Nobody Else Picked It Up
Not what the Muslims lost. What the world lost. That single move turns a grievance into an indictment, and the defendants are the Muslims.
Nadwi wrote the book that reframes this entire argument, and he wrote it at thirty-three.
Its title is a question disguised as a statement: What the World Lost by the Decline of the Muslims.
Sit with the construction, because everything is in it. Not what the Muslims lost. Not what was done to them. What the world lost.
That single move does something the rest of this literature mostly fails to do, which is to close off the reading that makes it worthless.
An argument that runs "our civilisation was great, then it was attacked, and it should be great again" is a grievance with a flag on it. It is emotionally available, it is partly true, and it commits you to nothing except resentment. Most of what gets written in this area is that, and it is why most of it is ignored by anyone not already persuaded.
Nadwi's version cannot be read that way. If the loss was humanity's, then restoration is not a Muslim interest to be pursued against everyone else's. It is an obligation owed outward, and the people who dropped the trust are the ones being indicted.
His premise is that Islam was not given to the Muslims for themselves. It was given through them, as a trust, for everyone. Which means the decline was not a defeat suffered. It was a duty abandoned, and the Muslims are the defendants in his account, not the plaintiffs.