lubnani.

In the mind of the Arab who is free, rational, noble, proper, good, and proud,  the Arab question will only be an issue of faith in the nation for the sake of the nation, as is faith in Allah for the sake of Allah".

The writer defines Arabhood in a clear and explicit statement as follows: "Arabhood itself is a religion in the minds of Arab nationalists who are deep-rooted Muslims and Christian believers, because it was founded before Islam and before Christianity. Arabhood advocates the noblest and divine feelings, morality, virtue and good deeds that can be found in heavenly religions."

The evidence, that Arab nationalism became in the minds of many of its advocates and those who believe in a religion and a faith that are equivalent to another religion and faith, lies in an article written by another nationalist author, which was published in the magazine Al Arabi of January 1959 : "One of its first meanings is unity of all the best people of this land. Arab unity has to come from the hearts of all Arabs wherever they are and has to be like unity around Allah in the hearts of all believers."

In the same trend, the famous Egyptian literary author Mohammed Taymour writes : "If each era had its sacred prophecy, Arab nationalism would be considered the prophecy of this era in our Arab society. The message of this prophecy would be the gathering of strength, the strengthening of our front, and the release of human energy within the Arab society towards gaining the challenges of life".

The Arab authors have the responsibility to write about that prophecy, and support it with their writings, and strengthen it from the depths of their souls. They should make every effort in order to avail for it all the conditions of growth and progress.

Second : The unavoidable result of such nationalist faith is to find that the nationalists generally endeavour to preponderate the nationalist bond over the religious bond; thus one finds that the advocates of Arab nationalism prefer the non-Muslim Arab over the non-Arab Muslim. In fact, they reject the bond of faith, and they do not recognise its influence over relations and behaviour. This contradicts what the Glorious Qur'an states : "The believers are naught else than brothers"(26) and what the Prophet's Tradition  advocates : "Muslims are brothers of each other". The Qur'an orders us to step over any bond that opposes the faith of Islam and the bond of  Islam. God Almighty states : "O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of  you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers"(27) . He, Praised be the Lord, also states : "Thou wilt not find folk who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and His messenger, even though they be their fathers or their sons or their brethren or their clan"(28). Have you ever encountered a bond that is more endearing  than the bond of the father with his son, or that of the son with his father. It is a bond that is blessed by religion, and whose ties it endeavours to strengthen. Islam gives due consideration to the noble feelings which flow from it, but it never allows it to become greater than the bond of faith, let alone oppose such bond, or stand in its way. 

Consider the case of Noah who was rescued from the flood by Allah along with the believers. One of his sons refuses to believe in him and ride the safety boat with him. After that he tried to hold onto a rope in order not to drown, but he drowned anyway as there is no saviour from the wrath of Allah, except Allah. The feeling of fatherhood then overcame Noah (Be he blessed), and he wanted to intervene on his account with Allah : "And Noah cried unto his Lord and said: My Lord! Lo! My son is of my household! Surely Thy promise is the Truth and Thou art the Most Just of the Judges. He said : O Noah! Lo! He is not of thy household; lo! He is of evil conduct, so ask not of Me that whereof thou hast no knowledge.  I admonish thee lest thou be among the ignorant.  He said: My Lord! Lo! In Thee do I seek refuge (from the sin) that I should ask of Thee that whereof I have no knowledge. Unless Thou forgive me and have mercy on me, I shall be among the lost”(29).

The divine response to Noah was firm and clear : "He is not of thy household; lo! He is of evil conduct"(30). It is not enough to be beget by Noah in order to be his kin, but his people and allies are the virtuous believers.  Therefore it is no surprise that Almighty Allah says about  His bond with Abraham, the companion of Allah, after centuries of such bond and that only Allah Knows about : "And lo! Of his persuasion verily was Abraham, when he came unto his Lord with a whole heart"(31).

