Oil does not just light the lamps of the world-it fuels the empire’s missiles.
Gulf Monarchies are born from the West and not from the rich line of great Muslim Caliphs and leaders.
The monarchies of the Gulf are not remnants of Islamic statecraft. They are colonial implants-created to divide the ummah, suppress Islamic revival, and facilitate Western access to strategic resources. Their existence is not a continuation of the caliphates of Islam, but a direct outcome of British and later American geopolitical engineering.
Before the 20th century, cities like Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Doha were insignificant desert settlements. They held no status in the Islamic world. They produced no jurists, no philosophers, no poets, no dynasties. They were not centres of trade, scholarship, or political administration. These were barren tribal outposts-geographically Arab, but culturally marginal. Their names did not echo in the libraries of Cordoba, the courts of Damascus, or the legal texts of Baghdad.
The capitals of Islamic civilization, in contrast, were luminous beacons of governance, culture, and protection. Baghdad, the seat of the Abbasid Caliphate, was the intellectual heart of the Muslim world, housing the Bayt al-Hikmah (House of Wisdom) and preserving the philosophical heritage of antiquity. Damascus, the capital of the Umayyads, was the first Islamic imperial capital, known for its urban sophistication and religious diversity. Cairo under the Fatimids and Mamluks became a cradle of Islamic jurisprudence and learning. Kufa was the intellectual birthplace of Islamic legal methodology. Jerusalem was a symbol of sacred trust and unity. These cities did not just govern—they cultivated, protected, and gave moral and intellectual shape to the ummah.
The rise of the Gulf monarchies is not an organic evolution of this Islamic legacy. It is its negation. After the Ottoman Caliphate’s collapse, British officers like Gertrude Bell, T.E. Lawrence, and Sir Percy Cox redrew borders to ensure fragmentation. They empowered loyal tribal leaders-selected not for merit or legitimacy, but for their utility to Western interests. The House of Saud was armed and unleashed to crush the Hashemites and seize the Hijaz. Bahrain, Qatar, and the Trucial States were moulded into protectorates and later polished into client regimes of the American empire.
Today, these monarchies are celebrated in global finance and diplomacy, yet they exist as buffers-absorbing Western power while denying Islamic resurgence. They present themselves as the voice of the Arab and Muslim world, yet they have none of the historical lineage, intellectual tradition, or moral authority of the caliphates they silently buried.
The Prophetic Model of Receiving Delegations
The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ established a political framework that combined justice, authority, and intellectual openness. One of the clearest examples of this is the delegation from Najran, a Christian tribe from the south of the Arabian Peninsula, who visited Medina in the ninth year of Hijrah. Their purpose was to engage the Prophet in dialogue regarding theological and political matters.
Upon their arrival, the Prophet ﷺ allowed them to reside in his mosque, and for several days engaged them in respectful and profound discussions. These debates centred on the nature of God, the position of Jesus (peace be upon him), and the finality of prophethood. Despite the clarity of the Islamic message, the Najranis ultimately refused to embrace Islam. Yet, they were not expelled, humiliated, or coerced.
Instead, the Prophet ﷺ proposed a treaty. As narrated in Sirat Ibn Ishaq and other sources, the agreement granted them religious freedom, protection, and security-on the condition that they accept the authority of the Islamic state and contribute a defined tribute (jizyah). The treaty stated:
“The people of Najran and their allies are under the protection of Allah and Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah. Their persons, their religion, their lands, and property, both present and absent, and their churches shall be secure.”
This was not a surrender of their beliefs, but an acknowledgment that they lived under the justice of Islam. They could worship freely, retain their identity, and engage in society-so long as they abided by the rule of Islamic law.
The Prophet ﷺ reinforced the moral foundation of this arrangement with a warning preserved in the hadith:
“Whoever harms a dhimmi (non-Muslim under Muslim protection), I will be his adversary on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud 3052)
The model of Najran illustrates a political vision rooted not in sectarian dominance, but in dignified coexistence under the supremacy of Islamic governance. It affirms that while Islam does not force conversion, it also does not surrender its authority. Justice flows from the Islamic framework-not from foreign laws or protectorates.
By contrast, today’s Gulf monarchs host foreign militaries, adopt foreign economic laws, and accept foreign domination-reversing every principle exemplified by the Prophet’s engagement with Najran. Where he governed with integrity and independence, they kneel in strategic subservience.
