![Does ta’wīl mean interpretation or fulfilment? A Quranic reassessment [+video]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Tawil-Kaskas-360x180.webp)
![Why becoming a wealthy Muslim is commendable in Islam [+videos]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Muslim-Trade-Business-1-360x180.webp)
Javed Akbar
We are not merely passing through another cycle of economic turbulence. What confronts us is deeper and more disquieting—a crisis of civilisation itself. The tremors unsettling the global order are not accidental; they are the visible signs of an empire in decline. And history, when it chronicles such moments, rarely speaks of grace. It speaks of strain, and often, of desperation.
The United States, a superpower with scarcely 250 years of history, once stood as the principal architect of the postwar order. Today, however, it reveals the contradictions long concealed by its dominance. Its conduct has grown increasingly erratic, its rhetoric sharper, its reliance on force more pronounced. This is not merely the imprint of a single leader. Donald Trump, for all his excesses, is less an anomaly than a reflection—an unvarnished expression of a deeper, enduring ethos rooted in exceptionalism, expansion, and supremacy.
From its earliest foundations, the American project was shaped by conquest and hierarchy. The doctrine of Manifest Destinyª was not incidental; it became foundational. The record is unambiguous: hundreds of military interventions, a near-continuous state of war, and a global presence sustained less by consent than by coercion. Power, in this paradigm, is both instrument and justification.
Yet today, this imperial posture appears increasingly detached from reality. The National Security Strategy of 2025¹ reiterates a familiar claim—the right to dominate and define the rules of the international order. But the world it seeks to command has changed. The unipolar moment has receded, giving way to a multipolar landscape in which new centers of power are not peripheral—they are decisive.
Foremost among them is China—not merely a rising economy, but a civilisation with a continuous history stretching back thousands of years. To view its ascent only through the lens of trade or technology is to miss its deeper significance. China embodies a different grammar of power, one shaped by historical continuity, philosophical depth, and strategic patience.
More than two millennia ago, during the unification under the Qin unification of China², a sophisticated system of governance rooted in order and administration had already begun to take shape. This evolution was enriched during the Hundred Schools of Thought³, when competing philosophies refined ideas of statecraft, ethics, and harmony. Central to this intellectual heritage is the concept of Tao—the art* of aligning with the flow of circumstances, transforming
adversity into opportunity through patience, foresight, and disciplined restraint.
This is not passivity; it is calculated endurance.
Such a worldview stands in stark contrast to the reflexes of a declining power. Where one invests in long-term transformation, the other relies on immediate force. Where one builds, the other coerces. Where one envisions a shared future, the other insists on primacy.
You may also want to read
The divergence is tangible. Within a single generation, China has lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty and reshaped the global balance of development. Its emphasis on infrastructure, education, and long-term planning reflects a model grounded in continuity rather than conquest.
The United States, by contrast, continues to channel immense resources into maintaining an unparalleled military apparatus. This divergence is not merely strategic—it is moral. It reflects two competing visions of order: one rooted in cooperation and development, the other in dominance and deterrence.
What is unfolding, therefore, is not simply a geopolitical rivalry. It is a contest between two civilisational logics. One seeks integration; the other enforces imposition. One builds legitimacy through development; the other asserts it through power.
History offers a sobering warning: empires in decline seldom retreat quietly. They often lash out, mistaking force for authority and resistance for threat. This is the peril of our moment. A power unwilling to accept its limits risks destabilizing not only its rivals, but the fragile fabric of global peace itself.
The choice before the world is stark. It is not between East and West, nor between competing nationalisms. It is between two moral horizons—one that affirms cooperation and shared progress, and another that clings to domination.
In such an hour, neutrality becomes an illusion. The call for a more just and balanced international order is no longer rhetorical; it is urgent. Anti-imperialism, restored to principle, emerges not as ideology but as necessity.
For the stakes are profound: whether the future will be shaped by the logic of force, or by the promise of shared humanity. From China’s civilisational instinct to build patiently to America’s long reliance on dominance — at times embodied in its recourse to gunboat diplomacy — the verdict of history is clear: enduring power is secured not through coercion, but through restraint, the quiet strength to create rather than to compel. In the final reckoning, it is not the might that projects force across distant shores, but the vision that builds across generations, which ultimately commands the future.
Javed Akbar is a freelance writer whose opinion columns have appeared in Toronto Star and numerous digital platforms. He can be reached at: mjavedakbar@gmail.com
ª Manifest Destiny is a 19th century document that the United States held that it was the nation’s divinely ordained mission to expand its territories. It was like a huge sense of nationalism and ambition, where people believed it was America’s right (and even duty) to spread its influence and territory from coast to coast.
¹ The 2025 NSS does not openly declare a “right to dominate” in moral language – but in practice. It reasserts dominance as a strategic necessity.
² More than a millennium ago, under Qin Shi Huang (during the late 3rd century BCE), China unified its territories and built a centralized system rooted in strict laws and standardization, guided by legalism and later refined with Confucianism – ethical living (Confucius 551-479 BCE) – establishing a lasting tradition of order and statecraft.
³ The Hundred Schools of Thought era refers to a vibrant intellectual period in ancient China, roughly from the 6th. to the 3rd centuries BCE. It was a time of intense philosophical debate and innovation, when thinkers like Confucius offered competing visions on ethics, governance, and society – laying the intellectual foundations of Chinese civilisation.
* The concept of the Tao (Dao), central to Taoism (6th century BCE), refers to “the Way” – the fundamental, ineffable force that underlies and governs the universe. In essence, the Tao teaches harmony with the flow of life, encouraging simplicity, humility, and effortless action – living in an alignment with nature rather than against it.
