How Did Countries and Nations Take Shape?

Rule and Identity Before National States

Across much of premodern Europe, people lived within the domains of kings, princes, nobles, and self-governing cities. Political authority was divided among local rulers, royal institutions, and religious bodies. A person could belong to a town and a region, be a subject of a ruling dynasty, and consider themselves part of a wider religious community at the same time. These attachments did not necessarily converge in a single identity. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A change of ruler did not necessarily change who people understood themselves to be. Imagine a village passing under a new lord. Taxes and relations of power might change, but the villagers’ homes, land, relatives, and neighbors remained. Their attachment to the place where they lived was distinct from the territory’s political subordination to a ruler.

France offers a clear example of linguistic diversity within a single realm. People in its different regions spoke Breton, Basque, Occitan, Catalan, and numerous other languages and dialects. Being within French territory did not mean that everyone’s mother tongue was French. Nor were all these forms of speech simply local varieties of French: some were distinct languages with histories of their own. (Ministry of Culture)

Outside Europe, other political and cultural experiences had developed. China had extensive governing institutions from antiquity. In 221 BCE, several rival states were united under its first emperor, and the standardization of writing, weights, measures, and administration began. In later centuries, dynasties changed, and periods of unity alternated with fragmentation. Written and administrative traditions continued in different forms, including under Mongol and Manchu dynasties. A shared writing system connected regions without requiring everyone to speak the same language. (AFE East Asia)

In Iran and the wider Persian cultural world, historical and cultural consciousness also long predated the modern era. The name Iran, accounts of kings, the Shahnameh, and Persian literature sustained memories that outlasted any one ruling dynasty. Governments changed without extinguishing that inheritance. Yet a cultural connection with Iran and the Persian language was not the same thing as membership in a modern national state. Persian culture flourished across lands governed by different powers. (Iranica Online)

Afghanistan shares in that inheritance. The Shahnameh, Persian literature, and parts of the religious and historical past are familiar in both Afghanistan and Iran. Many of the same names and narratives appear in both countries, yet that common inheritance did not produce a single country. Afghanistan and Iran followed separate political paths. Their example shows that the boundaries of a cultural heritage are not identical to a country’s borders, and that such a heritage cannot be treated as the exclusive possession of just one present-day country. (UNESCO)

Japan, too, had a name, a political tradition, and an imperial institution before the modern period. Under the Tokugawa order, the shogun—the military ruler—held central power, while regional lords administered their own domains. This shared framework did not amount to uniform administration or education throughout the country. Modern Japan subsequently took shape through the abolition of those domains and the expansion of nationwide institutions. (AFE East Asia)

In the Arab world, Arabic language and literature and religious ties existed alongside attachments to city, region, and tribe. The Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates governed vast territories inhabited by diverse peoples. Arabic became the official language of administration under the Umayyads, but this did not make every inhabitant an Arabic speaker. In later centuries, much of the Arab lands came under Ottoman rule. Being Arab, belonging to a particular city, and obeying a government could coexist. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)

The world before national states thus had both governments and broad collective identities. What changed was the relationship among people, territory, and power: the idea spread that a people constituted a nation and that government should represent that nation.

Scholars disagree about how far back nations can be traced. Thinkers such as Benedict Anderson emphasized the role of modern institutions in their formation. Anthony Smith, by contrast, highlighted ethnic bonds, historical memories, and older symbols. The modern character of many national institutions therefore does not mean that they lack cultural or historical roots. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Centralization, Revolution, and National Sovereignty

From the late Middle Ages onward, European governments moved toward greater centralization. Local powers gradually came under the influence of central institutions, and sovereignty—the final authority to govern a territory—became more firmly established. Printing and the spread of reading opened another possibility: people who had never met could read the same texts and learn about events and a past they understood as shared. Anderson examined the role of print in making a large common community imaginable. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In the late eighteenth century, revolutions brought another question to the fore: where does government get its authority? The American Declaration of Independence of 1776 grounded government’s just powers in the consent of the governed. During the French Revolution of 1789, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen located sovereignty in the nation. People were more than the subjects of a dynasty: they formed a political community from which government was to derive its authority. This principle concerned the source of power within a political society. It was not identical to a claim that every group sharing a language should have a separate country. (National Archives)

The French Revolution also changed the administration of territory. In 1790, France was divided into 83 new departments, replacing older territorial divisions with a new structure. Revolutionary warfare drew the government into mobilizing society on a much larger scale. The mass mobilization decree of 1793 assigned tasks to different groups: young men were to fight, while others made weapons, prepared supplies, or provided support. War was presented as the nation’s common undertaking. The nation supplied both the justification for political authority and the human strength on which government depended to continue fighting. (Seine-et-Marne Archives)

Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power amid these transformations and made the French state more centralized. The system of centrally appointed prefects introduced in 1800 tied regional administration more closely to the capital. The establishment of lycées, or secondary schools, in 1802 helped train educated people for society and government service. The Civil Code of 1804 standardized a substantial body of rules concerning property, contracts, and family life. Different regions increasingly came under a common administrative hierarchy and a shared body of law. (napoleon.org)

Napoleon’s conquests carried these changes beyond France. In the German lands, the formation of the Confederation of the Rhine in 1806 redrew the political map. Some small territories were merged, while new or enlarged states reorganized their administrations. The confederation consisted of states dependent on France and obliged to supply it with troops and resources. That same year saw the end of the Holy Roman Empire, a structure that had encompassed much of those lands for centuries. (napoleon.org)

French domination also encouraged national feeling among its opponents. In this setting, the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte emphasized education and a shared German belonging in his addresses of 1807–1808. Linguistic and cultural ties were prominent in this account, whereas the French revolutionary declaration had emphasized the nation as the source of political authority. Nationalism drew strength both from the ideas of the French Revolution and from resistance to French rule. (German History in Documents and Images)

During the nineteenth century, writers, teachers, and political activists spread national narratives, while governments used national attachment to advance political unity. In the German lands, war and negotiation under Prussian leadership culminated in the formation of a united empire in 1871. Unlike France, where a central government had already existed, German national unification involved bringing several states into a new political structure. Austria remained outside the union, so the new country did not encompass all German-speaking people. (bpb.de)

Different Paths to Nationhood

Japan followed a different path in the same century. Pressure from foreign powers and treaties restricting the government’s freedom of action made strengthening the country a central concern for reformers. The Meiji transformations of 1868 ended shogunal rule, and the new governing order was organized in the emperor’s name. In 1871, the regional lords’ domains were abolished and replaced with administrative units subordinate to the center. The army and taxation were also reorganized nationally. Here, national identity developed alongside the imperial institution and the strengthening of the state, rather than through the overthrow of monarchy in the manner of the French Revolution. (AFE East Asia)

In China, nineteenth-century military defeats and growing foreign influence drove reformers and revolutionaries to seek ways to strengthen the country. By the century’s end, the debate extended beyond purchasing weapons and building factories to the structure of government and its relationship with the people. Sun Yat-sen was among those who placed nationalism, republican government, and the people’s livelihood at the center of their program. Opposition to the Manchu Qing dynasty also played an important part in revolutionary politics. The revolution of 1911 ultimately brought that dynasty’s rule to an end in 1912. A society with a long imperial history entered a new effort to build a modern state and national identity. (AFE East Asia)

In Iran, modern nationalism was connected with the growth of the press, new forms of education, demands for the rule of law, and resistance to foreign influence. During the Constitutional Movement—the effort to limit governmental power through law—the nation emerged as the holder of political rights, and the National Consultative Assembly was established. Article 26 of the Supplementary Fundamental Laws of 1907 expressed the change by declaring that the powers of the country derived from the nation. Yet the same constitutional framework connected monarchy both with its conferral by the nation and with a divine gift, while providing a role for the official religion and oversight by religious jurists. National sovereignty, monarchy, and religious institutions existed together within this arrangement. (Iranica Online)

