Condition of the Muslim World Post-1924: An Ummah Without Shelter
Imagine you are sleeping soundly under the sturdy roof of your house. Suddenly, without warning, that roof is demolished by someone. The sky opens. And a storm of rain pours down — not ordinary water, but rain of colonization, division, oppression, and humiliation. You have nowhere to run. You have no umbrella. You have no wall that can withstand the wind. That is what the Muslim Ummah felt on the morning of March 3, 1924.
For centuries, the Ottoman Khilafah — although in a weak and sick condition — remained a roof that sheltered more than one billion Muslims worldwide. It was a symbol of unity, a protector of the holy lands, and the last bastion that prevented the Muslim world from being torn apart by its enemies. When Mustafa Kemal Ataturk officially abolished the Khilafah on that day, not merely a political institution collapsed. The entire Muslim world lost its shelter. And the storm came.
This article will not merely recount history. This is a story about how Muslims — our grandparents, our parents — lived without protection. This is a story about how the map of the Muslim world was torn apart by two Europeans who had never set foot on Arab soil. This is a story about Palestine that lost its protector. And this is also a story about how from that darkness, new lights emerged that tried to rekindle the flame of Islamic glory.
Let us trace it together, step by step, so that we understand why today we so desperately need the Khilafah.
1. When That Roof Collapsed: The Muslim World on the Brink
March 3, 1924 was not an ordinary date in the history of the Muslim Ummah. On that day, for the first time in more than 1,300 years — since the passing of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ — the Muslim world did not have a Khalifah. There was no single leader who united Damascus with Baghdad, no umbrella that sheltered Cairo with Istanbul, no power that could protect Makkah and Madinah from foreign hands.
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ had warned us about this day:
يُوشِكُ أَنْ تَدَاعَى عَلَيْكُمُ الْأُمَمُ كَمَا تَدَاعَى الْأَكَلَةُ إِلَى قَصْعَتِهَا
“The nations are about to call each other to set upon you, just as diners call each other to their dish.” (HR. Abu Dawud, Ahmad)
The companions asked: “Is it because we are few on that day, O Messenger of Allah?” He answered: “Rather, you are many, but you are like froth on the surface of water. And Allah will remove fear from the chests of your enemies, and Allah will plant al-wahn into your hearts.” The companions asked again: “What is al-wahn?” He answered: “Love of the world and fear of death.”
Imagine how precisely this noble saying describes the condition of the Muslim Ummah post-1924. The number of Muslims is very large — hundreds of millions of people spread from Morocco to Mindanao. But they have no strength. They are like froth: appearing numerous, but easily swept away by the waves. And most painfully, they have been infected with the disease of al-wahn: love of the world and fear of facing death in defense of their religion.
2. Two Europeans and a Ruler That Tore the Map
If there is one event most responsible for the division of the modern Muslim world, then that event is the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. And the story behind it is one of the most painful stories in the history of the Ummah.
In May 1916, two diplomats — Sir Mark Sykes from Britain and François Georges-Picot from France — sat in a room and with a ruler, they divided the Middle East — which at that time was still under Ottoman power. They had never visited most of the territories they divided. They did not know the tribes that lived there. They did not care that the lines they drew would separate families, clans, and communities that had lived together for centuries.
Mark Sykes proudly described to the British War Cabinet how he wanted a straight line stretching from the letter “A” in Acre (Akka, Palestine) to the letter “B” in Basrah (Iraq). A straight line. As if he were drawing on sketch paper, not dividing land inhabited by millions of human beings.
What Did They Divide?
This secret agreement divided Arab territories into zones of influence:
| Zone | Controlled By | Territories Included |
|---|---|---|
| Blue Zone | France | Coastal Syria, Lebanon, Cilicia (southern Turkey) |
| Red Zone | Britain | Southern Iraq (Basrah, Baghdad), Haifa and Acre (Palestine) |
| International Zone | Joint administration | Central Palestine (including Jerusalem), Mosul |
| Zone A | French influence | Inland Syria and northern Jordan |
| Zone B | British influence | Northern Iraq and southern Jordan |
Notice how arbitrary this division is. The lines drawn on that map did not follow natural geographical boundaries. They did not follow the distribution of tribes and clans. They did not follow history and culture. Those lines were purely the result of colonial interests: who gets the port, who gets the oil field, who gets the railway line.
Impact That We Still Feel Today
These Sykes-Picot lines later became the seeds of the modern nation-states in the Middle East: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine. All are artificial entities that had never existed in history before. There had never been a “country of Iraq” or a “country of Lebanon” in Islamic civilization. What existed were territories united in one political unity under the Khilafah.
