The main and clearly perceptible product of the western political philosophy was nationalism. The colonial powers tried to popularize it in Muslim countries and make it acceptable to them. Through this concept and political cult, they wanted to split the Muslims on the basis of geographical and racial boundaries, which like the European nations might prove permanent. By this they wanted to eliminate the chances of a World Muslim Unity, which was a great source of terror for them and they named it pan-Islamism.

No doubt, before the onslaught of European colonialism, Muslims of the world did not stand welded into one unit. They were divided in different and sometimes even in warring political entities. But this division had not taken place on the basis of race, colour or geography. It was a result of power craving and rivalries of different ruling personalities or dynasties. Chances of their reuniting had not been completely wiped out as was the position in the case of European nations. But when a political group formation in the form of a nation-state comes into existence on the basis of race, colour, language or geography it tends to become unalterable. Permanent prejudices set in and chances of unity between such national units totally disappear, unless, of course, they are forcibly reunited. But this artificial unity always proves a temporary phase. In modern times, Egypt and Syria once merged themselves but had to retreat their step. Similarly Egypt and Lybia tried to implement a similar scheme but failed.

This game of introducing the political slogan of nationalism as the basis of political creed had been one of the greatest damages which the colonial powers have done to the Muslims. Theoretically and ideologically Muslims still condemn nationalism as unIslamic and a great curse for humanity. But once Muslim nation-states came into existence as a gift forced on the Ummah by the colonial powers, as dictated by their own global diplomatic strategy, their merger for cementing the Ummah in one unit became very difficult. This situation has been created inspite of the fact that the hearts of the Muslim masses and a majority of the intelligentsia beat in unison. But due to the clash of interests created in the political and economic spheres, the concept of nationalism was artificially integrated with the political policy of every Muslim nation-state. Verbally Muslims disowned it. But such denunciation was of no avail practically. Nevertheless, the persistence of this notion served the purpose of keeping the anti-nationalism concept alive among the Muslims. May be on some future occasion a wave of an ebullient renaissance and revolutionary fervour on the Ummah level may demolish national frontiers of Muslim states.

Arabs were the most conspicuous victims of the creed of nationalism during the colonial period. The colonial powers engineered their revolt against the Khilaafat-i-Usmania, which though had deteriorated, yet provided a symbol of Muslim unity. Disjointing from the centre could be considered worthwhile if matters had improved. But it actually resulted in the political disintegration of the Arab society as a consequence of conspiratorial diplomatic machinations of colonial powers. The administrative provinces of the Ottoman Khilaafat were converted into nation-states. Ruling classes were created. In addition, imperialist powers also planted an alien element of Israel like a dagger in one's back. This would not have been possible had Arab solidarity and their integration with the Khilaafat not been broken.

Another weapon belonging to the armoury of the political thought of the colonalist powers was liberalism, to which great sacrosanctity was attributed. The westernized section in the Muslim society got very much impressed by it, but these intellectual sycophants did not realize that the spirit of all the thought elements connected with the concept of liberalism cut at the roots of Islamic philosophy. In the west, liberalism meant adoption of democracy, discarding all traditional ways, looking down upon orthodoxy, ignoring theology and adoption of rationalism pure and simple as an instrument of inquiry and basis of belief. So the western concept of liberalism is the child of the materialistic view of life and is permeated with requirements of secularism.

Two points are noteworthy about liberalism. Firstly, in terms of its heyday period it coincides with the time when colonial adventures were at its zenith. Secondly, presentation of such a high ideal, as liberalism was in the estimation of the west, and occupation, plundering and conspiring against eastern nations simultaneously were two irreconcilable attitudes. The general body of the Muslim learned class knew very well the side field of human life where Islam permitted, rather encouraged, freedom of thought and intellectual activity in the form of Ijtehad and Ijma. These concepts were not subject to and chanellized by a huge propaganda machinery manipulated by many vested interests as was the case in the west. So the Muslims could not be impressed by the concept of liberalism imported from abroad, and as such it only touched a fringe of the Muslim society, by which I mean a small group of westernized people who had been intellectualized by the west. Persons like Syed Amir Ali who wrote "The Spirit of Islam", much appreciated by the orientalists, represent this group. Such dignitaries generally tried to harmonize the teachings of Islam with western thinking. But the Muslim Ummah refused to fall in line with them and felt convinced that a wide gulf separated their system of thought from that of the colonial powers.

