Ummah? What Ummah?

Mosques are always abuzz with the all-time favorite catchword (for lack of catchphrase?) - "Unity". We seek unity. Unity among Muslims. Unity between Muslim nations and governments. Unity of purpose between those who hail from Muslim backgrounds. Unity between Muslims in the West. And then, of course, Unity in/of/for/between/within The Ummah. Which is, of course, the Muslim Ummah. Our Nation. Under Allah. Indivisible.

About "liberty and justice for all", well, we believe absolutely in it, of course, but it's not the buzzword. Unity is the Word. So where, and what is this Muslim Ummah?

I used to think it existed as a given, i.e., all Muslims form, collectively, one Ummah, regardless to if they think, act, are organized, or in any other way participate in it. At any time, upon entering a Mosque for salat, we greet one another in one universal salutation, "Alsalamu aalaykum" (however you transliterate it) - in one universal language, Arabic - and the format for salat is also universal, using one Sura, al-Fatiha in particular, and the bowing and prostration (sujud) forms a sort of universal "body language" even down to the time of day and direction, as if on one time-space continuum. In that sense, there seemed to be unity. Unity of worship.

Of course, there are many various "sects" or "schools", from the well-known Shi'aa and Sunni to the fairly well-known Sufi and Darwish adherents, to the Ahmediyya movement and Islamiya and others. Yet I have prayed in Shi'a, Sunni, Ahmediyya and Sufi-leaning mosques the same exact way without trouble. All recognize the Qur'an as revelation, although from there one finds differences.

But listening to "islamophobes", one gets the impression that all Muslims are of one Ummah looking for a caliph to "make" a "caliphate". If there is an Ummah, it is not one universal voice, at least most certainly not one political voice. You can hardly get two Muslims within one "school" of thought to agree on anything, let alone planet-wide. Even within a single mosque there can be considerable controversy and argument. Many Muslims dream of uniting the "Ummah", but in reality, it exists only in the sense of a shared religious collective consciousness. You meet another Muslim or Muslima, and he or she is your brother/sister. There is that "family" sense of unity, of sharing a faith. Which can be acted on in times when one needs that kind of support. But a "nation"?

Where is the "leader"? Certainly not the set of totalitarians currently holding power over most, not all, Muslim nations. And those who are not totalitarian have no intention or concept of assuming leadership of all Muslims worldwide a la Pope. No alliance, whether Arab League or Islamic organization, represents any unified front.

What would be the "government"? It would have to be democratic, since the Qur'an mandates "Alamr shura baynakum" or "the rule of law/governance is by mutual agreement/discussion between you (all)". Hence it would have to be not authoritarian, as those distinctly non-Islamic totalitarian-style governments in Saudi Arabia, say, or Egypt. Instead it would then be political, since leadership being by "shura" or collective agreement requires elections - free and fair. And "all politics is local". That is, leaders would have to be localized in order to be free, fair and accessible to the ruled. Thus, the idea of One Leader for One Ummah is both impractical and not particularly Islamic. You could have a Figurehead sort of charismatic inspirational-type speechmaker. And while you're at it, let him take care of his first job: Sitting Duck.

No, the first thing is to get rid of the authoritarian, hence in that sense at the very least, unIslamic, leadership that is currently depriving their various populations of their rights to ... live, better themselves and their families, have real economies, and exercise their Islamic right to have a representative government. And... good luck with that.

Instead of appealing to Unity as a general, amorphous cause, Muslims should appeal to the more direct and specific cause of cooperation on specific issues, means of transforming their governments from tyrannical to representative, and how to communicate their intentions to the world. Nobody ever united because of "Unity". People unite for a cause. And not an ideologically pure cause, either. They unite to live, to eat, to be free, to have power, to better their human condition.

The Qur'an is full of advice and direction on this subject. I wonder how all these Muslims happened to miss it.

Are "Islamic Extremists" Really Muslims?

In order to use our minds, we need to start looking at difficult subjects. Why not start with the subject of suicide bombers? And Islamic extremists?

There are the obvious points, the pros and cons, but let's go directly to what should be obvious, but apparently isn't to many. Suicide bombing is wildly unsuccessful. Islamic extremists are, in a general definition based on usage of the word rather than optimistic hopes for the word, people who believe "defending Islam" or "defending Muslims" means forming militia-type groups to conduct military operations on varying scales and of various types to attack, supposedly, non-Muslims, in order to drive them out of Muslim lands where they engage in political and economic influence-mongering.

Usually they attack civilians. Usually, the muslim/bomber kills him/herself in the process. Usually, there are civilian casualties. Often, the civilian casualties include other Muslims. Often, the only deaths are those of the suicide bombers. In occasional, so-called "spectacular" attacks, the casualties of non-Muslims outnumber the casualties of Muslims or attackers, such as in 9/11. In those cases, these attacks inspire huge wars against Muslim civilian populations and are used to justify condemning Muslims en masse in various countries and situations.

What a success! For non-Muslims. For Muslims, a total disaster in every respect. Leading many to believe the suicide bombers are actually agents of the non-Muslim governments they claim to be attacking. Many Muslims believe that. So why do the suicide bombers continue? No visible reason except to continue the wars that give them, and the governments they attack, fodder on which to justify the arms trade, a burgeoning business.

So, are they really Muslims? Let Allah be the judge. But don't over-confidently second-guess His decision.