-
Q&A: Sudan After the Rapid Support Forces Take Control of El Fasher
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
Answer to Question
Sudan After the Rapid Support Forces Take Control of El Fasher
(Translated)Question: “Massad Boulos, senior advisor to US President Donald Trump on Middle East affairs, confirmed that the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces had agreed to a three-month ceasefire, based on the plan of the Quartet, which includes the UAE, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, announced on September 12.” (Sky News Arabia, 3/11/2025).
This agreement to the American plan by the Sudanese parties—the regime and the Rapid Support Forces—came after the Rapid Support Forces seized control of El Fasher in Sudan. What lies behind this agreement to the American plan? Furthermore, what happened to the Sudanese army that allowed the Rapid Support Forces to seize control of El Fasher, the capital of the Darfur region? It is a very large and heavily fortified city that the army had fiercely defended against the Rapid Support Forces attacks for a long time. How did the city succumb? And what are the dimensions and repercussions of this?
Answer:
To clarify the answer to these questions, let’s examine the following:
First: Al Jazeera reported on its website on 28/10/2025: “The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced on Sunday morning their control of El Fasher, after a siege that lasted more than a year. This means extending the forces’ influence over all five Darfur states and dividing the country between an east controlled by the Sudanese army and a west under the control of the Rapid Support Forces.” This brief account from Al Jazeera makes it clear that the Rapid Support Forces’ control of El Fasher is more than just a victory in a battle for a city; it is a remarkable takeover of an entire region! The RSF had been besieging the city for a year, yet they lacked the sophisticated weaponry necessary to achieve a victory against the Sudanese army units defending it. These units had valiantly defended the city for a year, but suddenly, #Burhan‘s government handed it over to the separatist rebel Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), the commander of the Rapid Support Forces. The handover was blatant and unambiguous:
1- “Sudan’s Sovereign Council Chairman Abdel Fattah al-Burhan stated that the Sudanese people and armed forces would prevail, emphasizing that the leadership’s assessment in El Fasher (the capital of North Darfur State) was to evacuate the city due to the systematic destruction it had suffered.” (Al Jazeera Net, 27/10/2025). He then followed this with empty rhetoric: (In a televised address, al-Burhan added, “Our forces are capable of achieving victory, turning the tables, and reclaiming the land,” adding, “We are determined to avenge all of our martyrs”)
2- “Sudanese military sources told Al Jazeera that the Sudanese army evacuated a division headquarters in El Fasher “for tactical reasons.”” (Al Jazeera Net, 27/10/2025).
These statements from Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and his military sources clearly indicate, not implicitly, that the army evacuated El #Fasher, leaving it to be plundered by the Rapid Support Forces.
Secondly, Burhan’s government and its military leadership refrained from providing military and logistical support from their central areas of control to their forces in El Fasher for a year. As a result, these forces remained besieged, fighting and repelling the RSF attacks with whatever resources they had from within the city. The Burhan government’s military command, which boasted of clearing #Khartoum, Omdurman, and Bahri of the RSF, was certainly capable of supporting its large contingents in El Fasher, but it failed to do so for a year. In other words, the plan was to let those contingents collapse.
Third: Upon closer examination, we find that the handover of the forces of the rebel separatist Hemedti took place concurrently with talks being conducted by #America, between the two Sudanese parties in America with the aim of a ceasefire: (“After the Sudanese Sovereignty Council denied the existence of any direct or indirect negotiations with a delegation from the Rapid Support Forces in Washington, diplomatic sources revealed that the Sudanese Foreign Minister, Mohi El-Din Salem, arrived in the United States on an official visit aimed at discussing efforts to stop the war that has been raging in Sudan for more than two years.” (Al-Arabiya, 24/10/2025)).
This means one thing: America brought together in #Washington the delegations of its two Sudanese agents—Burhan’s and Hemedti’s—and the Sudanese Sovereignty Council’s denial of holding negotiations with the RSF in Washington serves as proof. The implementation of America’s orders to its two agents was carried out openly two or three days later in El Fasher. According to the previous same source (sources told Al-Arabiya/Al-Hadath on Friday that the Sudanese minister will hold a series of meetings in Washington with US administration officials, including Massad Boulos, senior advisor to the US president on Middle East and Africa Affairs. They added that Salem will also meet with a number of his Arab counterparts, noting that the visit comes at the official invitation of the US administration to discuss several issues of mutual interest. A US official also explained to Al-Arabiya/Al-Hadath that Boulos will chair the Quartet meetings on the Sudanese crisis).
Further evidence of America’s gathering of its two agents’ delegations in Washington is this: [A diplomatic official confirmed yesterday, Thursday, that the Quartet (the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt) would meet today in Washington with representatives of the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces to push both sides toward a three-month humanitarian truce. He said the goal was “to exert unified pressure to solidify the ceasefire and allow humanitarian aid to reach civilians,” Al-Arabiya, 24/10/2025]. This means that the timing of the RSF storming of El Fasher and the Sudanese army’s evacuation of it, coinciding with the Washington meeting, leaves no doubt that the decision to hand over the strategic city to the RSF was made in Washington and that the two Sudanese parties immediately began implementing it on the ground, i.e., two days later, with the outcome achieved on the third day.
Fourth: This meeting in Washington is the second step following the first, when America gathered its agents and followers in the region in what is called the Quartet (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt) and began implementing its will to impose a ceasefire in Sudan. Al-Arabiya reported on 12/9/2025, the statement issued after that meeting: (The joint statement read: “At the invitation of the United States, the foreign ministers of the United States, Egypt, #Saudi_Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates held in-depth consultations on the conflict in Sudan, recalling that it has caused the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and poses grave risks to regional peace and security. The ministers affirmed their commitment to a common set of principles to end the conflict in Sudan.”) The fourth point of the statement read: “The future of governance in Sudan will be determined by the Sudanese people through a comprehensive and transparent transitional process not subject to the control of any warring party.” It also stated in one of its points: “All efforts will be made to support a negotiated settlement of the conflict with the effective participation of the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces.”
On the one hand, this Quartet is a formula chosen by America so that its solution in Sudan appears to have a regional character as well, that is, with the approval of key countries in the region. However, these countries do not move unless Washington moves them, and they do not take any step without America. On the other hand, the text of the statement indicates the recognition of the two parties to the conflict in Sudan on an equal footing and calls on them to participate effectively. That is, the statement does not refer to the Rapid Support Forces as separatist and rebel forces, nor does it call on them to stop their rebellion, especially since they formed a separatist government to split Sudan.
Fifth: After the Rapid Support Forces took control of El Fasher, a strategic city, their control of it meant taking over the entire Darfur region, with its five states, most of which were already under their de facto control. Therefore, agreeing to a three-month truce, or even demanding it, means American recognition of the RSF control and legitimate presence in the Darfur region and in the most important city of the region, El Fasher. This truce, which America is proposing and dressing up as a “Quartet” agreement, is followed by further steps of negotiations between the two parties to the conflict in Sudan, after America’s plans enabled the RSF to control all of Darfur, and after America’s agent, Hamdan Dagalo (#Hemedti), had established a separatist government, which he announced at the end of February 2015 in Nairobi, the capital of #Kenya, with himself as its head. It was operating from Nyala, the capital of South Darfur State, and now the way is certainly completely paved for Hemedti’s separatist government to move to El Fasher.
Sixth: As for the American position, it was explicit and did not even express displeasure at the Rapid Support Forces’ control of El Fasher. Instead, it called for the next step in the American plan for Sudan: a ceasefire. This would completely block the Sudanese army’s path to retaking El Fasher and ensure Hemedti’s control over it was firmly established, undisturbed by any clashes:
[Massad Boulos, advisor to US President Donald Trump on African affairs, called on the warring parties in Sudan to consider and immediately approve a proposed humanitarian truce. He added that he had presented a three-month humanitarian truce proposal, which was welcomed by both sides in the Sudanese conflict. He urged the Rapid Support Forces to proceed with the humanitarian truce and cease fighting. Boulos had stated the previous day that the world was watching with grave concern the actions of the Rapid Support Forces and the situation in El Fasher, calling for the protection of civilians.] (Al Jazeera Net, 27/10/2025).
This was then confirmed again, as reported by Sky News on 3/11/2025: [Massad Boulos, senior advisor to US President Donald Trump on Middle East affairs, confirmed that the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces had agreed to a three-month ceasefire, based on the plan of the Quartet, which includes the UAE, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, announced on September 12th. Boulos explained, in statements he made from #Cairo on Monday, that technical and logistical discussions were underway before the final signing of the ceasefire, noting that representatives of both sides had been in Washington for some time to discuss its details. He added that the ceasefire proposal represents a real opportunity to end the crisis, emphasizing that the army and the Rapid Support Forces are engaged in discussing a paper presented by the US with the support of the Quartet, aimed at achieving peace. He pointed out that the conflict in Sudan has become a threat to the region and the world, especially to the security of the Red Sea.] (Sky News Arabia, 3/11/2025).
Seventh: Amidst US President Trump’s boasting that he is a peacemaker and ends wars, America is clearly and unequivocally proceeding with its plan, and at an accelerated pace, to divide Sudan and separate the Darfur region, just as it previously separated South Sudan. This is what we have repeatedly warned against. In the answer to a question titled “Drone Attacks and Developments in the War in Sudan” we stated the following on 21/5/2025:
[(It is clear from all this that the major attacks in eastern Sudan, especially on the strategic facilities of the city of Port Sudan, are linked to the war in Darfur. They are aimed at forcing the army to move away from attacking El Fasher and head east to defend Port Sudan) we added: (Fourth: It is painful that the kaffir colonial America can manage a fight that reaps lives in Sudan and harness its agents to implement it openly, not secretly, and publicly, not hidden. Burhan and Hemedti are fighting with the blood of the people of Sudan for no reason other than to serve America’s interests, as it wants to repeat the division of Sudan as it did in separating the south from Sudan. It is now doing its utmost to separate Darfur from what remains of Sudan. Therefore, the army focuses its attention on the rest of Sudan’s regions, and the RSF focus their attention on Darfur. If the sincere in the army
become active in regaining control of Darfur, the RSF will move the battle to other regions in Sudan to distract the army, so its forces withdraw from Darfur to eastern Sudan, in which the RSF are intensifying their attacks with drones. This is to enable the RSF to take complete control of Darfur!
Prior to that, in the answer to a question titled “Acceleration of Military Operations in Sudan” dated 6/2/ 2025, we warned that the puppet political and military leadership in Sudan, which takes its instructions from the Trump administration, is directing the army to open corridors for the Rapid Support Forces from the central region towards Darfur. We stated:
[Sixth: Accordingly, it is most likely that the field developments in Sudan are arranged and managed by Trump and that they aim to achieve the following:
– Accelerating the American plan to prepare the atmosphere by dividing the country between America’s agents on the basis of Darfur under the control of the Rapid Support Forces and the rule of Hemeti, while the army led by Burhan controls central and eastern Sudan, so two entities appear in Sudan, and this matter was imposed by virtue of Hemeti’s control over Darfur. We have previously mentioned this plan in response to a question dated 19/12/2023, where we explained at that time “that America is preparing the atmosphere for division… when America’s interests require it. Even if America’s interests require another separation after South Sudan, it will do this separation in Darfur… and it seems that the time for this separation has not come yet… but preparing the atmosphere for it is what is currently happening.” This is what we said previously, and it seems that America’s interest is close to accelerating the separation of Darfur as it did in South Sudan… and this is very dangerous if Trump succeeds in implementing it… so the Ummah must stand in his face and not be silent as it was silent when South Sudan was separated!]
Eighth: Hizb ut Tahrir has been warning since the beginning of this year, and indeed since 2023 when America ignited the war between its two agents in 2023, that America’s plan to divide Sudan would come to fruition. And now, the steps toward partition are unfolding before your very eyes, with many Sudanese people becoming embroiled in this carnage between America’s agents to achieve America’s goals and maintain its influence in Sudan. Today, the American plan is close to realizing the secession and the separation of the Darfur region from Sudan, and this is happening while you stand by and watch! Is there a single wise and powerful leader in the army who will sit down for an hour and decide to be sincere to his Lord, and take the necessary steps to thwart America’s plan and eliminate its agents who have killed tens of thousands of Sudanese and displaced millions, for no other purpose than to carry out Washington’s demands? Is there a single wise and powerful leader in the army who will place Sudan’s power in sincere hands, granting Nusra (material #victory) to Hizb ut Tahrir, which has long cried out, warned, and called for the establishment of Islam, so that from Sudan, the Islamic State, a second Khilafah (Caliphate) on the method of Prophethood, may be established? And how great is this wise and strong man who meets Allah (swt), and Allah has used him to fulfill the glad-tiding of His noble Prophet (saw) of the return of the Khilafah Rashida (Rightly Guided Caliphate) after this oppressive rule in which we live:
«…ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكاً جَبْرِيَّةً فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ ثُمَّ سَكَت»
“…then it will be an oppressive rule, and it will be as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will lift it when He wills to lift it, then there will be a Khilafah (Caliphate) on the method of Prophethood.” Then he was silent.” [Extracted by Ahmad].
12 Jumada Al-Awwal 1447 AH
3/11/2025 CE -
Q&A: Trading in the Forex market
Answer to Question
Trading in the Forex market
To: Ameen Jarrar
(Translated)Question:
Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
The question is:
Trading in the Forex market (foreign exchange market) using a Contract for Difference (CFD), where trading and speculation are based on the price movement of an asset, rather than buying and selling it as usual.
The Forex market is a global market regulated by international bodies and institutions that oversee traders, financial intermediaries, and other institutions such as banks and reserve funds.
To enter the Forex market, I need a financial intermediary (broker) with whom I have a trading agreement and contract. This contract includes a CFD, where I deposit money with the broker and then trade foreign currencies through a mobile application.
[13/8, 12:41 PM] Osama Al-Fari’a]:
Many fatwas that have addressed this topic, whether their answer is permissible or forbidden (which is the majority opinion), have only addressed the issue of money leverage and overnight fees (riba). This is something that can easily be avoided during trading. However, the core of the question is the principle of the contract itself: Is it contrary to Islamic law?
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
What I know about Forex is that (Forex is an abbreviation for “Foreign Exchange,” meaning the exchange of foreign currencies; it’s a huge global market for trading currencies with the aim of profiting from price differences). We previously answered a similar question on 14/10/2024, and I’ll quote what it said about currency trading:
[– Trading in gold and silver: As for gold and silver, selling and buying them for each other or for cash must be done hand to hand, as in the hadith narrated by Al-Bukhari and Abu Dawud on the authority of Omar:
«الذَّهَبُ بِالْوَرِقِ رِباً إِلَّا هَاءَ وَهَاءَ»
“Gold for silver is usury except hand to hand,” meaning hand to hand. Therefore, buying gold for silver or for cash is not valid except by hand to hand.
And because after we have learned how to trade online, the exchange does not happen immediately, but rather it may take hours or days, therefore it is not permissible to buy gold and silver with an electronic card via the Internet unless the card is deducted from the account immediately when buying gold or silver, i.e. hand to hand, so do not receive the gold or silver except at the time the amount is deducted from your account… And since there is no immediate exchange in trading online, but rather after a day or two, then it is not permissible.
– Trading in stocks and bonds is forbidden because stocks belong to joint-stock companies that are invalid according to Islamic law, and because bonds are linked to usury.We have detailed the subject of joint-stock companies in the book, The Economic System, as well as in the booklet, The Turbulence of the Stock Markets, and other books.We have mentioned in the booklet, The Turbulence of the Stock Markets, a summary of the matter as follows:
“As for the Shari’ah rule pertaining to the dealing in these shares and in securities, whether buying or selling, it is forbidden. This is because these shares are those of a company that is unlawful according to Shari’ah. They are in fact certificates of bills which contain mixed sums from a lawful capital and unlawful profits made from an unlawful transaction. Each bill represents the value of a share, and this share represents part of the assets that belong to the unlawful company. These assets have been mixed with an unlawful transaction which Shari’ah has prohibited. Thus, it is illicit money, whose buying and selling becomes unlawful, and dealing in such money is also illicit. This is also the case for bonds, in which money is invested with interest, and so is the case for bank shares and similar, since they all contain sums of illicit money; thus their buying and selling is unlawful, because the money contained in them is illicit.”
– Trading paper currencies on the Internet, such as the dollar and the euro, is forbidden because there is no hand-to-hand exchange, which is necessary in exchanging money. Hand-to-hand exchange, as it applies to gold and silver, also applies to paper money on the grounds of currency, i.e. using them as prices and wages. We mentioned the following in the Answer to Question on 11/07/2004:
[Dealing with paper currencies: Yes, what applies to gold and silver in terms of usury and other monetary rulings applies to them.This is because the realization of the reason (cash, i.e. its use as prices and wages) in these papers makes them take the rulings of money.Therefore, buying usurious items with these papers applies to what was mentioned in the hadith (hand to hand), i.e. it is not a debt.
The subject is as follows:
The Messenger (saw) says: «الذَّهَبُ بِالذَّهَبِ، وَالْفِضَّةُ بِالْفِضَّةِ، وَالْبُرُّ بِالْبُرِّ، وَالشَّعِيرُ بِالشَّعِيرِ، وَالتَّمْرُ بِالتَّمْرِ، وَالْمِلْحُ بِالْمِلْحِ، مِثْلًا بِمِثْلٍ، سَوَاءً بِسَوَاءٍ، يَداً بِيَدٍ، فَإِذَا اخْتَلَفَتْ هَذِهِ الْأَصْنَافُ فَبِيعُوا كَيْفَ شِئْتُمْ إِذَا كَانَ يَداً بِيَدٍ»“Gold is to be paid for by gold, silver by silver, wheat by wheat, barley by barley, dates by dates, and salt by salt, like for like and equal for equal, payment being made on the spot. If these classes differ, sell as you wish if payment is made on the spot” (Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of Ubadah bin Al-Samit, may Allah be pleased with him).
The text is clear when these usurious (riba) categories differ, that the sale is as you wish, i.e. like for like is not a condition, but the exchange is a condition.The word “categories” was mentioned generally in all usurious categories, i.e. the six, and nothing is excluded from it except by a text, and where there is no text, the ruling is that wheat is permissible for barley or wheat for gold, or barley for silver, or dates for salt, or dates for gold, or salt for silver, etc…no matter how different the exchange values and prices are, but hand to hand, i.e. it is not a debt. And what applies to gold and silver applies to paper money by virtue of the common cause (cash, i.e. its use as a price and wages).] End.
By studying how this online trading in buying and selling gold is done, it became clear that the collection or settlement is delayed for a day or two… from the date of the contract, and this is contrary to the agreed-upon condition of exchange, which the Prophet (saw) stipulated in his saying: “Hand in hand.” Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Al-Bara’ bin Azib, who said: We asked the Prophet (saw) about that, and he said: «مَا كَانَ يَداً بِيَدٍ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا كَانَ نَسِيئَةً فَذَرُوهُ»“Take what was from hand to hand and leave what was on credit.” Muslim narrated on the authority of Malik ibn Aws ibn al-Hadathan that he said: I came and said: Who is exchanging dirhams? Talhah ibn Ubaydullah said while he was with Umar ibn al-Khattab: Show us your gold, then come to us when our servant comes and we will give you your money. Umar ibn al-Khattab said: No, by Allah, you must either give him his money or return his gold to him, for the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «الْوَرِقُ بِالذَّهَبِ رِباً إِلَّا هَاءَ وَهَاءَ…»“Gold and silver are usury, except for this and that…”
Accordingly, it is not permissible to trade the euro, dollar, and other forms of currency over the Internet because there is no immediate exchange) End quote from the answer. I hope this is sufficient, and Allah Knows Best and is Most Wise. 11 Rabi’ al-Akhir 1446 AH Corresponding to 14/10/2024 CE] End of quote from the previous answer.
Therefore, since the transaction, as explained above, is invalid, the contract to perform the aforementioned work is also invalid.
This is what I believe to be the most preponderant view on this matter, and Allah Knows Best.
Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah11 Jumada Al-Awwal 1447 AH
2 November 2025 CE -
‘Ismah of the Rasool
This is chapter 32 from the book “Islamic Thought”
The ‘ismah (infallibility) of the prophets and messengers is an issue stipulated by the mind. For the fact that he is a Prophet or a Messenger necessitates he is infallible in conveying from Allah (swt). If there is a defect of the possibility of the absence of ‘ismah in one issue, then this defect would reach every issue; and then the whole prophethood and message would collapse. The proof that a person is a Prophet of Allah (saw) or a Messenger from Allah (saw) means he is infallible in regards to what he conveys from Allah (swt). So his infallibility in conveyance is inevitable, and the rejection of this infallibility is rejection of the message that he brought and the prophethood that he was sent with. As regards to his infallibility from doing the actions that disagree from the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt), it is definite that he does not commit kaba’ir (major sins) definitely, so he does not commit any of the kaba’ir absolutely. This is because performing a major sin means committing disobedience. Obedience is not partitioned and the disobedience is not partitioned. So if disobedience reaches to the action, then it would reach the propagation (tablaegh), as matter that contradicts the message and prophethood. That is why the prophets and messengers were infallible from committing kaba’ir, the same way they are infallible in propagation from Allah (swt). As regards the infallibility regarding the saga’ir (minor sins), the scholar had different views about it. Some of them said they are not infallible from them, for they are not disobedience; while others said they are infallible for they are disobedience. The true view about that is whatever its performance is considered haram and whatever its performance is considered obligatory, i.e. all the duties (furoodh) and the prohibition (muharraamat), they are infallible regarding them. Thus they are infallible from neglect on the obligations and from committing the prohibitions, whether they were kaba’ir or saga’ir. In other words, they are infallible from anything called disobedience (ma’siyah). Other than that, like khilaf-ul-awla (opposite to what is most appropriate), they are not infallible from them. So, they might do what is opposite to the most appropriate, absolutely, for in all its aspects, it does not enter under the meaning of the word ma’siyah (disobedience). This is what is necessitated by the mind and required by the fact they are prophets and messengers.
Our master Mohammad (saw) is a Prophet and a Messenger. So, like the other messengers and prophets, he is infallible from making an error in what he conveys from Allah (swt). This is a definite infallibility proved by the rational and shar’i evidence. The Rasool (saw) did not convey the ahkam except from the wahy (revelation). Allah (swt) says in the Surah of Al-Anbiaa’:
“Say: I only warn you with the wahy (inspiration).” [TMQ Al-Anbiaa’: 45]
Allah (swt) says in the Surah of An-Najm:
“Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only inspiration that is inspired.” [TMQ An-Najm: 3-4]
The word ‘speak’ (yantiq) is of the generality (umoom) words, so it includes the Qur’an and others. There is nothing in the Qur’an or the Sunnah that specifies it in the Qur’an, so it remains general, meaning that everything he speaks of legislation is an inspired wahy. It is invalid to specify what he speaks to the Qur’an only; it must rather remain general, including the Qur’an and the hadeeth. As regards specifying it in to what he conveys from Allah (swt), in terms of legislation and others, of ahkam, creeds, thoughts and stories, without including the style, and means from drawing plans to battles, or dusting the palm trees or the like, this is because he is a Messenger. Discussion is about a Messenger and study of what he was sent with and not in other than that. So the subject of the speech (of the Messenger) is what specifies. Thus the form of generality remains general in the subject it came with, and it is then considered a form of specification. This is due to His (swt) saying:
“Say: I only warn you with the wahy (inspiration).” [TMQ Al-Anbiaa’: 45]
It is also due to His (swt) saying in Surah of Sad:
“It is revealed to me only that I may be a plain warner.” [TMQ Sad: 70]
It shows that the aim is what he brought of creeds, ahkam and everything he was ordered to convey and to warn with. Therefore, it does not include the use of styles or his natural actions which are of man’s innate nature (fitrah), ie from his natural creations, such as walking, speaking, eating etc. It is specified in the men’s actions and their thoughts, and not in the styles, the means and the like. So, whatever the Messenger (swt) was ordered to convey of what is related to the actions and thoughts of men, is revelation from Allah (swt). The wahy includes the speech and actions of the Rasool (swt) as well as his agreement (sukoot), because we are commanded to follow him. Allah (swt) says:
“Whatever the Rasool brought it to you, take it; and whatever he forbade you from, abstain from (it).” [TMQ Al-Hashr: 7]
And He (saw) said:
“Verily, in the messenger of Allah you have a good example.” [TMQ Al-Ahzab: 21]
Thus the speech, the action and the agreement of the Rasool (swt) are shar’i evidence, and they are all revelation from Allah (swt). Rasool Allah (swt) used to receive the revelation, conveys what the wahy brings to him from Allah (swt), and settles the matters in accordance with the wahy, without deviating from the wahy absolutely. Allah (swt) said in Surat al-Ahqaaf:
“I only follow what is revealed to me.” [TMQ Al-Ahqaaf: 9]
And He (saw) said in Surat al-A’raaf:
“I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord.” [TMQ Al-A’raaf : 203]
This means, I don’t follow except that is revealed to me from my Lord. So he limited his adherence (ittibaa’) to that which is revealed to him from his Lord. All of this is explicit, clear and apparent to be general (a’amm); and what is related to the Rasool (saw) in regards to what he is ordered to convey is wahy (revelation) only. The Legislative life of the Rasool (saw) in explaining the ahkam to the people followed that approach.
So, he (saw) used to wait for revelation in many of the ahkam, such as the dhihar (pre-Islamic form of divorce) and the li’aan (sworn allegation of adultery committed by the wife) and others. He never said of a hukm on an issue, or made any legislative action or made a legislative agreement, except based on a wahy from Allah (swt). The Sahabah would be confused sometimes between the hukm of one of human actions and the opinion regarding a matter, a means or a style, so they asked the Rasool (saw): “ Is that wahy, O Rasool Allah, or it is the opinion and advice”: If he said to them, it is wahy, they kept silent, for they knew it is not from him. If he said to them; it is rather the opinion and the advice, then they would discuss with him, and he might of followed their opinion; as what happened in (the battle of) Badr, the trench and Uhud. He used to tell them in regards of other than what he conveys from his Lord: “You know better in regards of the matters of your dunya,”, as it was reported in the hadeeth of dusting the palm trees. Had he spoken in the matter of legislation without revelation, he would have not waited the revelation so as to say the hukm, and the Sahabah would have not asked him of whether that was a revelation or an opinion; he would have rather answered from himself, and they would have discussed with him without asking him.
Therefore, the Rasool (saw) used not to start a speech, action or acceptance except based on wahy from Allah (swt), and not based on an opinion from him. He (saw) is also infallible from making error in everything he conveys from Allah (swt).
-
Q&A: The American Strategy and the Two-State Solution
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمAnswer to Question
The American Strategy and the Two-State Solution
(Translated)Question:
We know that the American strategy for establishing a Jewish entity in the heart of the Muslim countries has, for the most part, been based on the two-state solution. However, under Trump, this strategy has begun to be abandoned, or at least kept quiet, which has raised questions. For example, Trump said, “When you look at the map, a map of the Middle East, ‘Israel’ is a tiny little spot compared to these giant land masses. I actually said: ‘Is there any way of getting more? It is tiny…” (Sky News, 19/8/2024). Does this mean that America’s two-state solution project is dead and finished, or is it still alive? Thank you.
Answer:
To clarify the answer, let us review the following points:
1- In 1959, at the end of Eisenhower’s term, America adopted its two-state solution project, which can be summarized as “supporting and preserving a Jewish entity and establishing a Palestinian entity alongside it.” Its agents in the region, most notably the Egyptian regime, then began working to implement the project, and for this purpose, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established. However, Britain, through the Jordanian regime, strongly opposed the project and adopted a secular Palestinian state project dominated by the Jews, similar to the secular state of Lebanon, which is controlled by Christians.
2– All of this was during the time when the West Bank was under Jordanian rule, and Gaza was under Egyptian rule. However, when the West Bank and Gaza, along with Sinai and the Golan Heights, fell under the control of the Jewish entity in a theatrical war in June 1967, the talk was no longer about establishing a Palestinian state, but rather about the withdrawal of the Jewish entity from these occupied territories based on Security Council Resolution 242. Then America put the Palestinian issue aside and began preparing for a provocative war. This was the October War of 1973 to jumpstart the peace process. The Egyptian regime, headed by Anwar Sadat, signed the Camp David Accords in September 1978. According to this agreement, the Jewish entity withdrew from Sinai, while remaining limited in its weapons as a buffer zone protecting the entity’s borders. It remains so to this day, despite the war of extermination waged by the criminal entity in Gaza on the Sinai borders!
3- Then America moved to the northern front, ordering the Jewish entity to invade Lebanon in 1982 to expel the Palestine Liberation Organization from there and force it to recognize the Jewish entity and conclude a peace agreement with it. The head of the organization, Yasser Arafat, signed this on 25/7/1982, in what became known as the McCloskey Document, in which he said: “The organization now recognizes Israel’s right to exist.” In 1988, Arafat announced at the Palestinian National Conference held in Algeria, as well as in a meeting before the United Nations in New York, his acceptance of the establishment of a Palestinian state. Then Britain and its agent, the King of Jordan, agreed to disengage from the West Bank in this year.
4- After that, America held the Madrid Conference in 1991 to proceed with the implementation of its two-state solution project. Then, the Oslo Accords were concluded between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Jewish entity in 1993, for the organization to officially recognize the Jewish entity. Also, the Wadi Araba Agreement (26/10/1994) was concluded between the entity and Jordan, for Jordan to give up the West Bank that was part of it, and then announce its recognition of the Jewish entity. America rose and contained the two agreements to implement its two-state solution project. After the end of Bush’s two terms at the end of 2008, Obama came to power in Washington. He requested direct negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and the Jewish entity under American sponsorship on 2/9/2010, hoping that within a year the two-state solution would be implemented. However, the negotiations ended without reaching an agreement.
5- After Obama’s two terms at the end of 2016, Trump came to power in early 2017 and continued his first term, then lost in the elections. Biden succeeded him in early 2021. After the end of Biden’s term, Trump won again and became president in early 2025.
In these two periods—the Trump and Biden periods—a different approach emerged from previous American presidents. Since America announced its approach to the two-state solution, previous presidents had mentioned the solution without going into the details of a Palestinian state. Shortsighted people assumed that the Palestinians would be given a sovereign state in part of Palestine. When Trump and Biden came to power, they delved into some details, stating that what the Palestinians would be given is a demilitarized state, similar to limited, powerless autonomy, dominated by Jews, with some differences between them in the strength and ambiguity of their statements. Here, the questions arose: Has America’s two-state solution project ended, or has it not ended and is still continues? It is worth mentioning that the statement of the Jews about Palestine has no weight except with a rope (help) from the people (America). The American statement is the subject of the discussion:
6- A careful examination of the issue reveals the following:
A- We previously answered a Question and Answer dated 23/2/2017, regarding the two-state solution after Trump began his first term in office, which stated:
[(1- The text of President Trump’s statements as was reported in all the world and local media and as was broadcasted live, as follows:
“American President Donald Trump has written on Wednesday a new perspective in US policy towards the Middle East after he confirmed that the two-state solution is not the only way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, pointing out that he was open to alternative options if they lead to peace. All the former American presidents have defended the two-state solution, whether Republicans or Democrats” (France 24 website, 16/2/2017) and Trump said, “I look at the two-state solution and the one state solution (…) if Israel and the Palestinians were happy, I would be happy with (the solution) they prefer, both solutions suit me” (Aljazeera Live website, 16/2/2017), the resolution of a single state mentioned by America for the first time through Trump, he did not illustrate, does it means giving self-autonomy to the Palestinians inside the one Jewish state?! Or does it mean a secular state that the Palestinians share in the management of the Jewish state, which is similar to the English project introduced by Britain in 1939 when it brought out the White Book on Lebanon’s formula? Note that the two-state solution is the same American project introduced since 1959, the era of Republican President Eisenhower and it made the so-called international community accept and it discarded the one-state solution introduced by Britain. Whatever the case, what appears from analysing these statements and its indications is that America has not abandoned its two-state solution; the American ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley confirmed this, saying: “First and foremost, the two-state solution is what we support. Anyone who says that the United States does not support a two-state solution would be mistaken … certainly we support the two-state solution, but we also think outside the box … which is needed to attract the two sides to the table, which is what we need in order to make them agree.” (Reuters, 16/02/2017).
This confirms that Trump did not abandon the two-state solution, which is the US State policy since 1959, but he wanted to try another way to put pressure, as his ambassador said (certainly we support the two-state solution, but we also think outside the box …) that it is by considering the use of other methods.] END QUOTE.
B- Trump’s (Republican) statements supporting the Jews accelerated during his first and second terms in office:
* US President Donald Trump announced the United States’ recognition of Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as the capital of “Israel.” Trump also affirmed that the United States supports the two-state solution if it is approved by the Israelis and Palestinians. (BBC, 6/12/2017)
* US President Trump said on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meetings,believes a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would “work best,” adding, “It is a dream of mine to be able to get that done prior to the end of my first term.” (BBC, 26/9/2018)
* US President Trump said,“When you look at the map, a map of the Middle East, Israel is a tiny little spot compared to these giant land masses. I actually said: ‘Is there any way of getting more? It is tiny…” (Sky News, 19/8/2024).
* Earlier, US President Donald Trump reiterated his plan for the United States to control Gaza and deport Palestinians from it, saying he was “committed to buying and owning Gaza…” (BBC, 10/2/2025). Then, ten days later, he declared, “He would not impose a plan to deport Palestinians from Gaza, but rather ‘propose it’…” (CNN, 21/2/2025). This is manipulating words!
C- On the other hand, Biden’s (Democrat) statements have sometimes gone beyond Trump’s in support of the Jews:
* When Trump lost the elections and was replaced by Biden at the beginning of 2021, America returned to talking about establishing a Palestinian state in some form, without specifying how or where. US President Joe Biden stated to reporters on 3/9/2024, “There are several models for a two-state solution, noting that several countries in the United Nations do not have their own armed forces.” Biden is referring to a state for the Palestinians of one of those types, without armed forces, i.e., self-rule or something similar!
* When US President Biden visited Tel Aviv on 18/10/2023, following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, he met with officials there and said: “Israel must again be a safe place for the Jewish people. If there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one.” (Al Jazeera, 18/10/2023).
* In a speech he delivered at the White House during the celebration of the Jewish Festival of Lights (Hanukkah), Biden said: “You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist.” (Asharq Al-Awsat, 12/12/2023).
7- By contemplating the previous Question and Answer, as well as these statements and positions, it becomes clear that there is no major difference between the positions of Trump and Biden except in some methods that do not change the essence of the issue at all…The United States is the one that is managing this issue on the basis of two states: a state for the Jews in most of Palestine, which it supports financially, militarily, internationally, and even regionally through its agents and followers among the rulers in the Muslim countries.. and a demilitarized (autonomous) state for the Palestinians in part of Palestine with Jewish hegemony over it!! Regardless of the desire of the “Palestinian Authority (PA) and the agent rulers” to call it a Palestinian state, this does not change anything of its reality, as America does not want it to be a sovereign state even over part of a part of Palestine, but rather more like self-rule without weapons except what is necessary for the police within the Jewish hegemony!! Two factors emerged during the presidential terms of Trump and Biden to consolidate a Jewish entity that confirm what we mentioned above, although they were more prominent during the Trump era, and they are:
The first: which is currently taking place today, is strengthening the Jewish entity and providing it with money and weapons so that it remains the major power that is militarily superior to all its surroundings.
The second: normalization, in what Trump called the Abraham Accords; which is the one that he achieved halfway through in his first term and now wants to complete. Therefore, American envoys are touring in the region not only to persuade Saudi Arabia to join the so-called Abraham Accords, but are also laying the groundwork and opening negotiations, which are currently underway between Syria and Lebanon and the Jewish entity. America wants to expand this process to include other agent rulers in the Muslim countries!
In conclusion, America did not abandon the two-state solution, but under Trump and Biden, it has declared the intended state of Palestine to be a kind of self-autonomy dominated by the Jews. Previous presidents, however, mentioned the two-state solution without delving into the nature of the state they envision for the Palestinians!
8- Finally, Palestine is a jewel in the history of the Muslims since Allah (swt) linked it with His Sacred House with one bond, when He took His Messenger (saw) from the Sacred Mosque to the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
[سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي أَسْرَى بِعَبْدِهِ لَيْلاً مِنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ الْأَقْصَى الَّذِي بَارَكْنَا حَوْلَهُ]
“Glory be to the One Who took His servant ˹Muḥammad˺ by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque whose surroundings We have blessed” [Al-Isra: 1]
And made it a good and blessed land. And he attracted the hearts of Muslims to the capital of Palestine (Bait ul Maqdis) by making it their first Qiblah before Allah gave the Muslims their second Qiblah (the sacred Ka’ba) sixteen months after the Hijra. That was before Palestine came under the rule of Islam when the second Caliph, Omar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), conquered it in the year 15 AH. He took it over from Sophronius and he gave him his famous covenant (the Omari Covenant), one of the texts, based on the request of the Christians there, was (that no Jews should live with them there). Then Palestine became a graveyard for the Crusaders and the Tatars. There were decisive battles with the Crusaders and the Tatars: Hattin (583 AH – 1187 CE), and Ain Jalut (658 AH – 1260 CE), and they will be followed, Allah willing, by other decisive battles with the Jews to restore Palestine pure and clean to the abode of Islam.
The continued existence of the Jewish entity in Palestine until today is not due to their strength, for they are not people of fighting and victory, but as Allah (swt) says:
[لَنْ يَضُرُّوكُمْ إِلَّا أَذًى وَإِنْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ يُوَلُّوكُمُ الْأَدْبَارَ ثُمَّ لَا يُنْصَرُونَ]
“They can never inflict harm on you, except a little annoyance. But if they meet you in battle, they will flee and they will have no helpers” [Aal-i-Imran: 111].
Their survival is due to the failure of the rulers in the Muslim countries. The Muslims’ misfortune lies in their rulers, for they are loyal to the kaffir colonialists, the enemies of Islam and Muslims. They see and hear about the Jews’ occupation of Palestine, their brutal crimes, and their various massacres, yet it is as if they neither see nor hear.
[صُمٌّ بُكْمٌ عُمْيٌ فَهُمْ لَا يَرْجِعُونَ]
“They are ˹wilfully˺ deaf, dumb, and blind, so they will never return ˹to the Right Path” [Al-Baqarah: 18]
They have prevented armies from supporting their brothers and sisters in Gaza until today, and the martyrs are multiplying and the wounded are increasing… and the rulers are watching what is happening, and the best of them is the one who counts the martyrs under the name of the dead and then counts the wounded as if he is a neutral party, although he is closer to the Jews! They are placing the “seats of power” above their country and their people! Even though, this Ummah is the best nation brought forth for humankind, it will not remain silent for long, Allah willing, regarding this tyrannical rule by these Ruwaibidha (insignificant ignorant (rulers)). the Messenger of Allah(saw) gave us the glad-tidings of the return of the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Caliphate) after this oppressive rule as stated in Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad and Al-Tayalisi on the authority of Hudhayfah ibn Al-Yaman: «… ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكاً جَبْرِيَّةً، فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةٌ عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ نُبُوَّةٍ»“…Then there will be oppressive rule (ملكًا جبرية) for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah on the method of Prophethood.’ Then he (saw) was silent.” Then Muslims will be honoured and the kuffar will be humiliated.
[وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ]
“And on that day the believers will rejoice * at the victory willed by Allah. He gives victory to whoever He wills. For He is the Almighty, Most Merciful” [Ar-Rum: 4-5]
The strange thing is that the Kuffar, especially the Jews, realize this more than many Muslims today. The Jews realize that the Khilafah will lead to their destruction. Their Prime Minister said in a press conference broadcast live by the media, including Al Jazeera, on 21/4/2025: “We will not allow the establishment of a Caliphate on the shores of the Mediterranean.” He added, “We will not accept the presence of a Caliphate state here or in Lebanon, and we will work to guarantee the security of Israel.”
Nonetheless, it will be established, Allah willing, against their will, and will remove them from this pure land, especially since Hizb ut Tahrir, the party devoted to Allah (swt) and true to the Messenger of Allah (saw), is the one leading the effort to establish the Khilafah with men who have been true to their covenant with Allah, and who are assured of Allah’s victory:
[وَاللّٰهُ غَالِبٌ عَلَى أَمرِهِ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ]
“Allah’s Will always prevails, but most people do not know” [Yusuf: 21]
10 Rabii’ Al-Awal 1447 AH
2/9/2025 CE -
Essentials of Political Understanding and Policymaking – Part 3
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمPrerequisites for Political Understanding and Policymaking (Part 3)
The Role of the Map in Political Understanding
(Translated)It has been said that a politician who does not know the world map does not know politics; the world map and its knowledge are essential to political understanding.
Map-related information is not limited to knowing the location of the country to which the particular event under investigation relates. Instead, it extends to understanding the country’s location on the map, the nature of the geography related to the country, the nature of its borders, its connection to oceans, its connection to important geographical features, and understanding the demographic situation in terms of population number, population density, the nature and characteristics of the population, and its possession of energy and technology.
It is worth noting that there is an intersection between the political and strategic features of a country’s location. Political features help a country to carve out an important international position, and help the analyst understand the political issues and events related to the country. Understanding the strategic features of a country’s location on the map is useful in military analysis, and for the country’s military position to be strong. The intersection is due to the fact that the political strength of a country is linked to its military strength.
Understanding a country’s location requires several factors, including whether it is a continental state, an oceanic state, or a combination of both. A continental state is one whose geographical location is on land, with its borders surrounded by land, land-locked, with no access to the sea. An oceanic state is one located in the ocean, and therefore its borders are surrounded by ocean waters. A country that combines both is one that has a continental mass, that is, a large portion of land, and coasts open to oceans or seas.
A continental state’s strength is continental, meaning its power is linked to the strengths of the land, in terms of terrain, transportation and trade routes, and land power. An oceanic state’s strength is oceanic, due to its openness to sea routes, the ability of its fleets to transport and wage war, its broad trade horizons, and its extensive ability to communicate with other peoples. Therefore, the continental state lacks peripheral projective power, and its ability to carve out an influential international position remains less than that of more peripheral states. As for those states that possess both characteristics, having a continental mass and an oceanic mass, their ability to carve out an advanced global position is high.
Continental countries include those located in the centers of continents, such as Afghanistan, Chad, Niger, Bolivia, and Paraguay. Oceanic countries include Britain, Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Countries with both characteristics include the United States, Spain, Turkey, India, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Yemen, ash-Sham, Iran, Pakistan, France, Italy, Germany, and China. Russia’s continental mass is large, but it is connected to frozen waters, making its use of the oceanic aspect very costly. Therefore, it has made tremendous efforts throughout its history to reach warm waters, and continues to do so, in order to take on the oceanic dimension.
A country’s location on the map remains a decisive factor in determining its global weight, whether through its ability to connect to other countries, or its location on key international communication routes. Not all oceanic countries are made equal; those connected to important geographic features are more likely to assume a high global weight. Important geographic features include islands, straits, isthmuses, and locations overlooking international shipping lanes.
Islands are of great importance in several respects. If a country’s borders extend to include an archipelago of islands in a significant region, and it controls the surrounding sea, it gains global influence. Therefore, Japan sought to control the Pacific Ocean, and its attack on Pearl Harbor was perhaps motivated by its desire to control the Pacific Ocean. Had it achieved this, it could have easily assumed the position of the number one country. If the islands are not on trade routes, their location can be considered if it is important for influencing other countries. They can be controlled and used as military bases, such as the Solomon Islands in northeastern Australia, and the Socotra Islands in southern Yemen opposite the Horn of Africa. Peninsulas, such as Crimea, are also included in the list of islands.
