Where Islam And Nationalism Collide

Where Islam and Nationalism Collide

Introduction to Renovatio and the Interview

As-salamu alaykum and greetings of peace. My name is Safir Ahmed and I'm the editor of Renovatio, the Journal of Zaytuna College. The core content of Renovatio consists of theologians, scholars, writers, but we also supplement those articles and that content with interviews with the writers, like we're going to do one today, and with conversations between two scholars, and also at public events featuring one or more of the writers.

Today we are honored to have with us Imam Zaid Shakir, whose article on the broad topic of Islam and nationalism is already posted on the Renovatio website. Imam Zaid wears multiple hats around here. He is an advisory board member of Renovatio. He is a co-founder of Zaytuna College. He teaches courses on Islamic history and politics and on contemporary Muslim thought. And now he's a writer for Renovatio as well.

So welcome, Imam Zaid, and thank you for taking the time to sit with us today.

The Core Message: Islam and National Identity

Your article, if I can summarize it quickly, essentially seems to say that nationalism or nationalist thinking is sort of antithetical to Islam. That's a very short statement, but can you just expound on what the core message of your article is?

First, let me start by saying wa'alaikum assalam and thank you for inviting us for this little chat.

So I'll preface any comments relating to nationalism or national identity, nation state, by saying that Islam is not against the idea of national identity. You'll find in the Qur'an statements such as we made you into nations and tribes. So God says:

"O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another."

Amongst His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth and the variation of your tongues and your colors:

"And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors."

And so these various cultural differences and racial distinctions, if you will, are something that are affirmed by the Qur'an.

The Prophet's Recognition of Different Nations

The Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, may the blessings and peace of Almighty God be upon him, mentioned that there are certain people, certain nations have certain distinctions. The adhan is for the Ethiopians. Their wisdom and faith are Yemeni. And many of the Persians, Allah, God will bring another people if you turn back. Him and his people, and he placed his hand on the shoulder of Salman al-Farisi. And so these differences and distinctions are affirmed.

What Islam Opposes About Nationalism

Nationalism involves an effort to use those differences and to use those distinctions as the basis of forming an effort to create a nation state that will work against the interest of other groups either within that geographical area where that state is envisioned or in neighboring regions or areas. That's what Islam is against. It's against that potential source of conflict and strife between members of the human family.

The Recent Phenomenon of the Nation State

And as you point out in your article, the nation state itself is a recent phenomenon. It's maybe 200, 300 years ago or so, in the 17th century and afterwards.

At one level, definitely, you could say the nation state dates its birth to the Peace of Westphalia, 1648, rather than the end of the Thirty Years' War, the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, and then the beginning of the formation of the secular territorial entities, nation states, that are identified with particular people. But in terms of really taking its current form, it's a 19th century development and phenomenon. Things like the unification of Germany under Prussia, for instance. The universal rising of the educational system in France, the various states that grew up from European colonial societies. So these are definitely late 19th century and 20th century developments.

And it was essentially... Which means it's something new.

It is something new, and it's also European, as you said. Its development focused on Western Europe and then exported to the rest of the world.

Right, right.

The Origins of Nationalist Movements

What do you think actually led up to that trend, that movement of nationalism?

I think one that we mentioned with the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire and then the eclipsing of the Papal States and religiously identified states with the Peace of Westphalia, with the emergence of a bourgeoisie vis-a-vis the aristocracy. And the aristocracy closely identified, to greater or lesser extents, with religious communities. And this bourgeoisie now taking its identity from its economic status and its economic power. So this is a secular elite that comes to begin to dominate these various territorial entities. And then the emergence

of nationalist thinkers who see a new basis for a higher community, such as the Italian Mazzini and others. And I think those developments are some of the things that culminate in the creation of the nation-state.

The Dangers of Nationalism on Society and Individuals

And talk about what the damage or the negative side of nationalism and nation-states is to you. In terms of both on a societal scale, but also on an individual level.

The danger and the damage emerges from the fact that most regions in this world are heterogeneous. They're not homogenous. If you look at India, there are 800 different languages, which means there are 800 different ethnic groups. In India alone. And so what if each and every one of them developed a very strong nationalist movement? There would be bloodshed and chaos into the unforeseeable future. And there has been some of that with the Tamils you saw.

And you can look at regions like France, where you have Basque separatists, or Spain rather. Basque separatist movements. You can look at an entity like Great Britain, the United Kingdom, where with the strengthening of Welsh or Scottish nationalism, you have forces pushing for the breakup of the United Kingdom. I think you've seen that played out in Ireland to a certain extent. This feeling of the need for an Irish state, or maintaining a British-dominated state in Northern Ireland.

And so I think the potential conflicts, and the actual conflicts that arose with the consolidation of the nation-state. We have two world wars. These were wars of conflicting nationalism, by and large. And many of the configurations that the American Civil War, while not being totally nationalistic, in the sense that the southern states had a particular national identity that led them to secede from the Union. And the Union had a different identity, generally speaking, that aided and abetted this bloody conflagration that occurred right here in the United States.

So I think the danger is just if people and regions that are heterogeneous, various groups that see themselves as homogenous, form a movement to create an independent state that sees itself as the outgrowth of this particular and unique identity, the potential for chaos and bloodshed and hatred is just too great. And I think as weapons of mass destruction become ever more deadly, we can't afford that as a human family.

The Psychology of Nationalism: Fear, Anger, and Victimization

At the core of that, though, of that idea of creating a nation-state, the desire for a nationalist mindset and consciousness either seems to be fear or insecurity, or possibly just a superiority complex.

Most theorists of nationalism see the role that fear, anger, victimization play. Real or perceived fears of some other are exaggerated to create a heightened sense of difference. Those people that are threatening us, they're not like us, and the threat is rooted in their difference. Therefore, we should be upset and angry and mad at them for casting us into this state of insecurity and fear. Being angry with them, we should lash out at them. And lashing out increasingly is with ever more destructive weapons.

And so this whole idea, and in the sense that we're victims of their aggression, we're victims of their transgression, we see it in this country. The average American is a victim of the immigrants who are taking our

jobs, pushing down salaries and wages, a victim of the threatening black male who's always a menace, there to kill us or rob us. So we're afraid of them. And that fear translates into anger. We're mad at them for threatening us in these ways. And that anger translates into a sense of victimization.

Right now, there's an effort to make us a victim, us meaning this country, a victim of the belligerence of North Korea. In reality, North Korea has no strategic means to threaten this country. But that fear can lead to an irrational anger. And that anger leads to a sense of victimization. And that victimization leading to a sense to separate ourselves from them and to remove ourselves from them. And I think that's how those things play into the nationalist picture.

Patriotism: The Good and the Bad

You know, that reminds me of the idea of patriotism, though, if we need to talk about that, because there's a, and people go to war over, people, there's a rise in patriotism when a nation goes to war, for instance. But there's also another side of patriotism that seems to me is a good thing, which is love of the land, love of the beauty, love of the culture. You know, those are good things, right?

Just as we can say as Muslims, national identity is a good thing. And because why? We need meaning, and meaning is rooted in having something we can identify with, having something we can be proud of. We can be proud of our language. We can be proud of our historical struggles that we've, and our ability to survive and our ability to overcome. Those are good things, but they become bad things when they become the basis of elevating ourselves over others and then from that position, harming them, harming them economically, harming them politically, harming them ecologically. You know, their land becomes the dumping ground for our toxins.

And so, the same thing with patriotism. There's nothing in Islam against patriotism. In the Qur'an:

"I swear by this city, and you are free [to dwell] in this city."

[The Qur'an says] I swear by this land, and you are a free-born member of the community that this land defines. So, that's in the Qur'an.

Historical Muslim Connection to Place

And so, loving the land. Historically, we've, Muslim people have always identified with their land, their country, their city. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Khatib from Baghdad. Abu Talib al-Makki, Abu Talib the Meccan. Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali al-Dimashqi. Ibn Rajab the Damascus Hanbalite. Ibn Rajab the Damascus Hanbalite. So, these things have been an integral part of being Muslim. An integral part of the growth and spread of Islam in the world.

But again, when that love is exploited to lead us to hate others, and lead us to deny others the privilege of loving their land, and lead us to take the resources, exploit the resources, and us here meaning any group vis-a-vis another group. I'm not trying to imply there's some unique American imperialism, and there are no other imperialistic forces in the world besides America. No, I'm just vis-a-vis other people. That's when the patriotism becomes a bad thing.

So, patriotism as a source of identity. Patriotism as a source of a rich life that gives us meaning. That's one thing. Patriotism as the foundation of a move or movement to elevate ourselves and privilege ourselves vis-a-vis others. And on the basis of that elevation, on the basis of that privileging to harm them and to disadvantage them and to usurp their resources, that's when patriotism becomes very bad and dangerous. And that's the kind of patriotism, if you will, that Islam argues against.

Religion and War: A Modern Misconception

I want to broaden it out a little bit before we move into Islam and its teachings. But what you just said, for instance, if you look at, there's this idea quite prevalent today, I think, that historically speaking, most wars are religious or caused by religions. People have this idea that, especially before the 17th century, for instance, you have the Crusades, you have all kinds of wars. Is that an accurate thing? Because there's also this idea that wars were just a cover. They were a veneer when really the real causes were ethnic or territorial or commercial or resource issues. What's your thinking about the idea of religion being a problem, historically speaking?

I think this is also a modern phenomenon that has accelerated with the spread of atheism. That we need to get rid of God and religion because religion is responsible for all the war strife and turmoil that we've experienced as a human family. I think that's a very superficial and fallacious argument.

I think, as you imply, if you look at the Crusades or you look at other wars or conflagrations that have been described as wars of religion, underneath that you will find the economic causes. You will find the trying to accommodate population booms, overpopulation, trying to reconcile conflicting economic interests. You'll find that those are the real and just plain human aggression and belligerence and malevolence. Those are very real. I don't believe that these are dominant human characteristics. In other words, they dominate the thinking, emotions, and actions of most human beings. I think most human beings are very altruistic and most human beings are extremely inclined and predisposed towards peace and peaceful relations with each other. But you have some very belligerent, aggressive, malevolent actors out there.

The True Causes of War Throughout History

Historically, this combination of economic interests, of just basic human aggression and belligerence and malevolence and just plain evil. Population expansions that require more inputs for a particular people or to export those populations to other lands to reduce the economic pressures that overpopulation creates in one area. I think these and other causes are the underlying causes of war even during the time where religion was the dominant sociocultural force. But on the other hand, when religion is the dominant sociocultural force, it's easy to say religion is the cause of all wars and violence.

I think if you really want to get to the underlying causes, look at the nature of war when there are other forms of higher identity. What in the 20th century where most states are now nation states? How many wars was religion responsible for? Someone might argue, it's good we got rid of religion, but if religion is the cause of war, you didn't get rid of war. In fact, the 20th century was the century of the most people, both in real and percentage terms, dying as a result of war. Two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, the wars of liberation, the anti-colonial wars.