The word "Qaumiyyah" (nationalism) is derived from "Al-Qaum", and "Al-Qaum" in the Arabic language are: a group of people united by a common bond for which they stand.^([1]) In the English language, we find the two words "Nation," which is usually translated as "Ummah" (nation), and "Nationalism," which is translated as "Qaumiyyah" (nationalism). According to the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, the word "Nation" is derived from the Latin term "Nasci," meaning "to be born." The word "Nation" refers to a group of people born in the same place, and it was used historically in European universities to refer to a group of students who came from a single region or country. In Christian medieval times, the term was applied to all groups practicing religions other than Judaism and Christianity, creating a distinction between Jews and Christians on one hand, and others—referred to as "The Nations" or "Foreigners"—on the other hand. In contemporary usages, as stated in the aforementioned encyclopedia, the word "Nation" means a human group bound together by ties that make the loyalty of its members to their group stronger than their loyalty to any other group, and the sentiment that binds the members of this group together makes them willing to cooperate and submit to a single government that represents and expresses them.^([2])As for the word "Nationalism," it is modern because it was used for the first time in 1798 AD, whereas the word "Nation" is much older, having been used in twelfth- and thirteenth-century French.^([3])However, the word "Qaumiyyah" (nationalism) was not used in the Arabic language as a translation for the word "Nationalism" before the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, the Arabic language had known two expressions closest to the meaning of "nationalism," which are: "Shu'ubiyyah" and "Asabiyyah." Shu'ubiyyah refers to the revolt of nationalities against the Arab Caliphate during the Abbasid era, when these nationalities rejected the control of Arab elements over the reins of Abbasid authority, asserting that the newness of the Islamic religion does not justify Arab control of power and their monopoly on political positions. This is because, according to the Islamic methodology, there is no absolute preference for Arabs over other peoples if they are Muslims. As for "Asabiyyah," it is a term coined by the sociologist Abd al-Rahman Ibn Khaldun, author of the Muqaddimah, who referred to the clan/group and group solidarity (asabiyyah) as the basis of society's unity resting on race or descent.^([4])As for the definition of nationalism idiomatically, writers and researchers have differed greatly in this regard, and the researcher will present here some specific definitions of nationalism to demonstrate the wide divergence among researchers concerning the subject of nationalism. Some define nationalism as an inclination or a feeling of belonging to a specific civilizational group, and a desire to gather and cohere to achieve common goals and objectives, under a general sense of unity of destiny.^([5])It is noted that this definition did not stipulate specific components such as unity of ethnic origin, language, or religion as a basis for nationalism, but it did point to a "feeling" of belonging to a particular civilization. This "feeling" is what unites individuals and leads them to unify in order to achieve goals and values related to the civilization to which they belong. This definition of nationalism is close to the Islamic concept, as the term "qaum" (people) was mentioned in the Holy Quran to describe a group characterized by specific traits—intellectual or social, such as: "the wrongdoing people," "the disbelieving people," etc. The word "ummah" (nation) in Islam refers to a creedal group; the Islamic Ummah is the aggregate of Muslims who believe in the existence of Almighty God and in the message of Muhammad, peace be upon him, regardless of their races, colors, languages, and even homelands. Contemporary jurists have permitted the multiplicity of political units as a de facto reality, while stipulating coordination in stances, mutual support among Muslims, and mutual assistance. Muslims will remain an "ummah" even if distances separate them and political borders or natural barriers stand between them. Indeed, the concept of the Ummah sometimes expands to include the People of the Book; the Constitution of Medina described the Muslims and Jews in Medina as an "ummah" confronting the disbelievers and polytheists. However, the difference between the preceding definition and the Islamic concept is that this definition is general, because it did not speak of a specific civilization, but rather spoke of a feeling of belonging to a civilizational group, thereby including belonging to any civilizational group even if its civilizational values conflict with Islamic values or heavenly messages—which contradicts the Islamic understanding of nationalism, a concept that in all cases does not transcend the values brought by the divine religions and urges neither befriending nor showing solidarity with disbelievers. Nationalism to others means "a mutual feeling among individuals that makes their emotions and behavior influenced by the idea of loyalty to a homeland, because they are the sprout of a single land, their economic and political interests are one, and they are affected by the same influences regardless of their sectarian or religious leanings or individual interests, because they are the product of a shared history."^([6])According to this definition, the nation can rise upon three main pillars: 1/ Emotion and loyalty to the land (homeland), which is a characteristic shared by all who inhabit this land, regardless of their ethnic and sectarian differences, meaning that loyalty to the homeland supersedes all other loyalties: ethnic, linguistic, regional, etc. 2/ Economic and political interest among the members of the group, which is considered the strongest bond so that people overlook differences in other aspects for its sake. 3/ Institutionalism: meaning the submission of the group to an institutional system that works to achieve the aforementioned interests, and the legitimacy of the ruling system is linked to the extent of its ability to achieve these interests, which is known in political literature as "functional integration," where different ethnic groups integrate within a specific political framework to perform functions that serve members in general regardless of their races, cultures, languages, and religions. Such definitions emerged into existence in response to the de facto reality after it was confirmed—practically—that there are no states in today's world enjoying ethnic, linguistic, and religious homogeneity, which made scholars and thinkers search for "common denominators" for the national group such as economic and political interests. Consequently, the nation is based on institutional bonds that bring individuals together on bases other than ethnic origin, religion, and language, which have become nearly impossible to unify around in today's state. Therefore, such definitions came within the framework of seeking to integrate different groups within the framework of the nation-state. With this fact being clear, there are some definitions that elaborate on the components upon which nations should rise and nationalities should be founded, such as: unity of language, unity of ethnic origin, unity of customs, traditions, and social sentiment, etc. For example, Mancini defines the nation as "a natural society of humans, linked together through the unity of land, origin, customs, and language, in addition to sharing in life and in social sentiment."^([7])And Kapoor defines it as "a group of people united by a conscious sense stemming from a shared cultural heritage, and a shared aspiration to live together in an independent state, and this group must, in the form of the nation, command the ultimate political loyalty of the individuals comprising it."^([8])Definitions that speak of the components of the nation, such as ethnic origin, language, shared history, religion, and the desire for shared living, etc., have multiplied. Among the most comprehensive definitions in this regard is what came in the research of Dr. Abd al-Salam Baghdadi within the context of discussing the "people" (qaum), where he stated that they are "a group of people brought together by the unity of language, social traditions, cultural roots, and reasons of common interests. The nationalist (qaumi) is the one attributed to the people... Nationalism is also an emotional social bond born from sharing a homeland... language, culture, history, civilization, hopes, and interests."^([9])This definition included much of what writers have pointed to as the basis of nationalism and the emergence of nations, such as: language, religion, culture, social traditions, economic interests, in addition to history, civilization, shared hopes, and the desire for coexistence, etc. Obviously, it is difficult to share all these characteristics; a group may share some of these characteristics while differing in others. However, it can be said that the more the national group shares the greatest amount of these traits, the more it is a source of its cohesion and harmony, and the vice versa is also true: the more it differs in the greatest amount of these traits, the more it increases in friction and the less its chance for cohesion and unity. Writers have differed greatly regarding the definition of nationalism, as became clear through the previous review, and this is due to their disagreement over the components of the nation. Nevertheless, from the various definitions of nationalism, the most important elements cited by researchers as the basis upon which nationalities arise and nations are founded can be deduced as follows: 1/ Unity of origin: Some believe that the unity of ethnic origin represents the fundamental pillar of nationalism because "belonging to a single human group bound by blood relation is what determines the cohesion of this group, and what explains and gives meaning to the sharing by the members of this group in language, religion, and culture in general."^([10])Feelings of self-pride based on the belief in the purity of ethnic origin have played a major role in history. For example, Nazism in Germany was founded on the basis of the supremacy of the Aryan race over all other races, considering it the torchbearer of civilization upon whose shoulders rests the responsibility of all human civilization. Guided by the creed of Aryan racial supremacy, Hitler attacked European countries in the late 1930s and early 1940s of the last century. Despite the skepticism surrounding the existence of a nation that entirely descends from a single origin, and some asserting that this is nothing more than a myth, what remains certain is that the belief in unity of origin fosters the desire for shared living and reinforces feelings of national unity and nationalist cohesion. Conversely, the belief in disparate ethnic origins among different groups within a state tends to create conflicts and disputes that could sweep away the very entity of the state. However, what is worth mentioning in this regard is that all historical and anthropological studies confirm the non-existence of a single nation on the face of the earth whose members all descend from a single origin. Rather, any nation is composed of individuals descending from different ethnic origins. In this regard, some point out that the kinship felt by the members of a nation is merely a "moral kinship" that arises among them due to social ties and sharing in language, history, and interests. Al-Husri emphasizes that the ancient Arabs knew this fact, and talk about the "Arabized Arabs" (Musta'ribah) confirms that the Arabs were aware they did not descend from a single origin and that Arabism does not depend on the unity of ethnic origin.^([11])Likewise, asserting unity of origin as the basis for nationalism is not correct, because unity of origin alone is not enough for nationalism to be established upon it. A group may descend from a single ethnic origin, but nature prevents them from communicating with each other, causing two groups descending from a single ethnic origin to develop in two different directions that distance them from one another. Meanwhile, two ethnically different groups exist in one place, resulting in closeness between them due to interaction and friction with each other. Although it is said that the unity of ethnic origin is considered one of the components of the nation, and that if the national group descends from a single origin that is more conducive to its unity and cohesion, some view the opposite and consider pluralism a source of cultural enrichment and cross-fertilization between different cultures in a way that serves the interest of the state and works toward its cohesion. 2/ Unity of language: Some emphasize the importance of language in supporting national unity, and even consider it the most important component upon which nationalism rises, given that the unity of language facilitates the process of communication among individuals, in a way that ultimately paves the way for creating a feeling of harmony and responsiveness among members of a human society sharing a single language. Unity of language also leads to unity of culture; despite the differences between the English and the Americans, the latter consider the works of Shakespeare and Milton part of their heritage due to sharing the language with the English.^([12])The German school is considered the first to advocate for the importance of language in the formation of the nation. As a result of the conflict between the French and the Germans over the coal-rich Alsace region, two schools of thought on the definition of nationalism emerged: the German school and the French school. The dispute between the two schools was linked to the interests of both Germany and France regarding Alsace. Historically, the Alsace region was part of Germany, but under the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, Louis XIV annexed Alsace to France, sparking a conflict between France and Germany because Germany did not recognize the annexation of Alsace to France. Since the Congress of Westphalia had established the creation of states on a national basis, and since the Alsatians spoke the German language, the German school focused on the importance of language in forming nationalism to support the German argument for annexing the Alsace region as it had been previously, considering the inhabitants of Alsace to be part of the German nation by virtue of their language. In this regard, the German scholar Fichte says that "the German nation is all those who speak the German language," and he emphasizes that language is the apparatus of human association, that language and the nation are inseparable matters, and that those who speak a single language constitute a unified whole bound by strong ties forged by nature.^([13])Among the most famous pioneers of this trend is also Herder (1742–1803 AD). Herder wrote extensively on the relationship between language and the character of the nation, asserting that nature—just as it separated peoples by natural barriers such as mountains, seas, and forests—also separated them through languages. He maintained that the national language is the vessel through which a people's ideas are transmitted, that it creates justice and guides it, and that it is the beating heart of the people.^([14])And since this trend conflicted with the desire of the French to annex Alsace, they insisted that neither language nor race creates nationalism, and no solid nationalism can be built on such fragile foundations. Rather, the desire for shared living forms the basis for the emergence of nations. The pioneers of the French school emphasize that human will represents the decisive factor in joining this or that nationality. A group may descend from a single ethnic origin and its members speak a single language, but certain developments cause a part of this group to not wish to live with the other part that shares its origin and language. The opposite occurs when groups exist that are united by neither origin nor language, yet they are prepared to coexist with one another and willing to join and unify within a single political framework. Such trends in defining nationalism lack scientific character because they are directly linked to the interests of the nationalities to which the researchers belong. As is well known, scientific research requires detachment, objectivity, and neutrality—qualities that were absent in these two schools, as each school tried to develop a theory of the nation's components that aligned with its own nation's interests. Therefore, what both the German and French schools presented does not serve as a basis for a scientific definition of nationalism, and amounts to nothing more than a purely ideological and political proposition. Nevertheless, it can be said that both language and the desire for coexistence are important in shaping the nation. The German nation, which was fragmented into hundreds of political units, gathered and united on the basis of the German language, as did Italy. In fact, many countries that emerged in Europe in the nineteenth century were established on the basis of language, such as Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, and others. Today, the issue of the Quebec province in Canada stands as a testament to the importance of language in national formation, as the residents of Quebec (who are French-speaking) demand separation from Canada, whose majority speaks English. Based on the criterion of language, the people of Quebec consider themselves distinct from the rest of the population. On the other hand, however, it is difficult to imagine nationalism arising on the basis of language alone. The bond of language is not stronger than the bond of blood nor the bond of creed. Although language is considered a contributing factor in achieving national unity, fostering rapprochement, and facilitating communication among different groups, Fichte's assertion that the German nation consists of all German speakers is not without exaggeration. For example, French colonialism was based on seeking to impose French culture and language, and working to assimilate colonized peoples into the framework of French culture and language. Can we say, based on this logic, that the peoples of the African countries who were subjected to French colonization and speak the French language are part of the French nation?! Furthermore, this statement can be interpreted to mean that nationalism can be imposed by force, where a state can exert control over a certain territory to colonize it, and then impose its language upon it so that it becomes part of it because it shares its language. However, what is well known is that nationalism is an "emotion" and a "loyalty" born of conviction and the desire to belong, with no place in it for force, coercion, and compulsion. 3/ Regional proximity: Some emphasize that regional proximity between groups, even if different, for a long period of time tends to build trust among these groups, creates common denominators between them, and generates a desire for shared living, especially if there are no fundamental differences or language barriers between them. Furthermore, long-term stability in a single region will generate among these groups a shared sense of loyalty to their land, at which point loyalty to the land becomes one of the most important bonds uniting these groups. At the same time, if homogeneous groups are separated by distances, hindered by natural barriers, or if their members live in distant regions, this tends to weaken the spirit of national loyalty among them, as these separated groups substitute their distant and scattered communities with their neighbors. However, proximity alone is naturally not enough to merge inherently discordant groups that are ethnically, religiously, and linguistically different. Rather, what is more important is positive "interaction" among these groups to create common denominators that form the foundation upon which unity stands. Perhaps what was previously mentioned—that geographical distance leads to the weakening of national loyalty and the severing of the ties of unity—is evidence of what we have argued, because geographical distance prevented these groups from interacting with one another. As observed, the Pyrenees mountains, which separate the Iberian Peninsula from the rest of Western Europe, almost became a reason for the growth of Spanish nationalism, the Alps played a role in supporting Italian nationalism, and the Balkans led to the growth of various nationalisms in that region.^([15]). 4/ Shared history: Some researchers emphasize the important role of history in the formation of nations and nationalities, considering nationalism to be "the product of the interaction of political, social, economic, intellectual, and psychological factors that occurred over many centuries, leading to the integration of groups with one another and fusing them into a single crucible, thereby distinguishing them from other groups in terms of their heritage and traditions."^([16])And a shared history is considered one of the most important factors leading to a sense of national unity, which in turn leads to a readiness for coexistence and a desire for it among individuals or groups who share a common history. Nationalists—in all their diversity—have used history to inflame nationalist sentiments and provoke pride in their nation's achievements. States also usually take care to focus on their history and teach it to their citizens, considering that this strengthens bonds and national sentiment among their members. It has become clear from the extrapolation of history that new nations experience conflicts among their groups and individuals that last for a period of time, after which their uproars subside due to their "shared history," their friction with one another, their interaction, and their settling upon common denominators. 5/ Unity of religion: Religion plays a major role in the formation of nations; the unity of creed among individuals and groups within the borders of a state strengthens the feeling of interconnectedness and solidarity among them. This is because they worship a single Lord, believe in the same ideas and beliefs, and are subject to the same values derived from religion that unify their behavior and actions. Throughout history, religion has been a reason for uniting many groups that were ethnically, culturally, and linguistically different. At the same time, religious doctrines have sometimes stood as a barrier to national integration; for example, Poland's Catholicism prevented its integration with neighboring Orthodox Slavs and with the Lutheran population of East Germany. Similarly, differences in religious denomination were the reason for the lack of integration between the Irish and Scandinavians with the inhabitants of the British Isles. Christian religious doctrines caused the division of the Roman Empire into the Eastern Byzantine and Western Roman empires, and the conflict between Muslims and Hindus in the late 1940s culminated in the establishment of the Islamic state of Pakistan. It is worth noting in this context that religious difference—according to the Islamic conception—does not prevent people from integrating into a single political unit. Islam recognizes previous religions such as Judaism and Christianity; indeed, belief in the heavenly books is one of the pillars of faith in the Islamic creed. Even during the era of the Prophet (may peace be upon him), the Islamic state was not established as an exclusive state whose entire population consisted of Muslims. Rather, the state of Medina founded by the noble Prophet included Jews and Christians alongside Muslims. The Constitution of Medina (the Medina Charter) regulated the relationship between them and described them as an "Ummah" (nation), meaning that the concept of the nation here expanded to include non-Muslims among the People of the Book, considering them a "nation" standing together in the face of the camp of disbelief and polytheism. 6/ Willingness to coexist: It goes without saying that a state rarely possesses all the components of unity and elements of homogeneity mentioned above (unity of language, unity of religion, unity of history, regional proximity, etc.), which urgently requires searching for a solution to the problem arising from differences in the aforementioned aspects, which have notably begun to threaten political stability. All the mentioned elements are considered contributing factors in the emergence of nationalism, but they are not creators of it. The importance of these elements stems from the fact that they lead to the desire for shared living, which the researcher believes forms the basis for the rise of nationalism. Nationalism cannot be established on solid foundations, no matter how many of these elements are present, unless the desire and readiness for shared coexistence exist among different groups within a single political framework. The readiness for shared coexistence is the factor through which one can leap over the barriers of language, race, and culture, so that loyalty to the homeland is contracted, transcending other loyalties and dominating them. It has been proven through observation that ethnic, linguistic, and religious pluralism is a characteristic shared by all countries of the world today, making the readiness to coexist the only solution to the problems resulting from ethnic diversity—especially since most of these criteria represent "unbridgeable gaps" that individuals have no control over, such as ethnic origin and shared history, as well as religion, since a person is not asked to change their religion to integrate into a national unity framework with the rest of the groups in the state. It is true that the aforementioned elements are contributing factors in achieving national unity, but their presence is not all required for us to speak of national integration. States must handle the issues, demands, and cultures of different groups within their territories with prudence and justice in a way that supports national unity, and they must work to develop values of loyalty to the homeland among their members—meaning the creation of a collective feeling aimed at achieving national aspirations, involving love and loyalty to the homeland, adherence to its history, and working to achieve its interests. There is no doubt that this will lead to the creation of comprehensive and effective national political unity. The author believes that cultural differences are not a point of weakness in themselves; if these differences are dealt with wisely and directed in the right direction, they represent a point of strength because they are a source of cultural enrichment. The richest and most deeply rooted cultures are what is known as "hybrid" culture—that is the culture resulting from the cross-fertilization of a number of different cultures over a long period of time, leading to the existence of a culture that encompasses the features of all these cultures while being distinct from them, taking a share from each. Therefore, all states characterized by ethnic, cultural, religious, or sectarian pluralism must work to develop the various cultures within their borders, provide the reasons for interaction and cross-fertilization for these cultures, and steer away from attempts at polarization and striving to impose a specific culture over other cultures, which would provoke the resentment of other cultural groups within the state. [1] Abd al-Salam Ibrahim Baghdadi, National Unity and the Minority Problem in Africa, PhD Dissertation Series No. (23), Center for Arab Unity Studies, Beirut, 2000, p. 157. ([2] )  International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, The Macmillan Company an The Free press. 1972 Volume “1”  P P 7 s– 8. ([3] ) I bid P. 7. [4] Louis Awad, The Meaning of Nationalism, Al-Ahram, 11/5/1978 AD, p. 10. [5] Shibli al-Aysami, Arabism of Islam and its Universality, Dar al-Tali'ah, Beirut, 2nd Edition, 1985, p. 215. [6] Hamad Muhammad Hussein, "Sudanese Identity Between Arab and African Pull," unpublished research, Higher Military Academy, Khartoum, 6th Session (1988–1989 AD), p. 1. [7] Abu Khaldun Sati' al-Husri, previous reference, p. 35. [8] Ahmed Wahban, Ethnic Conflicts and the Stability of the Contemporary World: A Study in Minorities, Groups, and Ethnic Movements, New University Publishing House, Alexandria, 1999, pp. 30–31. [9] Ibid., p. 157. [10] Ibid., p. 157. [11] Abu Khaldun Sati' al-Husri, previous reference, p. 38. [12] Ahmed Wahban, previous reference, p. 43. [13] Abu Khaldun Sati' al-Husri, previous reference, p. 51. [14] Ibid., p. 47. ([15] Ahmed Wahban, previous reference, p. 42.) ([16] Ahmed Wahban, previous reference, p. 46.)