Islam and the Modern Nation-State: An Ethical, Political, and Historical Review

Throughout the long course of world history, the state has been a changing concept. Sometimes it was tribal, sometimes imperial, and sometimes religious. But at the beginning of the 20th century, especially after the First World War, a concept called ‘Nation-State’ spread from the Western world to different parts of the world. This concept of nation-state was enforced in almost all countries in the post-colonial era, and the Muslim world was no exception. But the question is—to what extent is this concept of nation-state compatible with Islamic thought? Does Islam advocate the formation of a state on the basis of ethnicity, geographical boundaries, and national flags? Or is its vision based on a universal ummah? In this article, we will analyze that philosophical and political conflict.

The state in Islam is a moral, religious, and social institution. The system of governance established by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) through the state of Medina was a divine state led by the Prophet—where the identity of the people was determined not on the basis of ethnicity, lineage, or tribe, but on the basis of faith and piety. In that society, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and polytheists coexisted through a unified social contract. The Prophet's (PBUH) Charter of Medina was one of the most important multinational, multi-religious contracts in human history, based on justice, mutual responsibility, and religious freedom. It was not a nation-state, but rather an early form of the concept of a universal state based on the Ummah.

On the other hand, the modern concept of the nation-state developed mainly after the European Renaissance and Enlightenment. The French Revolution, the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), and the development of colonial domination—the idea of ​​building a state centered on a specific territory, a specific language, a specific ethnicity, and a national flag was established through these. This idea pushed religion into the personal sphere and made the state secular. As a result, when the Muslim world freed itself from colonial rule and moved towards independence, that independence was molded in the mold of the Western nation-state model.

Muslim territories—such as India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan—are all artificially demarcated into nation-states. These borders are almost always not based on religion, history, or ethnicity, but rather on the geopolitical interests of the colonial powers. For example, the Sykes-Picot Agreement carved up the Arab world. In India, the division between Pakistan and India is based on religious identity, which on the one hand gives the Muslim identity a state basis, but on the other hand divides the overall unity of the Muslim Ummah.

The fundamental teaching of Islam is the ‘Ummah’—a universal Muslim nation. The identity of this Ummah is not national, but faith-based. The Quran states: “This Ummah is one Ummah of you, and I am your Lord, so fear Me.” (Surah Al-Mu’minun, verse 52). This verse conveys one message—Islam favors universality, not division. Yet today the Muslim world is divided into about 55 separate states, most of which prioritize nationalism, linguistic pride, and territorial politics over Islamic unity.

Another characteristic of the nation-state is its single flag, national anthem, single law, and single leadership. Islam challenges this structure. The Islamic caliphate concept states that governance should be based on Sharia, leadership should be pious and God-fearing, and the identity of the people should be based on faith, not language or lineage. The caliphate may be a single state, but its states, while differing in language and culture, remain united in principle. There was never a ‘Turkish caliphate’, an ‘Arab caliphate’, or a ‘Persian caliphate’ in the caliphate system—they were merely parts of the caliphate. However, today's nation-state-based Muslim states have become rivals to each other—Arab vs. Iran, Turkish vs. Kurd, Pakistan vs. Afghanistan, Saudi vs. Qatar—these conflicts have shattered the unity of the Ummah.

The most dangerous aspect of the nation-state system is that it strangles the brotherhood of the Muslim Ummah under the shadow of national interests. For example, on the one hand, while the Palestinians are shedding blood in Gaza, many Muslim states are making diplomatic agreements with the Zionist state. While genocide is going on in Syria, Muslim states are engaged in intelligence operations against each other. Even religious provisions like Hajj and Umrah have been divided into modern state rules like visas, passports, and national identities. All this proves one thing—the nation-state is contradictory to the concept of Islamic unity.

However, reality cannot be avoided. The nation-state is an international reality today. But even within that reality, if the Muslim world wants to, it can establish a moral and political unity. This requires a re-examination of international relations, politics and state systems from an Islamic perspective. OIC, Muslim economic alliance, single Islamic market, joint military defense—these ideas are feasible, if there is political will and sense of community.

Islam is not a philosophy that escapes reality. Rather, Islam is a mission to transform reality and take it to a just future. The nation-state is a reality, but it is contrary to the ideals of Islamic world brotherhood and justice. Therefore, Muslim leaders should create a path for a greater Islamic unity from within this reality—where not the national flag, but faith, justice and piety will be the criteria for Muslim identity.