Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

PartThree : Definition, Basis and Characteristics of Nationalism

Definition of Nationalism

'Patriotism' is the equivalent of nationalism. In Latin, 'natio ' and 'nitus ' means 'the place of birth'. Political scientists have given different definitions of nationalism.

Carlton Hayes says:

“A nation is an independent political group with a common world-view and cultural heritage1 .”

In this definition, a common political organization and cultural unityare considered as the main factors in forming a nation.

Hans Kohn says:

“The co-existence of a special group in a single realm is the factor for forming a nation.Being brought up in a natural and geographical environment creates the greatest unit of tribal solidarity between individuals. The group which on this basis feels a joint interest andexpediency, forms a nation2 .”

Luigo says:

“A nation is a collection of individuals who are joined together by the factor of territory, blood, language,culture or history3 .”

Salo Baron describes a nation as follows4 :

“The word 'nation' is applied to a group of people who live in the same land and are joined together by common political organizations.”

Kohn says of the characteristics of nationalism5 :

“A deep feeling of attachment to a homeland and absolute loyalty to it, and a sense of sharing its destiny are the basis of nationalism, which is genuine when no other factor checks the loyalty to the homeland.”

The American Encyclopedia defines nationalism as follows:

“Loyalty and attachment to a national unity are more significant than any other attachment in the question of nationalism. Other characteristics of nationalism are pride in the achievements of one's nation, a deep belief in the distinction of one's nation and even its superiority over other nations." 6

Hayes, too, repeats, the same point and writes:

“Loyalty and attachment to the interior of the group (namely the nation and homeland) are the basis of nationalism7 .”

An analysis of the above definitions clarifies two points:

A) Giving authenticity to territory,blood or language is the basis of nationalism. Instead of basing unity on belief and ideology, nationalism bases it on language,territory and race. Homeland and nationality become the axis of patriotism. In answer to the question as to what is the main factor behind the building of a separate identity, the school of nationalism has this to say:

'Whatdistinguishes a human being from another, is not his belief, but his birth-place, homeland, language and race. Those who are within the four walls of the homeland andnation, belong to it, and those who are outside it, are aliens. National interests and expediency are the criteria of the propriety or impropriety and goodness or badness of everything and the measure for the evaluation of the individual and social conduct'. To the school of nationalism, the factors behind the formation of a nation are material in nature, like geographical frontiers, language,race and political organizations. It ison the basis of these factors that the people have a feeling of sharing a single destiny and a common past.

B) The next basic characteristic of nationalism is that all the loyaltyis centered upon the homeland. All other loyalties such as loyalty to God, religion, belief and ideologyare subordinated to loyalty to the country and nation. No loyalty should check patriotism, and when religious sentiments come in opposition with patriotic sentiments, the latter must prevail.

This is aprinciple which no nationalist can ignore. Man lives for his country and offers his life for it, and not for anything else.It is attachment to nationality that gives direction to one's individual and social postures, not attachment to religion and ideology. A human being takes pride in his national achievements and feels dependent on its cultural heritage, not on the history of religion and his faith.

A nationalist believes deeply that nation and country are superior to all others, attributing all the good things to them.

Nationalism and Secularism

According to the above view, nationalismis closely linked with secularism, in view of the necessity of separation between government and religion, and politics from creed. One of the basic principles of nationalism is a rejection of religious bonds and an acceptance of asecularistic order.

One of the main slogans of Egyptian nationalism was:

“Religion is related to God (meaning personal acts of devotion) and homeland is connected with society (i.e. social-political life). Secularism means that religion is something subjective thatmust be confined to an individual's private and family life, and religious feelings and ideas should not interfere in the socio-politico set-up, be the concern of nationalism only.So the socio-politico roots of religion should be severed from politics.

Nationalism leads directly to secularism. The belief that national unity must be based on a common land, race or language, necessitates that religion be kept apart from politics. Thus, secularism paves the way for the domination of nationalism, since according to this school of thought,religion and nationalism cannot rule at the same time in the same realm.

