Patriotism
On 28 March 1998, a seminar was held at the India International Centre in New Delhi. It was organized by the Urdu Academy, and its subject was a review of the life and contributions of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. On that occasion, I also delivered a speech. Among the various points I raised, one important issue was that
of patriotism.
I stated that for much of the 20th century, Muslim thinkers were, in one way or another, influenced by the ideology commonly known as Pan-Islamism. This includes several prominent figures of the modern period—such as Sayyid Jamaluddin Afghani (1838–1897), Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938), Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876–1948), and Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi (1903–1979). These thinkers envisioned Muslims as a transnational religious community and upheld the idea that nationhood should be based on religion, not territory.
I mentioned that I am now 78 years old according to the Hijri calendar, and I have spent the greater part of my life studying Islam and related sciences. I can say with full confidence that the idea of religion-based nationhood is not an Islamic doctrine. Rather, it is a political theory, born out of specific historical circumstances.
In the first half of the 20th century, Muslim leaders wanted to rally Muslims globally against European colonial powers. To support this political agenda, they advanced the concept of global Islamic nationhood. But this was a politicization of Islam—not a true representation of Islamic teachings.
On this matter, Islam’s position is in complete alignment with the widely accepted view in political science—that nationhood is based on territory (motherland). This is why, all over the world, a person’s nationality is recorded in their passport based on their country of origin, regardless of their religion. For example, in India, both Muslims and non-Muslims are identified as Indian in their passports; in Britain, as British; in the U.S., as American, and so on.
This territorial concept of nationhood is entirely in accordance with Islam. On this point, there is no conflict or contradiction between Islamic teachings and the modern global consensus.
Maulana Sayyid Hussain Ahmad Madani (1879–1957), a leading Islamic scholar, freedom fighter (opponent of partition), and nationalist thinker in 20th-century India, once said, “In the present age, nations are formed by their territories (awtan).”
Some people later tried to reinterpret this statement, claiming that Maulana Madani was simply describing a global phenomenon—not endorsing it. That is, he was making a factual observation, not a normative Islamic claim. But this interpretation is not valid.
Here, I would like to clarify a foundational Islamic legal principle: The default ruling regarding things is permissibility. (al-asl fi al-ashya’ al-ibahah)
In other words, in worldly matters, the principle is that all things are permissible unless clearly prohibited. It is clear that on the subject of nationhood, the Quran and Hadith do not provide any explicit guidance. Nowhere do the scriptures state that nationhood is based on religion, nor that it is based on territory. Therefore, this matter falls under those worldly affairs about which the Prophet said: “You are more knowledgeable about the matters of your world.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2363)
This statement means that when it comes to faith, worship, and matters of the Hereafter, Muslims are bound to follow divine guidance without interpretation or alteration. However, in matters concerning the management of worldly affairs, Islam grants people the freedom to adopt what seems reasonable and beneficial according to the circumstances.
An important example from the Prophet’s life further clarifies this principle. During the Prophet’s time, a man named Musaylimah in Yemen claimed prophethood. He sent a delegation of two men to Madinah with a written message stating:
“I have been made a partner with you in prophethood.” (fa-inni qad u’shrikta fi al-amr ma’ak)
After speaking with them, the Prophet asked what their personal opinion was. They replied, “Our view is the same as our leader’s.”
Upon hearing this, the Prophet said, “By God, were it not that diplomats are not punished, I would have punished both of you.” (Sirah Ibn Hisham, Vol. 2, p. 600)
From this incident, we learn a foundational principle of Islamic international law: in inter-state or inter-communal affairs, Islam adopts the same protocols as followed by other nations. If, in the international system, diplomatic envoys are to be protected under all circumstances, then Islam too upholds that protection—even when dealing with enemies.
By analogy, we can rightly say that in the matter of nationhood, Islam can adopt the prevailing principle that is widely accepted in the modern world—namely, that nationhood is based on territory, not religion.
This issue should not be unnecessarily turned into a matter of creed or religious dogma.