As a result? The conflicts we witness today — civil war in Syria, crisis in Iraq, division in Lebanon — all originate from those artificial lines of Sykes and Picot. When you force different groups to live in one artificial country, or separate the same group into different countries, conflict is an inevitable consequence.
Allah ﷻ had warned about those who divide:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا لَسْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ ۚ إِنَّمَا أَمْرُهُمْ إِلَى اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُنَبِّئُهُمْ بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْعَلُونَ
“Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects — you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only [left] to Allah; then He will inform them about what they used to do.” (QS. Al-An’am: 159)
3. Map of Colonization: When the Muslim World Was Torn Apart
After the Khilafah fell and Sykes-Picot divided the Middle East, there was no longer any power that could hold back the wave of colonization. The Muslim world that previously was united was now torn apart into dozens of weak political entities, and one by one fell into the hands of colonizers.
Let us look at this map of colonization not as a dry table, but as a narrative of systematic conquest.
Southeast Asia: Spices That Invited Wolves
Indonesia — an archipelago rich in spices — had long been a target of European nations. The Dutch came first in the late 16th century with the pretext of trade through the VOC, but slowly transformed into full colonizers. For more than three centuries, Indonesia’s natural wealth — spices, rubber, tin, oil — was drained to enrich Amsterdam while the native people lived in poverty and forced labor (cultuurstelsel or forced cultivation system).
Resistance continued to emerge — Prince Diponegoro, Imam Bonjol, Teuku Umar, Cut Nyak Dien — but without central coordination, without a single leadership that united the entire archipelago, all those resistances could be extinguished one by one. If there had been a strong Khilafah in Istanbul that could send aid, send troops, send diplomacy, perhaps Indonesia’s fate would have been different.
South Asia: A Crown Snatched from Muslim Hands
India was once one of the greatest centers of Islamic civilization. The Mughal Sultanate built the Taj Mahal, developed art, architecture, and knowledge. But in the 18th century, Britain came through the East India Company and systematically took over power. In 1857, after the great rebellion (Sepoy Mutiny), Britain officially took over India from Muslim hands.
What was painful was how Britain not only colonized politically and economically, but also culturally. The Urdu and Arabic languages began to be displaced by English. The Islamic education system (madrasah) was replaced by the colonial curriculum. Islamic law was slowly replaced by English common law. This was a colonization that not only took the land, but also took the identity.
North Africa: Blood and Tears Under French Colonialism
Algeria is perhaps the most brutal example of French colonization. When France invaded Algeria in 1830, they did not come as ordinary traders or colonizers. They came with the intention of erasing the existence of Islam in that country. For 132 years of colonization, more than one million Algerian citizens died. France seized fertile lands, burned villages, and even claimed Algeria as an integral part of France — not as a colony, but as “France itself.”
Morocco and Tunisia experienced a similar fate, although with slightly less intensity. Both fell under the French protectorate in the early 20th century, and only became independent in 1956.
Middle East: Mandates That Never Liberated
After World War I, the League of Nations (the forerunner of the UN) ratified the “mandate” system — a term that sounds noble, but in practice was no different from ordinary colonization. Britain got the mandate over Palestine, Iraq, and Transjordan. France got the mandate over Syria and Lebanon.
The word “mandate” should mean “guiding toward independence.” But what happened was the opposite. Britain and France used their mandates to exploit resources, suppress independence movements, and — most tragically — open the door to the Zionist project in Palestine.
Complete Map of Colonization of the Muslim World
| Region | Colonizer | Period of Colonization | Form of Colonization |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | Netherlands | 1602–1945 | Full colony (VOC → Dutch East Indies) |
| India & Pakistan | Britain | 1757–1947 | Full colony (East India Company → British Raj) |
| Palestine | Britain | 1920–1948 | League of Nations Mandate |
| Iraq | Britain | 1920–1932 | Mandate → Puppet kingdom |
| Syria | France | 1920–1946 | League of Nations Mandate |
| Lebanon | France | 1920–1943 | League of Nations Mandate |
| Egypt | Britain | 1882–1952 | Protectorate → military occupation |
| Algeria | France | 1830–1962 | Full colony (considered part of France) |
| Morocco | France & Spain | 1912–1956 | Protectorate |
| Tunisia | France | 1881–1956 | Protectorate |
| Libya | Italy | 1911–1951 | Full colony |
| Central Asia | Russia → Soviet Union | 1860s–1991 | Colony → Soviet Republic |
Notice how vast this colonization is. Almost no Muslim territory escaped from foreign grasp. And all of this happened in a period when there was no Khilafah that could protect them.
