Chicago (Special to Informed Comment; Feature) – When Israel launched an attack on Doha in September 2025, Arab and Muslim leaders convened an emergency summit. They condemned Israel’s “blatant violation of international law” and praised Qatar’s restraint. However, the joint statement, like so many before it, contained no concrete measures. CNN called it a “wordy communiqué,” while AP observed that the meeting “led to little action.”
Just three days later, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed a new defense pact. Commentators rushed to speculate: could this be the start of an “Islamic NATO”? Might nuclear-armed Pakistan provide a protective umbrella for the Gulf?
History suggests otherwise. Far from signaling a new era of Muslim unity, these events highlight how nationalism and elite interests have steadily undermined collective action since the founding of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in 1969.
From Al-Aqsa Fire to the OIC’s Decline
The OIC was born out of a crisis. In August 1969, a fire at Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque galvanized Muslim-majority states to meet in Rabat, Morocco. They pledged to defend Palestine, liberate Jerusalem, and strengthen cooperation across politics, economics, and culture. The new organization represented over a billion people and appeared poised to become a significant global player.
However, by the mid-1980s, the OIC’s momentum had stalled. Lofty resolutions piled up, but a lack of political will prevailed. As ruling elites consolidated power and settled into privilege, their enthusiasm waned. The 14th-century historian Ibn Khaldun warned that dynasties often lose vigor after a few generations — a pattern that fits many Muslim nationalist elites.
Nationalism as Both a Weapon and a Trap
In the 20th century, nationalism was a powerful tool against colonialism. Leaders in Egypt, India, Algeria, and Indonesia all invoked the phrase “Love of the homeland is part of faith,” attributing it to a hadith. However, it does not appear in any authentic hadith collections. For independence struggles, the rhetoric worked.
However, as the British historian Arnold Toynbee argued, nationalism can regress into tribalism, placing loyalty to the nation above universal principles. In the post-colonial Muslim world, the appeal to “national interest” increasingly justified repression at home and division abroad. The case of Pakistan is telling. While its military elites have long leveraged the idea of an “Islamic bomb” for prestige, they have also marginalized democratic politics — most recently by sidelining former Prime Minister Imran Khan. Nationalism empowered the state but weakened the broader cause of Muslim solidarity.
The Saudi–Pakistan Pact: Hype vs. Reality
Against this backdrop, how should we interpret the Saudi–Pakistan defense pact? Some analysts see it as a potential game-changer. Iranian state media compared it to NATO, while activists on social media hailed it as a “seismic shift.”
Others are more cautious. The Times of Israel argued that Saudi Arabia’s real focus is normalization with Israel, not confrontation. Scholars at Harvard’s Belfer Center noted that Riyadh and Islamabad have a long history of military cooperation — what is new is formalization, not transformation.
In short, the pact is better read as a political signal of solidarity rather than a binding military commitment. Unlike NATO’s Article 5, the promise that an attack on one will be considered an attack on all lacks institutional backing or enforcement mechanisms.
Faith, Pragmatism, and the Question of Unity
For Muslim publics, the deeper issue is moral. The Prophet Muhammad compared believers to a single body: “When one limb suffers, the whole body responds” (Sahih Muslim 2586). However, today, Muslim governments respond to Israeli actions with statements rather than coordinated action.
The contrast with past examples is striking. In 1973, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia joined the oil embargo against Israel’s supporters, using economic leverage to reshape global politics. In 2011, Turkey helped mediate the release of Israeli captive Gilad Shalit, showing that even without force, pragmatic diplomacy can matter.
So why do today’s leaders hesitate? Partly because nationalism has reoriented priorities toward elite survival and bilateral deals with extraordinary powers. Material pragmatism trumps collective principle. The result is paralysis at moments of crisis — such as the ongoing war in Gaza.
Lessons from History
If there is one consistent lesson, it is that Muslim unity requires more than summit communiqués or defense pacts. It demands political will anchored in trust — what Islamic tradition calls amanah (trustworthiness). Civilizations, Muslim and otherwise, have flourished when leaders honored this principle in governance, trade, and justice, and declined when they betrayed it.
Here, some Qur’anic references are relevant because not only does the OIC justify its existence based on Qur’anic teachings, but Muslim scholars, regardless of their background, also frequently quote Qur’anic verses to support their political and intellectual positions. The Qur’an underscores this point: “Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves” (Qur’an 13:11), and warns against false dependencies: “They have taken other gods besides Allah, hoping to be helped. But they cannot help them, though they are made to stand guard over them” (Qur’an 36:74–75).
File Photo. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, at the Royal Court at al-Salam Palace in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on June 24, 2019. RON PRZYSUCHA, US DEPT OF STATE. Public Domain. Via Picryl
The present crisis has also revealed a paradox: while OIC governments remain cautious, global civil society — from South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice to protests in European capitals — has taken more decisive action in support of Palestinians. In the current context, Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s call at the UN General Assembly session for an international army is also significant. No OIC leader seems to have the courage to consider his call seriously.
What to Watch For
The Saudi–Pakistan pact is unlikely to become an “Islamic NATO.” Its real significance lies in what it signals about shifting alliances and the erosion of the OIC’s collective role. The more Muslim states prioritize bilateral deals and elite interests, the less effective their institutions become.
Most important of all is that issues such as the Palestinian crisis widen the gap between elites and the masses in the Muslim world. The concept of Ummah is very much alive among the people; they are hungry for dignity and justice. We have witnessed through the participation of non-national Muslims in the Bosnian crisis in the 1990s and in the Afghanistan crisis in recent decades. If Muslim elites ignore this sentiment among the public, non-state actors will take advantage, and extremism will grow, which may jeopardize the world order.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved