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 US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »