The concept of Ummah and its need

The title is an article by Abid Ullah Jan published in “www.quranacademy.com”, Dec 17, 2004. The following is an excerpt from its abstract.

Concept of Ummah

Many Islamophobes suggest that the concept of Ummah (community) is “entirely an invention” of the “neofundamentalists.” In his book, Globalised Islam: The Search for a New Ummah, the French sociologist Oliver Roy notes: "'Neofundamentalism provides an alternative group identity that does not impinge upon the individual life of the believer, precisely because such a community is imagined and has no real social basis." To address the issue, we need to understand the motive, which is to deny Muslims the right to self-rule.

The majority of Islamic injunctions and the Islamic Ummah

In fact, the majority of Islamic injunctions apply to the Islamic Ummah rather than the individual. The importance of society and laws governing social interaction in Islam, therefore, becomes obvious. The governance of such a society requires Islam to provide guidelines for the establishment of a just government and the running of the State machinery. To deny Muslims this opportunity, the concept of Ummah becomes the target of Islamophobes.

The broad lines of the civil, military, criminal, political and social legislation of Islam, which are evident in hundreds of verses and in the numerous authentic sayings of Muhammad (PBUH), are there for implementation. The rules of Islam require the existence of a State with the authority to organize the myriad of relationships that characterize the society and the resources for producing a favourable environment for the Ummah to live their lives to fulfill the overall objective of human creation. These values and principles and the spiritual aspect of governance were effectively implemented in the lifetimes of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and the times of the orthodox Caliphs, as well as some Muslim rulers who came after them.

The clear message of the Qur’an — a book that all Muslims, regardless of any classification by the neo-mods and neo-cons, believe — puts three distinct responsibilities on the shoulders of Muslims: individual responsibilities, responsibility to bind the Ummah, and collective responsibilities as an Ummah. Muslims find answers to all the above-mentioned questions in verses 102 to 104 of Chapter 3 of the Qur’an.

Binding substance for Ummah

Verse 3:103 of the Qur’an is a lesson for those who reject the concept and need of Muslim Ummah. Those who are fulfilling the requirement of verse 3:102 are told to come together and become Bunyan Marsus (solid cemented structure). Teaming up and organising is quite logical for achieving objectives that are beyond individual capacity. Even for achieving morally negative objectives, people on the same wavelength need to bind together and find allies. Organisation on a mass scale is definitely needed to spread the word of Allah —a basic obligation of Muslims. To erect a Bunyan Marsus, each individual, like bricks in a wall, needs to harness perfectly his potentials. Therefore, instructions for consolidating both individual components and the organisation — the Ummah — follow each other in a logical sequence in verses 3:102 and 103 respectively. There is a reference to the Qur’an in the instruction to “Hold fast to the rope of Allah.”

Asmat means protection in Arabic and A’etisam (3:103) means to embrace something for self-protection — imagine the way a baby embraces her mother out of fear.

Therefore, the order is “Wa’tasimu,” to completely embrace the Qur’an — not portions of it; jami’an — all together, and warns, “Wa la tafar-raqu” — and be not divided amongst yourselves. According to Dr. Israr Ahmad this is a reference to the Qur’an as to not divide among yourself over the Qur’an. The concept of Ummah was an entirely new concept that superseded previous tribal and family allegiances, although these tendencies kept coming back, particularly in the case of the Ridda, or Revolt, which followed the death of Prophet (PBUH).

The Qur'an says, "You shall not find a people who believe in Allah and the latter-day befriending those who act in opposition to Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their (own) fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kinsfolk."

Acceptance of and allegiance to the Ummah, based on obeying Allah and following His Prophet, became one's primary allegiance. This means that the Ummah is not a nation-state based on ethnicity or language. It is not surprising, then, that it left the Arabs of the time somewhat bemused. Like the revelation with its uncompromising statement of tawhid, the idea of a community, based on the same principle providing the core of political cohesion, was entirely alien to them. In fact, it was probably alien to just about every one of the time. Indeed, many ignored it in favour of 'asabiyya, or tribal solidarity.

The Ummah is further delineated in the Qur'an where Allah says, "You are the best Ummah brought forth to mankind - enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and believing in Allah" (3:110), and "The believers, men and women, are protector-friends of each other, enjoining the correct and forbidding the incorrect" (9:71).

The Covenant of Madina stipulated that the Muslims "Constitute one Ummah" and "All believers shall rise as one man against whomsoever rebels or seeks to commit injustice, aggression, wrong action or spread mutual enmity between the believers, even though he be one of their sons. ... All believers are banded together to the exclusion of other men."

This, then, is the policy of the Muslims, and it is clearly a political as well as a spiritual collective, the one being a logical consequence of the other. Being a Muslim necessarily entails certain political consequences. The neo-mods limit Islam to individuals and reject the idea of a collective Muslim identity, such as the concept of Ummah. They call it one of the “most important consequences of the enlightened tendency.” Since Islam is not considered a complete code of life, freeing it up of its identity is considered as a step towards all cultures and nations to “lay the foundation of collective identity” and to the “acceptance of a convergence with other religious traditions.” The neo-mods believe that only such an amalgamation of Islam with other religions will enable Muslims to “co-exist as equal citizens with non-Muslims.” It does not seem to be an easy proposition for the survival of Islam and its believers. Although Muslims were never a single entity after the decline of the Umayyads, they remained thoroughly connected and unified because of their common beliefs and lifestyle. At the beginning of the 20th century, seeds of racial prejudice and nationalistic chauvinism were planted to weaken that sense of brotherhood and winding up Khilafah. At the end of the 20th century, rancid notions of “fundamentalist,” and many other kinds of Muslims replaced these seeds. Growing disharmony is a direct “benefit” of planting such seeds.

The insanity of fratricide that we witnessed in Afghanistan and the Arab support to US in turning Iraq upside down are examples of one of the manifestations of Divine punishment that clearly warned Muslims of divisions and limiting Islam to a few rituals and kept on classifying Muslims into different groups. The Qur’an (6:159) has warned Muslims against dividing their religion into different factions i.e.:

(a) making a distinction between one part of it and another, take the part which suits them and reject the rest; or

(b) having religion one day of the week and the world the rest of the six days; or

(c) keeping "religion in its right place," as if it did not claim to govern the whole life; make a sharp distinction between the secular and the religious; or

(d) showing a sectarian bias, seek differences in views, to break up the unity of Islam.

Chapter 30 of the Qur’an clearly condemns splitting into groups and inventing disagreements. Celebrated analysts, such as Daniel Pipes and Thomas Friedman, chant words that the ears accept willingly and find pleasing: Freedom, democracy, liberation and so on, but all they want from groups within Muslims is the disunity of the Ummah and worsening of its differences with repeated calls for a “war within Islam.”

Collective responsibilities and strategy for the Ummah

After reading verses 3:102-104 from the Qur’an, the question arises: what is the purpose behind all these instructions for organisation, unity and the concept of Ummah? The next verse provides three clear objectives for the Ummah: “invite to good,” “enjoin what is right” and “forbid the wrong.” It is a masterstroke of description in three clauses. “Invite to good” and “enjoin what is right” apparently looks the same, but other verses of the Qur’an indicate that invitation to good is actually invitation to the Qur’an. Another difference is that attitude and ways to “invitation” are very different from “enjoining,” which come in the sense of prescribing authoritatively or enforcing — one step ahead of simple invitation to Islam (Dawah). The third objective is al-nahy 'an al-munkar, to “forbid the wrong.” The modern-day concepts of freedom have made us forget about this aspect of forbidding the wrong altogether. Some Muslims consider themselves free based on the argument that there is no compulsion in religion and we have the right to interpret, reinterpret and if necessary invent in the light of human agency. Despite their much-vaunted philosophy, the neo-mods have yet to come up with an answer to the clear orders from Allah for both enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong at least nine times in the Qur’an. Furthermore, the Qur’an also provides the touchstones, the permanents norms for evaluating as to what is good and what is wrong without any doubts of relativity. It shows that from the Qur’anic perspective, individually as well as collectively, it is not permissible to see evil, have the means to forbid it and still avoid forbidding it under the misconception that imposition of law through the state is against the spirit of Islam. Forbidding from bad is only possible if the state is empowered with law. Imposing this law for forbidding the wrong can never be against the spirit of Islam. The rhetoric sounds nice that God wants free submission; “He wants his believers to worship Him out of free choice, not for fear of some state.” However, a state — Islamic or otherwise — cannot remain a state, if it does not have the power or will to forbid what it defines as bad. One of the main grievances of the neo-mods is that Allah’s sovereignty places a limit on human freedom and an Islamic State usurps freedom to practice religion according to individual preference. Muqtedir Khan believes, “freedom comes first, and only faith that is found in freedom has any meaning.” He is right in the sense that he is talking about the real faith point of view, which is in fact applicable in the Hereafter, not in the state affairs. As far as an Islamic State is concerned, legal faith is valid. Even a non-Muslim, pretending to be a Muslim for some ulterior motives in a Muslim country, such as spying, etc., shall be treated as Muslim for legal purposes unless proved otherwise. The very same problem was with Khawarij. There are two different aspects of Islam — Legal and Real — both need consideration in their right perspective. However, this argument is not valid if it is challenging Muslims’ duty to keep others away from indulging in sin. Muslims are not alone. Among others, the Qur’an specifically mentions Banu-Israel for leaving aside the duty of forbidding from wrong and crossing the limits set by Allah for them.

Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong (al-amr bil-ma 'rouf wal-nahi an al-munkar) is the most fundamental institution. In this regard, however, it is not that people should only enjoy their freedom of expression, but it is also a legal obligation.

An Islamic society would not qualify as an Islamic society — the Qur’an says it repeatedly — if it is not actively seeking to correct the improper and promote well.