Secularism is the twin brother of nationalism and it changes the meaning of minorities. In a government founded on religion, the followers of other creeds and schools are regarded as minorities, but with nationalism and secularism, there are only racial,political and regional minorities. Nationalism claims that religious beliefs prevent national unity and religious minorities feel themselves alienated. The only proper basis is geographical,racial or lingual nationality. The main duty of everyone is the patriotic duty, and religious duty is subordinate to it, and confined to personal belief. The patriotic duty of everyone is to sacrifice everything, even religion, for the nation andcountry and serve and fight for them.

Basis and other characteristics of Nationalism

Nationalism considers sovereignty as a tool to protect the country and its citizens, not one for enforcing a particular ideology and system.

Economy, too,is based on national interest and welfare, not on what is legitimate or illegitimate. Culture, art,poetry and literature are the means for depicting national pride and greatness and creation of solidarity and inspiring racial sentiments.

To nationalism, the strongest factors directing individual and social life, determining intellectual and political postures, are the country and nation. AsIbn-Khaldoon says, the element behind patriotism is nationality.

Some of the other characteristics of nationalism are:

1) Belief that one should defend a compatriot against a foreigner, whether the former is in the right or not.

2) Eulogizing and almost worship of national personalities and historical heroes of one's country.

3) Revival of past traditions such as ancient idolatry. Neo-nationalism too, in this connection, relies on myths, ancient and dead customs, such as the ceremonies of the last Tuesday night of the year.

Egyptian nationalism, the most eloquentspokesman of which wasTaha Hossein , did its utmost to revive the relics of the oldpharaonic civilization.Lofti -el-Sayed , the well-known Egyptian nationalist suggested that his compatriots should havea knowledge of the old and brilliant Egyptian civilization in order to ensure the continuity of their history8 . Likewise, Iranian nationalismwas tried to relate the Iranian nation to Cyrus and Darius, not to Muhammad (S).

4) A tendency to distort historical facts to glorify one's country, and to invent stories and create models to show one's nation at its best.

5) Like oldTotemism , there are special emblems innationalism which are given sanctity. The flag, national emblem, and national anthemare considered sacred, for each of which a human being has the duty of self-sacrifice.

Nationalism as a pseudo-religion

Thus, we see that nationalism is a pseudo-religion which is its own god and its own prophet. (Ferdowsi , for example,is regarded as a prophet of Iranian nationalism). This creed has its own totems, idols, models, ceremonies and ethical rules. In fact, Westerners created acreed which they called nationalism on the basis of patriotism, which is rooted in human instincts, after which they exported it to the East.

Nationalism as an advanced tribal system

Westerners lay the foundation of nationalism on the in-group feeling,patriotism and tribal attachment. A critical examination of the school of nationalism would show it to be similar to the tribal system ofTotemism .

Unity in the tribal system was founded on a community of blood and land, with a total disregard of right and wrong, and on chastity,honesty and belief. Whoever belonged to the tribewas shown affection, and whoever did not belong to it was considered an alien.

Nationalism too, is similar in this respect. In the tribal system, wars and peacewere made for the tribe's sake. A person was proud of his membership in the tribe and very often looked with scorn upon others. The tribe was an organization under whose umbrella, the members felt secure. Nationalism also gives rise to similar sentiments.

Some elements of the tribal system ofTotemism , too, have found their way in nationalism. Every tribe had a totem in which the members felt that a spiritual power protected the tribe. Moreover, while 'homeland' is the great totem of the modern man, nationalism is as illegal and unjustifiable asTotemism . Some groups fight for the lion (emblem of Britain) and blue flag; and some fight for the eagle (German emblem) or for the red flag. WhileTotemism was the factor behind tribal unity, today the 'country' plays the same role.

Notes

1. J. H. Carlton Hayes: Essays on Nationalism, New York, 1926, p. 9.

2. Hans Kohn: The idea of Nationalism: its origin and background, New York, 1944. p. 14,

3.Luigo : Nationalism and Internationalism, New York, 1946, p. 25,.

4.Salo . W. Baron: Modern Nationalism and Religion, p. 31.

5. Hans Kohn: The Idea of Nationalism, New York, 1927, p. 15.

6. Nationalismcommotes a loyalty to the group entity, superior to all other loyalties (Encyclopaedia Americana).

7. Carlton Haves: Essays on Nationalism, p. 56.

8. Referto: “Muqaddamata -Leddera sat-ul -Fekr -ul -siasial -Arabi ”, p.101.

PartFive : Shortcomings of Nationalism

Illogical basis of Nationalism

HerbertLuthy says: “Nationalism is a creed based on a handful of dogmas that cannot be accounted for from a scientific and intellectual point of view, and have authenticity only in the mindsoft heir followers.” 1

Nationalists have been unable to explain explicitly how their principles can be applied universally, and what are thefactors which build up the independent identity of a nation and what is the distinction of a nation which naturally or psychologically sets it apart from other nations, so that these qualities cannot be found in any other nation. The works of the nationalistpropounders give us ho indication in this connection, but a show of such disharmoniousideas which are not logically acceptable.

Nationalist theoreticians rely on geographical, lingual, racial, political, economic,cultural and historical factors, and regard the territory, country, blood and history as the factors that build up a nation's separate identity.

Now we will analyze the validity and logic of each of the above factors as a so-called unifying factor and as a yardstick for measuring the independent identity of a society.

Territory and country: These words are rather conventional, than natural. A human being feels at home to be in his town,village and locality as a result of persistent suggestion from outside.

If one is to consider more than the above, why should he regard himself an Egyptian and not an Arab?And if he is a member of the Arab world, why not be an Asiatic? This is something conventional and personal, not logical. Why should a man, born in Ireland, consider his country to be Britain and not Ireland? The frontiers of many countries, especially in Africa, are imaginary demarcations. Nationalists want the people to show attachment to these crooked lines that colonial powers have drawn on the maps of Asia and Africa, and turn this affection into an ideology. They drew these lines, made them look real and forced people on this side of the line to consider themselves as belonging to that country, and those outside that line as foreigners, without giving a logical reason for it. The attachment of a person to his land is natural, not logical. When itis suggested constantly to a person that a country is his homeland, he comes to believe it, and to consider others as aliens. From a geographical viewpoint, 'homeland' is constantly changing. What Afghanistan is today,was considered Iran yesterday. Why then should an Afghan regard himself an Afghan and not an Iranian? This is only a matter of suggestion.

What other factor other than a common religion, an Iraqi Kurd has in common with an Iraqi Arab? Why should he not consider himself a citizen ofKurdestan instead of Iraq? Nationalists cannot offer a reasonable explanation.

B) Language: The German school of nationalism with HerbertLuthy (1744-1803) and Johan Fichte (1762-1814), particularly, who had been its greatest representatives in the 18th and 19th centuries considers language and history to be the most important factors behind the national identity of a people. They regard language as being especially significant in the creation of a national spirit and identity. Following them are some nationalists of the Islamic world likeNamegh Kamal of Turkey andNadim of Egypt who attach the greatest importance to language as a basis of nationality.But the fact is that the language and common history of a people have not been sufficient in themselves to kindle a national awareness.

The Americans of George Washington's time had the same language and history as those of England, and vet they segregated from Britain and became an independent nation. Switzerland has three different languages in three regions, and yet the feeling of nationality is strong there. India has over fourteen languages, andyet there is no language but English that all Indians may understand . If language is a determining factor of unity and independent national solidarity, why did hot England and North America form a single nation in spite of their common language? Why did not the Latin American countries (except Brazil) which have a common language like Spain, Brazil or Portugal become united?

We do not want to deny the role of a common language in accelerating the process of unity and solidarity, since it is evident that language is a means of direct communication, offering a nation a common literature. What we mean is that language is not the principal factor in shaping nationality, even if it speeds the process. Many nations have become nations in spite of differences in languages (like Switzerland), while there are many nations which are remote from one another in spite of a .common language.Thus language cannot be regarded as a firm basis for nationality. Nasser and other Arab nationalists tried to set up a united Arab nationon the basis of a common language but they failed. TheMaronite Christians and Muslims of Lebanon speak the same language but they have been fighting each other for the last six years, and these Christians feel closer to the Europeans than to the Muslims.

Moreover, in every country, we come across several languages, not one. Whatis called a dialect is in fact a different language. Is it easier for a Persian-speaking individual to understand the Afghani Dari or theAzari of Tabriz? The people of Arabia do not understand even ten percent of the Arabic of Libya. All these facts show that language is a weak factor and basis of nationality and any reasoning opposing this assertion will be illogical and defective.

C) History, culture and civilization: It is true that the history and culture of a people create a feeling of unity and of communal interests, but nationalists forget the fact that in the East, especially in the world of Islam, the unity of history,culture and civilization is based on belief, not on geographical factors. Culture andcivilization-wise , post-Islamic Iran is more close to Arab countries and Pakistan, than to the ancient Zoroastrian culture. Similarly, Egypt in its culture and civilization is closer to post-Islamic Iran than was thePharaonic civilization. Our history and cultureare based on ideology and belief. All the Muslims after the rise of Islam have the same history and culture. The past civilization of Iranians, Arabs, Turks,Pakistanis and Indian Muslims is nothing but an Islamic one. Nationalism tries in vain to call this civilization an Iranian or Arab civilization in order to rouse the national sentiments or unearth the decayed bones of pre-Islamic history and culturewhich has nothing to do with our present culture and civilization. That is why the relics of those civilizations cannot warm the hearts of the people in comparison with Islamic history and civilization, and lead them towards unity and victory.

Nationalists do not only try to revive the memory of the ancient civilization through exaggerations, suppositions, bombasts, self-Praise and fallaciousreasonings , but they also resort to a scorn of Islamic history and civilization in order to elevate the racial greatness of Iranians, Arabs or Turks, and, try to ignore Islam altogether.But this is wrong and prejudiced and it defeats the objective. As Dr.Shariati , the martyred teacher, has pointed out: “During the whole course of history, the Iranian race (and the Turks, Arabs and other Muslim nations) has never found a better opportunity than the brilliant Islamic centuries to show its talent and ability.”

Contrary to the nationalists, since the seventh century A.D., Iran, Turkey and the Middle East embraced Islam, so strongly that their history is the same as that of Islam, and their course has been the same with the course of Islamic history, culture and civilization. The greatness and honor of these nations lie in their share in promoting Islam and in their creation of a magnificent Islamic culture and civilization. They are the achievements of these Islamic nations whosepast history is not in any way comparable with their religion, and if Islamic countries wish to be proud of their past, they have no basis but Islam.

Moreover, the choice of history as a factor in building up a man's identity is a feeble and illogical one, since the frontiers of countries have not been the same throughout history. Afghanistan was once part of Iran. How thencan history be considered as the basis of independent nationality?

D) Race: Most nationalists regard race as afactor which determines nationality.But a careful analysis of it shows the weakness and illogicality of it, like other factors based on prejudice, illusion and superstition.

What is racism? It is a feeling of unity based on kinship. The first line of this attachment is an objective reality, namely the bond with one's father and mother. When this is extended, it reaches one's family,tribe and lastly one's race.But extending it to race, the bond becomes so remote from common ancestors that the racial root cannot be scientifically and logically proved. Has there ever existed in history a thing called the Aryan or Semitic race? Moreover, who can prove that a man is an Aryan? Forexample half of the Iranians areSayeds , who are descendants of the Prophet of Islam who was not himself an Aryan. Can those non-Sayeds claim that during these thousands of years, their bloodhas not been blended with non-Aryan blood?

Belief in the race and racial unity has no objective and scientific reality; it is only a subjective illusion on which nationalism wishes to base its social-political relations. How comical and illogical!

Thirdly, if we were to adopt blood as a basis, as racism and nationalism do, why should we not have our first ancestors, namely Adam and Eve, as the basis of humangeneration. In such a case, instead of racism, we may turn tohumanism, and instead of nationalism to internationalism. This would be a more logical and convincing idea than the question of race which cannot be proved. Even if the Aryan,Semitic and other races have a historical authenticity, if we do not stop at this point and go far back in history, all these races end In common ancestors. Then why should we not adopt this as a basis?

E) Political organization and economic factors: Some nationalistic schools consider political organization and economic factors as the basis of nationality. From apolitical angle, the Irish form part of Britain, and yet they consider themselves independent. There are many similar cases in the present and past history.

Economics has sometimes acted as a factor of unity like the union of the customs among the various German provinces between 1819 and 1952, which was a prelude to their political union.But such cases are only exceptions to the rule. Economic harmony and collaboration of various groups are not the requisites of national unity.

It is thus clear that the main foundations of nationalism are weak,invalid and illogical, even though they may help occasionally in rousing nationalistic sentiments. They are not determining and fundamental factors behind unity and solidarity. For this reason, French nationalists have been forced to claim that what causes a German, an Englishman and a Frenchman to regardthemselves respectively as belonging to Germany, England and France is only and only the individual will or desire. So long as the individual does not freely accept to be a citizen of a particular nation, a common language, race,history or geographical frontiers would be of no avail, and cannot by themselves create a feeling of attachment and national awareness.

Unity on the above basis is a prelude to differences

An effort to create unity on the above basis leads to greater differences and conflicts among human beings. A unity based on geographical boundaries, race or language cannot include all human beings. It is more like walls set up between them, separating them, and intensifying their division. Ideological boundaries can expand without force or imposition with the free acceptance of that school by individuals and nations, and intellectually it is not impossible for it to end with the unity of allmankind. But geographical nationality with lingual and racial differences obviously include all men and so, it can never sustain human unity permanently.

Nationalism creates divisionamong mankind and thus, it cannot lead to universal unity. In such a unit, the questions of minorities and aliens, too, become insoluble.But anUmmah founded on belief is an 'open unit' and it can admit people from every race, color, language and territory who accept that belief. This unity can, therefore, expand and lead to man's universalbrotherhood .

Infact the only proper, scientific and logical basis for nationality and unity is belief, ideology and school. Other factors as compared to these are insignificant.

Thus we see that none of the principles that nationalists rely on are universal and logical.But the nationality based on belief which Islam upholds has an intellectual authenticity and is justifiable. Those who have the same ideology possess the same world vision, religious belief, culture,objective and destination, form thus a singleUmmah .

So long as patriotism and nationalism exist, the danger of war and human clashescannot be removed , since national unity will dialectically lead to international dispersion and confrontation. This opposition is not soluble except through force and colonizing others. But a unity based on belief and the acceptance of that belief will remove all differences andone and all will become equal and brothers.

Nationalism defeats its own objectives

Would the country be subjected to division if we use 'religion' as a basis or 'nationality' as a basis?

The aim of nationalism is the creation of unity, but its result is the reverse and it defeats its own objective. The means adopted by nationalism to realize its objectives of creating unity is to kindle sharp sentiments of solidarity on f the basis of race,language or nationality.

But in every country, there exist racial and lingual minorities. When these minorities come to face nationalistic sentiments incited by the propaganda of the majority, they may lose their own independent identity within the majority and react. It is often seen that such propaganda directed at inciting nationalistic sentiments by the majority rouses a regional,racial or lingual nationalism among the minorities and results in the dispersion and disunion of the country.

Logically there is no reason why the majority's nationalismshould be considered right and the minority's one wrong. Why should British nationalism be regarded as right and laudable, while the Irish one, as blameworthy and condemnable. If IraqiBaathists have the right to speak of Arab nationalism all day and night, why shouldn't an Iraqi Kurd have the right to turn to Kurdish nationalism since he is not an Arab afterall. If territorial,racial and lingual prejudice is good, then it is good for both sides, and if it is bad, it is so for both. We cannot judge by two different criteria. If the nationalism of America's whites is good, why should that of its blacks be bad?

We see, then, that nationalism has no logical basis, and it defeats its own purpose, and has to establish solidarity by force. It secures what is contrary to its goal, namely division and dispersion.

Contrary to the nationalists' claim, it is not religious beliefs, but nationalisticfeelings which check unity and produce division in the country. The result of half a century of the nationalistic propaganda of Reza Khan and Muhammad Reza was rebellion inKurdestan andTurkeman Sahara.

Nationalism has at no time been able to solve the question of racial,lingual and regional minorities. On the, contrary it has intensified oppositions and made them perpetual.

As the criterion is race,language or territory, and as race and language and the like are not changeable, therefore those not belonging to a certain race or having a certain language are always regarded and live as a minority group and cannot share the sentiments of the majority. Those who through emigration or change of geographical boundaries or invasions become nationals of a country, even after many generations and centuries, feel themselves to be a segregated and alienated group, and others feel the same towards them. Armenians in Turkey, Syria and Iran, and Kurds, Scots, Irish and Americannegroes are the clearest examples of this.

Nationalism cannot solve the problem of minorities with the criteria of blood and language.But when belief is used as a basis, since it is not a property that can be inherited and something personal, it can perhaps solve the minority question, so that ultimately no minority would probably exist. Anyhow, this is not logically impossible.But the problem of minorities will always exist as a cancerous tumor in nationalistic societies. Thisis especially more felt in Islamic societies where rousing nationalistic sentiments lead to division.

In Iran, Pakistan and Turkey and most Arab countries, the religious minorities are not more than two to four percent of the population, and even this number can benefit from all the civic and human laws under the system of Islam and feel secure. The way is always open for everyone to become a full member of the IslamicUmmah .But when nationality becomes the basis, the number of racial, lingual and regional minorities increases manifold, so that the total of these minorities in some of these countries actually forms the majority of the population. If nationalityis adopted as a basis, the Kurds will turn to the Kurdish nation, and the Turks to the Turkish race. Thus, these countries would undoubtedly move towards division, and only force can keep them united. As the above countries have adopted nationality as a basis, theyhave so far been entangled with difficulties.

Is it only nationalism that can motivate people’s creativity?

Some thinkers like Harold Lasky2 believe that nationalismshould be accepted not as a reality, but as expediency. Hewrites: “In spite of the shortcomings, defects and contradictions of nationalism, the fanaticism that it creates releases people's energy and creativity.”

But Lasky and his likes only take the conditions of the West into consideration where religion lacks sufficient dynamism for rousing public zeal and sentiments. The history of the East and the Islamic world shows that religion has been more effective than nationality in activating and inspiring the Muslim people, in inciting their initiative and creativity, and rousing intense zeal in the masses.

Notes

1. Johann Herder, A Rehabilitation of Nationalism, London, 1962, p.85.

2. Harold J.Lasky : Nationalism and the Future of Civilization, London 1971, p.66.

PartSix : Dangers of Nationalism

Ego-centrism and prejudice

Among the greatest dangers of nationalism is prejudice: a violent affective state where the individual or the group, becomeego-centric , leading them to ignore reality and be harsh and inflexible in their judgments.

Nationalistic sentiments in one country usually leads to prejudice against other nations, and sociologically speaking, it encourages the 'we-group' or 'I-group' feeling and the people to love and praise their own nation and regard all those outside this 'in-group' as contemptible enemies. Self-glorification becomes the rule and no sympathy or toleranceis shown to others.

This ego-centrism, an offshoot of this unbalanced nationalism manifests itself in various ways under different conditions: Ethno-centrism, chauvinism, race-centrism, racism etc.

Superiority complex and misinterpretation of history

WalterLecquer , well-known sociologist says:

“One of the main peculiarities of nationalism is an over-estimation of one's own nation, and a depreciation of others, a lack of self-criticism, sense of responsibility and observance of fairness. Nationalism abandons realism and allows an idealistic and mythical vision to dominate society1 .”

To glorify itself, nationalism generally resorts to suppositions, exaggerations, fallaciousreasonings , scorn and inadmissible self-praise, and worst of all, it engages in the distortion of history,model-making and fable-writing. Historical facts are twisted to imaginarymyths as it fears historical and social realism.

Will Durant says:2 “The 19th century discovered nationalism and corrupted almost all historians.”

Treilschke , VonSibel ,Michellet , Martin,McCaulay , Green,Banderft andFetik were patriots first and historians later. Every nationalist considers his country as God's select realm and the whole world full of wickedness and barbarism.

Nationalism has made history so corrupt and tumultuous, that a wise man suggested that for attaining universal peace, it would be better to discard history instead of drawing up pacts of friendship and commerce.

Misinterpretation of history is one of the greatest harms of nationalism. Itmay be argued that the case is so where an extreme form of nationalism exists.But that is not the case. Any kind of nationalism by essence inclines towards self-pride and scorn of others, for so long as it does not rouse in people a false sense of pride in their nation, how can it turn national prejudice in favor of itself and against others?

Tribal prejudice or fanatical ignorance

As nationalism is based on man's animal instincts, not on belief and intelligence, therefore, tribal prejudice which is called fanatical ignorance by Islam, is its foundation and one of its peculiarities.

The accidental birth of a person in a certain country gives him the wrong baseless idea that he may scorn others and consider them as enemies. Having been born in Europe and having a white skin for example, he gives himself the right to plunder the blacks and refuse to employ towards others criteria he uses towards his own compatriots.Even a genius like Einstein is disliked by a German because he is a Jew. Taking birth in Germany or France, both a matter of accidental birth in a certain land and not one of conscious choice, is no reason to dislike other, be prejudiced and evaluate human beings with two different criteria.

Can anything be more inhuman and unreasonable that to prefer a wicked,corrupt and incompetent compatriot of the same race or language to an honest, benevolent and competent person who is born beyond one's frontiers?

A person is judgedon the basis of his race, language, country and considered a compatriot or alien, without the least consideration of his deeds, virtues or views. Human honor and good deedsare disregarded simply because one is born in a certain land. The yardstick for evaluating the individual becomes territory and blood, not action, faith, chastity or obligation.

The more popular nationalism becomes, the more intense will fanatical ignorance and racial prejudice become, and the more limited will be one's vision. A nationalist defends everything related to his country solely through intellect or reflection. He considers everything outside his country as alien and ignominious. Right and wrong become meaningless concepts.

This is fanaticalignorance which is strongly condemned in Islam, it is inherited from the inhuman tribal system, but with a more dangerous dimension.

Nationalism culminates in racism

Nationalism inevitably ends in racism and racial prejudice.In any land where it attempts to base unity on the co-existence of a particular group so as to create fanaticism and make that group an independent, separate unit, it must attribute a certain name to that group like Iranian, Turk or some other name; it must brainwash those in that group into believing that they are superior to other on the basis of their race, blood etc. Without attention to the criteria of virtue, belief and action. Eventually, other neighboring countries come to manifest similar feelings, leading to perpetual clashes,rivalry and racial hostilities.

History bears witness to the fact that nationalistic sentiments have always ended in racism. The Greeks at the height of their civilization called non-Greeks barbarians.

Aristotle said:

“It is nature's will that barbarians be the slaves of the Greeks.” TheJews who were a national unit before being a religious unit, regarded themselves as God's selected people. The Romans at the height of their civilization believed that there were only three nations on earth, the Romans, theirconfederates and the barbarians (non-Romans).

$$SUB[ Nationalism results in a desire to dominate]

5- Nationalism results in a desire to dominate and colonize seeking domination and colonization are due to three factors:

1- Strong prejudice

2- Superiority complex

3- Self-interest (and disregard of others interests)

Nationalism relies on all these three factors and that is why it eventually leads to domination and colonization. Nationalism has been the cause of clashes, aggressions, and constant rivalry between nations, causing much riot and bloodshed the world over. When a country thinks only in terms of its own interests and gives itself the right to dominate others, the result will obviously be conflicts, aggressions andcolonization . Some think that this is only true of extreme nationalism.But history has taught us that there are no such things as healthy or unhealthy nationalism, since nationalism in whatever form ultimately ends in chauvinism and racism.

Itmay be argued that if patriotism and racism do cause fanaticism and domination, religion and ideology, too, may do the same.But those who think so are ignoring an obvious reality. It is true that every school and ideology produces fanaticism and encourages one to believe that one's school is superior to others, but as thisis not based on the authenticity l of territory or blood, and since its foundation is the authenticity of intellect and reflection, its result is a scientific and theoretical contest. A belief is such that when proved ina logical manner or when it is attractive enough, people may agree to it without being forced or pressurized. A society based on belief is an open system, whereas, societies founded on nationalism and racism are closedsystems which elevate some and debase others, looking upon them as inferiors and colonial slaves.But when belief or ideology expands, all its followers become equal brothers. Nationalism in its expansion results in imperialism, andcolonization . A religious school of thought prescribes the ideal system for all human beings, whether white or black, eastern or western, all of whom can join the proposed union, whereas nationalism can expand only through subjugating weak nations. An Aryan can never become Semitic, and Turkey cannot become Iran except by becoming a colony.But Egypt, Iraq and Iran accepted Islam without becoming colonies.

Belief based on the intellect, expands without violence and through guidance and propaganda, in the same way that traders and dervishes carried Islam to the farthest parts3 of Asia and Africa.But nationalism, having solely a racial and geographical foundation, can expand only through colonization.

As mentioned in the previous chapters, the savage colonialism of the West in the 19thcentury which spread over the Third World was caused by nationalistic sentiments. The calamitous World Wars and the Nagasaki and Hiroshima disasters and hundreds of otherwars which have tainted man's history with blood, are living proofs of nationalism as a dominating force.

Nationalism is a factor of expansionism and a basis of injustice and aggression. It has been the source of imperialism and it cruelly transgresses over weak nations, imposing its illegitimate ambition on others in the name of national desires and national expediencies.

Narrowing man’s mental horizon

Nationalism narrows man's mental horizon in two ways: Firstly, it discourages man to think of the wholeof mankind and of ways to help and guide the latter. It encourages him to consider his compatriots only and limit the radius of his vision within the framework of frontiers. Secondly, it encourages man to reject belief, the spirituality, the intellect, and to focus on land, blood,country and race, thereby narrowing down his mental horizon.

Nationalists are the slaves of emotions, and have no regard for the intellect and intelligence. Ideology, on the other hand, relies extensively on reflection and by creating a sense of obligation and responsibility, the intellect comes to dominate over emotions and not the other wayround as is the case with nationalism.

Notes

1. Walter Lacquer: Communism and Nationalism in “The Middle East” London, 1950, p. 8.

2. WillDurrant : The Mansions of Philosophy, p. 239.

3. Brown: The Spread of Islam.