After the recent attack on Gaza last month by Israeli forces, Governments of various Muslim majority countries are demanding for a permanent solution to the Palestine issue. The Muslimcommunity across the globe has lost faith inthe conventional methods of diplomacy.United Nations is only seen as a platform that serves the hegemonic interests of Western powers. While OIC has been ineffectivefor years, it seems to only caterthe Arab monarchies not the interests of the Islamic world. Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed speaks on behalf ofthe Muslims for a renewed cooperative policy in the Islamic world. During the Kuala Lumpur Summit in 2019 Mahathir presented his vision as collective renaissance of the Muslim world. According to Mahathir, the only way to get out from this dilemma is prioritized financial co-operation between Muslim countries. He says that the current geopolitical structures are designed to serve the interests of Western powers. Therefore Muslim countries too must be subservient to the demands of Western powers or take heed from the embargoes that were put on Qatar and Iran respectively. Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, a Jordanian philosopher and former advisor to the incumbent monarch King Abdullah, believes that the Muslim world has been unable to reconcile the post-colonial nation-state with its values. The idea of a ‘nation-state’ was almost non-existent in the pre-colonial Muslim world. Prince Ghazi’s assertion here is not just concerned with the domestic governance structures of Muslim majority nation-states but the pan-Islamist sentiments of Muslim masses and oftencontradictory foreign policy of their governments. The foreign policy of nation-states is concerned with only one thing and that is national interest. Muslim world has been unable to reconcile the post-colonial nation-state with its values. The idea of a ‘nation-state’ was almost non-existent in the pre-colonial Muslim world Post-colonial Muslim nation-states were economically exhausted to the point that they struggled to recover even years after independence. This enabled corruption and ruling elite that marginalizes the masses while only furthering the interests of Western powers that sponsor them. Any regime change or resistance is met with threats of sanctions or invasion. Recall how former US President Bush threatened to ‘bomb Pakistan into the stone age’ if it didn’t support the US in its post 9/11 war on Afghan soil. On the other hand, oil-rich Arab monarchies are dependent upon security and expertise from Western powers to sustain their countries to the extent that any change in policy that doesn’t conform to Western interests is unthinkable. Else the examples of Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam in Iraq are not too far away to haunt them. Mahathir has been an ardent admirer of Iran’s economic and security resilience despite sanctions from the West. While endorsing Iran’s proposal of alternative financial institutions and banking systems he proposes the usage of barter trade, gold, or crypto to get rid of the dependence on the US dollar. Nevertheless both Mahathir and the Iranian leadership know that breaking away from the shackles of the American financial regime is a ‘resistance’ which must be spearheaded by a number of countries. Such a ‘resistance’ would not be possible without a political entity in place. The OIC was founded in 1969 but has achieved little on the political or economic front. In contrast, the European Economic Community founded in 1957 gradually evolved into an unprecedented unifiedpolitical entity of the European Union in 1993. The European Union while maintaining the sovereignty of all its member states has effectively evolved into a single market with its supranational financial institutions, legislatures, and judicial institutions. Founding member of Pakistan Movement, Chaudhry Nazir Ahmed Khan had argued for an EU-like Islamic cooperative force in his book ‘Commonwealth of Muslim states’ long before the EU was born. Laying out a proposal for the gradual development of a transnational political entity, Chaudhry Nazir argued that the policy in Muslim countries of financing subsidized infrastructure projects for short term gains and artificially inflated GDP growth will eventually exhaust the economies. In his view the right approach was of futuristic development by investing in human development, education, and harboring local innovation thereby inducing organic industrial growth. Decades later such a proposal has started to resonate with political leaders like Mahathir. However the criticism from lobbyists has also come in full force who argue that an extraordinary organization like the EU doesn’t stand on ideological/cultural affinity but economic ties and geographical proximity. This is not true as cultural and ideological ties are a unifying factor for not just the EU membership but also its relationship with foreign countries. The recent resolution passed in the EU threatening to consider revoking Pakistan’s ‘GSP+’ status proves this point. Secondly, such an approach is an unrealistic fantasy given the hostility between major Muslim powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia. The hostilities between the two countries exist because of playing into western interests. The premise of the entire idea is to seek a foreign policy independent of them. Also, note that before the EU’s formation there had been severe animosity between multiple European countries. Yet after centuries of war and hostility, the countries collaborated to form the EU in their greater interests.The recent news of Saudi-Iran hostility cooling down, points towards a saner realization among the political leadership of both countries. Muslim majority countries thus have a stronger reason to collaborate than Europe. This is because like the EU, the vast majority of Muslim countries (apart from South East Asia) too have geographical proximity. According to 2013-14 stats, collective economy is $5.6 trillion thus exploring trade ties should not be an impossible task. Furthermore, most of the countries are extremely rich in natural resources which can be exploited if wealthier countries provide them with financial and security assistance. All of these suggestions for a renewed spirit of ties between Muslim countries warrants a replacement or radical reconfiguration of the Saudi-dominated OIC. Revolutionary voices in the Muslim world fall on either extreme of the left-right political spectrum. Between attempts to enforce a European-styled nationalism or the movement to return to a Utopian borderless Caliphate, there has been little success in solving the crisis of the Muslim world. The polarizing public narratives have plunged the Muslim masses into adopting reactionary approaches.Amidst this state, Mahathir calls for a fresh orientation towards the political and economic understanding of Islamic thought in light of modern advances. Hence while Mahathir shuns the idea of blind imitation of European ultra-nationalism, he also rejects the Utopian ideas of most Pan-Islamist projects.Only with such economic and political power can the Muslim world not only defend itself but exert political force for the protection of Muslims be it in Palestine, Kashmir, Rohingya, or the voiceless Uighurs. The writer is currently pursuing a Bachelor in Commerce at York University, Canada. He frequently writes on politics, current affairs and history