In the nineteenth-century Arab world, the growth of printing, translation, newspapers, and education contributed to the cultural movement known as the Nahda: a renewal of knowledge, literature, and social thought. Cairo and Beirut were important centers. Through Arabic, writers and readers across different regions participated in shared scientific, literary, and social debates. These activities helped create a common cultural sphere extending beyond any single city or province. (Cambridge University Press)

In the late Ottoman period and after the empire’s collapse, Arab nationalism became a broader political movement. It did not coincide with the boundaries of one country. Its advocates spoke of a larger Arab community that might encompass several territories. At the same time, separate states and political identities took shape. Arab belonging and attachment to a particular country could exist together. (Cambridge University Press)

Foreign powers also directly shaped the region’s political map. The Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916 set out the British and French spheres of influence envisaged for part of the Ottoman territories. After the First World War came the mandate system: foreign powers were entrusted with administering certain territories under League of Nations supervision, nominally to prepare them for self-government. New borders and administrative structures did not arise solely from the wishes of a community sharing a language. War, negotiation, and foreign decisions also helped bring them into being. (Avalon Project)

These examples show that modern nations were not the work of one person or one act. Revolutionaries asserted national sovereignty against hereditary authority. Governments created shared administrative and military institutions. Writers and cultural movements made language and the past sources of political belonging. Peoples under foreign domination demanded independence in the name of the nation. These forces did not always move in the same direction, but together they changed the political world.

How the Nation Entered Everyday Life

Declaring that people formed a nation did not, by itself, give them a common language or identity. On June 4, 1794, Henri Grégoire presented a report to France’s revolutionary legislature, the National Convention, on the need and means to eradicate regional vernaculars and make French universal. He estimated that at least six million people did not know the national language and that nearly as many could not sustain a conversation in it. These were his estimates, not the findings of a linguistic census. His proposal was clear: the republic’s political unity should be accompanied by linguistic unity. (Occitanica.eu)

Presenting such a report did not mean that its program was immediately or fully implemented. Bringing a common language into everyday life required far more time and institutional effort. Almost nine decades later, the education law of 1882 made schooling compulsory for children aged six to thirteen. Its curriculum included French language and literature, geography with particular emphasis on France, history with particular emphasis on France, and moral and civic instruction. In state schools, moral and civic education replaced religious instruction. Children learned more than reading and writing: they learned where their country was, what its past had been, and how they belonged to it. (Ministère de l'Education nationale)

The curriculum itself helps reveal this education’s social role. Children from distant regions learned to recognize the same map and encountered the same historical names. They were taught in a language that enabled communication with the administration and wider society. Attachment to village and town did not disappear, but another identity was added: membership in the nation.

In Japan, the education decree of 1872 laid the foundation for a nationwide school system. Schools and textbooks communicated basic knowledge and a shared understanding of the country to children in different regions. Moral education was also associated with loyalty to the emperor, country, and family. Public education formed part of the effort to strengthen the state and prepare its future generations. (MEXT)

The spread of a national language in China was also a planned undertaking. In 1913, representatives from different regions assembled to establish standard pronunciations. A standard language is a selected form of speech used as the basis for education and public communication. Following further debate and subsequent changes, the national language spread through teacher training, textbooks, and educational programs. A shared script and literary tradition had not removed the need to teach a common spoken language. (Cambridge University Press)

In Iran, modern schools, newspapers, and history books helped spread national consciousness. Under the Pahlavis, education and official historical narratives, together with ceremonies, public monuments, and symbols drawn from Iran’s past, served to strengthen national identity. This program also privileged Persian in administration. In Iranian Azerbaijan under Reza Shah, for example, Azerbaijani Turkish was prohibited in official business and replaced by Persian. (Iranica Online)

Education and the press had a further characteristic in Arab lands: a common written language could connect readers across several countries. A newspaper or book published in Cairo or Beirut was not intended only for people in that city or country. The same medium that helped consolidate a single country’s identity in one setting could extend a sense of belonging beyond national borders in another. (Cambridge University Press)

Linguistic standardization was not simply an expansion of people’s ability to communicate. Grégoire’s program treated local languages as obstacles to political unity and regarded their disappearance as desirable. In some cases, therefore, the language called “national” gained precedence over others through political and educational planning as well as through people’s everyday choices. (Assemblée nationale)

Administration and military service extended the same bond by other means. Within the Napoleonic administrative system, the registration of births, deaths, and marriages, taxation, and local government were brought into a single hierarchy. Conscription drew people from different regions into the service of a common apparatus. Government became a presence in the documents, obligations, and routines of everyday life. (napoleon.org)

Flags and anthems carried this belonging beyond books and offices into public ceremony. The French tricolor emerged from the Revolution. “La Marseillaise” was composed in 1792, became the national anthem in 1795, was banned during certain periods, and was recognized as the national anthem again in 1879. People could gather under a shared symbol and sing the same words. The nation was no longer only a political concept: it had colors, sounds, and ceremonies. (elysee.fr)

Sport offered another form of the same experience. The first official international football match, between Scotland and England, took place in 1872. National teams allowed a large population to see itself represented by a handful of athletes. The historian Eric Hobsbawm examined how public rituals and symbols helped create collective bonds. A familiar spectator’s response illustrates the process: when someone says “we won,” victory no longer belongs only to the players on the field. In the spectator’s mind, it belongs to a community of which they are also a part. (FIFA Museum)

Music and theater contributed as well. Estonia’s song festival, first held in 1869, was associated with that society’s national awakening. Prague’s National Theatre was built with public contributions and became a place for expressing Czech language and cultural identity. National identity was not produced only by governments. Communities without independent states could also develop a sense of shared belonging through culture. (Laulupidu 2025)

In the twentieth century, cinema and film festivals became another arena in which countries appeared before one another. Plans for a Cannes festival in 1939 were connected with opposition to fascist governments’ political interference at Venice. The outbreak of war halted those plans, and the first actual festival took place in 1946. Countries presented their films before an international jury. An artist remained an individual but could also be seen as representing a country’s cinema. Cultural competition and prestige, alongside political and sporting rivalry, repeatedly brought the country’s name into public life. (Festival de Cannes)

Schools, administration, military service, flags, anthems, sport, and art thus reinforced a shared belonging in different ways. Children learned the country’s name, encountered its symbols in ceremonies, and felt part of a larger community during a match or cultural event. Nationalism did not remain confined to politicians’ speeches. It entered childhood memories, everyday habits, and the language through which people spoke of “us.”

Twentieth-century independence struggles in Asia and Africa extended this pattern. Communities under colonial rule demanded self-government, and new countries emerged. Between 1945 and 1960, dozens of Asian and African countries gained independence. In many cases, colonial administrative units became independent countries, with the development of institutions and a shared national consciousness continuing afterward. A nation was not always fully formed before its state. Sometimes a country came into being first, and the effort to consolidate a national identity within it continued for years. (Office of the Historian)

Diyar and Human Belonging in the Qur’an

The Qur’an was revealed before this modern political arrangement developed. To understand its language, we must distinguish people’s attachment to community and place from the national identities that have expanded over recent centuries. A comparison becomes clearer when we do not read today’s meanings of nation and country into Qur’anic words in advance.

The Qur’an’s narratives also speak of kings and their domains. In the account of the Queen of Sheba, during deliberations over how to respond to Solomon, we read:

قَالَتْ إِنَّ الْمُلُوكَ إِذَا دَخَلُوا قَرْيَةً أَفْسَدُوهَا وَجَعَلُوا أَعِزَّةَ أَهْلِهَا أَذِلَّةً وَكَذَٰلِكَ يَفْعَلُونَ

She said, “When kings enter a settlement, they lay it waste and reduce its honored people to humiliation. That is what they do.”

An-Naml 27:34 (Not yet published)

These words occur in the Queen of Sheba’s deliberations. Their subject is rule and the consequences of military power entering people’s place of habitation. Qaryah here denotes a settlement. Diyar is another expression the Qur’an uses when speaking of where people live and of their expulsion. It is the plural of dar and, in these contexts, refers to people’s homes and dwelling places. The word itself does not determine their form of government or political citizenship.

In a reminder of the covenant with the Children of Israel, we read:

وَإِذْ أَخَذْنَا مِيثَاقَكُمْ لَا تَسْفِكُونَ دِمَاءَكُمْ وَلَا تُخْرِجُونَ أَنْفُسَكُمْ مِنْ دِيَارِكُمْ ثُمَّ أَقْرَرْتُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ تَشْهَدُونَ

“And when We took your covenant: do not shed one another’s blood, and do not expel one another from your homes. Then you affirmed it, bearing witness.”

Al-Baqarah 2:84

The following verse describes that community’s conduct in relation to the covenant:

ثُمَّ أَنْتُمْ هَؤُلَاءِ تَقْتُلُونَ أَنْفُسَكُمْ وَتُخْرِجُونَ فَرِيقًا مِنْكُمْ مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ تَظَاهَرُونَ عَلَيْهِمْ بِالْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ وَإِنْ يَأْتُوكُمْ أُسَارَىٰ تُفَادُوهُمْ وَهُوَ مُحَرَّمٌ عَلَيْكُمْ إِخْرَاجُهُمْ أَفَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِبَعْضِ الْكِتَابِ وَتَكْفُرُونَ بِبَعْضٍ فَمَا جَزَاءُ مَنْ يَفْعَلُ ذَٰلِكَ مِنْكُمْ إِلَّا خِزْيٌ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ أَشَدِّ الْعَذَابِ وَمَا اللَّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ

“Yet here you are, killing one another and expelling a group of your own people from their homes, assisting one another against them in sin and aggression. If they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although expelling them was forbidden to you. Do you then believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? What is the recompense of those among you who do this except disgrace in the life of this world? On the Day of Resurrection they will be returned to the severest punishment. And God is not unaware of what you do.”

Al-Baqarah 2:85

In these two verses, members of one community are connected through the expression anfusakum, literally “yourselves,” rendered here as “one another.” The continuation makes clear that one group is killing and expelling another group of its own people. The contradiction is equally specific: people cooperate in expelling others, then pay ransom to free those same people after their capture. Observing the second obligation does not undo the violation of the first. Diyar here means the places where the expelled people lived. The verses are not defining a boundary between two nations.

In Al-Hashr, when identifying those entitled to a share of the property under discussion, the Qur’an places homes alongside possessions:

لِلْفُقَرَاءِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ الَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ وَأَمْوَالِهِمْ يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلًا مِنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَانًا وَيَنْصُرُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الصَّادِقُونَ

“[These resources are] for the poor emigrants who were driven from their homes and possessions, seeking God’s bounty and approval and supporting God and His Messenger. Those are the truthful ones.”

Al-Hashr 59:8 (Not yet published)

Expulsion from one’s home can be understood in these human terms. A person forced out of the place where they live is not merely leaving a point on a map. They are separated from home, livelihood, social relationships, and a familiar world. This attachment may survive a change of government and need not depend on the name political power has given the territory. Expulsion itself can, of course, be a political act backed by force. Recognizing its human dimension does not detach it from relations of power.

The Qur’an’s discussion of expulsion is not limited to the word diyar. In Surah Ibrahim, in an account of the confrontation between messengers and their opponents, it says:

وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لِرُسُلِهِمْ لَنُخْرِجَنَّكُمْ مِنْ أَرْضِنَا أَوْ لَتَعُودُنَّ فِي مِلَّتِنَا فَأَوْحَىٰ إِلَيْهِمْ رَبُّهُمْ لَنُهْلِكَنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ

“Those who disbelieved said to their messengers, ‘We will surely drive you out of our land unless you return to our creed.’ Then their Lord revealed to them, ‘We will surely destroy the wrongdoers.’”

Ibrahim 14:13 (Not yet published)

In this exchange, ard denotes land, while millah is the religious way or creed to which the opponents demand a return as the condition for remaining there. This Qur’anic use of millah differs from the modern Persian use of mellat for a political nation. The speakers also connect their claimed control over the land with religious coercion.

At the same time, attachment to one’s place of residence does not mean, in the Qur’an, that every possible path is confined to that place:

يَا عِبَادِيَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّ أَرْضِي وَاسِعَةٌ فَإِيَّايَ فَاعْبُدُونِ

“My servants who have believed, My earth is spacious. So worship Me alone.”

Al-'Ankabut 29:56 (Not yet published)

This statement does not make serving God dependent on remaining in one location. The possibility of moving elsewhere and the judgment of those who force people from their homes are two distinct questions.

Alongside such attachment, the Qur’an also speaks of differences in language:

وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ خَلْقُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَاخْتِلَافُ أَلْسِنَتِكُمْ وَأَلْوَانِكُمْ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِلْعَالِمِينَ

“And among His signs are the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and colors. Surely in that are signs for those who know.”

Ar-Rum 30:22 (Not yet published)

Within the verse’s context, linguistic diversity is counted among the signs of creation. The passage does not set out a national education policy, but neither does it describe the existence of different languages as a human defect. Teaching a common language for public communication is not the same as devaluing other languages.

Of human groups, the Qur’an says:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ مِنْ ذَكَرٍ وَأُنْثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ

“People, We created you from a male and a female and made you peoples and tribes so that you might know one another. Surely the most honored of you before God is the most mindful of Him. God is Knowing, Aware.”

Al-Hujurat 49:13 (Not yet published)

The verse acknowledges human groupings without making greater honor dependent on a group’s name or ancestry. Nor do these groupings constitute legal definitions of today’s countries, with their borders and citizenship. The verse concerns human diversity, mutual recognition, and the measure of standing before God.

In Al-Mumtahanah, relations with others are discussed in the context of hostility, war, and the expulsion of the Prophet and believers. Two successive verses distinguish those who participated in these acts from those who did not:

لَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُمْ مِنْ دِيَارِكُمْ أَنْ تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ

“God does not forbid you to show kindness and act justly toward those who have not fought you on account of religion or driven you from your homes. Surely God loves those who act justly.”

Al-Mumtahanah 60:8 (Not yet published)

إِنَّمَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ قَاتَلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَأَخْرَجُوكُمْ مِنْ دِيَارِكُمْ وَظَاهَرُوا عَلَىٰ إِخْرَاجِكُمْ أَنْ تَوَلَّوْهُمْ وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّهُمْ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ

“God only forbids you to take as allies those who have fought you on account of religion, driven you from your homes, and supported your expulsion. Whoever takes them as allies—those are the wrongdoers.”

Al-Mumtahanah 60:9 (Not yet published)

The decisive distinction in these verses is not between two languages, ancestries, or citizenships. One group has fought, expelled, or supported expulsion. The other has not acted in that way, and kindness and justice toward it are not prohibited. Allegiance and association are considered within this same setting of war and expulsion.

Three matters must therefore be distinguished in this comparison: rule over territory, membership in a nation, and people’s attachment to the place where they live. These can overlap, but they are not identical. China, Japan, Iran, Afghanistan, the Arab world, and European countries followed different paths toward modern political structures. Diyar, in the verses examined here, refers to the places where people live.

The history of nations explains how millions of people came together under a political name. In the verses examined here, expulsion from diyar is discussed in connection with homes, property, war, and relationships between people. This bond can be bound up with power and politics, but the word diyar itself is not an equivalent of the modern state or nation.

Country, Government, and the Right to Participate

A shared national identity can develop around a constitution, citizenship rights, public institutions, shared languages, and symbols such as a flag, colors, and a national anthem. In a civic understanding of nationhood, membership in the political community rests on citizenship, rather than allegiance to a ruling dynasty or adherence to the rulers’ religion. This is the idea discussed under “civic nationalism”: people with different beliefs and backgrounds living within a common political and legal framework. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

But the existence of a country, the representation of its people, and the way it is governed are three separate questions. The familiar legal definition in the Montevideo Convention identifies a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states as elements of statehood. A written constitution, a particular flag, or an elected government is not a condition of statehood under that definition. Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are all member states of the United Nations. Examining political or religious restrictions in these countries is therefore a discussion about how they are governed; it is not a reason to deny the existence of the country or its people. (Brian Loveman's Homepage)

A different standard applies when we ask whether people are represented. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out participation in government, the free choice of representatives, and equal access to public service. On this view, having a flag, laws, and ministries does not by itself explain how people share in power. The questions are who may take part in decisions, who may stand for office, and how people can choose, hold accountable, or replace those who govern them. (United Nations)

In Afghanistan, the Taliban suspended the operation of the 2004 Constitution and based their governing rules on leadership decrees and their own interpretation of Sharia. The UN Special Rapporteur’s 2026 report describes the suspension of the constitution and the dismantling of earlier institutions that protected people’s rights. Freedom House’s 2026 report also discusses the removal of representative institutions and the absence of elections to determine the government. Within such a structure, holding office through a Taliban appointment is not the same as representing people through their electoral choice.

The question of religious interpretation extends beyond the name a government adopts. A 2026 UN report examines a decree that makes the recognition of preachers and the content of their preaching conditional on adherence to the Hanafi school. The same report describes the removal of the option for certain Shia family matters to be adjudicated according to their own jurisprudence. In a letter dated April 10, 2026, UN experts also wrote that Article 26 of the Taliban’s penal rules makes departure from the Hanafi school punishable by imprisonment for its adherents. These are specific examples of one religious interpretation being turned into a binding public rule.

This issue cannot be reduced to whether a few individuals from minority communities hold government positions. Someone from a religious community may be appointed to office, yet the question of representation remains: did the people of that community choose this person? Can they scrutinize the person’s performance or seek a replacement through a legal process? Nor does participation in foreign policy necessarily mean religious quotas in the foreign ministry. The issue is whether citizens can influence public decisions through representatives and accountable institutions. This distinction follows from the difference between appointment and elected representation. (Universiteit Utrecht)

The flag is part of this discussion too. After returning to power, the Taliban replaced the tricolor with their white flag at government sites; protests involving the tricolor were also reported in the early days. This shows how a change of flag can become a dispute over identity and power. Changing colors and symbols does not, however, erase a country’s existence. The political question concerns how that decision is made and whether people can participate in it. (Reuters Connect)

In Iran, the issue takes a different form. The Islamic Republic has a written constitution, a parliament, and elections. Article 64 reserves a total of five parliamentary seats for Zoroastrians, Jews, and recognized Christian communities. It would therefore be inaccurate to say that all religious minorities are excluded from every form of official participation. Yet Article 12 establishes Twelver Ja‘fari Islam as the official school, and Article 115 requires presidential candidates to believe in the official school. Access to this office therefore depends on a religious condition as well as citizenship. (Shora GC)

Article 4 also assigns the determination of whether laws comply with Islamic standards to the jurists of the Guardian Council. Under Articles 91 and 96, the Leader appoints the council’s six Islamic jurists, and a majority of those jurists determines whether legislation is compatible with Islamic rulings. Article 110 gives the Leader authority over general policies, command of the armed forces, and declarations of war and peace. An elected parliament thus operates alongside powers that the constitution assigns to the leadership and its appointed jurists. (Shora GC)

The Guardian Council also plays a role in vetting candidates for the presidency, parliament, and the Assembly of Experts. That role determines the range of choices available to voters. Understanding this structure requires attention both to the existence of voting and to the rules governing entry into electoral competition, as well as the powers of institutions that shape decisions after elections. “There are elections” and “all citizens have access to every political office” are two different claims. (Council on Foreign Relations)

Saudi Arabia organizes power on another basis. Article 1 of the Basic Law of Governance, issued in 1992, identifies the Qur’an and the Sunna as the constitution; the Basic Law itself nevertheless sets out specific rules concerning institutions, powers, and the transfer of authority. Article 5 defines the system as a monarchy and places succession among the sons and grandsons of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Al Saud. Access to the highest office therefore depends on family lineage, rather than electoral competition open to citizens generally. (Human Rights Library)

Saudi Arabia also has a Shura Council, but under Article 3 of its governing law, the king chooses its chair and 150 members. Its members do not become representatives through a general election. The Basic Law also gives the king authority to appoint ministers, command the armed forces, and declare war. When examining public participation in domestic and foreign policy, we therefore need to distinguish advice offered by royal appointees from representation derived from citizens’ electoral choices.

The Saudi state’s treatment of religious differences is a separate question from royal succession. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has reported restrictions on public non-Muslim worship and a prohibition on non-Muslim places of worship. Such rules should be examined in relation to religious freedom, just as restrictions on access to rulership should be examined through the rules of succession. A government may have laws, a flag, and an administrative apparatus while also restricting religious activity or access to political office. As descriptions of a political system, both can be true at once. (USCIRF)

These three structures are not identical. In Afghanistan, Taliban leadership decrees and an appointed apparatus form the basis of government; in the Islamic Republic of Iran, elected institutions operate alongside the leadership and juristic oversight; in Saudi Arabia, hereditary succession and royal appointment occupy the central place. A careful comparison preserves these differences. Instead of treating all three as the same, it examines the rules for entering power, the limits of authority, and the avenues for public participation. (Freedom House)

A claim to be Islamic raises a further, separate question. A government’s Islamic name tells us how it presents itself. Assessing a decision or law in relation to the Qur’an, however, requires examining that decision or law. Specific questions concerning justice, trusts, consultation, and religious coercion can be drawn from the Qur’anic text without allowing the government’s name to substitute for an examination of its conduct.

On trusts and judging between people, the Qur’an says:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَنْ تُؤَدُّوا الْأَمَانَاتِ إِلَىٰ أَهْلِهَا وَإِذَا حَكَمْتُمْ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ أَنْ تَحْكُمُوا بِالْعَدْلِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ نِعِمَّا يَعِظُكُمْ بِهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا

“The God commands you to return trusts to their rightful holders and, when you judge between people, to judge with justice. How excellent is the counsel The God gives you. The God is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.”

Al-Nisa 4:58 (Not yet published)

The verse concerns returning trusts and judging justly between people. Applied to an examination of public power, it prompts questions about how responsibilities are assigned, where officials’ authority ends, and how rules of judgment are applied to different people. This is an inquiry into conduct and institutions, rather than people’s inward faith.

Describing those who respond to their Lord, the Qur’an says:

وَالَّذِينَ اسْتَجَابُوا لِرَبِّهِمْ وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَىٰ بَيْنَهُمْ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ

“And those who have responded to their Lord, established prayer, conduct their affairs through consultation among themselves, and spend out of what We have provided for them.”

Ash-Shura 42:38 (Not yet published)

The verse does not prescribe the form of a modern parliament or a particular electoral procedure, but it does describe consultation in shared affairs. When examining an institution called a “shura,” its name is only the beginning: its composition, the way its members are chosen, who is absent, and how much influence members’ views carry all require scrutiny.

On religious coercion, we read:

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَىٰ لَا انْفِصَامَ لَهَا وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ

“There is no compulsion in religion. Sound guidance has become distinct from error. Whoever rejects the taghut and believes in The God has grasped the firmest handhold, one that will never break. The God is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.”

Al-Baqarah 2:256 (Not yet published)

This verse addresses compulsion in religion. In comparing it with government rules, the specific questions are whether accepting, abandoning, or changing a belief brings threats or punishment, and what limits are placed on religious practice. The answer must rest on the text of the law and the way it is enforced.

Thus, the existence of a country, the representation of its citizens, and the consistency of a government’s conduct with its religious claims are three distinct matters. A country does not disappear when its rulers change; the presence of state institutions does not by itself establish how much people participate; and an Islamic name does not replace scrutiny of laws and conduct. In each case, we can examine how power is acquired, how it is limited, and what rights and opportunities people with different religious and intellectual commitments have to take part in public life.