Irrespective of the vilification campaign of West that Islam is a ‘violent religion’, the idea of reconciliation with the West historically has always excited Muslim thinkers; how to develop a relationship that allows a co-existence based upon the principle of mutual respect and dignity. However, West is so intoxicated with its complex of intellectual superiority that it hardly regards a differing idea, other than the prevalent Western way of life that includes polity, economy, and culture, worth of any consideration. 
West also believes that it can annihilate any other civilization, solely on the basis of its military might. Resultantly, a violent reaction to the military expansion is more than obvious. The Muslim reaction is not necessarily against the Western thought or modernity per se, as raucously projected by the western thinkers. Till the time, West is determined to pursue its imperialistic agenda rather aggressively; the possibility of reconciliation between Islam and the West is almost next to impossible.
Irrespective of the debate that an imposed war will only be responded by a war – some philosophers even believe that without a war it is impossible to have a peace. There can never be a disagreement over a fact that every society aspires for a peaceful but dignified existence. Yes, of curse peace with dignity. A nation can have dignity while it is engaged in a war; it is never possible to attain peace in subjugation. A peaceful and dignified co-existence has been denied to the nation of Islam. Is Islam really a one nation?  A modern political scientist reaffirming the supremacy of nation states will outright reject the concept of one Ummah. However Ummah is not only a concept, an ideology, but even today it’s a practical reality. How so?
The notion of Ummah is not a utopian idea. Apparently the existence of more than fifty Muslim states is quite enough to annul the notion of Ummah. And it can also be argued that Pashtun identity, Arab nationalism, Turk assertion, is more relevant than any superfluous idea of one Ummah. What apparently is more than apparent actually is far-away from the real reality.
Whether we agree or disagree with the concept of ummah, the Muslim nation states are as divorced, from the idea of Islam as a one nation, like any other modern secular state. The concept of nation state whether Muslim or otherwise is essentially inimical to the idea of Ummah. The concept of Ummah does not only connote unity of entire Muslim communities, however, ideally it should be. However, in its real essence it means rejection of all other governing systems and establishment of a system based upon the Islamic thought.
The contradiction between the state and the Muslim street was never as profound as it is today. Muslim state inevitably is part of the prevailing international system, yet Muslim street thinks and acts alike, diametrically opposed to the actions and the interests of the state. That’s the reason why while conflict ridden Muslim states are ostracized internationally, internally their societies are infested badly with turmoil; it’s conflict within and with the other at the same time. In case state is the only reality, concept of one nation unquestionably turns out to be outdated.  But how it is possible to deny the concept of Ummah when Muslim street from Khartoum to Kashmir and Dhaka to Damascus, reacts in complete unison. Besides the fundamental issues of faith, Muslim street undeniably react against occupation of Palestine, American occupation of Muslim nations, ‘war on terror’ in near total unanimity. And even have a common view on Iran’s right to pursue civilian nuclear technology and on host of other problems. If examined carefully the real design behind the so called “war on terror” is basically to transform the nature of Muslim street.  Since destroying faith is simply impossible, hence the resistance against the hegemony becomes inevitable.     
After 9/11, it was generally believed that the ragtag resistance will never be able to withstand the overwhelming military might of the West. Indeed the West has prevailed and continues to win all the battles, yet the war is far from the over. Had it been so, it would have been a beginning of an era of complete subjugation; heralding end of all the resistance. A complete victory of imperialistic pursuits over the faith would have also meant that the faith was just an amalgam of dead rituals and not a living spirit. But when have empires been able to inundate the faith of a people and in the process fully pulverize resistance to dust? Alas, this war will continue to ravage the human civilization perhaps for many more decades. It’s very difficult to predict for how long. Until the final war, West will continue to win each and every battle, and resistance will be trounced again and again—and ultimately the repeated trial of resistance will prove its strength. Empire, in spite of wining every battle, will eventually lose the final war. Thus proving the theory of Pyrrhic victory true (a remark attributed by Plutarch to Pyrrhus, who declared, after a costly victory over the Romans, that another similar victory would ruin him). The omens are more than evident.

(Feedback at Firdoussyed@yahoo.com)

Lastupdate on : Fri, 5 Oct 2012 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Fri, 5 Oct 2012 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Sat, 6 Oct 2012 00:00:00 IST