تضادّ مفهومي الشعب والأُمّة: تأمّلٌ في أحد التحدّيات الجادّة أمام تحقّق الحضارة الإسلاميّة

In an era when the nation-state model of governance—in other words, governance tied to nationality—is so dominant that no other option for governance remains, one cannot speak of moving towards Islamic civilization unless we overcome the dichotomy of nation versus ummah (transnational Islamic community). Unlike the natural process of nation-state emergence in European countries, where the formation of the nation occurred organically and in harmony with the established culture and geography of those peoples, the creation of the nation-state in Iran, from the Pahlavi era onward, took place through forced modernization. Although Islam had been present in the cultural and social life of the people of Iran for over a thousand years, anti-Islam intellectuals—who effectively steered the Pahlavi government—from the outset sought to reconstruct Iranian nationality in opposition to Islam, drawing some inspiration from Atatürk in this regard. Consequently, from the beginning, the emergence of Iranian nationality was accompanied by serious cultural and social challenges in Iran. Following the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, these challenges continued in a different form. The contrast between “Ummah-oriented” and “nationalist-oriented” approaches to various issues has created numerous problems in the realm of the state's major political decisions. On one hand, the social identity that forms the foundation for the emergence of Islamic civilization—and which the new state strongly presented itself as striving to achieve—is something referred to in Quranic literature with the keyword Ummah. The Quran has established this word as the basis for a specific social identity, in contrast to words such as qawm (people/tribe), qabilah (clan), ahl al-qaryah (people of the village), ahl al-madinah (people of the city), etc. On the other hand, a new phenomenon brought about by modernity is the formation of the state in its new sense, which is tied to the nation. The nation has a serious connection to a country's political geography and defines its members' identity within that political geography. The formation of the modern state—more precisely, the nation-state—has reached a point where today, especially after World War II, a fixed number of countries with defined geographical borders exist on the map, borders that are no longer easily subject to increase or decrease. The boundaries of political geography determine the most important part of individuals' social identity. Here, the word “nation” in its modern sense creates specific requirements, and religion is sidelined not so much from its political position but from its legal position in regulating human social relations. The problem is this: how can a religious state, whose formal exercise of power is confined within the bounds of a specific nation, pursue the concerns of a specific Ummah ? When a conflict or contradiction arises between the interests, benefits, or demands of the nation and the Ummah, how can a government that defines itself as a religious state reconcile the two? If reconciliation is impossible, which one should it prefer, and why? In this article, first, through historical analysis, the roots of the formation of the modern concept of nation are extracted and explained: how the fundamental nature of the governance problem has changed in the modern era and what new requirements it has created. Attention is also drawn to some of the complications and consequences of this transformation in the Iranian context over the past century. Then, using thematic analysis, the article seeks to discover the position of the Holy Quran regarding the two keywords Ummah and nation. The word Ummah is fundamentally Quranic, and extracting its implications was straightforward. However, what required reflection was examining the extent to which current “Ummah-oriented” responses are compatible with the Quranic position regarding Ummah. Recovering the equivalent of the word “nation” in Quranic literature, however, faces challenges, which the article attempts to overcome. Subsequently, through a historical comparison, the article re-examines the degree of alignment between the position of the Islamic Republic system and this Quranic literature. The final claim of this research is that a religious state within the context of the modern state cannot reasonably achieve its goals unless it can somehow reconcile the Ummah and the nation and produce a new synthesis of Ummah and nation that overcomes the conflict between purely Ummah-oriented and purely nationalist approaches. To ensure that this discussion does not remain merely at an abstract level, the article attempts to demonstrate an example of how this reconciliation can be achieved when confronting the issue of Palestine.