International maritime transport takes routes across the high oceans, and if a situation compels it to change its route, this is not at all difficult. However, when shipping routes pass through straits, they are indispensable routes, as the route is often restricted through these straits. Britain’s control of Gibraltar and the Bab al-Mandab made this a tool for its global influence when it was the leading power there. The Taiwan Strait, through which 500,000 commercial sea voyages pass annually (Asharq Al-Awsat, 21 August, 2023), prompted America to turn it into a zone of influence and friction with China, by winning over the ruling regime in Taiwan to its side. The Bosphorus Strait made Istanbul an internationally influential region, prompting the Allies to grant it special status in the Treaty of Lausanne, which stipulated the demilitarization of the Strait, along with the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, the Turkish islands, and some Greek islands.
An isthmus is a thin strip of land connecting two larger areas of land. Its location on international shipping routes makes it a port and embarkation point for ships at either end, or it may prompt the country administering it to dig a canal connecting the two ends of the isthmus. Examples of these are the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, and the Kiel Canal. Prior to the opening of the Panama Canal, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec was the shortest route between the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean.
It is clear that if continental countries do not have access to the oceans, they will be forced to rely on intermediary, more peripheral states that occupy a place between the continent and the sea. Even those countries with little global influence are viewing this issue with concern. Ethiopia, for example, concluded an agreement with the breakaway Republic of Somaliland in 2023 to grant it access to the Red Sea.
The nature of geography related to a state encompasses several fundamental elements, including its area, the nature of its borders, its domestic, internal terrain, and its natural structure. As for the nature of a state’s borders, there is no specific law governing the nature of borders, whether chosen or imposed by a state. It is natural for a state to have defined itself by natural boundaries, such as mountain ranges, river courses, and seashores. Borders may have been drawn pursuant to agreements with neighboring countries, or as a result of expansion or contraction due to wars. However, since the emergence of the new world order, nationalistic borders have taken on a sacred character, and the issue of expansion has become a matter of global abhorrence, or in need of justification that reflects a popular will for annexation or secession. Among the geography related to borders is the type of population centers located on the border. Some borders border two countries and separate two peoples, while others border two countries and separate a single people into two parts, each part belonging to a separate state. This helps us understand the stability and permeability of borders due to the connection or separation of the two peoples on either side of the border. Border geography includes knowing the countries bordering the border and knowing their international status, which opens the door to competition, dispute, war, dependency, or taking over vital territory.
The natural structure is related to the nature of the country’s environment and the resources contained within its geography. A country’s surplus water resources are vital to its water security, and the depletion of groundwater reservoirs is a risk indicator. Oil and mineral wealth is an important factor in countries, enabling them to achieve self-sufficiency in energy and industry, and even enhancing their ability to influence others through these resources. Marine mineral and fish resources are an important factor in their wealth and food security. The nature of the soil, in terms of the vastness of fertile land, and the contrasting expanse of deserts, influences a country’s position in terms of the true strength of its economy, or in other words, its productive capacity. This even influences the nature of its people.
The area of a country, as in the vastness of the area, has a value in several aspects — one of which is the connection between the vastness of the area and the population, another through the connection between the area and the wealth, and another through the strategic depth of the country. This last aspect is very important, especially in the event of its exposure to invasion, as the large area makes the control of the invaders slow, and perhaps faltering if their invasion is an invasion of the territory, and not an invasion of the centers of power.
Domestic terrain grants natural internal defensive lines for a country if it contains rugged terrain, or vice versa if it contains flat terrain. The diversity of terrain also contributes to the diversity of production in a country. The Ural Mountains in Russia were a natural barrier, behind which a vast extension to the east protected Russia from collapse, in the event that invaders took control of its western part, the part in which the Russian capital, Moscow, is located. In contrast, the European Plain in Eastern Europe made its countries a corridor for wars and an arena of cultural conflict.
It is important for countries to be located on land ports and transportation routes. Turkey’s location makes it a major land link between Asia and Europe, and thus, land trade routes between Asia and Europe pass through it. The same applies to countries located along the ancient Silk Road and the Belt and Road Initiative, including China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, and Germany. This has prompted the implementation of major projects along these routes, including railways, land ports, and oil and gas pipelines.
Population, on the other hand, is a very important factor in a state’s strength. Research into it takes several approaches, one of which is population size and growth rate. Another links population to area, thus studying population density. Another relates to the age density of the population, and another relates to the nature of the people. Countries that aspire to assume international status push toward increasing their population. This is achieved by encouraging the population to reproduce, and providing benefits for each additional family member, thus increasing birth rates in the country. Another approach is to compensate for the population deficit by immigration, thus increasing the incentives that drive people to immigrate into the country, thus increasing the population. This stimulates the economy, provides protection from extinction, and provides the potential to pursue major projects that may require waging costly wars in terms of manpower, whether in terms of preparation or in terms of bearing losses. Population density, on the other hand, is an indicator of a state’s human and economic strength, as you will see that the largest cities in the world are those that provide abundant economic opportunities, abundant resources, financial activity, or political centers. Population density indicates the ageing or youthfulness of societies. Young societies have a high capacity for production and fighting, unlike aging societies.
Energy and technology have become key issues in shaping the strength of nations, especially those that have, or seek to achieve, a prominent international position. Energy and technology are interconnected. While energy can be classified as a nation’s resource, it can also be given a separate classification. It can be viewed in terms of the availability of raw materials for fossil fuels and nuclear energy within a nation. It can also be viewed in terms of the nation’s investment in its existing energy resources, such as the presence of oil wells, refineries, nuclear reactors, and the level of enrichment in nuclear reactors. These resources and associated facilities are extracted and operated by the nation, or the nation has granted concessions for other nations to do so. Conversely, some technologies are relatively common within a nation and do not significantly impact its weight, while others are a key factor in its strength. These include iron and steel technology, heavy industries, electronics technology, and the microchip industry. Others include artificial intelligence, which is used in military industries and espionage operations, and aviation and satellite technology. There are many examples of this. Taiwan’s “monopoly” over the microchip industry has given it global influence. In other words, America has influenced the world because the Taiwanese government is subordinate to America, and because the operating system for Taiwanese chips is American. Indeed, America provides subsidies to companies operating in this field in America, including Intel, which has chip projects in Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico, and Oregon, and the Taiwanese company, TSMC, which has two factories under construction near Phoenix (Al Jazeera Net, January 28, 2024). This is to ensure the industry remains under its control. Furthermore, America excels in the software aspect of microchips, and has been ahead of the rest of the world in this field, which has helped strengthen its global influence. On the other hand, the development of the missile industry in Russia has made it a reality in wars. The Kinzhal missile and the hypersonic Oreshnik missile have distinguished Russia’s strength. As for the espionage industry, America developed it to the point of producing aircraft during the Soviet era that fly at high altitudes beyond radar detection, equipped with high-resolution cameras that accurately capture the desired locations. It then developed into the manufacture of spy satellites with ultra-high-resolution cameras. Let’s not forget modern technologies in image analysis, facial recognition, and network security, to the point where its armies wage wars as electronic hackers. Although these things haven’t been captured on modern maps, they must be observed in countries, just as raw material and oil resources are observed.
This is a brief overview of a collective of issues that are important to consider when looking at a map, noting that some are more influential in highlighting a state’s power than others. There is no single law that determines whether a state possesses certain characteristics that make it more powerful than another. Instead, it examines the overall geopolitical situation of the state and the sum of its characteristics.
-
The Concept of Empowerment (Tamkeen) in the Noble Quran
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
The Concept of Empowerment (Tamkeen) in the Noble Quran
(Translated)Allah (swt) said,
[وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَنْ كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ]
“Allah has promised those of you who believe and do good that He will certainly make them successors in the land, as He did with those before them; and will surely empower for them their Deen, which He has approved for them; and will indeed replace their fear with security, provided that they worship Me, associating nothing with Me. However, whoever disbelieves after this promise, it is they who will be the rebellious.” [TMQ Surah An-Nur: 55].
When we talk about empowerment (tamkeen), we are talking about the cause for which the Messengers and Prophets, peace be upon them all, were sent. The cause we are discussing in this article is not the empowerment of a person or persons, but instead the empowerment of Deen, and the empowerment of the Islamic Ummah that establishes this Deen. The purpose of establishing Deen is to establish on this earth the way of life that Allah (swt) has chosen for humanity. Among the last verses revealed in His Noble Book is,
[ٱلۡيَوۡمَ أَكۡمَلۡتُ لَكُمۡ دِينَكُمۡ وَأَتۡمَمۡتُ عَلَيۡكُمۡ نِعۡمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ ٱلۡإِسۡلَٰمَ دِينٗاۚ] “Today I have perfected your Deen for you, completed My favour upon you, and chosen Islam as your way.” [TMQ Surah Al-Maida: 3]. That is, Allah (swt) has chosen for Muslims Islam as loyalty (walaa’), Deen, Shariah Law, and way of life. The word ‘Deen’ encompasses all of these meanings. The Prophet (saw) did not join the Supreme Companion, Allah (swt), until he (saw) had completed the mission, by conveying the Risaalah (message). His action (saw) was not limited to conveying the Risaalah (message) alone. Instead, he (saw) also established a political authority for Islam, empowered by Allah (swt) on earth. The Prophet (saw) did not depart from this worldly life, except after leaving behind an Islamic state, an Abode of Islam (Dar ul-Islam) encompassing the entire Arabian Peninsula, for the Khulafaa Rashidoon (Rightly-Guided Caliphs) and those who came after them to continue the advance, by expanding the Islamic Khilafah (Caliphate) state. This advance continued for centuries, until a time came when the Ummah abandoned this mission, its authority was removed from the earth, and its empowerment (tamkeen) was completely lost.
Now it is in the process of working to regain empowerment, wanting to return to its former glory; an Islamic Ummah empowered by its Deen, appointed as a successor on earth in order to carry out the mission for which it was sent. Allah (swt) said,
[كُنتُمۡ خَيۡرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخۡرِجَتۡ لِلنَّاسِ تَأۡمُرُونَ بِٱلۡمَعۡرُوفِ وَتَنۡهَوۡنَ عَنِ ٱلۡمُنكَرِ وَتُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِۗ]
“You are the best community ever raised for humanity, you encourage good, forbid evil, and believe in Allah.” [TMQ Surah Aali Imran: 110]. So, when we talk about empowerment (tamkeen), we are talking about the empowerment of Deen on earth. Linguistically, empowerment (تمكين) comes from the word “makkana مَكَّنَ” which means to enable and assist in something. As for مكَّن له في الشَّيء “To empower someone in something,” it means جعل له عليه سلطانًا وقدرة “to give them authority and power over it.” Whoever is empowered from within a people, has power over them. Empowerment comes from power (قدرة). When we say, “So-and-so has been empowered on earth,” it means he has acquired power. Of course, power on earth is authority (sultan سلطان). The one with authority, influence, and power is the one who has power on earth. This is the linguistic meaning of empowerment.
When Allah (swt) empowers us on earth, it means that He, glory be to Him, has empowered us. That is, He (swt) has given us the ability to be the decision-makers and the ones with power on this earth, so that the Word (Kalima) of Allah (swt) is supreme, and the word of the disbelievers is the lowest on earth. This is in the context of the natural struggle that Muslims must engage in, which is the ongoing struggle between truth and falsehood, between Iman and kufr. Quranic verses in the Book of Allah (swt) contain this meaning of empowerment. Among them is the Saying of Allah (swt),
[ٱلَّذِينَ إِن مَّكَّنَّٰهُمۡ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ أَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتَوُاْ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَأَمَرُواْ بِٱلۡمَعۡرُوفِ وَنَهَوۡاْ عَنِ ٱلۡمُنكَرِۗ وَلِلَّهِ عَٰقِبَةُ ٱلۡأُمُورِ]
“They are those who, if empowered in the land by Us, would perform Salah (Shariah ritual prayer), pay Zakat (Shariah alms), command what is good, and forbid what is evil. And with Allah rests the outcome of all affairs.” [TMQ Surah Al-Hajj: 41].
Establishing Salah in the Quranic verse does not mean merely the performing of Salah by individuals, instead it extends to establishing Salah amongst people in general, within an Islamic society. Commanding the good is also achieved through empowerment, by establishing this good through the obligating authority of the Islamic authority on earth, and not merely through verbal commands and prohibitions. This is because verbal commands and prohibitions are within the power of almost all people, even if they are not empowered on earth.
Similarly, we consider Allah’s Saying,
[وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَنْ كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ]
“Allah has promised those of you who believe and do good that He will certainly make them successors in the land, as He did with those before them; and will surely empower for them their Deen, which He has approved for them; and will indeed replace their fear with security, provided that they worship Me, associating nothing with Me. However, whoever disbelieves after this promise, it is they who will be the rebellious.” [TMQ Surah An-Nur: 55]. Succession and empowerment are a promise from Allah (swt) to those who believe and do righteous deeds. Therefore, empowerment is dependent on Iman in Allah (swt) and adherence to His Shariah Law.
Allah (swt) first said,
[وَعَدَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ مِنكُمۡ وَعَمِلُواْ ٱلصَّٰلِحَٰتِ لَيَسۡتَخۡلِفَنَّهُمۡ]
“Allah has promised those of you who believe and do good that He will certainly make them successors in the land.” This means that He makes them successors as He made those before them successors.
As for the Saying of Allah (swt), [وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ] “And that He will establish for them their Deen which He has approved for them,” clearly states that the goal of this succession is not to establish succession over individuals alone, but instead the succession is for the sake of the empowerment of the Deen, because the goal is to give rise to a jamaa’ah (community) of believers who live the life that Allah (swt) has approved for His servants. As for His Saying,
[وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّنۢ بَعۡدِ خَوۡفِهِمۡ أَمۡنٗاۚ] “And He will surely replace their fear with security,” this is a promise from Him, the Most High, that one of the fruits of empowerment is that He will substitute for them, after their fear, security. Then Allah (swt) says, [يَعۡبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشۡرِكُونَ بِي شَيۡٔٗاۚ ۚ] “They worship Me, not associating anything with Me,” which is further evidence that the goal of this empowerment is a life in which the worship of Allah (swt) is manifested. Worship in the Islamic concept is not limited to individual ritual acts of worship. Instead, the concept of worship in the Book of Allah (swt) is complete submission to Him, the Almighty. What is meant is a life in which servitude to Allah (swt) is manifested in all aspects of life, including the relationships that shape society, generating a way of life that distinguishes the Islamic Ummah from others, which is a life in which the Islamic way of living is manifested.
Then, Allah (swt) said, [وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعۡدَ ذَٰلِكَ فَأُوْلَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلۡفَٰسِقُون] “However, whoever disbelieves after this promise, it is they who will be the rebellious.” This statement also indicates that the goal of empowerment on earth is to manifest the Deen so that its emergence, that is, its dominance, is a confirming evidence for the people. After that, those who disbelieve in it, those who disbelieve and commit sins despite the clear evidence, will be disobedient transgressors. Therefore, this goal of empowerment (tamkeen) is to create a community (jamaa’ah) of believers and Muslims living an Islamic life, which is also called, in contemporary terms, an Islamic society. When we speak of an Islamic society, we are not only speaking of a society whose components are Muslims. Today, Muslims are spread across the globe, numbering nearly two billion. However, they do not constitute an Islamic society. A society is a community (jamaa’ah) of people who have established permanent relationships upon a basis, and these permanent relationships give this society its identity and way of life. If the relationships are shaped by Islam, then it is an Islamic society. If its relationships are shaped by capitalism, then it is a capitalist society, and so on.
These relationships can only be Islamic if the culture of a society is based on Islamic thoughts, and the prevailing systems are Islamic systems, which means it is based on Shariah Law. If Muslims embrace pure Islamic concepts, free of any foreign concepts, and apply their Islamic system to their lives, they will have manifested themselves as an Islamic society. If Islam spreads among Muslims with its concepts, if they desire to live an Islamic life, and if they reject all non-Islamic concepts, but limit themselves to being educated in Islam and committed to it as individuals, then unless a political system is established in their land that applies Islamic systems and oversees their affairs, then this society will not be Islamic. This is because the system implemented in a society, in terms of constitution, laws, and legislation, determines its essential identity. A society cannot be Islamic as long as the systems implemented there are not Islamic, even if Muslims embrace a pure Islam devoid of any blemish individually. Therefore, working for empowerment is working for an empowered Ummah on earth, with authority, where sovereignty belongs to the Shariah Law of Allah (swt).
The above discussion leads us to a very important question: Is empowerment the ultimate goal of Islam and Muslims in this worldly life? Or is it a method to achieving the actual goal?
This question is a subject of debate, and even conflict, among many Muslims today. Most of those who answer it give the wrong answer. Many Muslims believe that establishing an Islamic state is the pinnacle of reviving Muslims, and that it is the result of implementing Islam, and establishing an Islamic way of life and an Islamic society. Many sincere Muslims who love their Deen say: We must establish an Islamic society so that an Islamic state can then be established. This is a major misunderstanding, as they fail to grasp the meaning of the state or its function. The state in Islam is neither the pinnacle of reviving nor the ultimate goal. Instead, the state in Islam is the practical method for establishing Islam, generating an Islamic way of life, and perfecting Islamic society. It is well known to all political thinkers, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that the state is the executive entity for the set of concepts, convictions, and standards held by any people. The state is its means of achieving the way of life it seeks. Without an Islamic state, there will be no Islamic society, and no Islamic life. The misconception that the existence of an Islamic state or the Khilafah (Caliphate) is the ultimate goal of reviving and advancement for the Ummah, after it has fully implemented Islam, is a complete failure to understand the true meaning of implementing Islam and the Islamic state. Islam cannot be implemented without a state, and Islamic systems cannot be truly viable on the ground unless they have a state.
Therefore, Allah (swt) made empowerment on earth a means to establish Islamic life, implement Shariah Law, and achieve security. Therefore, those who limit their efforts to preaching Islam to mere preaching, guidance, and what resembles Christian evangelism, without considering the serious work required to establish an Islamic state, whether they realize it or not, are not working to establish Islam. They are merely calling people to adhere to Islam individually. No individual can fully implement Islam, and more so, all individuals together cannot implement it without a state. This is because Islam did not come only for individuals; instead, it came as a way of life, and a state must be established to implement it. The state is the executive entity of any civilization and any political culture. It is the executive entity of the way of life that people want to live.
So, the issue of empowerment on earth means that the Islamic Ummah must have a state that embodies this empowerment, a state for the Ummah, not just any state. For example, if we imagine that Muslims established a small, territorial state that lacks the strength to make it impregnable against enemies, such a state would not empower Islam and Muslims on earth. The state that empowers Islam and Muslims is the one Islam calls “Dar ul-Islam (Abode of Islam).” Dar ul-Islam is the one that, by its Shariah definition and legal reality, embodies the empowerment of Islam and Muslims. The definition of the Abode of Islam is الدار التي يطبّق فيها الإسلام، ويكون أمانها بأمان المسلمين “the Abode in which Islam is implemented and whose security is guaranteed by the Muslims.” If one of these two conditions is missing — the complete establishment of Islam and the security of the state being guaranteed by the Muslims alone, both domestically and externally — then it is not an Abode of Islam and does not embody the empowerment of Islam and Muslims. There is no empowerment where there is dominance and hegemony of the kuffar, as Allah (swt) says,
[وَلَن يَجۡعَلَ ٱللَّهُ لِلۡكَٰفِرِينَ عَلَى ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا] “Allah (swt) does not grant the kafiroon a way of dominance over the Muslims.” [TMQ Surah An-Nisaa: 141].
After the establishment of an Abode of Islam, Muslims cannot be content with merely implementing Islam in their own lands. Instead, the state must have a foreign policy based on carrying the Risaalah (message) to the world. Carrying Islam to the world is the practical implementation of the Saying of Allah (swt),
[وَكَذَٰلِكَ جَعَلۡنَٰكُمۡ أُمَّةٗ وَسَطٗا لِّتَكُونُواْ شُهَدَآءَ عَلَى ٱلنَّاسِ وَيَكُونَ ٱلرَّسُولُ عَلَيۡكُمۡ شَهِيدٗاۗ]
“Thus We have made you a just Ummah that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger (saw) will be a witness over you.” [TMQ Surah Al-Baqarah: 143].
Another issue that remains a source of controversy and confusion for some Muslims today is: Is succession on earth a consequence of Muslims striving for empowerment, as it falls under the takleef (Shariah liability) conferred by Allah (swt) upon His servants? Or is it merely a Favor (mannah) from Allah (swt)? Now, some say that empowerment is not one of the takaaleef (Shariah liabilities) upon the believers, but instead it is a mere Favor from Allah (swt) and so we are required have Iman and do good deeds in general, without striving to assume authority and ruling. They add that when good deeds are evident in us, Allah (swt) will then bestow upon us His Favor of succession and empowerment on earth. This statement is undoubtedly devoid of any Shariah legal evidence. Indeed, it contradicts the Shariah legal evidencing. Its implication is that Muslims are not required to strive for nasr (victory), whereas Allah (swt) says,
[وَأَعِدُّواْ لَهُم مَّا ٱسۡتَطَعۡتُم مِّن قُوَّةٖ وَمِن رِّبَاطِ ٱلۡخَيۡلِ تُرۡهِبُونَ بِهِۦ عَدُوَّ ٱللَّهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمۡ وَءَاخَرِينَ مِن دُونِهِمۡ لَا تَعۡلَمُونَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ يَعۡلَمُهُمۡۚ]
“And prepare against them whatever you are able of material power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them whom you do not know but whom Allah knows.” [TMQ Surah Al-Anfal: 60].
Allah (swt) commanded us to prepare for battle, and He will not grant victory to the believers if they do not prepare for battle. Instead, Allah (swt) warns them of destruction if they neglect to prepare. Allah (swt) says,
[وَأَنفِقُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَلَا تُلۡقُواْ بِأَيۡدِيكُمۡ إِلَى ٱلتَّهۡلُكَةِ]
“And spend in the Path of Allah and do not throw yourselves with your own hands into destruction.” [TMQ Surah Al-Baqarah 195]. This means that if they do not prepare for battle, then Allah (swt) will not grant them nasr.
Instead, more than that, they will throw themselves into destruction. Allah (swt) attributes nasr to Himself, but this does not mean that nasr comes without the efforts of His believing servants. If we refer to the Seerah of the Prophet (saw), from the time he was sent until he established his state, he did not wait for the state to come to him as a Favor from Allah (swt). Instead, he would approach the people and tribes and ask them: How much quwwa (material strength) and man’ah (protective capability) do you have? He would ask them to believe in him and grant him material support, because he was searching for a ruler to be established on earth, and he was searching for someone to grant him material support in order to convey the Risaalah (message) of his Lord (swt), and in order to establish a state for Islam. Therefore, when the people of Madinah gave him their leadership, Allah (swt) honored them by calling them the Ansar, because they supported him and supported Islam. Thus, by the Grace of Allah (swt), the state of Madinah was established based on the Prophet (saw) and his Companions (ra) taking the necessary causative measures (asbaab) to achieve this empowerment.
Yes, those who work to achieve empowerment may seek to take the necessary causative measures (asbaab) but fail to achieve it, because they do not yet possess the necessary elements, and because some of these elements are not even within their control. This is what happened with previous Prophets (as). However, if they do not take the necessary asbaab (causative measures), then empowerment will inevitably not occur, and succession will not take place. There is no succession or empowerment on earth without working for it, and taking the necessary causative measures.
After taking the necessary causative measures, their goal may or may not be achieved, for this is a matter of the Unseen (Ghayb). However, this nation is promised succession by the text of the Book of Allah (swt), in the Words of the Almighty,
[وَعَدَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ مِنكُمۡ وَعَمِلُواْ ٱلصَّٰلِحَٰتِ لَيَسۡتَخۡلِفَنَّهُمۡ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ كَمَا ٱسۡتَخۡلَفَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبۡلِهِمۡ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمۡ دِينَهُمُ ٱلَّذِي ٱرۡتَضَىٰ لَهُمۡ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّنۢ بَعۡدِ خَوۡفِهِمۡ أَمۡنٗاۚ يَعۡبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشۡرِكُونَ بِي شَيۡٔٗاۚ وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعۡدَ ذَٰلِكَ فَأُوْلَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلۡفَٰسِقُونَ]
“Allah has promised those of you who believe and do good that He will certainly make them successors in the land, as He did with those before them; and will surely empower for them their Deen, which He has approved for them; and will indeed replace their fear with security, provided that they worship Me, associating nothing with Me. However, whoever disbelieves after this promise, it is they who will be the rebellious.” [TMQ Surah An-Nur: 55]. It is also through His Saying,
[هُوَ ٱلَّذِيٓ أَرۡسَلَ رَسُولَهُۥ بِٱلۡهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ ٱلۡحَقِّ لِيُظۡهِرَهُۥ عَلَى ٱلدِّينِ كُلِّهِۦ وَلَوۡ كَرِهَ ٱلۡمُشۡرِكُونَ]
“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the Deen of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah (swt) dislike it.” [TMQ Surah As-Saf: 9]. This is a promise from Allah (swt) that this Deen will prevail over all religions, and this prevalence over all religions has not yet happened. Islam has appeared over a wide area of the earth, but it has not yet been established over the entire earth. This promise is still awaited. In Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Thawban, he said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, إنّ الله زوى لي الأرض، فرأيت مشارقها ومغاربها، وإنّ أمّتي سيبلغ ملكها ما زوي لي منها “Allah (swt) folded the earth up before me, so I saw its easts and its wests. My Ummah’s dominion will reach what was folded for me of it.” However, the Ummah cannot reach this empowerment unless the causative measures (asbaab) for this empowerment are achieved within it, and these reasons cannot be achieved without its own efforts. Allah (swt) said,
[يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓاْ إِن تَنصُرُواْ ٱللَّهَ يَنصُرۡكُمۡ وَيُثَبِّتۡ أَقۡدَامَكُمۡ]
“O you who have believed, if you support Allah, He will support you and plant firmly your feet.” [TMQ Surah Muhammad: 7].
-
Q&A: The Trump-Putin Meeting in Alaska
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمAnswer to Question
The Trump-Putin Meeting in Alaska
(Translated)Question:
US President Trump and Russian President Putin held a meeting in Alaska on 16/8/2025. Did they reach an agreement on key issues? What was the impact of this meeting on relations between the two countries? on Ukraine? And internationally on Europe and China?
Answer:
To clarify the answers to the above questions, we review the following points:
1- The relationship between America and Russia has evolved over the past three decades from a relationship between two superpowers controlling the fate of the world before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, to Russia’s withdrawal from the international arena and its withdrawal into itself, with America monitoring the depth of Russia’s collapse and its attempts to seize Soviet-era areas of influence. Then, to Russian President Putin’s attempts to restore Russia as a major power with international standing, and America’s rejection of this. In an indication of the depth of the conflict between the two countries’ goals, the war broke out in Ukraine in 2022, through which Russia sought to raise its international standing by force, and America sought, through its support for Ukraine, to remove Russia from the list of major powers. This situation remained the case until the end of the Biden administration. When Trump again became president of the United States, he began to redirect the American compass against China, and announced his desire to ease tensions with Russia. He said he was capable of ending the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, and that this war was not his war, but Biden’s war. Thus, under Trump, America began to shift its relations with Russia. This became apparent from President Trump’s repeated insults of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, his harsh criticism of US military support for Ukraine, and his demand that European countries assume their financial and military responsibilities in Ukraine.
2- The Ukrainian war has weakened Russia’s international standing. Its army has proven unable to achieve quick, high-value objectives in Ukraine. Nearly half of its naval fleet was destroyed in the Black Sea, its strategic bases deep inside Russia were struck, and it has lost important elements of its ground forces, including equipment and generals. However, it has not been defeated and has remained capable of making progress inside Ukraine, even if described as the crawling of ants. However, Russia, which has found itself facing NATO’s military capabilities, as if it were at war with NATO countries, has shown frustration, sometimes making nuclear statements and preparations. This is extremely dangerous and is not what America wants. In other words, the Ukrainian war has highlighted the risks of escalation to a nuclear war. The war in Ukraine has prompted Russian President Putin to strengthen his strategic partnership with China. Although this trend was expected from America, and despite China not responding to Russia with the same warmth, lest it lose its essential trade relations with America and Europe, the re-division of the world into what resembles two camps is the last thing America wants. It absolutely does not want China’s economic power to complement Russia’s military power in one camp.
3- Russia’s fear of the strategic defeat that America is planning in Ukraine has motivated it to increase its missile and nuclear armament. Nuclear agreements with the United States are at a minimum following America’s withdrawal in 2019 from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. In addition to Russia’s introduction of hypersonic missiles into its war in Ukraine, it also introduced the highly destructive Oreshnik missile in 2024. Finally, shortly before Putin’s meeting with Trump, Russia announced tests that America was aware of Russian preparations for them, of nuclear missiles with nuclear engines too, meaning unlimited range and speed. In addition to the danger it poses to America and the fact that it would eliminate its much-vaunted missile shield, which it has spent billions on, it also confirms to America that Russia is pursuing a new strategic military race, regardless of the cost to its economy. This requires America to reach an agreement with Russia to halt its advance and avoid a military race similar to the Cold War.
4- Russia faced a possible military defeat in Ukraine. Its military image as a superpower was shattered and it was unable to defeat the Ukrainian army. The war was a back-and-forth, meaning that Russia lost its decisive advantage, which harmed its international standing. In addition to its apparent military weakness in Ukraine, it fell under a deep package of Western sanctions that almost brought it to the brink of exiting the global economy and imposed significant international isolation on it. The Russian president was unable to even freely move outside the country due to the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court. Therefore, Russia deployed all its economic and military capabilities to ward off the specter of strategic defeat in the Ukrainian war. Its economy became a war economy. It believed that its international standing was determined by the war in Ukraine. However, the specter of defeat did not leave it, and its greatest fear was that matters would escalate towards NATO intervention and a direct confrontation with it. It is not capable of doing so unless it employs its nuclear tools, but employing these tools is dangerous and extremely dangerous. When US President Trump came and began praising Russia and praising its president, Russia breathed a sigh of relief, as this represented a US shift away from its plans for a strategic defeat of Russia. Russia may have considered accepting Trump’s offers as they are to limit its depletion, but it is watching the door Trump has opened for its return to the international arena, and it is on edge fearing it might close when it wants to enter it.
5- When America witnessed Russia’s hesitation and refusal to stop the war, and voices rose in the West that Putin was exploiting Trump’s recent approach and desire to stop the war in Ukraine, the American president announced a 50-day deadline for Russia to stop the war in Ukraine. Despite Russia’s deep annoyance with this deadline and its request for clarifications, it continued to procrastinate within this deadline, wanting to exploit it to the end. This prompted the American president to threaten to take a U-turn, that is, to close the door and return to the positions of the Biden administration. He announced that this period would be shortened to only 10 days, which Russia saw, through the Deputy National Security Advisor and former President Medvedev, as a step towards war. Medvedev reminded America of Russia’s “doomsday nuclear hand”, and the American president exchanged words with him, who urged him to be careful that he was entering an extremely dangerous area. With this American threat to take a U-turn and return to supporting Ukraine and imposing harsher sanctions on Russia, including all those who buy oil from it, namely China in particular, the clock struck in Moscow that a decision had to be made.
6- Russia thus felt it must quickly make concessions to America. It does not want a return to the momentum of American support for Ukraine, which would impose further strain on it and waste the opportunity offered by President Trump to break its international isolation. Furthermore, Russia has doubts about China. If China were given the choice between benefiting from cheap Russian oil and its trade relations with America, it would certainly choose the latter, given its many benefits. Moreover, Trump’s peace offer provides Russia with what it desires from an agreement with America alone, similar to the Yalta Conference in 1945. It does not want to involve other European or Ukrainian parties, but rather wants an agreement with America that would then be presented to the other parties as a fait accompli. Thus, Russia took the initiative to request a meeting with US President Trump’s envoy, Witkoff, to eliminate the idea of a deadline granted to Russia. This certainly requires it to give up some of its demands. On the eve of the summit between the two presidents and during the short preparation period, both parties showed signs of their desire for this meeting, and Trump actually responded to Russia’s request to send his special envoy, Witkoff, to Moscow. Trump spoke about opportunities and the exchange of lands and borders between Russia and Ukraine, and Russia spoke about America’s sincerity: “Putin said that Moscow is working to create conditions for peace, and that the United States is “making sincere efforts” to resolve the situation regarding Ukraine. Putin stressed the importance of reaching agreements with Washington on limiting strategic offensive weapons.” (Al Jazeera Net, 14/8/2025). Russia agreed to the summit being held in Alaska, i.e., in America, to appease Trump: “Trump believes that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to travel to Alaska to meet with him is “an act of great respect.” (RT, 12/8/2025)
7- But from another angle, America, having witnessed Russia’s procrastination for months after Trump came to the White House, did not want this summit to be without concessions from Russia. Trump said that this summit was “exploratory,” and that he would know from the first minutes of the summit whether Putin was serious about ending the war in Ukraine or not. He warned of the summit’s failure, setting a 25% chance of its failure, and threatened Russia with dire consequences: (US President Donald Trump threatened his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on Wednesday with “severe consequences” if he obstructed efforts to achieve peace in Ukraine, threatening the possibility of imposing economic sanctions if their meeting scheduled for Friday in Alaska failed to achieve tangible results. Trump explained that the meeting with Putin would be “preparatory” for a second meeting that would include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, indicating that its holding depends on the outcome of the Alaska meeting. (Arab 48, 14/8/2025)
US President Donald Trump then described his summit with Vladimir Putin as “high-stakes” before heading to Anchorage, Alaska, to hold the first of their meeting since seven years ago. Trump expressed his desire to see a ceasefire “very quickly.” (Independent Arabia, 15/8/2025). Trump said he would rush back from Alaska to Washington if Putin wasn’t serious. (US President Donald Trump arrived at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday. Trump said that if the summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin goes badly, he will leave. (CNN Arabic, 15/8/2025)). This statement about leaving the meeting carries a kind of insult to President Putin, who came to meet Trump in America!
8- All these statements put pressure on Russia to make concessions, as he threatens it with dire consequences, sanctions, and withdrawal from the meeting. This means that the meeting between them was disproportionate as were the important meetings between Soviet and American leaders in the past. It is not a meeting of two giants, and does not even rise to the level of US-China summit meetings. It reinforces America’s arrogance and its demand for Russia’s submission, as well as the decline of the status of the new Russia, which accepted all these American conditions, deadlines, and threats. Its president traveled to America to hold the meeting with Trump instead of it being held in a third country. Perhaps the action contradicting protocols is Russian President Putin accepting the US president’s offer to ride with him in his private car, despite the presence of Putin’s car that accompanies him in all his international meetings, is evidence of Russia’s submission and its need for a warm relationship with Trump to reduce its strategic losses. What confirms this is that despite the major rupture in US-Russian relations imposed by the Biden administration, the Russian president was keen to entice Trump. Yuri Ushakov, the Russian president’s assistant, said: “Cooperation between Russia and the United States has enormous untapped potential. He noted that the Russian delegation will include Presidential Aide Yuri Ushakov, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and Chairman of the Russian Direct Investment Fund Kirill Dmitriev.” (RT, 14/8/2025). This is an indicator of Russia’s weakness that America is sure to pick up on. Perhaps Russian President Putin’s statements after the meeting indicate this weakness and the depth of Russian concern about the continued tension in relations between the two countries. The Russian president began his speech at the press conference by acknowledging the deterioration of US-Russian relations in recent years. He said, “As is known, Russian-American summits have not been held for more than four years. This is a long time. The past period was very difficult for bilateral relations. And, let’s be honest, they have slid to the lowest point since the Cold War. And this is not good for our countries, or the world as a whole.” He added: “Obviously, sooner or later, it was necessary to correct the situation, to move from confrontation to dialogue. And in this regard, a personal meeting of the heads of the two states was really overdue.” Putin said: “The negotiations were held in an atmosphere of respect, constructiveness, and mutual respect and were very comprehensive and useful.” (Reuters, CNN Arabic, 16/8/2025)
9- In conclusion, by carefully examining the course of the meeting between Trump and Putin and the media coverage, it can be said that the following matters were covered in their meeting:
a- Ukraine: This is the most prominent, though not the only, issue, but it is the most famous and heated. Despite the firmness of Russia’s security demands, namely, that Ukraine be excluded from NATO and that it not possess a strong army that threatens Russia, a clear agreement was outlined at the summit. One aspect of this agreement was Russia’s future pledge not to attack Ukraine: (Putin emphasized that he agrees with the need to guarantee Ukraine’s security, saying: “I…agree with President Trump, as he has said today, that naturally, the security of Ukraine should be ensured as well. Naturally, we are prepared to work on that.” He added: “I would like to hope that the agreement that we’ve reached together will help us bring closer that goal and will pave the path towards peace in Ukraine.” (CBS, CNN Arabic, 16/8/2025)). What also confirms the existence of an agreement is that the US President gave his meeting with Putin a score of 10 out of 10. (Sky News, 16/8/2025). America is cooling the war zone in Ukraine in preparation for a ceasefire. This requires an American pledge to gradually slow down American and Western military support for the Ukrainian army, then declare a ceasefire, which may come through a subsequent summit between the two presidents and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy within weeks. Then proceed with the solution in Ukraine slowly, perhaps over the course of years. In other words, America is postponing the final solution and wants a quick ceasefire. The final solution must be over many years, during which America will force Ukraine to concede territory and borders equal to the concessions Russia will make to America on other issues. This is as if it is making Russia salivate by its recognition of the limits of Russian control in Ukraine, with conditions that Russia must fulfil and please America.
b- Re-normalizing US-Russian relations: Although this process began with the Istanbul meeting in April 2025, it is expected to gain momentum, and this momentum will likely become apparent after the second meeting between the two countries, which Ukraine may join with the aim of declaring a ceasefire. Normalizing relations is considered an urgent necessity for America to open negotiations in other strategic files.
c- The Arms Race and Strategic Power: It is highly likely, given both parties’ need for it, that negotiations on arms control and strategic nuclear and missile power will be urgently opened. Russia is likely to agree today to America’s previous condition that China joins these negotiations, making them trilateral. This is because previous Russian-American agreements were a continuation of decades-old agreements between the two military giants, which America severed because it wanted to include the Chinese giant in its ranks. Especially since China is currently implementing nuclear weapons programs that will soon place it among the ranks of the two giants. Its nuclear program is expected to lead to its possession of approximately 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, meaning that it has surpassed intermediate nuclear powers such as Britain and France for years. Therefore, it is likely that all reasons for Russia’s embarrassment regarding inviting China to participate in the Russian-American negotiations on strategic weapons have been removed. This represents a step for America on its path to dismantling the Russian-Chinese alliance. For all of this, it is likely that America’s hope to dismantle Russia’s alliance with China is a big possibility, but without directly striking it and hurting Russia’s feelings. Rather, it will take steps to reach a rapprochement with Russia to gradually weaken the Russian-Chinese alliance.
10- Finally, it is painful that the kaffir countries control the world, and their leaders meet, discuss, and plan. Yet the Ummah of Islam is the best Ummah that was brought forth for mankind is sitting and has no impact on international events. Indeed, it is not even capable of independent control over its own affairs, but rather is managed by the kaffir colonialists!
The problem is that this Ummah, which numbers nearly two billion, is a body without a head. The Khilafah (Caliphate) State that unites it is not established, and the Caliph who oversees its affairs, who is fought from behind and is protected by him, is absent! Nevertheless, the Khilafah will return, Allah willing, by the promise of Allah (swt) and the glad tidings of His Messenger (saw). However, Allah’s law requires that angels not descend from heaven to establish the Khilafah for us while the Ummah is sitting and does not work to establish it. Rather, Allah sends angels to help us while we work. Hizb ut Tahrir, the pioneer that does not lie to its people, calls on the Ummah to work with it to establish it (the Khilafah). Then Islam and Muslims will be honoured, and kufr (disbelief) and the kuffar (disbelievers) will be humiliated.
[وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ]
“And on that day the believers will rejoice * at the victory willed by Allah. He gives victory to whoever He wills. For He is the Almighty, Most Merciful” [Ar-Rum: 4-5]
25 Safar 1447 AH
19 August 2025 CE -
Q&A: Events in Armenia and Azerbaijan
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمAnswer to Question
Events in Armenia and Azerbaijan
(Translated)Question:
The Russian presence in the South Caucasus has been shaken “following Armenia and Azerbaijan signing a joint declaration with the United States on a peaceful settlement and agreements in the areas of trade and security after a conflict that had lasted more than 35 years between the two neighbouring countries…” (Al Jazeera, 15/8/2025). Azerbaijan and Armenia issued a joint statement on 11/8/2025, following the agreement signed between them in Washington on 8/8/2025, calling on the other parties to dissolve the Minsk Group, which was formed in 1992 to resolve the issues between the two countries. It stipulated the opening of connections between them for local, bilateral, and international transportation. How was this achieved at a time when relations between them were tense and punctuated by wars, especially in recent times? What were its intended purposes? May Allah reward you.
Answer:
To get a clear answer, let us review the following points:
1- On 9/8/2025, the Armen Press Arabic page published the text of the agreement signed by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in the presence of US President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, D.C. It stipulated: “The initialing of the agreed text of the agreement on establishing peace and international relations between the two countries, Azerbaijan and Armenia, and the continuation of further efforts toward its final signing, emphasizing the preservation and strengthening of peace between them, and charting a course for a future not determined by past conflicts, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration, which is the declaration related to the agreement on demarcating the borders between the two countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the secession of Azerbaijan and Armenia from it, and mutual recognition between them, respect for sovereignty, and the non-use of force to resolve disputes. The two parties reaffirmed the importance of opening communications between the two countries for domestic, bilateral, and international transportation, based on respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and jurisdiction of states, in order to promote peace, stability, and prosperity.” These efforts will include unhindered communication between the main part of Azerbaijan and the Nakhichevan (Nakhchivan) Autonomous Region through the territory of Armenia.”)
Thus, the agreement focused on opening communications, transportation, and roads between the two countries, given the importance of this issue. The Nakhchivan region of Azerbaijan is not connected to it, and is cut off by Armenia. To connect, the Azerbaijanis must pass through Iran. The agreement calls for opening a road between Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan region. It also calls for opening roads between Azerbaijan and Turkey, since Armenia is located between them. Land communication is only possible through Armenia. By this means, America can strengthen its influence in Azerbaijan, expand its influence in Armenia, and weaken or eliminate Russia’s influence there.
2- The agreement also stipulated, as published by the Armen Press Arabic page on 9/8/2025, that (“Armenia will work with the United States and mutually agreed third parties to determine the framework for implementing the communications program through the so-called ‘Trump Road to International Peace and Prosperity’ (TRIPP) in the territory of Armenia.” The United States had previously offered to establish and lease this corridor through an American commercial company. The Middle East Eye website reported on 14/7/2025, that “The United States has proposed taking over the planned transport corridor between Armenia and Azerbaijan in an effort to advance long-stalled diplomatic negotiations between the two Caucasus nations, the US ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, told journalists during a briefing on Friday.” The website quoted Barrack’s statements regarding the 32-kilometer corridor, saying: “They are arguing over 32 kilometers of road, but this is no trivial matter. It has dragged on for a decade – 32 kilometers of road…So what happens is that America steps in and says: ‘Okay, we’ll take it over. Give us the 32 kilometers of road on a hundred-year lease, and you can all share it’.”
This would strengthen American influence in both countries. This is confirmed by what Reuters reported on 8/8/2025, that Armenia has agreed to Trump’s plan to lease a communications corridor with the Republic of Azerbaijan for 100 years, indicating that the United States is seeking to impose its will on the dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The former, with the support of Turkey, is seeking to open the road to its geographically separate Nakhchivan region. Armenia sees this agreement as an opportunity to obtain American protection from any potential attack by its neighbour, Azerbaijan, amid Russia’s failure to support it in the recent war. Armenia was defeated and its republic in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which they declared 35 years ago with previous support from Russia, fell.
3- The Middle East Eye website reported that “Azerbaijan has insisted that the corridor should not be placed under Armenia’s total control.” It also stated that “Turkey has quietly urged…[the signing of] the peace agreement… Turkey that originally proposed the idea of a private company, approved by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, managing the corridor.”
Erdogan received both Azerbaijani President Aliyev on 19/6/2025, and the following day he received Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan, whose visit to Turkey was considered historic. The Turkish President’s office reported that “Erdogan stressed ‘the importance of the consensus reached in the ongoing peace negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia… and discussed the potential steps that could be taken within the framework of the normalization process between Turkey and Armenia…” (Al Jazeera, 21/6/2025). Thus, we see that Erdogan has prepared to sign the agreement on behalf of America. He is in America’s orbit and provides it with services to expand its influence in the region in exchange for its support in remaining in power, and for Turkey to benefit from the movement of land trade through Armenia to Azerbaijan.
4- The agreement stipulated that they (“expressed their deep gratitude to US President Trump for hosting their summit and significantly contributing to the process of normalizing bilateral relations between the two countries”). US President Trump wanted to highlight his country’s role and his personal role in particular, as he loves to stand out and claim every achievement in his name, claiming that he is capable of achieving peace and prosperity. Thus, the road that will be built between Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan region via Armenia was named after him (Trump Road). By concluding this agreement between these two countries, Trump also hopes to win the Nobel Peace Prize, for which he was nominated by the Pakistani Army Chief, Munir Asim, and the Prime Minister of the Jewish entity, Netanyahu. It is worth noting that the peace and prosperity that Trump claims to be working to achieve means achieving America’s interests, expanding its influence and hegemony over various regions of the world, and restoring its greatness, as he launched the slogan “America First” and “Make America Great Again (MAGA).”
5- The agreement states that (“The signatories to the agreement called on the participating states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and relevant structures on Minsk to accept the decision”). In other words, Trump is forcing the other states in the Minsk Group to accept this American decision without their participation or even consultation, and without giving them any value or attention. This is especially true for Russia and France, which share the leadership of the Minsk Group with America, which was formed to resolve the Azerbaijani-Armenian problem in 1992 by decision of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe! America signed this agreement independently of Russia and scheduled it before President Trump’s meeting with his Russian counterpart, Putin, to avoid any objection from Russia, which should be involved in the matter as it has influence in the region, especially in Armenia, having lost its influence in Azerbaijan, and as one of the leaders of the Minsk Group. He asked it, as he asked others in the group, to recognize and bless this agreement. Instead of Russia intervening and objecting, it did nothing to demonstrate the weakness of its position and the weakness of its influence, which is on the verge of disappearing in Armenia.
6- It appears that Russia is not in a position to intervene and forcefully object, thus influencing Armenia to prevent it from further strengthening its relations with America. It has preferred to go along with the situation, as if satisfied with what is happening, while sending warnings to Armenia to avoid losing it permanently. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said, “Therefore, the meeting between the leaders of the South Caucasus republics in Washington, facilitated by the United States, merits a positive assessment. We hope this step will advance a peaceful agenda.” However, she stressed “direct dialogue without third-party mediation.” and warned that “Involvement of actors outside the region should contribute to strengthening the peace agenda rather than create additional difficulties and dividing lines.” (Ministry of Russian Foreign Affairs; Al Jazeera, 9/8/2025). In other words, she is warning against the penetration of American influence there. Armenia had previously been warned against allying with the West. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on 24/7/2025, that (“While Armenia has the right to choose its political direction, Moscow hopes to avoid a repetition of the geopolitical shift witnessed in Ukraine.” He emphasized that “Russia still considers Armenia an ally and wants it to continue cooperating with us.” (Al Jazeera, 25/7/2025). This threatens Armenia with the fate of Ukraine, where Russia lost its influence following the fall of its agent Yanukovych in 2014 after America and Europe incited the Ukrainians to revolt against him. Last year, Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan announced in an interview with France 24 on 23/2/2023, (“the freezing of Armenia’s practical participation in the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization… because it has not achieved its goals regarding Armenia”).
Russia did not defend Armenia when Azerbaijan attacked it in 2020 and 2023, forcing it out of the territories it occupied in Azerbaijan. We had mentioned in a Question to Answer issued on 4/10/2023 that (Russia has most likely realized that this war is directed and planned against it by America through Erdogan’s Turkey and Azerbaijan, which has become its guardian, and will occupy it to no avail and disperse its forces. It is now focusing on its war in Ukraine, which is a fateful war that it does not want to lose. Russia knows that if it loses it, it will lose everything, and if it wins it, it will be able to restore its influence in the areas it has lost. At the same time, it does not want to clash with Turkey, which it needs in these circumstances and the blockade imposed on it. It is its gateway to the Western world. It also wants to maintain its relations with Azerbaijan, as it has investments there, especially in energy resources worth $6 billion. The volume of trade exchange between them is more than $4 billion. As for Armenia, it depends on it in everything…it is not unlikely that it will restore it to its full influence as it was if it won the war in Ukraine).
7- America has neglected Europe, especially France, which co-leads the Minsk Group. Trump has thus marginalized Europe, led by France, as he did with Russia, leaving the issue to his own devices. Indeed, Azerbaijan and Armenia have issued a joint letter calling for the dissolution of the Minsk Group. A statement issued by the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry on 11/8/2025, stated, (“The foreign ministers of the two countries addressed a joint letter to the OSCE Chairman-in-Office to terminate the Minsk Group.” “Following this call, a draft resolution on ending the Minsk process and related structures was circulated among the OSCE participating states.” It called on “Azerbaijan and Armenia to support the necessary measures to adopt this decision.” (Azerbaijani State News Agency, 11/8/2025). Thus, America is eliminating any European influence on this issue, allowing it to dominate the issue and extend its influence there. The two countries began implementing the agreement quickly, including (“withdrawing all mutual claims and disputes between them at the international level, as stipulated in the agreement” (the same source). France was forced to announce its acceptance of the dissolution of the Minsk Group and has had no role or influence since 2020, after Azerbaijan declared war on Armenia and then regained its territories, which the Minsk Group did not benefit from by regaining them, as the group claimed to be working on this through peaceful means. France began to flatter America so as not to appear to have lost and is looking for a role to play there. It claimed that it supports the agreement, even though it was the one that openly supported the Armenians against Azerbaijan.
8- Trump also neglected Turkey, which was waiting for its president, Erdogan, to be rewarded for his services by inviting him to Washington to attend the signing of the agreement. Erdogan played a significant role in supporting Azerbaijan and enabling it to defeat Armenia and liberate its occupied territories, thanks to American planning. But even this was begrudged by Trump, as he saw no need to finalize this agreement. Otherwise, he would have summoned Erdogan to Washington, or asked him to speak by phone with Azerbaijani President Aliyev, as he asked him to speak by phone with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa during his meeting with him in Riyadh on 13/5/2025, to comply with American demands. But in the Armenia-Azerbaijan agreement, he ignored him! Thus, the kaffir (disbelieving) colonizers reap the fruits, while others who revolve in their orbit or are agents plow and toil for them in exchange for their reward of remaining in power. And even this does not always happen. Will they not understand?!
9- Trump is keen to show off America’s greatness and his own greatness, and that he is the only person in the world who can make peace and accomplish difficult tasks, wage economic wars against enemies and friends, and ignite bloody wars directly or through the Jewish entity, as he did recently in Iran. He openly supports the Jewish entity in killing, starving and displacing the people of Gaza with no shame or fear to achieve his project of transforming it into a resort and without anyone being able to intervene to stop the genocide there or to bring in a morsel of bread in a proper way! He forgot that Allah had destroyed before him generations of people who were stronger, more numerous, and more deadly “than him and his country, America, and his base, the Jewish entity.” He forgot, or pretended to forget, that the Islamic Ummah, no matter how much oppression, subjugation, and injustice befalls it from its rulers, the allies of the kuffar, will rise up and revolt against them, overthrow them, and hand over its authority to one who is worthy from amongst it to rule it according to what Allah has revealed, thus restoring the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Caliphate) after this oppressive rule in which we live, in fulfillment of the glad-tiding of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in His noble Hadith that was narrated by Ahmad on the authority of Hudhayfah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«… ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكاً جَبْرِيَّةً فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ. ثُمَّ سَكَتَ»
“Then there will be an oppressive rule (ملكًا جبرية), and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah on the method of Prophethood.” Then he (saw) fell silent. And it carries its message to the world and spreads it, as stated in the noble Hadith narrated by Ahmad on the authority of Tamim al-Dari, who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
«لَيَبْلُغَنَّ هَذَا الْأَمْرُ مَا بَلَغَ اللَّيْلُ وَالنَّهَارُ، وَلَا يَتْرُكُ اللَّهُ بَيْتَ مَدَرٍ وَلَا وَبَرٍ إِلَّا أَدْخَلَهُ اللَّهُ هَذَا الدِّينَ، بِعِزِّ عَزِيزٍ أَوْ بِذُلِّ ذَلِيلٍ؛ عِزّاً يُعِزُّ اللَّهُ بِهِ الْإِسْلَامَ، وَذُلّاً يُذِلُّ اللَّهُ بِهِ الْكُفْر»
“There will not remain on the face of the earth a mud-brick house or a camel’s hair tent which Allah will not cause the confession of Islam to enter bringing both mighty honour and abject abasement. Allah will either honour the occupants and put them among its adherents, or will humiliate them and they will be subject to it.”This will happen by Allah’s permission.
[إِنَّ اللَّهَ بَالِغُ أَمْرِهِ قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدْراً]
“Certainly Allah achieves His Will. Allah has already set a destiny for everything” [At-Talaq: 3]
22 Safar 1447 AH
16/8/2025 CE -
Causes and Effects: Are Results Achieved at our Hands?
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمCauses and Effects: Are Results Achieved at our Hands?
[Victory (Nasr) as an Example]
(Translated)The study of causes and effects, the relationship between causes and effects, or what is known as the law of causality (sababiyyah), and whether this relationship is constant and unchanging, is a topic long addressed by scholars of academic, intellectual and Shariah research. The accepted, practical view among all people is that this relationship is self-evident and definitive. This interconnectedness is the Qadr (Predetermination) of Allah (swt) and His unchanging law for all things and people.
The term “cause” is used in this context in two senses. One is the intended meaning in both rational and tangible matters, i.e., something that is the cause of something else that results from it. This is like the shattering of glass upon impact, with something solid, or the falling of something suspended by a rope if the rope breaks, or the explosion of a closed object if the pressure inside it continues to increase. This impact, rupture, or pressure is a rational cause of a result or effect, namely the shattering, falling, or explosion. The effect inevitably results when it occurs and by its occurrence, that is, with it and by it. The term “cause” is also used in the technical, Shariah sense in the foundations of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh). This is like sighting the Hilal crescent moon of Ramadan or Shawwal to establish the Shariah obligation of Sawm (Shariah fasting) or Eid, or like the setting of the sun to establish the Shariah obligation of the Maghrib Salah (Shariah prayer). This is a cause (sabab) in the sense that it brings the ruling of Sawm, Eid, or Maghrib Salah into existence, but not in the sense of granting the ruling Shariah evidential basis. That is, the Shariah ruling is formed upon the basis of its Shariah evidence, but not brought into existence because it is not a rational cause. Therefore, it is said that in rational matters, a cause establishes the effect is both brought into existence by the cause and substantiated by it. However, in Shariah matters, the cause only brings the Shariah ruling into existence, but does not substantiate it as a ruling evidentially. What is meant in this research is the cause of rational or tangible matters, and it is the action, or actions, by which a goal is intended to be reached, and the intended goal is the effect or result.
The discussion of causes and effects is general for every cause and effect, or what is likely to be a cause and effect. For example, a study is a cause whose intended and desired result is success. Agriculture is a cause whose intended and desired result is harvest. Preparing for war and fighting is a cause, whose intended result is victory, the expansion of influence and power, and terrorizing the enemy. Punishments are a rational, material, and practical reason for preventing violations. The Shariah method for establishing the Islamic State is a material and practical cause for its establishment, which is the intended result. The topic of causes and effects is general, and all of these issues and examples fall under it. It also includes the meaning of the Arabic saying, من جَدَّ وَجَدَ ومن زَرَعَ حصد“Whoever strives will generate, and whoever sows will reap,” in all its generality.
Since this research is general in its coverage of these topics, what applies to any one of them in terms of its being a cause and effect, a result, or a goal, will apply to all others. The most frequently mentioned and questioned topic is the topic of victory (nasr), as a result of the actions that achieve it.
If the relationship between cause and effect is inevitable, and it is so, this means that taking the causes into account will inevitably lead to their results. That is, taking the causes of victory (nasr) will inevitably lead to victory. Is this true? If the causes of victory are in the hands of those who target it, this means that the results are also in their hands. Is this true? These questions are the requirements of this research.
It also requires, after establishing the inevitability of the connection between victory and its causes, to reconcile this fact with the Shariah texts that are definitive in narration, and definitive in evidencing, that victory comes from Allah (swt) Alone, such as the Almighty’s saying,
[وَمَا النَّصْرُ إلَّا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللهِ الْعَزِيزِ الْحَكِيمِ]
“And victory comes only from Allah—the Almighty, All-Wise.” [TMQ Surah Aali Imran: 126], and His saying,
[إن يَنْصُركُمُ اللهُ فَلَا غَالِبَ لَكُمْ وَإنْ يَخْذُلْكُمْ فَمَنْ ذَا الَّذِي يَنْصُرُكم مِنْ بَعْدِهِ وَعَلَى اللهِ فِلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُؤْمِنُون]
“If Allah helps you, none can defeat you. But if He denies you help, then who else can help you? So in Allah let the believers put their trust.” [TMQ Surah Aali Imran: 160], and His Saying,
[يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إنْ تَنْصُرُوا اللهَ يَنْصُرْكُمْ وَيُثَبِّتْ أَقْدَامَكُمْ]
“O believers! If you stand up for Allah, He will help you and make your steps firm.” [TMQ Surah Muhammad: 7]. Some observers see this as a contradiction that raises doubt about this truth or casts doubt on it. In other words, questions arise: Does achieving victory depend solely on causes based on the material law of causality, or does it come from Allah (swt) Alone, whether or not the causes are taken into account? In other words: Is there a contradiction between victory having material causes, and being an inevitable result of them if properly considered, and its coming from Allah (swt) Alone? Does the statement that if the causes are taken into account, victory is inevitable and always achieved, contradict the texts that limit victory (nasr) to coming from Allah (swt)? Does the statement that victory (nasr) comes from Allah (swt) and is given to whomever He wills, regardless of taking the causes, mean that the matter of preparation is merely a Shariah, ritual obligation, with no negative or positive impact whatsoever on victory, and that it contradicts the law of causality? Thus, the apparent problem that arises and raises questions becomes clear. The problem is that the relationship between cause and effect is a definitive rational truth, whilst the Shariah texts’ evidencing that victory comes from Allah (swt) is also a definitive truth, and confirmed truths do not contradict each other. What is the explanation? How can this problem be resolved, the contradiction between these two truths resolved by reconciliation, and their compatibility demonstrated?
The answer, first of all, does that truth contradict or conflict, whether they are either rational truths in themselves, or Shariah truths in themselves, or both Shariah and rational truths. They are all truths. If any apparent conflict between them occurs, it is not real. Instead, it is a misconception that can be dispelled with knowledge, scrutiny, and careful consideration. Therefore, it is called an apparent, not a real, conflict.
Therefore, there is no contradiction between the law of causality, or the inevitable relationship between causes and their effects, and the truth that victory (Nasr) comes from Allah (swt) Alone. If the cause occurs completely, then the occurrence of the effect or the result is inevitable. This is how Allah (swt) has ordained and mandated matters. If we see that the result does not occur, this does not mean that the law has been violated. Instead, it means that the cause did not occur, or did not occur completely. There may be an error, such as when the faa’iI (the doer of an action) thinks that what he is doing is a cause when it is not, or events may have aborted or obstructed the cause, and acted as obstacles, and this occurs frequently, or taking the causes into account may be incomplete and deficient, which makes the result probable, rather than certain. The strength of its probability is proportional to the taking of the causes. This matter is permanent, as no one, no matter how knowledgeable or important, can fully take the causes into account, because he will not be able to fully know them, nor will he be able to take into account everything he knows about them, let alone ignorance of the events and changes that arise. This makes taking the causes into account incomplete, and it is impossible to take them into account completely.
Therefore, the error, or flaw, in achieving a result is not due to a flaw in the law of linking causes to their effects. Instead it is due to an error and deficiency in taking the causes into account. This deficiency, in addition to the presence of causes that are not within human perception or human ability, makes the results uncertain. Therefore, it is certain that the results are in the Hand of Allah (swt) Alone and not in the hands of the doer, no matter how much the causes are taken. Man strives to take the causes that he believes will lead to the result, and when he does so, he can only take what he perceives of them, and what he is able to do from what he perceives. Since his perception is limited and imperfect, and his ability is also limited and imperfect, achieving the result or goal is not in his hands, but in the Knowledge of Allah (swt), and in His Hand Alone.
It may be said, ‘However, it is observed in many actions that achieving results occurs without lag, whether the action is simple, such as demolishing a wall or a murder, or complex, such as actions with many steps and stages, such as modern, advanced industries, for example.’ The answer is that the closer and more uncomplicated the causes of the desired goal are, or the causes of the desired result are, and the more comprehensible and attainable the possibility of taking the causes into account, the more the result is achieved. However, the result will still not reach completion. This is because there is always something beyond human comprehension and ability. There are obstacles or impediments that occur, preventing the completion of taking the causes, such as forgetfulness, death, the occurrence of counter-actions, or natural disasters such as an earthquake, stormy winds, or widespread diseases, and so on. Taking the causes certainly leads to the result, but no human being, no matter how much knowledge and ability he is given, even if he is a prophet, can take the causes completely.
The matter is made clearer by the Almighty’s saying,
[إنّ اللهَ لَا يُغَيّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّى يُغَيِّرُوا مَا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ]
“Indeed, Allah would never change a people’s state, until they change all that is in themselves.” [TMQ Surah Ar-Raad: 11]. This Shariah text indicates that Allah (swt) is the One Who changes what is with a people, in terms of their state and situation. It also indicates that He (swt) will not change what is with them until they change what is within themselves. This also raises considerations, because if they change what is within themselves, then they have changed, and the change has occurred, so why does Allah (swt) say that He will change what is with them after that? The answer is what was mentioned above, that there are causes for change that are within people’s hands, and there are those that are beyond their understanding and capabilities. So, they must change what is within them, that is, within their hands. If they do so, Allah (swt) will change what is not within their hands, and the desired change will be achieved.
Taking victory (nasr) in war as an example, the above becomes clear. Victory is an intended outcome, achieved through its causes, such as preparation, planning, combat, and so on. Taking the causes of victory is essential to achieving it. However, no matter how much intellectual, material and military power, or the ability to analyze and plan, those who take the causes may never fully grasp all the causes of victory (nasr), or even its cause. Preparation will remain incomplete. In addition, the enemy also plans and takes the causes into account. Also included are the emergencies that only Allah (swt) knows about, such as a breach, betrayal, coup, assassinations, the death of leaders, the spread of diseases, natural disasters, and so on. These real-life examples demonstrate that the causes of victory cannot be fully grasped, and that the causes taken into account may be disrupted by human or natural causes. This demonstrates that tangible truths also indicate that results and goals, including victory (nasr), come from Allah Alone. Thus, the aforementioned alleged contradiction is resolved through reconciliation, revealing that it is an apparent and illusory contradiction.
There are other issues related to this topic, such as the fact that victory comes from Allah (swt). If the kuffar are victorious over other kuffar or over Muslims, is it Allah (swt) who grants them victory? Another issue is that the Quranic verses indicate that Allah’s victory for believers is conditional upon their supporting Him, and that if they support Him, He will grant them victory. Supporting believers for Allah (swt) means that they worship and obey Him. Does this condition mean that if they disobey Him, He will not grant them victory? Another issue is that saying that outcomes are in Allah’s Hand, not ours, means that people and those charged with Shariah obligations, are not responsible for defeats or their failure to achieve goals?
The answer to the first question is that Allah (swt) says,
[وَمَا النَّصْرُ إلَّا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللهِ الْعَزِيزِ الْحَكِيمِ]
“Victory comes only from Allah. Surely Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.” [TMQ Surah Al-Anfal 10]. Victory is limited to Allah (swt) Alone, and this applies to all victories, whether they are for believers or for kuffar. This means that Allah (swt) grants victory to believers and those who are committed to His Will, as well as to kuffar, those who are not believing, worshipful or obedient.
This leads to the following question: If the victory (nasr) of the disobedient, the kuffar, and their like is from Allah (swt), does this not contradict the verses that indicate that the Iman of the believers and their support for Allah (swt) is a condition for His support for victory for them? These Quranic verses include Allah’s Saying,
[يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إنْ تَنْصُرُوا اللهَ يَنْصُرْكُمْ وَيُثَبِّتْ أَقْدَامَكُمْ]
“O believers! If you support Allah, He will support you and make your steps firm” [TMQ Surah Muhammad: 7], and His Saying,
[إِنْ يَنْصُرْكُمُ اللهُ فَلَا غَالِبَ لَكُمْ وَإنْ يَخْذُلْكُمْ فَمَنْ ذَا الَّذِي يَنْصُرُكُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِه وَعَلَى اللهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ]
“If Allah supports you, none can defeat you. However, if He denies you support, then who else can support you? So in Allah let the believers put their trust” [TMQ Surah Aali Imran: 160] and His Saying,
[وَكَانَ حَقَّاً عَلَيْنَا نَصْرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ]
“It is Our duty to support the believers” [TMQ Surah Ar-Rum: 47]. It is well known that, أنّ الشرطَ يلزمُ من عدمه العدم“the condition necessitates through its own absence, absence of the conditioned.” Is there no contradiction between the statement that Allah (swt) grants victory to sinners and kuffar, and the statement that Iman and obedience are conditions for attaining Allah’s victory?
The answer is that there is absolutely no contradiction between these Shariah texts. Allah (swt)’s statement,
[وَمَا النَّصْرُ إلَّا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللهِ]
“And victory comes only from Allah,” [TMQ Surah Al-Anfal: 10] is general in every victory, whether for the kuffar or the believers. In addition to this general evidence, there is specific evidence on the subject that confirms its generality. It is Allah (swt) support for victory of the Romans over the Persians, as He, Allah (swt), informed us that the Romans would be victorious, and that this would be due to the support of Allah (swt) for them. Allah (swt) said,
[وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُون * بِنَصْرِ اللهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ]
“And on that day the believers will rejoice (4) at the victory willed by Allah. He gives victory to whoever He wills. For He is the Almighty, Most Merciful (5)” [TMQ Surah Ar-Rum: 4-5]. It is well known that the Romans are kafir, meaning that the condition of Iman and obedience is not met among them. This statement is established. The texts also indicate that the believers’ support of Allah (swt) is a condition for His support of them. Allah (swt) says,
[إنْ تَنْصُرُوا اللهَ يَنْصُرْكُمْ]
“If you support Allah, He will support you” [TMQ Surah Muhammad: 47]. This is definitive evidence. However, this does not mean that disobedience negates the possibility of the victory of Allah (swt). The explanation for this is that this condition is not a condition for victory in itself. Instead, it is a condition for the inevitability of the victory of Allah for the believers, because they deserve His victory. That is, Allah (swt) determined upon Himself that the Iman of the believers and their support for Him necessitates His victory for them. It is a promise from Allah or a covenant He prescribed upon Himself as a favor from Him to the believers. As in the Saying of Allah (swt),
[وَعْدَاً عِلِيْهِ حَقَّاً فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنْجِيلِ وَالْقُرْآنِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللهِ]
“This is a true promise binding on Him in the Torah, the Injeel, and the Quran. And whose promise is truer than Allah’s?” [TMQ Surah at-Tawba 111] and He (swt) said,
[كَتَبَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ الرَّحْمَةَ]
“Your Lord has prescribed Himself to be Merciful.” [TMQ Surah al-Anaam 54] The same is true here in the matter of victory, and is confirmed by the Saying of Allah (swt),
[وَكَانَ حَقَّاً عَلَيْنَا نَصْرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ]
“For it is Our duty to support the believers.” [TMQ Surah Ar-Rum 47] It is a right upon Allah (swt), i.e. a covenant from Him, or a promise that He, glory be to Him, prescribed upon Himself, that if you do such and such, He will support you. So the condition in the Saying of Allah (swt),
[إنْ تَنْصُرُوا اللهَ يَنْصُرْكُمْ]
“If you support Allah (swt), He will support you” [TMQ Surah Muhammad: 47] is not a condition for Allah’s victory for them. Instead, it is a condition for the Covenant and Promise from Allah (swt) to them to grant them victory, and Allah does not break His promise or covenant. Therefore, if Iman or obedience is absent, victory from Allah (swt) is not absent, but His promise of victory is absent. Then He does what He wills, so He grants victory or does not grant victory, He grants victory to this group or that, and He abandons this group or that, as Allah (swt) said in Surat Ar-Rum:
[يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ]
“He gives victory to whoever He wills. For He is the Almighty, Most Merciful.” [TMQ Surah Ar-Rum: 5]. If they believe and commit, then Allah (swt) will grant them victory.
As for the question of responsibility for failure, defeat, or the lack of victory, the answer is that these are all consequences. It has already been stated that outcomes are in the Hand of Allah (swt) lone, and are beyond the control of humans. Allah (swt) says,
[لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللهُ نَفْسَاً إِلّا وُسْعَهَا لَهَا مَا كَسَبَتْ وَعَلَيْهَا مَا اكْتَسَبَتْ]
“Allah does not require of any soul more than what it can afford. All good will be for its own benefit, and all evil will be to its own loss.” [TMQ Surah Al-Baqarah: 286]. Therefore, it is not correct to hold those in charge of actions accountable for the results. However, it is correct and necessary that they be asked about, and held accountable for, taking the causes that would lead to the results. They are held accountable for negligence, shortcomings, or errors in taking them. This is because results are reached through their causes. The Shariah obligation falls on taking the causes, not achieving the results. Therefore, we do not find in the Shariah, for example, “secure victory for yourselves.” Instead we find in the Noble Quran, [وأعِدُّوا] “And prepare” [انْفِرُوا] “go forth,” [قَاتِلُوا] “fight, [اقْتُلُوهُمْ] kill them, [فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ] “strike their necks” and [فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ] “then secure the bindings.” If a Shariah command is given as a result, then it must be diverted from the result to its causes. An example of this is that
Shariah law commands Muslims to love one another. However, love is not a predetermined action that a person performs. It is not like selling, fighting, performing Salah, or speaking. Instead, it is a result that only occurs through diverting to its causes. Therefore, the Prophet (saw) instructed us to perform predetermined actions that are likely causes that lead to the result of love, such as greeting one another and exchanging gifts. He (saw) said, «لا تَدْخُلُونَ الجَنَّةَ حتَّى تُؤْمِنُوا، ولا تُؤْمِنُوا حتَّى تَحابُّوا، أوَلا أدُلُّكُمْ علَى شيءٍ إذا فَعَلْتُمُوهُ تَحابَبْتُمْ؟ أفْشُوا السَّلامَ بيْنَكُمْ»“You shall not enter Paradise so long as you do not affirm belief, and you will not believe as long as you do not love one another. Should I not direct you to a thing which, if you do, will foster love amongst you? Exchange salaams.” This is narrated by Bukhari and Muslim, with the wording of Muslim, here, whilst Bukhari narrated «تهَادُوا تَحَابُّوا» “exchange gifts and you will love each other.” Regarding the issue of accountability and responsibility, and that it is based on taking causes and not results, I will briefly point out instances that occurred with the Prophet (saw), and contemplating them fully demonstrates what was mentioned above. These instances are when the Muslims lost the Battle of Uhud while under the Prophet’s (saw) leadership. He cannot be held accountable for this outcome, nor accused of negligence because of it, as he was the infallible (ma’soom) one to whom revelation was sent. Likewise, it can only be said that he took the necessary measures to the best of his ability. The same can be said of the Battle of Hunayn, where the Muslims lost at the beginning of the battle before achieving victory. As for the Battle of Badr, the Prophet (saw) had chosen a location for his military camp, and this was taking the necessary measures. However, Al-Hubab ibn Al-Mundhir (ra) argued with him that there was a better location than this to achieve victory, so he (saw) accepted his advice and changed his location. This demonstrates that taking the necessary measures is subject to shortcomings and errors, but also involves diligence, and requires sincere advice and accountability. Contrary to the results, there was no accountability for the loss at Uhud, nor for what happened at the beginning of the Battle of Hunayn. The Prophet (saw) almost made concessions at the Battle of the Trench, despite having dug the trench and prepared as much as he could. These concessions were a reason within his control, one he intended to take to prevent a potential defeat beyond his control. However, the Companions (ra) argued with him about the reason, and he changed his mind.
Examples of the above are numerous, and they demonstrate that people’s adherence to the necessary causes is insufficient to achieve definitive results. They also demonstrate that results are in the Hand of Allah (swt) Alone, and that accountability is based on the adoption of the causes, not the results. They demonstrate that since adopting the causes is incomplete, is beset by a lack of knowledge and miscalculations, is hindered by obstacles, and leads to failure, then the causes must be reconsidered to address any obstacle, error, or deficiency. And Allah is the Grantor of success and the One sought for help.
