Zahra Niazi-Cohesion-MDS

In 1996, Samuel P. Huntington suggested that Islamic ‘consciousness without cohesion’ was one of the defining features of the Muslim world and a weakness to Islam. He questioned whether this condition would persist. Upon reflecting on events that have transpired since then, it becomes evident that the answer to this question is a resounding and unfortunate ‘yes.’ Recent events in the Middle East only serve as another reminder of Huntington’s assessment.

In the aftermath of the most recent Israel-Palestine escalation, the response from the Arab and Islamic world has been anything but cohesive. The reaction has remained divided, particularly between countries that have called for general restraint and those that have held Israel solely responsible for the escalation of violence because of its treatment of the Palestinians. The most sympathetic response for Hamas came from Iran as President Ebrahim Raisi praised the resistance efforts of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On the other end of the spectrum, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) described the actions by Hamas as ‘a serious and grave escalation,’ and called for an immediate ceasefire. Even before this event, a notable division within the Arab and Islamic world was evident, as countries like the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco established diplomatic ties with Israel in 2020, in addition to Egypt and Jordan, which had done so in 1979 and 1994, respectively.

The lack of cohesion in responses from the Muslim world sidelines the Palestinian cause and perpetuates a distorted image of the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is evident in the rhetoric of politicians, public sentiment, and Western media coverage. Hamas’ actions and decades of Palestinian resistance are a direct consequence of Israel’s systematic exercise of the crimes of apartheid and persecution against the Palestinians over the past several decades, and their desperation to be heard. In recent days, questions about the ‘morality’ of Hamas’ actions have been brought up, although the latter has long justified its actions on the basis of the principles of ‘necessity’ and ‘reciprocity.’ Regardless, none of these arguments, for or against, can negate and overshadow the inconvertible realities that Palestinians have been the oppressed and besieged and Israel has been the oppressor, committing slow-motion genocide against indigenous Palestinians for decades without any regard for the principles of international law, let alone the principles of morality.

While damaging the Palestinian cause, such lack of cohesion in the Muslim Ummah becomes a weakness for Islam by feeding into and providing legitimacy to the rhetoric in the Western world that falsely associates Islam with terrorism. Following the escalation of conflict, this rhetoric has been vociferously reiterated as a general opinion and a means to manufacture a case for genocide in Gaza. It is unfortunate that the word ‘Islam’, which is from the root SLM, meaning ‘to submit’ and ‘to make peace,’ has been so widely identified with belligerence. Similarly, the concept of Jihad, which means ‘striving for a worthy and ennobling cause,’ has come to be associated with a perpetual ‘holy war’ against all unbelievers without any authentic injunction from Holy Quran. The groups from the Arab and Islamic world who then engage in offensive terrorist activities draw their legitimacy from the distortions of Islam based on the wrong interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah, are motivated by self-serving interests, and exploit the vacuum created by the states to recruit cadres. Several scholars, including religious scholars, have penned down many expositions over decades to explain what lies at the heart of Islam and provide strong counter-narratives to these distorted worldviews shared by the West and a significant proportion within Islamodom. The intellectual efforts of these scholars could have yielded greater results if Muslim nations had united long ago to offer a stronger defence of their religion based on these scholarly expositions and authentic Islamic teachings. The present events must serve as a reminder for the Muslim nations to firmly unite, set aside their differences, and formulate and act upon a clear way forward to provide a stronger response to the decades-long brutality of Israel against Palestinians.

Huntington emphasised the significance of strong Muslim core states in fostering unity among Muslim nations under their leadership. However, he suggested that no single state had all the prerequisites to become an effective core state, including military power, economic resources, organisational competence, commitment, and Islamic identity. This fact has remained an enduring reality. In these circumstances, all Muslim nations, in their respective capacities, must foster cohesion which the Muslim world desperately needs and the Palestinians yearn for more than ever today. In the words of a Palestinian from Gaza, ‘We don’t want food or fuel from the Arab countries. Just stop this genocide.’

Zahra Niazi is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. She can be reached at [email protected]

Design Credit: Mysha Dua Salman


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »