By Sardar Khan Niazi

The recent talks in Doha between Muslim leaders have once again highlighted an urgent question: can the Muslim world unite to defend sovereignty and peace in the face of mounting global instability? The past two decades have seen Muslim-majority states fragmented by wars, foreign interventions, economic coercion, and internal discord. From Libya to Syria, Yemen to Sudan, and now Palestine, the Muslim world remains caught in a cycle of crisis. If Doha meetings are to mean anything, they must be the start of a concrete process of strategic unity, not just political rhetoric. The idea of Muslim unity is not new. Pan-Islamism has inspired scholars, leaders, and communities for centuries. However, the modern nation-state system, inherited largely from colonial borders, has often pitted Muslim countries against each other–economically, politically, and ideologically. Competition over influence, resources, or alignment with global powers has frequently taken precedence over shared interests or Islamic solidarity. Now, however, the global order is shifting. The post-Cold War era of unipolarity is clearly ending. Great power competition is back, and many regions are realigning their strategic positions. In this uncertain climate, Muslim-majority countries have an opportunity to rethink their collective strategy–not to isolate themselves from the world, but to ensure they are not perpetual victims of it. At the heart of this must be a renewed commitment to sovereignty. Sovereignty here does not simply mean territorial control, but the ability to make independent choices in domestic and foreign policy. Too many Muslim states remain vulnerable to external pressure–whether economic, military, or diplomatic. This is partly due to weak institutions, but also because of a lack of strategic coordination among themselves. Imagine a world where Muslim countries jointly invest in defense technologies, energy security, trade infrastructure, and digital innovation. Imagine a multilateral institution–not just the OIC in its current symbolic form–but a revitalized council that can mediate disputes, facilitate strategic planning, and present a unified diplomatic front when aggression occurs, such as in Gaza. Such cooperation would not make every Muslim state identical in outlook, but it would allow them to better manage differences and amplify their global voice. Some would argue that regional rivalries make this impossible. Indeed, tensions between major Muslim powers have historically undermined collective efforts. However, the lesson from recent years is that rivalry has benefited neither side. While Muslim nations quarrel, others exploit the divisions. The question is not whether Muslim states can agree on everything. The question is whether they can agree on a minimum strategic consensus: to protect sovereignty, uphold peace, resist occupation, and reject the instrumentalisation of their societies for external agendas. Palestine remains the moral and political litmus test of Muslim solidarity. The ongoing war in Gaza has exposed not only the brutality of occupation, but also the deep fractures in the Muslim world’s response. Some states pursue diplomatic engagement; others pursue public protest; others remain silent. A coordinated stance–rooted in law, justice, and strategy–is still sorely lacking. If Doha is to mark a turning point, it must lead to sustained engagement. Joint military exercises, collective mediation frameworks, regional trade corridors, and cooperative cyber defenses are not fantasies. They are necessities in a volatile global environment. Unity does not mean uniformity. However, without a serious shift towards coordinated sovereignty, Muslim states risk remaining pawns in a game where they have little say and even less security. The Muslim world is home to over 1.8 billion people, immense resources, ancient civilizations, and youthful populations. The potential is vast–but so is the risk of continued disunity. The time after Doha must be different.Not just more statements–but real structures, real cooperation, and real sovereignty.