Nationhood Is Based
on Homeland
Dr. Mubarak Ali, a renowned Pakistani historian, once stated in an interview that the term “Muslim Ummah,” as it is currently used in a global political context, did not exist during the classical Islamic period. In fact, the idea of a united global Muslim Ummah is a construct—a concept that never had a practical or institutional precedent in the past, nor does it now.
Even the major Muslim empires in history were not monolithic. For instance, during the Ottoman Empire, the Armenians were officially recognised as a separate millat (religious community) under the Millet System, a term used for distinct ethnic or religious groups.
Nation-states have existed among Muslims from early times, and Muslim societies have traditionally been characterised by regional, linguistic, or ethnic identities, not by a single unified nationhood. That’s because Islam is a religion, not a nationality. (Sunday Magazine, 18 May 2003)
This principle is also evident in the Constitution of Madinah (Mithaq-e-Madina). When Prophet Muhammad migrated to Madinah and founded the first Islamic state, several Jewish tribes resided there. In this foundational document, one clause states:
“Indeed, the Jews of Banu Awf are one Ummah with the believers.” (Sirah Ibn Hisham, Vol. 1, p. 503)
This clause clearly indicates that Ummah in this context refers to a political community based on a shared homeland, not a religious category. The Jews of Madinah and the Muslims, living alongside each other in the same city-state, were regarded as part of a single civic nation.
If we extend this understanding to modern-day India, it suggests that Hindus and Muslims in this country are part of a single nation. Their national identity is rooted in their shared homeland.
The same principle holds true for other countries where Muslims coexist peacefully with non-Muslim citizens. In such cases, national identity is based on territory rather than theology. (Diary, 26 April 2004 and 1 October 2003)
