The concept of Ummah and its need: Difference between revisions

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 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. [1]    

Verse 3:103 of the Qur’an is a lesson for those who reject the concept and need of Muslim Ummah. [2] 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.” [3]    

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." [4]

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." [5]    

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” [6] 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.” [7] It does not seem to be an easy proposition for the survival of Islam and its believers.   

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 [8] 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.:  

(d) showing a sectarian bias, seek differences in views, to break up the unity of Islam. [9]  

Chapter 30 of the Qur’an clearly condemns splitting into groups and inventing disagreements. [10] 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.”           

After reading verses 3:102-104 from the Qur’an, [11] 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. [12] Another difference is that attitude and ways to “invitation” [13] are very different from “enjoining,” which come in the sense of prescribing authoritatively or enforcing — one step ahead of simple invitation to Islam (Dawah). [14]      

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. [15] 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 of 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.” [16] 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 [17] and crossing the limits set by Allah for them. [18]    

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<ref></ref>.