The myth of the Ummah fractured over Iran

Can we speak of the brotherhood of Muslims in the Islamic world? Or, at the very least, can the Ummah unite when they are under attack? These questions have an answer within the historical process, but if you wish, let us provide the answers through the example of Iran, which has been attacked by US and Israeli forces.

As is known, following the events that took place, Iran targeted US bases in the region. These bases were located in countries where Muslims predominantly live, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Qatar. According to Saudi Arabia, these attacks were brutal. Subsequently, they issued the following call:

"We invite the international community to condemn these brutal attacks and to take decisive and deterrent steps against Iran's violations that threaten regional peace."

Another statement on the subject came from the Syrian administration led by HTS, which is claimed to have come to power through a revolution. In the statement made on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic, while Iran's attacks on regional countries were condemned, not a single word was said about the US and Israel.

Similarly, one of the organizations that condemned Iran was the Muslim World League, based in Mecca. The league, which operates in the lands where the Prophet was born, assessed the Iranian attacks as an unacceptable escalation.

In other words, let alone coming together, the “Ummah” had long since scattered and divided.

On the other hand, it is another reality that there is a general silence in the Islamic world, and even reactions are expressed cautiously. The words of theologian Professor İsrail Balcı are striking at this point. Balcı says the following:

“The imperialist US comes from across the ocean and bombs Iran, the Sunni fanatics do not bat an eye; they grieve for the dying Sunni but not for the Shiite. Damn your understanding of religion, your humanity, and your sect. If there is anyone who thinks I am a Shiite because of these lines, to hell with you too.”

A similar criticism was voiced by theologian and academic Edip Yüksel. According to him, religiousness, sectarianism, and racism were “satanic diseases” and the fundamental reasons for the continuity of wars.

Ali Karahasanoğlu from the Akit newspaper also criticized those who say there is a shadow-boxing match between Iran and Israel; furthermore, he commemorated Iran's assassinated religious leader and Chief of General Staff as martyrs.

The famous preacher Halil Konakçı joined the debate at this exact point. The preacher criticized Muslims who commemorated the names killed in Iran as martyrs. He described them as “the so-called cause-men of the neighborhood with the consistency of Turkish delight.” He expressed his stance on the Iran-US/Israel polarization as “a tyrant being punished by the hand of another tyrant.”

One of those who saw the names killed in Iran as martyrs was HÜDA PAR Chairman Zekeriya Yapıcıoğlu. I suppose he has now become a “cause-man with the consistency of Turkish delight” according to Konakçı. We will wait and see if Yapıcıoğlu will have a response to this.

What about Cübbeli Ahmet? He says, “The killing of Khamenei does not mean overthrowing the regime, but rather reinforcing it.” Looking closely at the US/Israel attacks, Cübbeli continues his words by saying, “If you do this, the regime will only get stronger, a rallying around a new leader will emerge, and thus the people will not be able to overthrow the mullah regime.”

On the other hand, let us add that many “Islamist” figures have remained silent during this process and have not said a single word about the attacks that took place. Ebubekir Sofuoğlu, Ebubekir Sifil, Nurettin Yıldız, and İhsan Şenocak are just a few of these names.

CONCLUSION: THE WRECKAGE OF AN IDEAL

The attacks on Iran and the reactions given afterward have shown us once again: What we call the “Ummah” is not a unity with a counterpart in political reality; it is a romantic call often circulated on rally platforms, in sermons, and in bombastic texts.

Those who turn to the same Qibla do not stand in the same ranks.

Those who believe in the same book do not give the same reaction to the same oppression.

The sect of the deceased is asked; the identity of the pain is weighed.

Some take positions by looking at Washington, some at Tehran, and some at Tel Aviv. The discourse of brotherhood, meanwhile, often melts away in the shadow of geopolitical interests. Arms deals, base negotiations, diplomatic “balance” calculations—in short, all these realities pour like concrete over the rhetoric of the Ummah.

Perhaps the most striking thing is this:

In this process, we saw that what keeps people standing is not the identities used, but the values upheld. A moral backbone does not emerge from sectarian labels, but from where you stand against oppression. The speech of Spanish MP Irene Montero in the European Parliament was exactly the voice of this backbone.

It was a call for justice that transcended the boundaries of religion, sect, and race. If the world is ever to truly meet around the idea of an “Ummah,” this will be possible not with the language of narrow faith/sectarian camps, but with the language of universal conscience.

Hope is not in slogans.

Hope is in identity-less justice.