Abraham invites his father to the oneness of Allah with wisdom and good advice, and to give up worship of idols, which neither hear nor see or protect him from anything; and says at the end of his invocation in love and pity: "O my father! Lo! I fear lest a punishment from the Beneficent overtake thee so that thou become a comrade of the devil"(32). So what does the father who was raised and grew in the context of paganism say? "He said : Rejectest thou my gods, O Abraham? If thou cease not, I shall surely stone thee. Depart from me a long while! He said : Peace be unto thee! I shall ask forgiveness of my Lord for thee. Lo! He was ever gracious unto me" (33). So Abraham fulfilled his promise and repented for his father : "And forgive my father. Lo! He is of those who err"(34)

But as soon as the stubbornness of the father and his insistance upon his unbelief became obvious to Abraham, the latter declared his opposition to his father for the sake of Allah.  He also declared unequivocally his disdain to his father and his people in general, for the sake of Allah, and declared to Allah his innocence from the unbelief of his father and that of his people. This was registered for him in the book of eternity in explicit verses, "And when Abraham said unto his father and his folk: Lo! I am innocent of what ye worship.  Save Him Who did create me, for He will surely guide me"(35). "The prayer of Abraham for the forgiveness of his father was only because of a promise he had promised him, but when it had become clear unto him that he (his father) was an enemy to Allah he (Abraham) disowned him. Lo! Abraham was soft of heart, long-suffering"(36).

Allah made from Abraham's attitude towards his father and his people a lesson for the believing generations from the start till doomsday when He said :    "There is a goodly pattern for you in Abraham and those with him, when they told their folk : Lo! We are guiltless of you and all that ye worship beside Allah.  We have done with you. And there hath arisen between us and you hostility and hate forever until ye believe in Allah only"(37).

Even if Abraham lost his bond with his father for the sake of Allah, in exchange, Allah has provided him with thousands who consider him as their spiritual father, and they pray several times every day for Abraham, and the folks of Abraham. Thus, the reason that severed the bond of Abraham with his unbelieving father is that which linked him with the believers and made them his sons after thousands of years. "Lo! Those of mankind who have the best claim to Abraham are those who followed him, and this Prophet and those who believe (with him), and Allah is the Protecting Guardian of the believers"(38).  "The faith of your father Abraham (is yours).  He hath named you Muslims" (39).

If this is the stand of the Qur'an towards the bond between a father and a son when it is in contradiction with faith, then it should be stricter with bonds that are even less close and which are on other bases than faith and Islam?  The Qur'an only recognises faith as a bond, and Muslim brotherhood as the bond between Muslims "The believers are naught else than brothers". As to the nationalists, they do not recognise religion as a gatherer or a separator of people.

The high ideal of nationalist advocates is clearly stated in the following verses composed by one of their poets :

You should put your country ahead of all religions

And only for its sake should you eat or fast,

Accept a  religion that leads Arabs to unity

Carry my corpse over the religion of Abraham

Greet unbelief which unites us

And welcome be hellfire after that.

As to the Muslims and the believers in general, they consider such words explicit unbelief, opposing the basic elements of faith. They want us to equate Abu Lahab with Abu Bakr, and Abu Jahl with Omar Ibn Khattab, because they are equal according to the nationalist balance, but the Qur'an says : "Not equal are the owners of the Fire and the owners of the Garden"(40), "Is he who is a believer like unto him who is and evil-liver?  They are not alike"(41).

They want to deny us our interest in issues such as that of the Muslims of Kashmir, or that of the Muslims of Ethiopia, or that of the Muslims of The Soviet Union (20 million Muslims). At the same time, they themselves see nothing against their support for  the Hindu Pagans against the Muslims. They also have no qualms about supporting the Greek Catholics in Cyprus against the Turkish Muslims, or supporting the Russian or Chinese Communists against the Muslim minorities whose numbers reach scores of millions(42).

