Definition, Ruling, and Context of Composite Nationalism

Explanation

[Definition of Composite Nationalism]

I say: This phrase [“composite nationalism” – al-qawmiyyat al-muttahidah] has been mentioned repeatedly on the tongues of the politicians of our time, particularly in India. It has a definition according to them which they have adopted, and that is what we wish to refute. Those who are blind to the technical definition of these people and suffice with the linguistic meaning, and thus find no fault with it, have removed the noose of jurisprudence and sacred knowledge from their necks [as it is the concepts behind phraseologies that matter, not the phrases themselves].

After this we say:

The [technical] definition of composite nationalism is that:

  • Peoples of different religions, Islamic and non-Islamic, completely assimilate, such that none of them have a social culture (tamaddun) distinct from the social culture of others, nor is the social conduct (mu„asharah) of one people distinguished from the social conduct of other peoples;
  • And they are all religiously equal, either by inventing a religion composed of different religions or by not exposing any trace of religion except internally, while externally they are as one nation; such that any single people does not have a separate title, rather collectively they are called by a unified title due to their common land or lineage or colour, for example;
  • And no one people from them have a separate [political and legal] system, rather it is necessary for their system to be majoritarian based on the mixed [opinions] of these peoples; and in determining this system and its laws, the views of the majority of them are considered; thus whatever the majority agree with, it is approved, and whatever they reject, it is rejected and is never approved.

[The Ruling of Composite Nationalism]

Once you are aware of this, there is no doubt that such “composite nationalism” is only permissible when the rule of Islam is dominant and the Muslims are the majority, such that the social culture and social conduct of the disbelievers is erased, while the social culture and social conduct of the Muslims survive, and externally the religion of all peoples is Islam, without inventing a religion composed of multiple religions, because Islam does not tolerate any disbelief permeating it since a [religion] composed of Islam and disbelief is undeniably disbelief as is not hidden; and the language of all the peoples is the language of the Muslims; and their system is the system of Islam and no other.

It is binding on the Muslims of India to exert their full effort to [achieve] the like of this, and this will never happen except by uniting the various Muslim groups under one banner, and removing the divisions between them. If they were to join on one path, and their word became one, and they became one unit like a well-structured building, dominance will only be with them, if Allah Almighty wills, even if their enemies are many. Thus, there is no need for them to seek help from others of the idolaters though they lead [people] astray and dominate and multiply.

If the matter was reversed, and the rule of disbelief was dominant, and the disbelievers the majority, and the social culture and social conduct of Muslims was made to be lost and forgotten, while the social culture and social conduct of disbelievers dominant over the peoples, and the symbols of Islam were erased and the symbols of disbelief erected, and the language of Muslims was erased and the language of disbelief kept alive and the Muslims were forced to speak in their language and leave their Islamic language, and their [political and legal] system was premised on the opinions of the majority, that is the disbelievers, even if a religion was invented for them composed of [different] religions and no trace of Islam remained externally and in plain sight, and none of its symbols stand erect in villages and cities, no Muslim will doubt that such nationalism is invalid and forbidden according to the Shari„ah, rather no one will doubt it being disbelief and apostasy or [at least] leading to disbelief.

There is no doubt that acquiring such composite nationalism leading to a majoritarian government is not at all from jihad, because the objective of jihad is to elevate the word of Allah, not mere defence of homeland, because if defence of homeland leads to the authority of idolatry and the dominance of the idolaters over it [i.e. the land] instead of the authority of Christians, it would be like fleeing from rain and standing under a drain.

So how strange, the feeblemindedness of the opinion of one who calls this defence a jihad for freedom and is heedless of the reality of this freedom and its implication since a majoritarian government only helps in the freedom of the peoples who are the most in number, and as for the one which is least in number they have no freedom in this at all, and its share in this [majoritarian government] is merely servitude to the majority in whose hands are the reins of authority. The numbers in India are in the favour of the idolaters not the Muslims, so the benefit of composite nationalism and majoritarian government will not return but to the idolaters, and the Muslims will not achieve from it [anything] besides servitude [of the idolaters] in place of [an earlier] servitude [to the British].

It is not hidden that servitude to the indigenous people is more severe than servitude to a foreigner, especially since composite nationalism does not come about except by abolishing the name of Islam and its symbols and making all the peoples as one nation, no people from them being distinguished from another people, that is the minority of them is not distinguished from the majority, since a majoritarian [government] forcefully represses only the minority and does not harm the majority at all due to the rein of authority being in their hands, so what need is there for them to annihilate their religion and its symbols and in abolishing the signs of their people and its close relatives?

[The Idea of Composite Nationalism in India]

From the misfortune of the inhabitants of India is the authority of the Christians over the land of India for a hundred and fifty years, and their effort to weaken the Muslims and strengthen the idolaters therein. Then a group of Indian idolaters arose called “Congress,” attempting to build a composite nationalism in India between its Muslims and its idolaters in the conceptual understanding we outlined. A group affiliated to knowledge from the Muslims stood to assist it, and a multitude of the commoners became deluded by them like cattle, so they claimed that composite nationalism is established by the text of the Qur‟an and hadith. “Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths. They say nothing but lie.” (Qur‟an 18:5)

I swear by Allah! The Christian authority over the land of India is not more harmful to its Muslim inhabitants than this composite nationalism which the Congress and those who align themselves with it on this [matter] from these scholars and fools call towards; since the majority of the people of India are idolaters, so if they are successful in what they desire, of composite nationalism, the explanation of which has preceded, the traces of Islam and its symbols will fade and idolatry will dominate and its families and its armies will gain strength, and the foundations of Islam will be destroyed and the symbols of the idols will be elevated.

This is visible in the earnestness of the Indians to abolish the Islamic symbols, in particular the slaughter of cows and the Urdu language which comprises of the Arabic language. Their senior leaders announced that composite nationalism will never arise in India except by erecting a mixed social culture composed of the social culture of the Muslims and idolaters, and you have no alternative to building a new religion composed of two religions. Some of them say: “Religion is separate from politics, so the inhabitants of India must have a new education system in which there is no interference of the Qur‟an and other books of religion, and they must also have one common language for all peoples, not having a particularity with the Muslims, and [they must have] one system which is not premised on religion but on the opinion of the majority and the majority opinions.” Some of them say: “The adherents to all religions ought to know that God and religions being in the highest place of heaven is better than they interfere with worldly matters and political issues.” [And they say] other statements explicitly within the connotation of composite nationalism and a majoritarian system.

I implore you by Allah! Is such composite nationalism that is clearly flawed approved of by Islam, and are Allah and His Messenger, the master of creation (upon him blessing and peace), satisfied with it? Never, by Allah! Rather, it is destruction of the structure of Islam, removal of the noose of divine oneness (tawhid) from the necks of creation, dragging its people to apostasy and heresy and pure atheism.

←Back to Contents

Next: Refutation of Arguments Used to Justify Composite Nationalism

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *