Introduction:
In today’s world, practicality has overtaken philosophical ideals. Philosophers often present ideas that may sound profound but are not always feasible when applied in reality. As Iqbal once wrote,
ان تازہ خداؤں میں بڑا سب سے وطن ہے
جو پیرہن اس کا ہے، وہ مذہب کا کفن ہے
"This illustrates that the country has assumed the place of God for us, and those who prioritize their country over everything might be mere shrouds for their religion."
This raises two critical questions for discussion. First, is it possible to create a world without borders? where all Muslims form one united nation, free to move wherever they wish without restrictions? The second question stems from my own interpretation of Iqbal’s vision. Did Iqbal really dream of a world with no borders, where Muslims could freely conquer the world despite the existence of moral codes, laws, and constitutions?
Discussion:
This leads us into a broader discussion surrounding the role of religion and governance, much like the historical debates about the Church’s authority. In my view, the promise of a brighter future often hides behind the veils of misfortunes and significant events, waiting to be uncovered.
During the height of the Church’s cruelties, it became increasingly clear that such oppression could inevitably lead to conflict. This prediction came true with the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), a devastating conflict that reshaped the political landscape of Europe. In the aftermath of the war, a new political order was established, known as Westphalian sovereignty.
This concept, which emphasizes the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and the recognition of territorial integrity, reached its pinnacle in the 19th and 20th centuries, laying the foundation for the modern nation-state system. The Westphalian model remains influential today, defining how countries interact on the global stage.
After World War I, most of the monarchies in Europe were abolished, as people came to accept that democracy was a more viable system for securing a prosperous future. You might say that democracy, often seen as a brighter future, was hidden behind the veils of the war’s significant and tragic events.
This raises another critical question: how could a return to monarchical rule be possible in a world where democracy is now widely recognized and accepted? Iqbal's vision, which envisions a united Muslim world, seems achievable only through the establishment of a centralized government, one capable of uniting Muslims globally. Such a government would need to dismantle the obstacles preventing this unity, while possibly envisioning a world where Muslims can transcend borders and lead with collective strength.
Moving forward to the current situation, it is evident that many Muslim countries are facing significant challenges today. Take Türkiye as an example. In 2013, it seemed on the path to becoming one of the largest economies in the world. At that time, the Turkish lira was valued at around 50 to the Pakistani rupee in 2014, but today it has dropped to around 9, a drastic economic downturn.
In Bangladesh, the government was ousted by student movements, as it had transformed into a quasi-dictatorship. This ended a 20-year-long era of one-woman rule. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, traditionally dependent on its vast petroleum reserves, is now grappling with a shortage. In response, the kingdom is focusing on expanding its tourism sector to maintain its former grandeur in the future. Interestingly, monarchy continues to function in Saudi Arabia, though its success is influenced by numerous factors. That’s why I don’t think it would be relevant to discuss those factors here, as they are not thoroughly related to the concept at hand.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban have come back into power, and their approach seems increasingly anti-Pakistan, likely due to Pakistan’s perceived dual policies. Pakistan has faced significant crises, starting after the 1971 war, with 9/11 being another major turning point that further complicated its situation. Currently, Pakistan is going through political uncertainty and an economic downturn. Meanwhile, Palestine continues to experience a severe humanitarian crisis. Given Pakistan’s long-standing position on Israel, the UAE’s contrasting policy towards Israel further complicates the situation. This raises the question: how feasible is it to unite Muslim countries when such conflicting policies persist?
It is also important to note here that NATO was established after World War II to prevent further global conflicts. Its primary purpose is to ensure mutual protection among its members from any external threats. After World War I, which claimed around 20 million lives, and World War II, where approximately 70-80 million perished, NATO became a necessary choice for maintaining global peace.
Furthermore, with the changing world map after both World War I and the Soviet-Afghan War, the geopolitical landscape was dramatically altered. This leads me to think that it might take a significant event or crisis to unite Muslim countries. Some might argue: should we wait for a crisis larger than the ongoing Palestinian conflict? My response is simple: the Palestinian issue, while critical, is geographically confined. However, history shows that many countries have faced similar crises. But when the flames begin to reach the curtains of our homes or larger homes, then everyone could realize that the only way to ensure survival is through unity.
Another pressing issue in Muslim countries today is the question of governance: how should we rule? Should we adopt democracy? If so, a conflict arises, as seen in Pakistan, where no bill can be passed if it contradicts Islamic principles. The key point here is the contradiction: on one hand, we claim to follow democracy, but on the other, we impose restrictions that prevent the passage of laws against Islam. This creates a significant conflict, as there is no concept of democracy in Islam.
When the very foundation of the governance structure contradicts the fundamental principles of Islam, how can we claim that our constitution aligns with Islamic teachings? I believe the crux of the entire discussion lies in first deciding the mode of governance: should we follow democracy, an Islamic republic, or a secular state? The current so-called Islamic republics are far from genuine. How can we call a country an Islamic republic when it fails to provide its citizens with their fundamental rights: food, shelter, clothing, and justice?
Conclusion:
Now, as we move towards the conclusion of this discussion, I’ll try to summarize and answer the central question: can the Muslim world truly unite under a single banner, with open borders and shared goals, as Iqbal envisioned? Iqbal’s idea of a united Muslim Ummah, where Islam itself becomes the country and Muslims are bound by the principles laid down by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), is undoubtedly inspiring. However, in reality, this vision seems increasingly difficult to achieve. It’s like a bird that wishes to soar but is wingless, or a moon obscured by an eclipse. It’s also akin to a blind woman who yearns to see the beauty of life for just three days, knowing all the while that her wish will remain unfulfilled.
The idea of establishing a unified Muslim world with borders open for all is hindered by various challenges. Not only do political and territorial divisions exist, but internal conflicts, such as differences in Islamic jurisprudence, further complicate the situation. These divisions highlight the gap between idealistic aspirations and practical realities.
Iqbal’s vision, though profound, raises the question: can a centralized Muslim government truly be established in today’s fractured world? So, does a philosopher’s role end with presenting their views, regardless of their practicality? I believe the answer is yes. Iqbal’s vision challenges us to think about how we can bring his ideas into reality. While his concepts seems idealistic, but there are maybe some practical steps we can explore.
One modern approach could be to establish a platform similar to the United Nations, only for Muslim countries. Although the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) already exists, it could be revamped to be more effective. This could involve implementing a unified currency for trade among member states and forming a collective military alliance akin to NATO. Such a unified forum could act as a de facto centralized government, translating Iqbal’s philosophical ideas into practical action.
Ultimately, while achieving Iqbal’s vision may be challenging, it is through dedicated effort and innovation that we can interpret his ideas from a modern perspective and make them practical.
Written by Muhammad Mubashir Ali