Third : We object to the nationalists’ separation of religion from society and state. The nationalists call in general for a secular state and they confine religion to a narrow scope which does not go beyond the relationship of man to his God (this is only in the case when they recognise the existence of religion and its continuity). As to the role of religion in the guiding of the society, the regulation of the state, and the organisation of life, it is considered as a backwards situation, which is fought by all nationalists. One of them explains the function of Arab nationalism as follows:

"It fights ignorance, poverty, illness, tyranny and all forms of chauvinism except,  national chauvinism. It separates religion from politics, and disallows men of religion from practising it. It also teaches the Arab, wherever he is, to be fanatic about two matters:  his nationalism and righteousness."

What led them to that is that they have applied to Islam in the Middle-East, what they have applied to Christianity in the West, and this is a fatal error.  Islam is not like Christianity in its nature, history and its relation with society and life on earth. The Qur'an is not like the Bible, the mosque is not like the church and the scholars of Islam are not like the men of the church.

Christianity does not have a stated legislation of the state, or organisation of life.  It is only a faith, a prayer and a code of individual behaviour. Its Bible is only a set of  advice for the sake of instilling hope and fear in people.

All this did not prevent the church from interfering with the matters of government and politics.  It did not leave to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to Allah what belongs to Allah.  It stuck its nose in everything. It backed kings, emperors and nobility against the lower social classes. So when the fires of revolutions broke out, they burnt the kings and the priests at the same time. The call of the revolutionaries was "Choke the last king with the guts of the last priest".

The interference of the church did not confine itself to the matters of government and politics, but reached even the fields of science and intellect.  The church adopted every old theory, and fought everything that was new, and called for the assassination and corruption of the men of science and intellect. 

The religion of the church (I am not saying the religion of Christ, because westerners did not know the religion of Christ at all) erected itself as an enemy of life, progress, science, freedom, justice and equality. So it became imperative for the westerners, as they were awakened by a whiff from the east through Andalusia and the crusades, to stand and fight for life, progress, science, freedom, brotherhood, justice and equality. They had to confront the enemies of all these qualities, who were unfortunately the representatives of the church there. It was natural and normal that this light which was spreading over that stagnant obscurity wins, and that people proclaim, after their victory, the removal of religion from daily life, and its separation from the government of the country and the guidance of the state.

So, can we allow this hateful dark period of history to be put over our heads, and that our religion bears the defects and mishandling of another religion in another country.

From its beginning, Islam was based on observation, thinking, the glorification of writing and reading, the distinction between those who work and those who do not, the denial of imitation and inertia and the following of thought, perseverance and passion. Throughout the history of Islam, there has never been any real conflict between religion and science, between imitation and rationalism or between legislation and wisdom.

This religion has never stood against life, light and progress, in fact it was the heart which provided the body with blood, the sun which provided society with light, and water which makes of every person a living being. The scholars of Islam themselves have never stood together to support a tyrant government or an unjust government.  Instead, they were in general the leaders of the people in their big fights against invasion from outside and tyranny from within. 

In summary my friend, the authentic nationalist -as described by these - is the one who discards religion from his reckoning, puts it on the shelf, or stores it in the storage of the wasteful consumer and, who does not benefit from it.  The authentic nationalist  does not  commit himself in anyway towards religion, its values, beliefs and commandments. There is nothing that prevents him from borrowing from the materialists their way of explaining existence, from Epigorus his theory to explain morality, from Freud his theories to explain behaviour, from Marx his theory to explain history, from Durkheim his theory to explain social relations, from Sartre his ideology of literature and life.  He never takes the time to ask himself whether these theories and ideas agree with Islam or not.  It is obvious, that if they had known that these theories and ideas oppose Islam and Islam opposes them, they would have stuck to them tightly, and would have turned their backs on Islam.

Fourth : We oppose nationalists in their attempts to divide the Muslim nation, of which Allah wanted to make one single nation as stated in His Glorious Words : "And lo! This your religion is one religion"(43). "Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for humanity"(44). "Thus We have appointed you a middle nation"(45).  They wanted to divide this one nation into many, opposing each other and fighting over territorial borders. They also wanted to boast of ignorant fanaticism, and glorify brotherhood other than religious brotherhood, and other than Muslim brotherhood which Allah equated with faith in His Book. He even made of it His proof and token, and stated: "The believers are naught else than brothers"(46)  and then He also said : "O ye who believe! If ye obey a party of those who have received the Scripture, they will make you disbelievers after your belief"(47). Meaning that after your brotherhood and your unity you will separate and fight, thus equating unity with faith and separation with unbelief, because it leads to it. In the authentic Hadith it is stated : "It is sinful for Muslims to insult each other, and unbelief to fight each other". "After my time, do not become unbelievers who cut each other's throat". These two Hadiths were quoted by Muslim. He also says : "If two Muslims meet with their swords, both killer and killed will go to hell" Then he was asked, "we understand the fate of the killer, but how about the killed?" "He had the intent to kill his opponent."  And this is agreed upon.

The logic of nationalism allows Muslims to fight each other. It also allows for them to spill each other's blood, because of the quarrels between the different groups, as we witnessed in the fight between Arabs and Turks in the First World War, under the manipulation undertaken by the English and even under their leadership. Even more surprising, we saw from close quarters the fight of the Arab nationalists with the Kurdish nationalists in Iraq.

If at the beginning of your comments you started by invoking the name of Allah, as an Arab, and by distancing yourself from the weak national minorities which tear the Arab nation apart, and weaken its entity, and erect obstacles between them, the same logic should dictate to you, as a Muslim , to invoke the name of Allah again and to distance yourself from narrow nationalism which tears apart the unity of the Islamic nation, and weakens its entity, be that nationalism Arab, Toranian, Persian or other.

Fifth : The notion of nationalism is a pre-Islamic and backward notion, which denies religion, and any religion, Islam or other, denies it.

That it is pre-Islamic, is because it revives chauvinism, which is one of the special features of the pre-Islamic period, and from which Islam and its Prophet distanced themselves completely as the Prophet (PBUH) said : "There is no one from us who advocated chauvinism, there is no one from us who fought for chauvinism, and there is no one from us who died for chauvinism" .

Revival of pre-Islamic chauvinism consists in the glorification of one's parents and pride in one's grandparents, even if they are viewed by Islam as the most unbelieving of the non-believers, the most sinful of the sinful, and the most deserving of the pains of hellfire, damned be such fate, like the ones who glorify Pharaohs such as Ramses, or Abu Jahl and his likes from the Arabs.

Al Tirmidii and Abu Dawud quoted Abu Hurayrah stating that the Prophet (PBUH) said : "Let those who boast of their dead parents to stop doing so, as their parents are the coals of hell, or in the eyes of Allah, Glory and Majesty to Him, they may be less than the scarabeus who pushed faeces with his nose. Allah, Glory and Majesty to Him, has moved from you the insult of the pre-Islamic period, i.e. its boastfulness, and its pride in parents. Parents are either obeying believers, or wretched unbelievers and people are the sons of Adam, and Adam was born from dirt".

The scarabeus is an earthly creature and it pushes faeces with its nose.  This is an example of insignificance and baseness, and in the eyes of Allah, being proud of one's unbelieving fathers who are no more than hell's coals and the fuel of fire is even lower than that.

A trustworthy man has related that one of the enthusiastic nationalists, called his son Lahab, so that people may call him Abu Lahab in order to revive the name of a pre-Islamic Arab leader: "The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish"(48). Tomorrow, we may hear that someone called his son Jahl so that he may be called Abu Jahl; foolishness has its own ways.

And that it is backwards, is because it is an extension of tribal inclinations, and support for the fanaticism to the kinsfolk and calling for its support be it right or wrong. This is taking man extremely backwards, at a time when the only ties were those of the clan and when it alone guided and led the person according to its prejudices and traditions. After that the allegiance of man moved from the clan to the nation, then the divine religions took man to horizons that are higher and more convivial, and those are the horizons of universal humanness.

Emery River says in his book The Question of Islam, under the chapter 'The defamation of religion' : "Worship of the nationalist state reached its peak in the fascist countries". But the misrepresentation of religion and its use for nationalist purposes were noticed in every nation.

The sacred and principled factor in Christianity is that it is universal and its principle is that people were born equal before God, and they submit to one God, and one law, which applies to all. This was a revolutionary idea in the history of humanity.  The emergence of the nationalist state prevented this idea from having a principled influence.

At the time the new nations started to be established, the national feeling in the western world started to take priority over the Catholic feeling. The church had been divided and became even more divided into other sects, each of which supported the newly born high ideal of the nation.

It became recognised in every country that the nationalist policy is a Catholic policy, the Catholic churches became nationalist institutions, which backed the tribal instincts of the nationalist spirit.  In thousands of churches, the Catholic priests and the Protestant preachers invoke God and ask him to glorify their country and to minimise others, even if this was in extreme contradiction with the highest ideals of  religion that man had received.

The universal moral principle is neither moral nor universal, if it is only valid within groups that are isolated from other people. Therefore, the commandment 'though shalt not kill' cannot possibly mean that it is criminal to kill one of your compatriots, but that it is a virtue to kill a citizen of another country. 

This kind of evolution can be witnessed in all three monotheistic religions. The unity that was preserved by the Qur'an for centuries amongst the Islamic peoples of different origins is now gone and the Muslim community is now divided into many small nationalities. Thus, the advocates of the Turkish League aim at the unification of specific Turkich ethnic groups, the advocates of the Arab League aim at the unification of the Arab peoples.

The Muslims in India say : "We are Hindu first, and then we are Muslims", and everybody has forgotten the universal feature that was the basis of the great religion of Islam. This situation is not confined to the Catholics and Muslims only, even the earliest unificators, the Jews, have forgotten the basic tenet of their religion, which is that it is universal. They want to worship with emotions which are characterised by their own nationalism, and their own national state.

No matter what kind of oppression or torture and no matter what extent thereof can one be subjected to, it cannot permit the rejection of a universal message defending nationalist feelings, which is another name for tribalism,  which is the source of all their miseries.

It should be borne in mind that the greatest danger to the future of  humanity is when it reaches the  level of distortion which has blemished  the universal faith of unity.

Without its influence, it would have been impossible for human freedom to establish  itself in the democratic community, or that it remains, and there is no way to rescue the human community without universality. So, if the Christian churches do not return to their central principle, and consider it as such in all their dealings, then it will disappear before a new universal faith.  This will emerge from within ruins and pains, which are caused by the appearance of nationalism which will no doubt emerge.

Sixth : The advocates of nationalism do not stop at the separation of religion and life.  They stand in a position of enmity towards the Muslim faith, and opposition towards any strong Islamic movement, which works towards the return of an Islamic system, and calls for a return to its commandments, and principles, and unity under its flag. This enmity from nationalists towards Islam is logical for two reasons :

One : This enmity and opposition is a natural consequence of the introductions that we mentioned earlier in view of the fact that they are elements of a crisis of the nationalist movements or linked to them. Such a crisis resides in the prioritisation of the nationalist link over the relationship that is based upon religion, the minimisation of Islamic brotherhood, the call for a non-religious secular state, and opposition to Islamic unity, and the splitting of the Islamic nation into smaller nations and ethnic groups which oppose each other.

Two : These nationalist entities within our Islamic world are no more than seeds which have been planted, tended and grown by preachers and colonialists. The students who were recruited at the beginning to work for this cause were not Muslims and were used to bring down the Islamic Government in Turkey. Turkey had ridiculed the Christian West at one point in history, and then it knocked at the doors of Vienna in 1673. These students were also recruited in order to put a halt,