Nationalism has become a profound enemy of the Muslim and for this case nationalists are seen to have put to an end the Muslim brotherhood preaching plus also putting to an end the Muslim brotherhood existence hence leading to the jail of most of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt hence leading to so many conflicts between the nationalists and the Muslims in Egypt. For example to explain this case well, let’s take two thinkers in this case.
Abdul al Nasser who in this case could accommodate most of the nationalist policies and Sayyid Qutbs on the other hand could declare a war on all the nationalists in Egypt. Sayyid Qutb was against the nationalist approach because he saw that the form of leadership which was offered by the nationalists say Nasser was very much ineffective hence leading to so many problems by the Muslims. He also saw that the incorporation of Muslim culture in to leadership who lead in to a good nation since he saw that most of nationalists were against God and offered a poor leadership in Egypt.
A good example to explain this is the Nasser leadership which was more of authoritative than god serving something which led so many Muslims brotherhood to run against this form of leadership in Egypt. Both these two thinkers can be seen as the end of the means. The many ideas of men have had a profound impact on the Islamic politics hence continued impact on Muslims world in the present day today. Muslims is one of the religious doctrines in the modern world and have a strong believe on their culture which is so much different from the nationalists approach. (Abed-Qotob, 1995)
Differences Many political theorists which include Hassan al- Banna, Sayyid Qutd, among other political theorists have their own respective views concerning the similarities plus the asymmetries of both the nationalists and the Muslims respectively. All these men were men of the same generation and all came from the rural background. The Islamist organization is the oldest and the largest Islamic organization in the world in the Arab world hence you tend to find that the Muslim brotherhood is of great interest for anyone who wants to understand the contemporary Islamic culture and politics and how it came in to be Arab world.
You find that the Islamic brotherhood fortunes could be partly be reflected by the lives and the works of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna. By the year 1940s, the al-Bannas leadership is thought to have formed a well known mass movement whereby the movement in this case called for the introduction of the then Islamic order in to that country. It was during that time the Islamic organization was in a position to form its own military hence leading the organization to form violent anti-government organizations.
It was during this time that the Islamic were against the government and this is why it formed violent reactions towards the then government. It was until the year 1952 when the free officer’s coup detats who in this case is the brotherhood fortunes waned. It was also during this time of the coup when Abdul al Nasser got in to the power and in this case he was a secular Pan Arabic nationalist. This leader had no such intentions of introducing the Islamic order and this action led to so many differences between the nationalists and the Islamists.
The leader in this case had no particular intention to introduce the Islamic Order in to Egypt and neither was Abdul al- Nasser willing to tolerate any Muslim interventions which would in any case interfere with his authoritarian rule in Egypt. The difference between these two groups started during this time when the Islamic brotherhood wanted to introduce the Islamic order but we see that the nationalists who in this case was the leader of Egypt Abdul al Nasser was against this action hence leading to so many violent actions between te Muslims and the nationalists.
You find that most of the nationalists theorists were conditioned by the European and the Western experiences and they tend to see that the only kind of a community that will help in producing a community is based on the ethnic criteria like the shared religion, language among other differences unlike the Islamists who have a different point of view on the issue of nationalists. The Islamist say the religion just like ethnicity can help in making of a community which can strive towards the formation of a particular nation of its own.
So they say that if Weber’s definition of a nation can be followed, then there is no doubt that their form of definition of a nation can be formed simply because religion form human beings and hence can constitute nationalism. (Bar 1998). By the year 1954, it is the year which saw so many Muslims been imprisoned and the Muslim brotherhood was brutally suppressed by the government. Sayyid Qutb is one of the brotherhoods of Muslims who was jailed at the Nasserite jail and it was during the time he was serving his imprisonment that he wrote his most influential and the most radical works.
It was not until the year 1970 when the Islamists have seen a revival in the Muslim sentiment and these brothers were allowed to carry on with their religious activities at the open in the Egyptian society. There were so many conflicting ideas during this time period since most of the Muslim brotherhoods wanted to influence the government agenda on the social, the cultural arena and still calling for the introduction of the Islamic order which would allow the Muslims to get involved in the government activities.
