ماهیّت و واقعیتِ جهان اسلام «امت اسلامی» یا «مِلَل مسلمان»؟

The primary objective of this article is to examine and critique the reductionist approach of Cemil Aydin in his book The Idea of the Muslim World—an approach that considers the formation of the concept of "Muslim World" merely as a modern political phenomenon, attributing it to imperialist and Pan-Islamist discourses of the nineteenth century. The present article argues that Aydin's analysis, despite its historical and post-colonial significance, due to its excessive focus on the political and modern dimensions of Islamic identity, neglects understanding the historical, cultural, and spiritual continuity of ties among Muslim societies. The author endeavors to conceptually distinguish between two levels—the "civilizational and spiritual truth of the Ummah" and the "political and institutional reality of the Muslim World"—separating the existential truth of the Ummah from the political construct of states, and emphasizing its enduring and historical existence. According to Cemil Aydin's argument, no comprehensive political unity existed in the Muslim World prior to the nineteenth century, and therefore the concept of "Ummah" or "Muslim World" is a product of political reactions during the era of Western imperialism. In contrast to this view, the present article is grounded in a civilizational-ontological foundation that conceives of the Islamic Ummah not as a political union, but as a "spiritual and cultural community" within a historical context; a community whose truth is defined through spiritual bonds (faith in God and the Prophet), shared rituals (particularly Hajj), the language of revelation (Arabic), and transnational scholarly and intellectual networks of scholars. Thus, the "Muslim World" is not an artificial phenomenon, but a living and historical reality that has coalesced around the Quran, the Sunnah, and the culture derived from them. Thus, the central question of this article is whether the concept of the "Muslim World" is merely a political product of the modern era and a reaction to colonialism, or whether it originates from an ancient civilizational and cultural truth that has persisted from the beginning of Islam to the present. From this question, several sub-questions arise: What is the distinction between "Ummah as a spiritual truth" and "Muslim World as a political 
crystallization"? Then, given this truth and historical continuity, why is the contemporary Islamic Ummah ineffective in political and civilizational action, and what are the structural, psychological, and civilizational factors behind this rupture in the Muslim World? The research method in this article will be critical-comparative analysis. Subsequently, by employing the method of "Textual-Discursive Analysis," a reading of Aydin's book
The Idea of the Muslim World will be presented. Then, using "Comparative Conceptual Analysis," Aydin's views will be compared with the opinions of Muslim thinkers and civilizational Islamologists such as Marshall Hodgson, Hussein Nasr, Abdolhossein Zarrinkoub, and Lovat Bomer. Finally, through the approach of "Dual-Level Analysis," we establish a distinction between two levels of analysis—culture-faith on one hand and politics-structure on the other—to explain the relationship between religious culture and institutional reality. The first conclusion of the article is that Aydin's approach suffers from historical reductionism, as it ignores the distinction between the "political Muslim World" and the "spiritual-cultural Ummah." He denies the social solidarity of pre-modern Muslims due to the absence of political unity, whereas fundamental spiritual, jurisprudential, linguistic (Arabic), and Sufi bonds had created a powerful network of shared identity among Muslims. Another finding is that in the medieval centuries of Islam, contrary to Aydin's assumption, civilizational-worldview elements—such as centers of learning (Baghdad, Nishapur, Cordoba), ritual practices (Hajj), and cultural and commercial exchanges between East and West—had created powerful "transnational" structures that are today referred to as "Islamic Civilization." Moreover, Aydin's analysis, with its "top-down" historiography and focus on political elites, overlooks the collective awareness of ordinary Muslim people, whereas the lived experience of the Ummah in the bazaar, mosque, and Sufi lodge has played a central role in the continuity of Islamic identity. The fourth point concerns Aydin's mode of thinking, which has secularized his method, reducing religion to a political instrument, and disregarding the internal forces of faith and revelation as identity-generating elements. The next conclusion is that ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity in Islamic societies, contrary to Aydin's perception, is not a sign of rupture but an expression of plurality within civilizational unity. The final finding is that the contemporary Muslim World, though politically pluralistic and fragmented, still possesses civilizational and spiritual unity that persists in the Quran, the Sunnah, and the historical memory of Muslims.




8  ô  Political science, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2025




Nevertheless, this article identifies two fundamental contemporary obstacles to the actualization of the Islamic Ummah:
1) Structural-Importation Obstacle: The Westphalian nation-state system imposed on the Muslim World following the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate has severely weakened the identity structure of the "Ummah," replacing the "interest of the Ummah" with the logic of "national interests." This system has fragmented the natural forms of connection among Muslims and confined Muslim World politics within the framework of rival states;
2) Psychological-Civilizational Obstacle: Two internal states of "weakness" and "fear"—fear of one's own incapacity and fear of the enemy's grandeur—have paralyzed the historical will of theummah. As articulated by the Martyr Leader of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, Western civilization rules more through its "grandeur" than through wealth and 
weapons. Until this fear of self and of the enemy is removed, the Islamic Ummah will not achieve civilizational reconstruction.The final conclusion is that Aydin's theory is based on a conceptual misunderstanding between cultural identity and political institution. The Muslim World has never been merely a modern construct, but has, based on the internal logic of faith and culture, sustained a "living cultural totality" from the early centuries of Islam to the present; therefore, the non-realization of political unity in the Muslim World does not indicate its absence, and thus the current ineffectiveness of the Ummah in confronting crises such as Palestine stems from the structural conflict between the logic of the nation-state and the logic of the Ummah, not from an absence of identity. The solution lies not in "constructing" a new identity, but in the "existential retrieval" of the Ummah through returning to the Quran, redefining the relationship between state and Ummah, and removing the two great fears (fear of self and fear of the enemy)