Isn’t it an instrument in the hands of an alliance of religious and ruling classes of Muslim countries, particularly dominent communities, to perpetuate authoritarianism, counter democratic aspirations of masses, extend and tighten colonial control over peripheral communities (and their resources), propagate dominent culture, expand political influence through alliances to strengthen bargaining position in international politics, etc.
Its not fake and its as real as any effort from the dominant communities in this age and time to extend their political influence in the name of freedom, unchecked and unlimited corporate profits, making every undemocratic effort to influence and subdue local resistance, instilling regimes and puppets for strengthening their control on the resources which are vital to their communities. To mount resistance to all this would require a real bond based on principles which are laid down by Islam, that is an egalitarian system.
Do you think that Islam the way it is practiced in Majority Muslim countries is a threat to the western capitalist corporate system? Not at all, rather, the way its practiced it’s an agent in forwarding the capitalist corporate agenda, in which global resources are controlled by a group of few, and they are controlling the destiny of millions of human beings, driving them to hunger and deprivation every day. The concept of Ummah is based on an egalitarian system, that’s the real threat of the ummah, that’s what Islam can deliver, that’s why ummah is such a threat.
But sadly very few Muslims realize this potential of Islam and the community which it aspires to develop.
Which egalitarianism by the way? Apart from the first few years before expansion and gaining power, Muslim society was never egalitarian. Even during the early phase, Quraish of Mekka (MUHAJIRIN)used to be the dominent elite with ovveriding influence over political matters of the emerging Muslim community.
The the same system which protected the poor and provided equal legal and economic opportunity in time when organized armies and kings thought its was ok to confiscate land and economic resources.
Can you provide some examples, AFAIK the most fertile land at the time of the muslim expansion (in Mesopotamia and Egypt) was never confiscated from the local land owners even if they accepted Islam or not. Every single person was provided for, the combination of Zakat, Tax (zraib) and Jazia provided for public facilities for every one in the Islamic domain, irrespective of the religion or economic or social background, what else is more egalitarian?
One has to remember that the concept of modern democracy in which each person (individual) has his vote is very modern, its just few decades old. So you can not compare today’s concept of governing by a system by which peopled governed 1000 years ago. Even thought every now and then Islamic system of governance reverts back to the system of BeAa, which is almost a vote. But that is just the governing aspect of Islam, which in Islam is not limit to any one form or type of governance rather it tries to emphasize on the result of the governing system. The elite of Mekkah didn’t deprive any one of their rights 1400 years ago, rather they provided rights to every one, sharing resources, establishing businesses. Again look at the results of that system did it provide equal legal and economic protection and created a classless society?
AFAIK the most fertile land at the time of the muslim expansion (in Mesopotamia and Egypt) was never confiscated from the local land owners even if they accepted Islam or not.
The conquered lands were declared the communal property of all the Muslims despite the insistence by the Mujahids/Ghazis that as conquerors, they had the right to own them. Do you know why?
The shrewd politicians at "Hijaz" knew that if the Muslim soldiers settled on these newly-conquered lands, they soon would develop fudal interests and most probably new political and militray power centers that could challenge/rival the authority of Hijaz and stop sending tax/jazya. One should also note that deserts of Hijaz grew virtually nothing and the so-called prosperity of its people, under Khulafa-i-Rashideen was exclusively due to spoils from Jehad and Jazya tax.
Exactly that happened during the khilafat of Hadrat Usman/ later.
Political and military power shifted from Hijaz to these new fertile lands and, consequently, two centers of power emerged; one at Kofa, Iraq under Hadrat Ali; the other at Damascus, Syria under Amir Muawiya. Centrality of Hijaz in Muslim affairs declined never to rise again until 20th Century when oil was discovered in Arab Penensula.
LOTD, what ever you have mentioned above is right, again my point is did these multiple governing centers fail in creating an egalitarian classless, equal, legal and economic societies, no. These shrewd politicians from Hijaz didn’t fail because they kept on governing with the principles presented by Islam for a universal community, they didn’t bother about the form of governing, it was the result which counted. Even when Muslims were in Spain and northern Africa its was the legal and economic equality which kept them in Europe for 800 years not the form of government.
As progeny of colonial thinking we are lead to believe that Islam is just a religion and Ummah is some sort of Muslim brotherhood, its more than that, its brotherhood based on justice and equality and if these elements are not there then there is no Ummah.
I think that the Ummah is an 'imagined community' meaning that there is an underlying thread that links all the Muslims together - originally religion but now oppression.