So in this case, you find that most of the Islamic fortunes can be traced to the works and the lives of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al Banna who fought tirelessly with the nationalists so that they could be involved in the government actitivities plus the introduction of the Islamic order. These two men were political men and the general guide for the Muslims brotherhood and hence they are seen to have yielded a lot of political influence in Egypt. (Frisch, 2000)
The most contrasting thing between these Muslims that is the Sayyod Qutb and Hassan al Banna to the nationalist Abdul al Nasser is that the Muslims wanted to push the Muslims political and the social agenda through the violent and peaceful means but we see that the nationalist in this case was against the introduction of this political order in to the government. This is because you find that if the Muslim order could be introduced in to the government, it would lead to so many conflicts plus also interfering with the authoritarian rule of this nationalists.
This is because the leader in this case was the one who could rule the government and he had his powers to rule the country according to his ability. It was due to this act that it led to the political differences between the two groups. (Frisch, 2000) There were so many challenges which were experienced by the Islamists from the political powers as they tried to response on the realization of the societal decay as well as the many perceived experiences of the Egyptian powers which are seen to have suppressed the Muslim world in part hundred years or so. This issue led to the total rejection of the whole modernity and the West.
The Muslims in their case were against the western form of leadership which in this case was seen as leading to the decay of most of the societies. They tried to argue that there were so many political, social, and economic problems which were faced by these people in the many societies in which they lived in hence it led to the Muslims to get involved in the activities of the government. They thought that human beings are rational beings meaning that all people are equal and all people culture should be represented as far as their religion is concerned.
The authoritarian form of leadership for the Muslims so it as a challenge to them and this is why it led to the response by so many Islamic thinkers for the introduction of the Islamic order a thing which the nationalists in this case resistant so much. (Abu-Rabi, 2000) The nationalist in this case see a nations as being distinctly a modern phenomena whereby human identity in this case can be defined in the form of the national identity to this particular person whereas the Muslims in this case had a different way on the issue of identity by the people living in that particular country.
They saw the political salient identity was a religious in content. You tend to find that most of the Quranic usage of the word nation applied in this case could be applied in the religious communities. So in this case, the semantic evolution of the word nation in the Qumran form can be seen to be realized when all the human societies can be regarded solely as been communities that are united in the religious belief plus the religious practices which are said to be performed by te so many religious groups. The Islamists in this case see it as the basic cement of the corporate social existence.
So in this case the Islamic nation can be seen to be more contrasted to the many narrow communities of the sentiment. The Islamic nation is based on more ties of language or even blood. So, this is how the Islamists argue their nationality and this was contradicted by the modern ideologies that see the nation as a modern ideology. So much of the Islamic nationhood which can be seen as more persisting to the Muslim plus the Arab in the 18th century was later challenged by the modern ideologies and these modern ideologies are the conceptions of nationality and nationalism.
The nationalists ideas can be seen to have emanated from the Europe which were later brought in to the spheres of te Muslims interests and this was as a result of the more political plus the military weaknesses of the Muslim world vis- a -vis the new nation states. You find that most of the Muslims world political theory could be seen as a result of the many responses to the European modernity. So most of the Muslims and the Islamic thinkers perceived the west form of social organization as been a political, intellectual and a religious problematic threat to most of the people.
The issue of the modernity and Europe led to so many differences between these tow groups of individuals. Most of the Islam’s considerations on the Muslim political thought over so many hundred years are seen to acknowledge the challenge that most of the European ideologies can be based on nation and class which is presented to most of the traditional Muslim conceptions of the word nation. The Islamic response on the conception of nationalism can be seen to have profounded from Jamal al Din al Afghani.
In his argument to nationality, he said that it was to incorporate the socially and the politically useful aspects of the European civilization in to the Islamic nation without having to sacrifice most of the Islamic moral, cultural and the religious identity. Afghani in this case was a devout Muslim even though his work in this case redefined the traditional Islamic identity and his argument was to focus on Islam as a civilization but not Islam as a religion.
He says in his argument that “ the norm of the human action is no longer in serving God but in this case is the creation of the human civilization which is flourishing in all its parts”. This argument opened a new debate in the Muslim word hence led to more debates since the Islamic focus on the religious aspects was directed to the focus on the civilization aspects which most of the Nationalists tend to argue it that the nation is a modern ideology. Since led to the destruction of the caliphate by the year 1924 and this Caliphate represented the Muslim identity.
So this tells us that these Muslims neither did nor relate their own identity to the nation as so many nationalists tend to argue but their identity was represented by this Caliphate. But when this Caliphate was abolished, it led to so many Muslims in order to re-envision their identity plus the conceptions of the political communities. (Ahmad, 2004) Integral nationalism espoused the ethnic criteria of nationality plus the creation of a greater Egypt through the many economic activities which could be done by these ethnic groups unlike the Islamic who saw the issue of nationality as been espoused on the religious aspects.
Most of the nationalists tend to argue that the nationality gets its meaning from the various ethnic groups which are said to be in that particular country. For example in Egypt, nationalists tend to argue that the nationality of a nation can be defined from the various ethnic groups which are in Egypt. You find that Egypt is one of the countries with so many ethnic groups and the religious groups that are the Islam’s and the Christians. But the Islam’s in this case tend to argue that the issue of nationality can get its meaning from the religious aspects and this is from the Muslim doctrine.
They too stress that the Egyptians identities are the Muslims plus the Islamic nationalization which in this case was seen to reconcile the Egyptian identity with the cosmopolitan Islamic teachings which are based on the nature of the transnational Muslim nation. (Ahmad, 2004). Sayyid Qutb also rejects the more instrumental and also the more tactical acceptances of the nationalism which are seen to have an account to the Nasser indulgence to the nationalism. He sees all these tactics as been unacceptable in the Muslim religion.
He sees that the nationalism can not be used in this case to in the cause of the Islamic nation but he sees that prophet Mohamed in this case can be used to mobilize the tribes of the Arabian by kindling the compatriots the fire of the Arab nationalism plus also Mohamed could be used so that he could impose his authority upon them so that they can belief in Islam. If this path could be used, it could have led to the spread of the Islam hence be quite effective in overcoming most of the political leaders in Egypt to the new religion.
Qutb is fully opposed to the nationalism and argues that all forms of identity are not rooted directly to the Muslims can be seen to leading to war in Egypt as it does all the other forms of political leadership that are seen not to emanate directly from god. This is quite different from Nasser’s view point that is a nationalist in this case and sees that all the leadership is not religious and there should be no form of religious intervention to the political leadership.
So this is the biggest difference between these two groups in that they try to contradict on the issue of leadership as being coming from God. The Islamists tend to believe that they have all the powers and rights to release the mankind from the servitude to human beings so that they can be in a position to serve God well but the nationalists on the other hand as an ideology which is seen to give a political legitimacy to the nation is seen to emerge as an irreconcilable enemy to every Muslim both in practice and also in conceptuality.
So in this case the nationalists tend to see that the nationalism in this case is the only one which can give the political legitimacy to the nation unlike the Islamists hence becoming a great enemy to the Muslims. (Ajami, 1999). To Qutbs, the notion of nationalism is seen to play a minor role to him. He tends to see that the political division among most of the human beings can be seen to be between the Islamic nation and the Anti-Islamic people. He says that all Muslims do not have any nationality accept for their belief to god hence making a Muslim a member of the Muslim community.
This tells us that Qutbs thought on nationality has no place on the concentric circles of identity which both Abdul al Nasser and Al- Bannas have on the definition of identity and nationality. For example, Qutb in this case says that the firmly established Muslim identity is seen to cause the disappearance of all other forms of social identification. He also argues that for any true Muslim, the word nationality will completely seize in its existence and hence he is completely against the nationalists.
He sees this not to be a process of a struggle but tends to see it as a natural development along the path of faith in Muslims. (Ajami, 1999). Qutbs further goes on and says that the Muslim fatherland can be traced on te Muslims faith, the Islamic way of life and the presence of God is the most dominant thing in this particular case unlike the nationalism whereby it only means a believe plus a mans way of life and this concept can only be worthy to mans dignity.
He says that the nationalists view point does not include te presence of God but its only te Muslims who in this case can be seen to involving the presence of God in all its activities something which is different from the Nasser’s view point of a nation. (Kepel, 2002). Most of the nationalists tend to argue that their nation has an organic continuity and the ties of a common blood which tend to bind the people together plus also making the people to be more special plus also been different from other people something which the Islamists tend to refute so much.
The nationalists see that the nation posses for purely social economic theories, mass devotion and belief that ones own group is more favorable and unique while the Islamists in this case tend to argue that their identity can be traced on the religious believe and the serving of their God. The presence of God is what they can define as their own nation which tends to bide all the people together. (Kepel, 2002)