Once, I was attending a public gathering where a speaker emphasized the importance of patriotism and claimed that Islam, too, recognizes its value. To support his point, he quoted a saying attributed to the Prophet: “Love for one’s homeland is part of faith” (hubb al-watan min
al-iman) (al-Durar al-Muntathirah by al-Suyuti,
Hadith No. 190)
At that moment, a scholar in attendance objected, saying that the statement in question is not a saying of the Prophet, but merely an Arabic proverb.
I responded by acknowledging that, while it is true the statement cannot be traced to any verified prophetic tradition, it is more than just a proverb—a statement reflecting human psychology as a natural fact.
Scholars of Islamic tradition generally do not consider this saying to be an authentic prophetic report. Many classify it as weak or apocryphal. However, several respected scholars throughout Islamic history have affirmed the truth of its message. For example, the 15th-century scholar al-Sakhawi wrote in his work Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah: “I could not find a chain of transmission for this saying, but its meaning is sound.” (Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah, Narration No. 386)
According to the principles of hadith science, this means that while Imam al-Sakhawi did not find it traceable to the Prophet as a hadith, the concept is valid and supported within Islamic values.
There are many such statements that, while not classified as Prophetic hadiths, are nonetheless “hadith of nature”—deeply rooted in the moral and psychological makeup of human beings.
In my view, even if this statement cannot be definitively attributed to the Prophet, it still resonates as a hadith of human nature. Denying the innate love for one’s homeland is, in essence, a failure to understand the very essence of human nature.
The reality is that love for one’s homeland is a natural and necessary instinct, and this alone is sufficient to say that patriotism is in harmony with Islam. Since Islam is a religion of nature (din al-fitrah), it addresses the fundamentals of human nature.
I explained that Islam, being the religion of nature, affirms every sound instinct of human beings. For example, there is no explicit hadith that says: “Love for one’s mother is part of faith.”
Yet every Muslim knows it is a duty of faith to love and honour one’s mother. A person who lacks love for their mother is somewhat incomplete in their faith because there can be no contradiction between nature and faith.
In the same way, love for one’s homeland is an expression of sound human nature, and it is equally an expression of one’s faith. The land in which one is born, where one grows up, breathes its air, builds relationships, and constructs the fabric of life—loving such a place is not only a mark of human decency but also an extension of one’s Islamic values.
I once remarked that whatever is a part of human nature does not need to be explicitly stated in the Quran or Hadith. It is automatically a part of the Shariah—not because it is enshrined in religious books, but because it is embedded in the core of our being.
The Quran and Hadith do not say: “O Muslims, love
your mother.”
Why not? Because this is something that the heart embraces naturally—no divine command is needed for it. Similarly, there is no verse or hadith saying: “O Muslims, love your homeland.”
That too is unnecessary, because patriotism is an expression of human dignity, and anyone who lacks this feeling for their homeland reflects a kind of moral poverty. Such deeply rooted instincts require no formal legal command—they are already woven into the pure heart of every true believer.
However, one clarification is necessary here.
Some extremist Hindu leaders have claimed that Christians and Muslims in India can never be true patriots, because—according to them—to be a true patriot, one must consider the land of their birth as sacred. Since Hindus view Bharat Mata (Mother India) as sacred, even divine, they are, in their view, the only true patriots. Christians and Muslims, by contrast, due to their religious beliefs, do not regard any land as divine; therefore, these leaders argue, they cannot be true deshbhakts (patriots).
This is an entirely baseless argument. Suppose someone, based on their self-made beliefs, begins to worship their mother and calls her divine. That does not give them the right to claim that only they love their mother, and that those who don’t worship her cannot love her at all. People are free to treat their mother—or even their homeland—as divine if they choose to. But they have no right, based on law or reason, to demand that others ought to do the same in order to prove their love. Patriotism does not require divinization. It requires affection, loyalty, and gratitude.
In reality, such issues are governed by global conventions, not by personal ideologies. At the international level, it is universally accepted that nationhood is based on territory—and “territory” refers to geographical unity, not some mystical or sacred unity.
Therefore, the standard for patriotism must be the same for everyone. Of course, every individual is free to hold any additional beliefs about their country, but such personal beliefs cannot become a national standard to judge others’ loyalty. (Al-Risala, September 1998)