In the practical political sector, the form of government has been the subject of complete confusion and controversy in various Muslim areas. Under different expediences of foreign rulers and local circumstances, this problem took on varying shapes and forms. This state of affairs had its repercussions on political thinking. So no well-defined indigenous concept could emerge at the Ummah level. Various factors were affecting the Muslim thought and were confusing it. One was their own concept of Shurai Nizaam as exemplified in the Khilaafat-i-Raashidaah, and the Sovereignty of God. Second was their practically enforced hereditary system of Khilaafat, which though played a sort of role in cementing various geographically scattered units, yet was identical with kingship which the Muslims considered as an unIslamic institution. Yet a third, and practically effective system of political thought was the one which was developed in the west during the colonial period under the impact of requirements of the changing economic patterns of the society. This political-cum-governmental system was trumpeted about as democracy, overtly defined as the sovereignty of the demos, ie, the general public. This concept was irreconcilable with the Islamic concept of Sovereignty of God. In fact, democracy was the child of the colonial period and not the product of any ideological thinking for the betterment of the people. During the colonizing process, Europe itself underwent abundant changes in political thinking and practice. This change took place on class basis. More and more emphasis was laid on, and importance given to, the economic sector of life. This phenomenon, which was just a passing phase of history, provided food for thought and source of inspiration for the communist thesis of Marx.

Economic activity increased due to the availability of markets and corresponding improvement in technology to enhance and push up production capacity. This trend received further impetus in individual European countries due to competition and craving of every country to dump more and more consumer goods in the colonies. As affluence increased, democracy alongwith the attendant social security schemes also became feasible in European countries. A government can raise the standard of living of its people and at the same time maintain a large army and build up a strong industrial base only if it has tremendous national income. In the case of the colonialist countries, most of this income used to come from the source of trade with colonies. Through this commercial mechanism with terms of trade heavily in favour of the colonialist countries and adverse to the colonies, immense wealth continued, and is still continuing, to be transferred from the latter to the former. Industries cannot be run on the basis of internal market after a certain level, which happens to be low, without exploitable markets of industrially backward and raw material-producing countries.

When the glamour of the high standard of living in the imperialist countries came to the notice of the western educated class of the colonies, they attributed it to their system of thought and institutions. Without pondering over the real infrastructure on which this society was constructed, they became enamoured of their philosophy of life and political thinking. Consequently, a section of population under the colonial rule began to appreciate the creeds of nationalism, materialism and democracy without considering the actual motivation behind their implementation in the west. The colonial powers were farsighted and shrewd enough to realize the implications of this trend and welcomed it. They knew fully well that this penetration of alien thinking in the Muslim polity and thought system was creating a cultural crisis which will deprive them of constructive activity and potential. And Alas! this did actually happen!

The Muslim Ummah no doubt, guarded the ideological frontiers of Islam, but an all-pervading homogenious political thought which might have impelled the world Muslims to a united stand and striving on intellectual and practical level took shape. For this, adoption of Islamic principles in both the fields were needed. From this, it is apparent that during the colonial period so much work in the field of Islamic thought could not be done as might have ensured the establishment of a genuine Islamic Order. Every present is the consequence of an immediate past. What we see today is the result of what we thought and how we acted yesterday.

In the present case, our yesterday is the colonial period which in so clearly reflected in our de jure independent existence of today without a spirit of freedom. I do not want to enter into the historical controversy of whether circumstances produced thinking or thinking is the source of the practical conditions of the society. This difference of opinion can be easily solved if we look for guidance to the Seerah and achievements of the Prophet (sws). He started with presenting the basic principles of Islam and simultaneously commenced the character building work on the basic of the conception of TAQWAH. When the required level of the quantum of proper human material for the establishment of Islamic Order was achieved, an Islamic State came into existence.

Such a level of preparation of human material could not be attained during the struggle of the Muslims for political independence from the colonial powers. So many external factors contributed to this failure. Internally the Muslims remained divided on political and sectarian basis and enfeebled themselves. On account of this, their constructive faculties could not exert themselves. Externally, much powerful imperialists left no stone unturned to sow seeds of disintegration among the Ummah and prevented them from uniting politically. I have already hinted at their efforts to sabotage the Muslim unity politically, reinforced by perverting Muslim thinking by introducing extraneous views and institutions in various Muslim countries which they subjugated. But short of the establishment of an Islamic Order, Muslims did succeed in maintaining the purity of Islamic views. Islam did not meet the fate of the other religions of which all the genuine and original teachings have been wiped out with the passage of time.

The objective of preserving the purity of Islamic thought in face of adverse disintegrating forces which worked for ideological perversion during the colonial period was achieved by the efforts, struggles and sacrifices of a number of high stature personalities. I shall mention a few out of them, indicating the nature of their influence on Muslim thinking.

Among these stalwarts Allama Syed Jamal-ud-Din (1838-1897) stands out prominently. It is agreed on all hands---Muslims and non-Muslims---that he is qualified to be considered as the mouthpiece of the Muslims of the colonial period and symbol of their aspirations. He voiced the feelings of the national boundaries. He was not a domicile of any country. He can be truly called a citizen of the Islamic world. Even imperialist powers, as I shall show, used to recognize his right to speak and negotiate on behalf of every Muslim country. To talk about his views and activities tantamounts to reviewing and assessing the Muslim political thought of the period under study.

From the second half of the nineteenth century onwards---the heydays of colonialism---his influence on the Muslim Ummah's political thought had been supreme and most effective. It appears as if he changed the course and trend of their thinking. He was a forceful pleader of his views and had a magnetic personality. He restlessly travelled in pursuit of his mission to all the four corners of the world calling the Muslims to wake up from their slumber. He strove to activate them to face the challenges of modern times and occupy their due place on the forum of global political set-up.

On political level, he wanted the Muslim countries to get rid of their inefficient and corrupt rulers who were functioning under the imperialist umbrella. He impressed upon them the necessity of ousting the colonial powers and reconstructing their national lives on Islamic principles and by pressing modern technology into service. He wished that a federation of Muslim states be brought into existence to enable the Ummah to counter the onslaught and dominance of western colonialism and lead an honourable and an independent existence. He was a great opponent of importing western ideas and influences, but wanted Muslims to utilize the technology developed by them. His views were dubbed by the western propaganda machinery as pan-Islamism. Pan-Islamism was regarded by the West as the most abominable, aggressive and anti-west political and unpardonable political sin and offence. But the Muslim masses and many conspicuous intellectuals did declare their adherence to these political views of Allama Afghani. They were echoed by no less personalities than those of, to name a few, Mohammad Abduhu of Egypt, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Mualana Zafar Ali Khan and Allama Iqbal of Indo-Pakistan sub-continent, Saeed Halim Pasha of Turkey, Rashid Raza of Egypt, Mahdi Sndani of Sudan and Imam Shamyle of Russia. The Ummah continued to get inspiration from this political creed.

Such a terror had been created in the political circles of colonial power by this philosophy of Allam Afghani that the entry of his journal "Al-Urwatul-Wusqah" brought out by him from Paris was banned by governments of Muslim countries under the pressure of colonialist power after only eighteen issues of it had appeared. He also published another journal by the name of "Zia-ul-Khafiqeen" from London. But the British government took pains to see that its publication was suspended. This is no less a demonstration of the fact that Allama Afghani's political views has a universal appeal for Muslims.

Muslim rulers trembled on their thrones on the very mention of his name end political creed. Professor Brown, a recognized authority on Iranian affairs, in addition to writing in his book entitled "The Revolution of Persia" that kings would tremble on their thrones because of the moves of the Syed, also said that he could be called the pioneer of constitutional movement in Iran. In some respects the present revolution of Iran can be traced back as the legacy of his attempts and striving to create awakening in Iranians and to put pressure on Shah Nasir-ud-Din Kachar to desist from using dictatorial powers, to enforce constitutional governments and to eliminate foreign influences of all types. The Shah was a great spendthrift and was not competent enough to manage the finances of the country. For his monetary requirements he used to give contracts and monopoly rights in respect of various items to foreigners. This policy adversely affected the economy of the country. Allama Afghani had insistently differed with the Shah on his policy when he was the latter's Chief Adviser. He also used to press the Shah for doing away with autocratic rule. For the views he had the support of the Iranian public. His relations with Shah who had himself requested him to come to Iran to shoulder the responsibility of handling matters, became strained. The Shah subjected him to inhuman physical persecution and exiled him from Iran. But his influence on the Iranian public was immense. One of his disciples murdered the Shah.