4. Palestine: The Greatest Wound That Never Dries
Of all the tragedies that befell the Muslim Ummah post-1924, none is deeper and more painful than the loss of Palestine. And to understand why Palestine could fall, we must look at the chain of events that connected the fall of the Khilafah with the establishment of Israel.
Chain of Disaster: From 1924 to 1948
Step one: The Balfour Declaration (1917)
Two years before the Khilafah was officially abolished, British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour sent a letter to Lord Rothschild, a prominent Zionist figure. That letter contained a statement that would change history forever:
“His Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.”
Notice the wording: “a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.” Yet, at that time, more than 90% of Palestine’s population were Arab Muslims. They were not asked. They were not asked for consent. A foreign power (Britain) that had not even fully controlled Palestine, had already promised to give that land to another nation.
But in 1917, the Ottoman Khilafah still existed — although weak — and Palestine was still under its power. Britain could not yet fully implement the Balfour promise because it still had to fight the Ottomans.
Step two: The Fall of the Khilafah (1924)
When the Khilafah was abolished in 1924, there was no longer any political power that defended Palestine. The Ottomans who previously guarded Palestine for 400 years were gone. And Britain, which now held the mandate over Palestine, began to open the door wide for Jewish immigration.
Step three: Mass Jewish Immigration (1920s-1940s)
Under the protection of the British mandate, hundreds of thousands of Jews from Europe immigrated to Palestine. They came with financial support from international Zionist organizations, bought lands from absentee landlords, and slowly expelled Palestinian farmers who had cultivated that land for centuries.
In 1922, the Jewish population in Palestine was about 84,000 people (11% of the total population). In 1947, the number jumped to more than 630,000 people (33% of the total population). This was not natural migration — it was organized colonization, protected by British military power.
Step four: The Nakba 1948
In 1948, Britain withdrew from Palestine and the Zionists declared the establishment of the state of Israel. What happened next was one of the greatest humanitarian tragedies of the 20th century:
- More than 750,000 Palestinian citizens were expelled from their homes
- More than 500 Palestinian villages were destroyed
- Millions of people became refugees — and their descendants are still refugees to this day
- Masjid Al-Aqsa, the first qibla of the Muslim Ummah, fell under occupation
Why Did Palestine Fall?
The answer is simple but painful: because there was no one to protect it.
When Palestine was still under the Ottoman Khilafah, although the Ottomans were weak, at least there was a political entity responsible for the defense of that holy land. There were soldiers, there was administration, there was diplomacy. After the Khilafah fell, Palestine became an orphan — without a mother to protect it, without a father to defend it.
The newly “independent” Arab countries — Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan — were too weak and too divided to face Israel. Each was more concerned with its own national interests than with the fate of their fellow believers in Palestine.
Allah ﷻ had warned us about this blessed land:
سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي أَسْرَىٰ بِعَبْدِهِ لَيْلًا مِنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ الْأَقْصَى الَّذِي بَارَكْنَا حَوْلَهُ لِنُرِيَهُ مِنْ آيَاتِنَا ۚ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ
“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (QS. Al-Isra’: 1)
The land that Allah blessed all around it, now lies under the grip of the colonizers. And the Muslim Ummah — hundreds of millions of people — can only watch helplessly.
5. False Independence: When the Flag Changed but the Chains Remained
After World War II, a wave of decolonization swept the world. Colonized countries one by one obtained “independence.” But for the Muslim world, this independence was defective independence — independence that did not truly liberate.
The Illusion of Independence
Let us be honest about what is called “independence.” When Britain lowered its flag in Cairo and raised the Egyptian flag, were the Egyptian people truly free? When France left Algeria, was the system they left behind a liberating system?
The answer is no. What happened was a change in the form of colonization — from direct colonialism to neo-colonialism. Flags changed, national anthems were replaced, local presidents took the stage — but the system underlying everything remained the same.
Anatomy of “Independent” Countries
The newly independent Muslim countries shared the same characteristics, as if cast from the same mold:
First, a secular government system. Their constitutions were adopted from European models — French, British, or American. Islam did not become the foundation of the state. Shariah law was replaced by civil law or common law inherited from colonialism. Parliaments, political parties, elections — all imported from the West without adequate adaptation to the reality of Muslim society.
Second, economic dependence. Although formally independent, the economies of these countries were still controlled by foreign powers. Western companies still dominated oil fields in the Middle East, plantations in Southeast Asia, and mines in Africa. Their currencies were pegged to the Pound Sterling or the Dollar. Foreign debt became a new tool of control more effective than colonial troops.
Third, military alliances with the West. Many of these new Muslim countries joined Western defense pacts — CENTO, Baghdad Pact, and others. They became bases for foreign militaries, places where Western planes and warships operated. What kind of “independence” is this?
Three Faces of Muslim Secularism
To understand how deep this secular influence is, let us look at the three most representative examples.
Turkey: The Most Brutal Secularism
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk not only abolished the Khilafah. He carried out a cultural revolution that had no precedent in history. Arabic letters were replaced with Latin letters. Arabic and Persian were removed from Turkish vocabulary. Traditional clothing was banned and replaced with Western clothing. The adhan in Arabic was banned and replaced with a Turkish version. The Fez hat — a symbol of Ottoman Muslim identity — was banned and replaced with a European hat.
Ataturk did not merely separate religion from the state. He tried to erase religion from daily life. Mosques were converted into warehouses, museums, and even military barracks. Hagia Sophia — which for nearly 500 years had been a mosque — was turned into a museum. And all of this was done by force, with an iron fist, with suppression of anyone who opposed.
Egypt: Military Nationalism That Suppresses Islam
After the 1952 revolution led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt became one of the most secular countries in the Arab world. Nasser promoted Arab nationalist ideology — an ideology that replaced Islamic identity with Arab identity. Islam, for Nasser, was a private matter that should not interfere in politics.
What was more painful, Nasser used anti-imperialist and pan-Arab rhetoric to cover up the fact that he himself was suppressing Islamic movements in his own country. He claimed to be the defender of the Arab world, but at the same time he imprisoned, tortured, and killed thousands of Muslims who strove for the establishment of Shariah law in their own land.
Tunisia: Secularism à la Française
Habib Bourguiba, the first president of Tunisia, was perhaps the Muslim leader most open in his rejection of Islam. He openly stated that Ramadan fasting was “superstition” and banned people from fasting in the workplace. He abolished polygamy — not through fiqh interpretation, but through a secular decree. He closed madrasahs and Ez-Zitouna University — one of the oldest Islamic universities in the world — and replaced them with a French-style secular education system.
Bourguiba even called himself “President of Islam” — a glaring contradiction, because all his policies contradicted the teachings of Islam.
Comparison of Secular Muslim Leaders
| Leader | Country | Period | Most Striking Anti-Islam Policy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mustafa Kemal Ataturk | Turkey | 1923–1938 | Abolished Khilafah, changed script, banned Arabic adhan, closed mosques |
| Gamal Abdel Nasser | Egypt | 1954–1970 | Suppressed Ikhwanul Muslimin, executed Sayyid Qutb, Arab nationalism |
| Habib Bourguiba | Tunisia | 1956–1987 | Banned fasting in the workplace, abolished polygamy, closed Ez-Zitouna |
| Saddam Hussein | Iraq | 1979–2003 | Suppressed Islamists, Ba’ath secularism, Iran-Iraq war |
| Hafez al-Assad | Syria | 1971–2000 | Hama massacre 1982, Ba’ath secularism, banned Islamic activities |
| Reza Shah Pahlavi | Iran | 1925–1941 | Forced Westernization, banned hijab, suppressed Shia scholars |
Notice the same pattern in all these countries: leaders who claimed to “modernize” their nations were actually continuing the colonial project — only now it was local hands, not foreign hands, that were doing it.
Allah ﷻ had warned about laws not based on His Shariah:
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
“And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed — it is those who are the disbelievers.” (QS. Al-Ma’idah: 44)
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
“And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed — it is those who are the wrongdoers.” (QS. Al-Ma’idah: 45)
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
“And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed — it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” (QS. Al-Ma’idah: 47)
Three consecutive verses in the same surah. A warning that could not be clearer than that.
6. Blood on the Streets: When Islamic Movements Were Silenced with Violence
In the midst of the wave of secularization and suppression, the Muslim Ummah did not remain still. Movements emerged that strove for the return of Islam to public life. And as a response, secular regimes used extraordinarily brutal violence to silence them.
Egypt: Nasser’s Prisons
After the assassination attempt against Nasser in 1954 — which to this day is still debated as to who the perpetrator was — the Egyptian government used that incident as a reason to launch a massive campaign of suppression against Ikhwanul Muslimin.
Thousands of Ikhwan members were arrested without trial. They were tortured in Egyptian prisons in terrible ways. Sayyid Qutb — one of the most influential Islamic thinkers of the 20th century — was imprisoned for years. In prison, he wrote Ma’alim fi al-Tariq (Milestones), a work that would inspire generations of Muslims afterward.
In 1966, Sayyid Qutb was executed by hanging. His execution was not merely the murder of an individual — it was a message to the entire Muslim world: anyone who opposes the secular regime will face the same fate.
Syria: Hama 1982
Perhaps no event better illustrates the brutality of secular regimes against Islamic movements than the Hama Massacre in February 1982.
Hama city in Syria was one of the centers of the Islamic movement in that country. When Ikhwanul Muslimin Syria carried out resistance against the secular and authoritarian Ba’ath regime, President Hafez al-Assad (father of Bashar al-Assad who is in power today) sent troops with tanks and helicopters to destroy that city.
For three weeks, Syrian troops bombarded Hama. They shot at buildings, destroyed houses, and killed anyone they suspected of supporting the Islamic movement. There was no difference between fighters and civilians — children, women, the elderly, all became victims.
How many died? The most conservative estimates mention 10,000 people. Higher estimates mention 20,000 to 40,000 people. The entire old city of Hama was destroyed. And the world — including the Arab world — almost did not react.
Imagine: 20,000 Muslims killed by their own government. And not a single Muslim country raised its voice. No one sent aid. No one did anything. This is the consequence of division. This is the consequence of the absence of the Khilafah.
Algeria: A Civil War That Destroyed
In 1991, the Islamic party FIS (Front Islamique du Salut) almost won the elections in Algeria. But the Algerian military — with the support of France and the West — carried out a coup and canceled the elections. The result? A civil war that lasted for a decade and killed more than 100,000 to 200,000 people.
Recap of Victims of Suppression of Islamic Movements
| Country | Event | Period | Estimated Victims |
|---|---|---|---|
| Egypt | Suppression of Ikhwanul Muslimin | 1954–1970 | Thousands imprisoned, dozens executed |
| Egypt | Execution of Sayyid Qutb | 1966 | 1 thinker executed by hanging |
| Syria | Hama Massacre | February 1982 | 10,000–40,000 dead |
| Iraq | Suppression of Islamists by Saddam | 1979–2003 | Thousands dead and imprisoned |
| Algeria | Civil War (after 1992 coup) | 1992–2002 | 100,000–200,000 dead |
| Tunisia | Suppression of Ennahda by Bourguiba/Ben Ali | 1980s–2000s | Thousands imprisoned and tortured |
| Turkey | Military coups anti-Islam | 1960, 1971, 1980, 1997 | Thousands of Islamic activists imprisoned |
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ had warned us that the trials of faith would become increasingly heavy:
يُبْتَلَى الرَّجُلُ عَلَى حَسَبِ دِينِهِ، فَإِنْ كَانَ دِينُهُ صُلْبًا اشْتَدَّ بَلَاؤُهُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي دِينِهِ رِقَّةٌ ابْتُلِيَ عَلَى حَسَبِ دِينِهِ
“A person is tested according to the strength of his religion. If his religion is strong, his trial is more severe. And if his religion is weak, he is tested according to the strength of his religion.” (HR. Tirmidzi, Ibnu Majah)
The trials faced by the Muslim Ummah post-1924 are indeed very heavy. But from that blood and those tears, new generations were born who refused to surrender.
7. Daily Life: What Did It Feel Like to Be an Ordinary Muslim in the Post-Khilafah Era?
All this time we have been talking about politics, war, and ideology. But what about ordinary people? What about farmers in Java, traders in Cairo, teachers in Damascus, fishermen in Karachi? How was their life after the Khilafah fell?
Let us imagine.
Ahmad, Farmer in the Nile Delta, Egypt, 1950
Ahmad wakes up before dawn. He goes to his field that actually does not belong to him — his land was seized by a landlord who cooperated with the colonial government. He works from morning to evening, and the result? Most of it must be handed over to the landlord. The rest is only enough to feed his family for a few days.
When his child is sick, Ahmad cannot take him to a doctor — there is no doctor in his village. The nearest government clinic is 30 kilometers away, and Ahmad has no money for transportation. His wife treats their child with traditional herbs, and prays.
Ahmad cannot read. He never went to school. The only school in his village was closed years ago because the government had no budget. The education that used to be given in mosques and kuttab is now gone — replaced by a secular education system that only exists in big cities and can only be accessed by the rich.
Ahmad is a devoted Muslim. He prays five times a day. He fasts in the month of Ramadan. But he does not understand his religion deeply. There is no one to teach him. The scholars who used to be the reference of society have now been replaced by “government scholars” who more often defend the policies of rulers than defend the truth.
Fatimah, Teacher in Damascus, Syria, 1970
Fatimah is an intelligent and dedicated elementary school teacher. She loves her religion and wants to teach Islamic values to her students. But the curriculum she uses is a secular curriculum designed by the Ba’ath regime. There is no substantial Islamic religious education. What exists is “citizenship education” that teaches Arab nationalism and loyalty to the party.