Public awakening in Iran had reached such a pitch that the policies of the Shah were openly resented by them. The Shah gave a monopoly contract of tobacco to the English. Allama Afghani wrote a letter to Haji Mirza Hassan Shirazi Mujaahid-i-Azam on the undesirability of this deed. On receipt of this letter the Mujtahid gave a fatwah against the use of tobacco by any Muslim. This fatwah received such a support from the Iranians that even in the Shah's palace the whole stock of tobacco was destroyed the same day. Consequently, the Shah was forced to cancel the contract. This incident had great repercussions on the political conditions in Iran.

Seeing the weakness of Iran, Russia and Britain were conspiring to partition Iran in two zones of influence. The northern one was to go to Russia and the southern to the British. The Iranian public was smarting restlessly under the impact of rumors on this account. At last the Shah had to send Allama Afghani to Russia, where he stayed for a long time and held negotiations at Petersburg. He succeeded in reaching some understanding with the Czar by convincing him that such an arrangement with the British would not be in his country's interest. But on the return of the Allama from Russia, the Iranian primeminister's behaviour did not let his efforts reach their logical conclusion.

The impact of his teachings and views were very conspicuous on the Arab worlds. During his stay in Cairo, he overshadowed and dominated the intellectual and academic circles. The Ulema and students of Al-Azhar flocked round him. He did his best to educate them on the nature of problems and challenge faced by the Ummah. He exposed the rulers of different Muslim states and their thinking, policies and misdeeds openly. His masterful elucidation of the principles of Islamic polity made the intellectual circles think and ponder on the affairs of the Muslim world. A considerable number of people such as Mohammad Abduhu and Rashid Raza responded to his call and demand but strong internal and external forces had lined up in unity against reform. Khedives Ismail and Taufiq destroyed the economy of the country, let the English and French exercise control on every department of the government, reduced the Egyptian Army and tolerated all sorts of corrupt practices.

At last the pressure of public opinion and resentment in the army under the influence of the circle of the disciples of Allama Afghani led to the installation of Arabi Pasha as the War Minister. Later on, all powers passed into his hands. On this the British bombarded Alexandria and fierce fighting took place between Arabi Pasha and the combined strength of the English and Khedive Tufiq. Arabi Pasha was defeated, prosecuted and interned in Sri Lanka. During this struggle Allama Afghani was detained in Calcutta so that he might not be able to proceed to Egypt. Although political power in Egypt passed completely into the hands of the English, yet Egyptians had a great urge for freedom and for getting rid of foreign elements.

As happened throughout the Arab world, a wave of nationalistic creed swept over Egypt also during the first great war. Seed Zaghlol who founded the Wafd party was twice exiled from the country on account of his demand for freedom which was conceded ultimately in 1922.

Although nationalists were the recipient of political power, yet a strong and effective movement in favour of Islamic conception of polity was at work under the guidance of Ikhwaan-ul-Muslimoon. Its leader Imam Hussan-ul-Banna shaheed uncompromisingly struggled for the enforcement of Islam as a code of life and polity. But his method of work involved the propagation of Islamic ideology and assimilation of its principles by Muslims coupled with character building. He was of the view that without this preparatory exercise, attainment of political power for the enforcement of Islam was of no use. In his address to the fifth convention of the party in 1938, Imam Hassan-ul-Banna said that it was undesirable to try to obtain fruit prior to its ripening and to pluck flowers before they blossom.

The story of Egypt would be incomplete without mentioning the beroic struggle of Mohammad Bin Abdullah know as Mahdi Sudani. He tried to stop the tide of European imperialism towards the south. Britain wanted to occupy Sudan and use it as a bulwark against the warlike adventures of the tribes of that area. General Gordon was got appointed as Governor of Sudan. Mahdi desperately fought his army and Gordon was killed. His political aim was to oust the Europeans from the Arab world. His was an Islamic movement and many of his close lieutenants were the disciples of Allama Afghani who inspired them in Cairo with his political philosophy of the revival of Islam at the international level. Mahdi's movement sent tremors in the government circles of London. They contacted Allama Afghani to seek his help to ward off what they called the danger of Mahdi. Lord Randolph Churchill and Lord Salisbury met the Allama in London several times. But the British wanted to have their own way and were bent upon furthering their imperialist designs which the Syed knew and understood very well. Therefore, the talks remained inconsequential. The Mahdi courted martyrdom for his case.

The importance of Turkey and Khilaafat cannot be underestimated as far as the Muslim world is considered. Allama Afghani understood the nature of qmaladies from which the Ottoman governmental system was suffering. His political strategy was to find some Muslim country which might provide him a firm base for the propagation of his ideology. He preferred Turkey for this propose and tried his best to make Sultan Abdul Hamid understand the internal problem and external challenges which the Khilaafat was facing. He tried to convince him about the damaging effects of the autocratic from of government. Instead, he advised him to enforce a form of constitutional monarchy with a consultative body comprising of the representatives of all the Muslim countries. His ideas had the support of many elements in the country; but the Sultan was adamant.

As regards the political education of the elite and the masses, Allama Afghani used every available forum to propagate his view in Turkey also. But the religious and political elements having their vested interests linked with the then prevalent corrupt administration felt greatly embarrassed. So many elements became active against him. In addition to these internal forces opposing him, the Ambassadors of European governments and the representatives of their trade circles were also playing their mischievous roles. Their interference in the internal affairs of Turkey had reached a stage that when on the 23rd of December, 1876 Sultan Abdul Hamid enforced a Constitution, the European powers had the audacity to initiate a conference at Constantinople and made various proposals for the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire. On the refusal of the Turkish government to accede to their proposal a war was started. As a result of all this state of affairs many elements raised their voices against the policy of the Sultan. They wanted to take a strong stand against foreign interference and wanted internal reforms. The tussle continued until the Balkan wars deprived Turkey of its European possessions and the first great war made the Arabs leave the fold of Khilaafat. As a result, a wave of nationalism swept over Turkey and Mustafa Kamal and his companions formed the opinion that their survival now lay in adopting the nationalistic creed and the western way of life and thought. But with the passage of time Turks have not been able to fully reconcile themselves with this concept.

As far as India is concerned the prevailing situation was unique. Muslims had ruled there for about eight centuries, but were in minority. Because the British had succeeded Muslims in the field of political dominance, they considered the latter as dangerous and victimized them. I have already referred to rulers like Tipu Sultan earlier. Two very high stature personalities of Syed Ahmad shaheed and Shah Ismail shaheed, the latter being the grandson of Shah Waliullah, jointly sponsored in the first quarter of the nineteenth century an ideological, political and military campaign for the revival of Islam, rehabilitation and elimination of non-Muslim rule in India. Their view was that if they started a campaign in India it will take on the shape of a civil war. So they prepared a very adventurous and bold scheme of creating a base of military operations in north western India which was a Muslim area. For this purpose they did character building work on a number of people and infused in them Islamic spirit.

They contacted and got assurance of help from Afghan rulers and ulema. They alongwith their army undertook an arduous journey of hundreds of miles by circumventing the Sikh state in the Punjab and established an Islamic order in the north western India. Their scheme was to fight with and eliminate the Sikhs from the Punjab where their barbarian rule had created a hell-like state of affairs for Muslims. After that they wanted to fight decisive battles with the English to oust them from India.

But the local Afghan rulers and misguided maulavis let them down when they enforced the Shariah and centralized the system of zakat and ushr. They conducted themselves strictly according to Islamic tenets and at last courted martyrdom at Balakot in a battle with the Sikhs in 1831. They left behind a lofty example of sacrifice and a considerable number of followers who worked hard in India for the cause of Islam and politically opposed the English rule.

In 1857, Muslims rose against the English rule, but failed due to disorganization and lack of competent leadership as well as due to the English having entrenched themselves firmly in many areas of the sub-continent. After this rising, Muslims became the target of a most severe victimization by the English and were repressed in every field of life.

In the meantime another school of thought made its appearance of which the leadership was assumed by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Sir Syed was a farsighted man and understood the art of English diplomacy and political thinking. He was of the opinion that Muslims should relinquish the policy of opposition to the English, accept the prevalent political situation and should participate in the political precess under the British rule to safeguard their political interests. He appreciated and was in favour of accepting the English political set-up which was to be enforced in India. His main stress was on the necessity of safeguarding the Muslim interest in it. Thus, the foundation was laid for the concept of Muslim nationalism in India. So far the Hindu majority was faithfully towing the line of foreign rulers and adopting their political concept. But towards the end of the nineteenth century, they began to organize themselves and to see the cream of dominance on the strength of numerical majority.

But the basic Muslim political concept of a world Muslim unity demonstrated its vigorious embodiment in the Khilaafat movement in 1918. Indian Muslims showed their solidarity with the Turks insipite of the fact that the English rulers of India were at war with them. This movement made considerable contribution to the political awakening of the Muslims in particular and the Indians in general.

Anyhow in the long run the Muslims continued their struggle for an independent identity on national lines with the accompanying slogan of Islam without which the support of Muslim masses could not have been obtained. They carved out for themselves a homeland in the shape of Pakistan in 1947.

From the beginning of the twentieth century, Allama Iqbal commenced developing his philosophy on Islamic lines. He had done an indepth study of European philosophy and political system. In 1907, when the European culture was in its full bloom he predicted its disintegration due to its inherent internal contradiction and materialistic base. His political philosophy was that Muslims should develop their individual and communal life and open the closed door of Ijtehad. His ultimate aim was a world Muslim State. He proposed the establishment of an independent Muslim state in India, where Muslims might be able to lead their individual and corporate lives according the dictates of Islam. About the future of Islam, he was very optimistic and was of the view that a time will come when humanity will seek refuge under its umbrella to get rid of the tortures from which it was suffering. But as regards Muslims, he pinpointed the maladies which were eating into the very vitals of their life.

I am afraid the limitation of time does not permit me to talk about the political thought and struggle of every colonist Muslim country. But as I have stated earlier, the original motivating force behind every movement of independence was Islam, and the declared political aim in every case was the establishment of Islamic polity.

In Indonesia Diponegoro, Tangku Imam and Tangku Tjik Ditiro conducted jehad against the Dutch and made Islam as the basis of their call to Muslims for fight to attain independence.

Amir Abdul Qadir heroically fought for fifteen years in Algeria against the French and the focal point of his struggle was Islam.

Muslims of Somaliland struggled for freedom in response to a call made by Mohammad Abdullah towards Islam. He waged jehad valiantly for about two decades.

Mujahid-i-Rif Abdul Karim's basis of appeal for his struggle was also provided by Islam in Morocco.

The Sanusi movement in Libya started from the very time the Italians attacked that country in 1911. The motivating force of the struggle was Islam. So powerful was this appeal that upto 1932 Sanusis never permitted the Italians to have peace of mind. Except a few military bases, Muslims were the rulers of the country. After the second world war, they emerged as the rulers of the whole of the country.

All these movements except the last one took on nationalist colour in the last stage of the struggle for independence as I have hinted earlier. By that time the efforts of suppression of the Islamic system of thought and its replacement by western thought had borne fruit.

So the Muslim as an Ummah, insipid of their mental and sentimental attachment with Islam cannot claim to have remained immune from the effects of western political thought---especially nationalism---during imperialist domination they were already in the grip of intellectual lethargy and political decadence. I have tried in article to put some light on some aspects of the Muslim political thought and have also touched upon the impact of western philosophy, a target of onslaughts of an alien political system and thought for about two centuries. During this period their thinking was of course affected by the literature supplied by the west on every subject. The political creeds of the west were presented as the most advanced and capable of meeting demands of what is generally called the modern age. The Muslim tradition and thought were dubbed as obsolete and out of tune with the present human needs. In educational institutions syllabi and text-books prepared in support of and in consonance with the western concept of life and values were enforced.

Getting proper Islamic education became difficult, rather impossible because in the institutions which we call religious madrassahs the method of teaching lacked any progressive trend in the Islamic sense and produced a stereo type stuff which had no capability of original thinking or healthy intellectual activity. For obtaining proper Islamic education and for understanding the basic principles of Islam one had to strive on personal level. So in the Muslim society there existed an unequal clash between the west and east in the field of thought building. The former was organist and government sponsored, the latter was haphazard and depended on personal initiative and efforts of some individuals. The result was that the Ummah as a whole was deprived of the single-mindedness and homogeneity in respect of its aims and objectives which are an indispensable prerequsite for the reconstruction of the communal life of an entity. No doubt, we are at present perceiving attendance towards the awakening of Muslims. Nevertheless, an analysis of the factors which are playing their part in the concepts and motivation leading to the present upsurge is needed so as to assess the nature of the possible goal towards which we are heading.