Fatimah quietly holds a small study circle in her house after school hours. Several mothers in her neighborhood come to learn the Qur’an and fiqh. But this activity must be done secretly — if discovered, Fatimah could lose her job, or worse.
She often wonders: “Why do we have to learn secretly in a country where the majority of the population is Muslim? Why is teaching the Qur’an considered a subversive activity?”
No one can answer her question.
Hasan, Factory Worker in Jakarta, Indonesia, 1960
Hasan works in a textile factory in Jakarta. His salary is barely enough — only enough to rent a small room on the outskirts of the city and eat twice a day. He has no savings. If he is sick, he does not work. If he does not work, he does not eat.
Hasan hears about Islam from a friend at the factory. That friend invites him to a study circle at a mosque near the factory. There, for the first time in his life, Hasan hears that Islam is not only about prayer and fasting. Islam is a complete system — that regulates economy, politics, law, and social life.
Hasan feels like someone who has been living in darkness, then suddenly sees light. He begins to ask: “If Islam is a complete system, why doesn’t our country implement it? Why are the laws in force in this country Dutch inheritance laws, not Islamic laws?”
Those questions brought him to an awareness that would change his life forever.
8. From the Ashes of Revival: Reform Movements That Lit the Fire
In the midst of the darkness that enveloped the Muslim world, new lights emerged. Reform movements that were born not from luxury and comfort, but from suffering and oppression. They were direct responses to the crisis that befell the Ummah.
Ikhwanul Muslimin (1928): Da’wah from the Grassroots
Founder: Hasan Al-Banna Location: Ismailiyah, Egypt Year founded: 1928
Hasan Al-Banna was a school teacher who was born in the village of Mahmudiyah, Egypt, in 1906. He grew up seeing firsthand the suffering of the Egyptian people under British colonization and the corruption of the Egyptian kingdom. When he moved to Cairo to study at Al-Azhar University, he witnessed how Egyptian society was increasingly drifting from its religion — influenced by Western culture brought by the colonizers.
In 1928, at the age of 22, Hasan Al-Banna founded Ikhwanul Muslimin in Ismailiyah — a city on the Suez Canal full of foreign workers and Western influence. Six port workers were the first members of this movement.
Hasan Al-Banna’s approach was very distinctive: start from the bottom, start from the individual, start from education. He believed that change could not come from above — from the palace or parliament — but had to come from society itself. Ikhwanul Muslimin built schools, hospitals, cooperatives, and mosques. They educated ordinary people about Islam, about their rights, about their dignity as Muslims.
In less than two decades, Ikhwanul Muslimin had grown from six people to hundreds of thousands of members throughout Egypt and the Arab world. They became the most influential Islamic movement of the 20th century.
But this “from the bottom” approach also had a weakness: Ikhwanul Muslimin did not have a clear strategy to take over power and implement Islam totally. When they finally faced power — under Nasser — they were not ready and experienced brutal suppression.
Jamaat Islami (1941): Intellectualism of South Asia
Founder: Abul A’la Al-Maududi Location: Lahore, India (later Pakistan) Year founded: 1941
Abul A’la Al-Maududi was a journalist and thinker who was born in Aurangabad, India, in 1903. He did not have a high formal education — he was self-taught — but his written works had an extraordinarily large influence throughout the Muslim world.
Jamaat Islami was founded in 1941, in the midst of concerns that Muslims in India would lose their identity after independence from Britain. Al-Maududi believed that Islam is not merely a ritual religion, but a din — a complete way of life that covers all aspects of life.
Al-Maududi’s works — such as Tafhim al-Qur’an (a monumental tafsir of the Qur’an), Khilafah wa Mulukiyat (about the political history of Islam), and Al-Jihad fi al-Islam — became mandatory reading for Islamic activists throughout South Asia and beyond.
Jamaat Islami’s approach differed from Ikhwanul Muslimin: they emphasized more intellectual work and political education. They wanted to create a “new human being” — a Muslim who understands Islam comprehensively and is ready to lead society.
But like Ikhwanul Muslimin, Jamaat Islami also did not have a manhaj (methodology) that was clear for establishing the Khilafah. They were more focused on forming individual and societal awareness, without a concrete political strategy to take over power.
Hizbut Tahrir (1953): A Different Manhaj
Founder: Shaykh Taqiuddin An-Nabhani Location: Al-Quds (Jerusalem), Palestine Year founded: 1953
Among all the reform movements that emerged post-1924, Hizbut Tahrir has the most different approach. And to understand the difference, we need to get to know its founder.
Shaykh Taqiuddin An-Nabhani was born in the village of Qabun, near Haifa, Palestine, in 1909. He came from a family of scholars — his father was a Shariah judge (qadhi), and his grandfather was a mufti. Since childhood, An-Nabhani had been familiar with traditional Islamic sciences: fiqh, ushul fiqh, tafsir, hadith, and Arabic.
But An-Nabhani also witnessed firsthand the tragedy of Palestine. He saw how Britain opened the door for Jewish immigration. He saw how Palestine — his homeland — was slowly seized from the hands of the Muslim Ummah. And he asked: why is all this happening?
The answer he found was: because there is no Khilafah.
Without the Khilafah, there is no power that protects Palestine. Without the Khilafah, the Muslim world is divided and easily colonized. Without the Khilafah, the laws in force in Muslim countries are man-made laws, not the law of Allah.
And from this analysis, An-Nabhani founded Hizbut Tahrir in 1953 in Al-Quds — with a very specific and clear goal: to re-establish the Khilafah Rashidah.
The fundamental difference between Hizbut Tahrir and other movements will be discussed in depth in subsequent articles. But what needs to be understood here is that Hizbut Tahrir was born from a clear analysis of the root problem of the Muslim Ummah: not because Muslims are short on prayer, not because Muslims are short on dhikr, but because Muslims do not have a state that implements Islam comprehensively.
9. Why Did All This Happen: Analysis of the Root Problem
After we have seen the map of colonization, the tragedy of Palestine, the suppression of Islamic movements, and the daily life of the Ummah, the most important question is: why did all this happen?
The answer can be summarized in one sentence: because the Muslim Ummah lost the Khilafah.
But that answer needs to be elaborated more deeply. Let us look at several key factors.
Loss of a Single Leader
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
مَنْ خَلَعَ يَدًا مِنْ طَاعَةٍ لَقِيَ اللَّهَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ لَا حُجَّةَ لَهُ، وَمَنْ مَاتَ وَلَيْسَ فِي عُنُقِهِ بَيْعَةٌ مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً
“Whoever removes his hand from obedience will meet Allah on the Day of Resurrection without proof. And whoever dies while there is no bay’ah (leadership) on his neck, dies a death of Jahiliyyah.” (HR. Muslim)
This hadith is very clear: a Muslim who lives without leadership (bay’ah) — without a Khalifah whom he obeys — then he dies in a state of Jahiliyyah. Not Jahiliyyah in the sense of not believing, but Jahiliyyah in the sense of not having a system that regulates his life according to the law of Allah.
And this is what happened to the Muslim Ummah post-1924. They still believe. They still pray, fast, and perform hajj. But they do not have a system that regulates their lives comprehensively. They live in a condition that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ called “death of Jahiliyyah.”
Division That Destroys
Allah ﷻ commands us to unite:
وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِحَبْلِ اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا وَلَا تَفَرَّقُوا ۚ وَاذْكُرُوا نِعْمَتَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ كُنْتُمْ أَعْدَاءً فَأَلَّفَ بَيْنَ قُلُوبِكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُمْ بِنِعْمَتِهِ إِخْوَانًا
“And hold fast to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you — when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers.” (QS. Ali Imran: 103)
This command is not merely a moral advice. It is a command that has political consequences. “Holding fast to the rope of Allah” means uniting in one system — the Islamic system. “Do not become divided” means do not split into small countries that compete with one another.
But what happened after 1924? The Muslim Ummah was divided into more than 50 countries. Each with its own president, parliament, constitution, and army. Each pursuing its own national interests. And when one of them was attacked — like Palestine — the others could only watch.
Man-Made Law That Is Unjust
When Islamic law is replaced by man-made law, justice is lost. The colonial and secular laws inherited by the new Muslim countries were designed to serve the interests of rulers and elites, not ordinary people.
Corruption runs rampant. The law is sharp downward and blunt upward. The rich can buy justice, while the poor can only accept injustice. And in the midst of all this, ordinary people ask: “Where is Islamic justice? Where is the law of Allah that is fair?”
Allah ﷻ says:
أَلَا يَعْلَمُ مَنْ خَلَقَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ
“Does He who created not know, while He is the Subtle, the Acquainted?” (QS. Al-Mulk: 14)
Allah who created man certainly knows what laws are most just for man. And that law is Islamic Shariah. When man replaces the Shariah of Allah with laws made by themselves, the result is inevitably injustice.
10. Lessons from History: Why We Need the Khilafah Again
After reading all this, perhaps you ask: “What can we learn from all these tragedies?”
The answer is right before our eyes.
Lesson One: Without the Khilafah, the Muslim Ummah Has No Protector
Palestine is the most tangible proof. When the Khilafah existed, Palestine was protected — although the Ottomans were weak, at least there was a political entity responsible for the defense of that holy land. When the Khilafah fell, Palestine became an orphan and was eventually seized by the Zionists.
This is not a coincidence. It is a logical consequence of not having a single leadership that unites the Muslim Ummah.
Lesson Two: National Independence Is Not a Solution
The “independent” Muslim countries after World War II were not truly free. They merely replaced foreign colonizers with local colonizers — secular leaders who continued colonial policies with different faces.
Flags changed, but the system remained the same. National anthems were replaced, but the laws in force remained colonial inheritance laws. Local presidents took the stage, but their policies still served Western interests.
Lesson Three: Partial Movements Are Not Enough
Ikhwanul Muslimin, Jamaat Islami, and other Islamic movements have made extraordinary contributions in awakening Islamic awareness. But their partial approach — focusing on individual education, da’wah from the bottom, social reform — is not enough to solve the structural problems faced by the Muslim Ummah.
The problem of the Muslim Ummah is not merely a problem of individuals who are less obedient. The problem of the Muslim Ummah is a systemic problem. And systemic problems can only be solved with systemic change — that is, re-establishing the Khilafah that implements Islam comprehensively.
Lesson Four: The Khilafah Is Not Nostalgia, But a Need
Many people consider longing for the Khilafah as nostalgia — romantic longing for a past that is no longer relevant. But the historical analysis we have done in this article shows the opposite.
The Khilafah is not nostalgia. The Khilafah is a need. A need as fundamental as human needs for water, food, and air. Without the Khilafah, the Muslim Ummah is divided, colonized, and oppressed. With the Khilafah, the Muslim Ummah is united, strong, and dignified.
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
كَانَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ تَسُوسُهُمُ الْأَنْبِيَاءُ، كُلَّمَا هَلَكَ نَبِيٌّ خَلَفَهُ نَبِيٌّ، وَإِنَّهُ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي، وَسَتَكُونُ خُلَفَاءُ فَتَكْثُرُ
“The Children of Israel were led by the Prophets. Whenever a Prophet died, he was succeeded by another Prophet. Indeed, there is no Prophet after me, and there will be many Khulafa’.” (HR. Bukhari, Muslim)
This hadith informs us that after prophethood ends, the leadership of the Muslim Ummah is held by the Khulafa’. And this is not a choice — it is the continuation of the way the Messenger of Allah ﷺ led the Ummah.
Conclusion: From Darkness Toward Light
The condition of the Muslim world post-1924 is a tragedy — but not a tragedy without hope.
Behind every colonization, there is resistance. Behind every suppression, there is da’wah. Behind every tear, there is a prayer that rises to the sky. And behind the darkness that has enveloped the Muslim Ummah for nearly a century, there is a light that never goes out: the light of longing for the Khilafah.
We have seen how two Europeans — Sykes and Picot — with a ruler, tore the map of the Muslim world and created divisions that we still feel to this day. We have seen how Palestine lost its protector and fell into the hands of the Zionists. We have seen how the “independence” that was promised turned out to be merely an illusion — flags changed but the chains of colonization remained. We have seen how Islamic movements were brutally suppressed — from Egyptian prisons to the rubble of Hama.
But we have also seen how from the ashes of that destruction, reform movements emerged that rekindled the fire of Islamic awareness. Ikhwanul Muslimin that educated people from the bottom. Jamaat Islami that wrote and thought. And Hizbut Tahrir — with a clear and specific manhaj — strives to re-establish the Khilafah Rashidah.
This journey is not yet finished. The storm still continues to pour. The rain of colonization, division, and suppression still continues to drench the Muslim Ummah. But as long as there are still people who refuse to surrender, as long as there are still people who continue to pray and strive, as long as there are still people who believe in the promise of Allah — then hope still exists.
And the promise of Allah is real. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ has told us that after the era of the oppressive kingdom, the era of the second Khilafah Rashidah will come:
ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكًا عَاضًّا فَيَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ
“Then there will be a biting kingdom, which will last as long as Allah wills. Then He will raise it when He wills. Then there will be a Khilafah upon the manhaj of prophethood.” (HR. Ahmad)
The Khilafah will return. Not because we ask for it with tears, but because we strive for it with action. And that struggle begins with understanding — understanding our history, understanding our problems, and understanding our solutions.
May this article become the first step in that journey of understanding.
رَبَّنَا لَا تُزِغْ قُلُوبَنَا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَيْتَنَا وَهَبْ لَنَا مِنْ لَدُنْكَ رَحْمَةً ۚ إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ الْوَهَّابُ
“Our Lord, let not our hearts deviate after You have guided us, and grant us from Yourself mercy. Indeed, You are the Bestower.” (QS. Ali Imran: 8)
Read Also: