-
Let us Abandon Fatalism and Passiveness
Throughout the Muslim World, the Muslims are living under an era of persecution because of their Deen. They witness those who are calling to Islam facing immense persecution. The persecution is to the extent that the regimes do not shy from persecuting the elderly, the ill or the women. Matters have come to a point where the regimes are exposed in their deviation from the Deen of Islam. Indeed, it is the time to strive upon truth in order to end the Fitnah unleashed by the rulers.
However, instead, some Muslims keep distance from the struggle for the Deen, saying that, “This time of Fitna is in the Knowledge of Allah ﷻ, so let us leave it to Him.” They then become paralyzed by fatalism, remaining passive before all the tyranny they witness. They become spectators to the struggle between the advocates of Khilafah and the tyrants, rather than active participants, giving their full share to end the rule of tyranny. So the journalist who can write regarding the oppression, does not lift his pen. The alim (scholar) who can give Khutbah in support of the call for the Khilafah, does not speak. The human rights activists who can raise the case of the oppressed, turn away. And the army officer who can grant Nussrah to stop the tyrants at the height of their tyranny, declines to do so. However, they have fallen into error and exposed themselves to sin, because the Knowledge of Allah ﷻ is not an excuse for inaction.
Indeed, all that has happened, is happening and will happen to the Ummah is already in the Knowledge of Allah ﷻ. Allah ﷻ said,
﴿وَعِنْدَهُ مَفَاتِحُ الْغَيْبِ لاَ يَعْلَمُهَا إِلاَّ هُوَ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ وَمَا تَسْقُطُ مِنْ وَرَقَةٍ إِلاَّ يَعْلَمُهَا وَلاَ حَبَّةٍ فِي ظُلُمَاتِ الأَرْضِ وَلاَ رَطْبٍ وَلاَ يَابِسٍ إِلاَّ فِي كِتَابٍ مُبِينٍ﴾
“With Him are the keys of the Unseen, the treasures that none knows but He. He knows whatever there is on the earth and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but with His knowledge: There is not a grain in the darkness (or depths) of the earth, nor any thing fresh or dry (green or withered), but is (Written) in a Clear Book (to those who can read).” [Al-An’aam 6:59]
The Clear Book (كتاب مبين Kitaabun Mubeen) mentioned in the Aayah is the Protected Tablet (اللوح المحفوظ al-LauH ul-MaHfooDH). It comes as confirmation to His saying,
﴿إِلاَّ يَعْلَمُهَا﴾
‘that none knows but He’.
Thus, it is a Metonymy (كناية Kinaayah) about the ‘Ilm of Allah ﷻ.
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ ensured that the first generation, the best of all generations, never used the Knowledge of Allah swt as an excuse for inaction. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ ordered the Muslims to undertake good actions at all times and forbade them from using the Knowledge of Allah ﷻ as an excuse for inaction. Bukhari narrated that `Ali (ra) said: We were in the company of the Prophet ﷺ and he said,
«مَا مِنْكُمْ مِنْ أَحَدٍ إِلاَّ وَقَدْ كُتِبَ مَقْعَدُهُ مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ وَمَقْعَدُهُ مِنَ النَّارِ»
“There is none among you but has his place Written for him, either in Paradise or in the Hell-Fire.”
We said, “O Allah’s Messenger ﷺ! Shall we depend (on this fact and give up work)?” He replied,
«لاَ، اعْمَلُوا فَكُلٌّ مُيَسَّرٌ»
“No! Carry on doing good deeds, for everybody will find easy (to do) such deeds as will lead him to his Known place.”
Then the Prophet ﷻ recited,
﴿فَأَمَّا مَنْ أَعْطَىٰ وَاتَّقَىٰ (5) وَصَدَّقَ بِالْحُسْنَىٰ (6) فَسَنُيَسِّرُهُ لِلْيُسْرَىٰ (7) وَأَمَّا مَن بَخِلَ وَاسْتَغْنَىٰ (8) وَكَذَّبَ بِالْحُسْنَىٰ (9) فَسَنُيَسِّرُهُ لِلْعُسْرَى ﴾
“As for him who gives (in charity) and keeps his duty to Allah (5) And believes in the Best reward (6) We will ease him towards ease (7) And as for the one who is stingy, indifferent (8) and staunchly denies the finest reward (9) and we will ease him towards hardship.” [Surah al-Layl 92:5-10].”
Thus, Iman (belief) in the Knowledge of Allah ﷻ does not mean depending on it, because al-Qadar and Kitaabah, i.e. the Knowledge of Allah, are not known to any creature without His grant, so on what does man have to depend to decide whether he acts or does not act? The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to the one who asked him, should not we depend? No, i.e. he ﷺ forbade him from depending. Moreover, he ﷺ was not satisfied with that alone and insisted as well: ﴾اعْمَلُوا﴿ ‘Work’, i.e. he ordered him to action. Thus his Forbiddance (نهي Nahee) from depending (on the Knowledge of Allah ﷻ) and his Command (أمر Amr) of working is Explicit Evidence (دليل صريح Daleel SareeH) for not linking the action with the Knowledge of Allah ﷻ.
So, when Allah ﷻ granted the Messenger of Allah ﷺ glad tidings of the time of security in Yemen, after the time of great hardship in Makkah, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not allow the Muslims to depend on that knowledge and stop acting to ensure the dominance of the Deen. It is narrated by Khabab bin al-Arat, who was persecuted severely, “We complained to Allah’s Messenger ﷺ (of the persecution inflicted on us by the infidels) while he was sitting in the shade of the Ka`ba, leaning over his Burd (i.e. covering sheet). We said to him, “Would you seek help for us? Would you pray to Allah for us? He ﷺ said,
«كَانَ الرَّجُلُ فِيمَنْ قَبْلَكُمْ يُحْفَرُ لَهُ فِي الأَرْضِ فَيُجْعَلُ فِيهِ، فَيُجَاءُ بِالْمِنْشَارِ، فَيُوضَعُ عَلَى رَأْسِهِ فَيُشَقُّ بِاثْنَتَيْنِ، وَمَا يَصُدُّهُ ذَلِكَ عَنْ دِينِهِ، وَيُمْشَطُ بِأَمْشَاطِ الْحَدِيدِ، مَا دُونَ لَحْمِهِ مِنْ عَظْمٍ أَوْ عَصَبٍ، وَمَا يَصُدُّهُ ذَلِكَ عَنْ دِينِهِ، وَاللَّهِ لَيُتِمَّنَّ هَذَا الأَمْرَ حَتَّى يَسِيرَ الرَّاكِبُ مِنْ صَنْعَاءَ إِلَى حَضْرَمَوْتَ، لاَ يَخَافُ إِلاَّ اللَّهَ أَوِ الذِّئْبَ عَلَى غَنَمِهِ، وَلَكِنَّكُمْ تَسْتَعْجِلُونَ»
“Among the nations before you a (believing) man would be put in a ditch that was dug for him, and a saw would be put over his head and he would be cut into two pieces; yet that (torture) would not make him give up his religion. His body would be combed with iron combs that would remove his flesh from the bones and nerves, yet that would not make him abandon his religion. By Allah, this religion (i.e. Islam) will prevail till a traveler from Sana (in Yemen) to Hadrarmaut will fear none but Allah, or a wolf as regards his sheep, but you (people) are hasty.”
So, this Knowledge of Allah ﷻ granted to The Messenger of Allah ﷺ about a time of security in Yemen, was not used in as an excuse for the Companions to abandoning striving to establish Islam in the face of persecution. No, they were patient, they strove and they were victorious. Thus, they raised their voices for Islam, they granted the Nussrah to establish Islam and they waged Jihad in the Way of Allah swt to ensure the dominance of Islam.
Similarly, regarding our time of persecution, The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was granted glad tidings of the return of the Khilafah before the return of the Mehdi. It was narrated by Umm Salamah (r.a) who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,
«يَكُونُ اخْتِلَافٌ عِنْدَ مَوْتِ خَلِيفَةٍ فَيَخْرُجُ رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ، فَيَأْتِي مَكَّةَ، فَيَسْتَخْرِجُهُ النَّاسُ مِنْ بَيْتِهِ وَهُوَ كَارِهٌ فَيُبَايِعُونَهُ بَيْنَ الرُّكْنِ وَالْمَقَامِ، فَيُجَهَّزُ إِلَيْهِ جَيْشٌ مِنَ الشَّامِ، حَتَّى إِذَا كَانُوا بِالْبَيْدَاءِ خُسِفَ بِهِمْ، فَيَأْتِيهِ عَصَائِبُ الْعِرَاقِ وَأَبْدَالُ الشَّامِ، وَيَنْشَأُ رَجُلٌ بِالشَّامِ، وَأَخْوَالُهُ كَلْبٌ فَيُجَهَّزُ إِلَيْهِ جَيْشٌ، فَيَهْزِمُهُمُ اللَّهُ، فَتَكُونُ الدَّبْرَةُ عَلَيْهِمْ، فَذَلِكَ يَوْمُ كَلْبٍ، الْخَائِبُ: مَنْ خَابَ مِنْ غَنِيمَةِ كَلْبٍ، فَيَسْتَفْتِحُ الْكُنُوزَ، وَيُقِسِّمُ الْأَمْوَالَ، وَيُلْقِي الْإِسْلَامُ بِجِرَانِهِ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ، فَيَعِيشُ بِذَلِكَ سَبْعَ سِنِينَ أَوْ قَالَ: تِسْعَ سِنِينَ»
“Disagreement will occur at the death of a Khaleefah, and a man of Bani Hashim will flee to Makkah and some of the people of Makkah will come to him and will bring him out against his will, and they will pledge allegiance to him between the corner (Black Stone) and the Maqam. An army will be sent against him from Ash-Shaam, which will be swallowed up by the earth in Al-Baida. When the people see that, the devoted worshippers (Abdaal) from Ash-Shaam and the best people (Asaa’ib) from Al-Iraq will come to him and pledge allegiance to him. Then there will arise a man in Ash-Sham whose maternal uncles belong to Kalb and send against them an expeditionary force which will be overcome by them, and that is the expedition of Kalb. The real loser will be the one who does not receive the booty of Kalb. He will divide the wealth and Islam will become established on earth and he will remain for seven years, or he ﷺ said nine years.” (Reported by al-Tabarani in al-Awsat, and al-Haythami mentioned it in Majma’ al-Zawaid, and said, “the transmitters are sound and authentic.”) The narrators of the hadeeth and its commentary agree that the Khaleefah mentioned in this hadeeth is al-Mahdi. For at the beginning of the hadeeth, he ﷺ said:
«اخْتِلَافٌ عِنْدَ مَوْتِ خَلِيفَةٍ»
“Disagreement will occur at the death of a Khaleefah”, meaning that the Khilafah exists before the appearance of Imam Mahdi.
So, how are we to take this glad tidings in our time? Does this mean that the Dawah Carrier can abandon the call and become silent? Or the Alim, human rights activist and journalist decline their support for the Khilafah project? Or the army officer turn away from his duty to grant Nussrah (Material Support)? No, by no means, no! O Muslims, The Messenger of Allah warned us of a time when corruption will spread in a time of Fitna. However, he ﷺ also pointed to those who will be blessed with the pleasure of Allah ﷻ even in that time. This is proven by the hadith of Sahl b. Sa’d as-Saa’idi (ra) who said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,
«بدأ الإسلام غريباً وسيعود غريباً كما بدأ فطوبى للغرباء قالوا يا رسول الله ومن الغرباء؟ قال الذين يصلحون عند فساد الناس»
“Islam began as something strange, and it shall return to being something strange, so give glad tidings to the strangers.” It was asked, “Who are those strangers, O Messenger of Allah?” He replied, “Those that correct the sunnah when the people become corrupt.” This is the narration of at-Tabaraani in his al-Kabeer. And in the narration in al-Awsat as-Sagheer we have: «يصلحون إذا فسد الناس» “They correct the people when (izaa) they become corrupt.” The word ‘إذا’ (when) is used for that which comes in the future. This indicates that the corruption will occur after the time of the Companions (ra). So let us abandon fatalism and passiveness. Let us perform our duties so that we may be of those who witness the glad tidings and earn the good pleasure of Allah ﷻ.
-
Q&A: Iraq and the Fate of Pro-Iranian Factions
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answer to Question
Iraq and the Fate of Pro-Iranian Factions
(Translated)Question:
Asharq Al-Awsat published on its website on 4 August 2026: “The Iraqi government finds itself facing a highly sensitive equation, experiencing political and security paralysis between Washington’s demands to disarm the factions and the deeply entrenched Iranian influence within Iraqi political, security, and economic institutions. The Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) had announced on 29/7/2026, that at least 20 PMF members were killed and 32 others wounded in attacks launched by American and Saudi fighter jets targeting official PMF headquarters in several Iraqi provinces.” (Asharq Al-Awsat, 4/8/2026). “The United States and Saudi Arabia had launched a joint attack on what they claimed were sites belonging to Iranian-backed militias in Iraq.” (Al-Hurra, 31/7/2026). This was carried out after Prime Minister Ali Faleh al-Zaidi returned from an official visit to the United States! What is behind all of the above at this particular time? Has America’s grip on Iraq tightened even further?
Answer:
To clarify these questions, let’s examine the following:
1- With the American occupation of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, America dealt a decisive blow to the Iraqi regime / Ba’athist regime and those behind it, namely British influence in the entire region. However, British influence continued to thrive through Saudi Arabia. Former Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal was outspoken in his criticism of American policy in Iraq, stating that the areas occupied by America were being handed over to Iran. But with the death of the British agent King Abdullah in 2015 and the ascension of American agents Salman and his son Mohammed (MBS) to power in Saudi Arabia, America dealt a fatal blow to British influence in the region. All that remained for the British were the Gulf States and Jordan. They are all small states with no power to oppose the American influence, and incapable of even causing disruption! Thus, America became the de facto power in the region.
2- American policy in its war on Islam under the pretext of terrorism necessitated the sectarian division of the Muslim world. In line with this policy, Iran became a sectarian center, mirroring the other sectarian center, Saudi Arabia. This policy also required expanding Iran’s role in the region, a role that included penetrating Iraq and building influence there under the shadow of the American occupation, as well as its influence through sectarian groups in Yemen and Lebanon, and its sectarian extension into Syria and elsewhere. America remained in dire need of this Iranian role.
3- With the end of America’s need for Iran in Syria, Iran’s role as defined by American policy came to an end, and it was asked to withdraw. Indeed, Iran began to withdraw from Syria and immediately pulled its forces out. It did not participate in the war against the Jewish entity, despite the assassination of its party leaders in Lebanon. However, it refused to back down on its nuclear program. Then, the Jewish entity launched a war against it in 2025, and Iran found itself biting its lip in regret for not fighting “when the white bull was eaten”—that is, immediately after the events of October 7th, 2023—but rather contenting itself with the role of its party in Lebanon. Therefore, the war in 2025, and the subsequent rounds led by America and its close ally the Jewish entity, represented a policy of eliminating the Iranian role in the region. Iraqi groups loyal to Tehran began fighting alongside it, launching missiles and drones against American targets in Iraq and some Gulf States. Here, America insisted on eliminating the Iranian role in Iraq as part of the new Trump administration’s policy to reduce Iran to a subordinate state and diminish its regional role if possible. Therefore, the driving force behind the current political developments in Iraq is Trump’s policy of eliminating the Iranian influence in Iraq.
4- America, which occupied Iraq in 2003 and established a sectarian political system that granted Iran significant influence, now seeks to end this situation. It wants Iraqi governments to reorient themselves as an Arab state, not sectarian one, meaning severing ties with Iran and normalizing relations with the Gulf States and other Arab countries. All of this is part of a broader effort to counter Iranian influence in Iraq or eliminate its presence altogether. The US has imposed sanctions on Iranian gas supplies to Iraq, urging Baghdad to seek non-Iranian alternatives. Since Iraq’s proposed alternative was Turkmen gas, which would have to transit through Iran, America rejected it. The US also refused to allow Iraq to import electricity from Iran: [The United States ended the sanctions waiver that allowed Iraq to purchase electricity from neighboring Iran, in line with President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy on Tehran. (Al Jazeera Net, 9/3/2025)]. Prior to this, the US also imposed sanctions on any Iraqi entity conducting dollar transactions with Iran: [The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, citing US officials, that the United States has banned 14 Iraqi banks from conducting dollar transactions. The newspaper report stated that the ban, imposed by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is part of a broader campaign against the transfer of US currency to Iran. (Al-Quds Al-Arabi, 19/7/2023)].
5- On the other hand, the United States is demanding that the Iraqi government clamp down on pro-Iranian groups and exclude them from the government: [Sources revealed that the United States threatened senior Iraqi politicians with sanctions that could affect the Iraqi state itself, including the potential targeting of its most important financial lifeline—oil revenues deposited in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—if armed groups supported by Iran are included in the next Iraqi government. According to four sources who spoke to Reuters, this warning is one of the strongest examples so far of US President Donald Trump’s campaign to reduce the influence of groups linked to Iran within Iraq. (Sky News Arabia, 23/1/2026)]. In a move indicating the Iraqi government’s compliance with US directives, it announced its neutrality in the ongoing conflict with Iran. This neutrality means that it does not side with Iran; otherwise, the US military would be using Iraqi territory to strike Iran and Iraqi groups loyal to Iran, as well as to encourage the Jewish entity to establish military bases, as revealed by some newspapers: [Following previous reports about the existence of an Israeli base on Iraqi soil, a report in The New York Times revealed that “Israel” had established a second secret military base in the western desert of Iraq. (Deutsche Welle, 18/5/2026)].
6- Then America began to openly interfere in who heads the government. Despite Maliki being a loyal American agent and ruled Iraq with a firm American grip during the occupation, the Trump administration openly opposed his re-election as Prime Minister of Iraq. Trump said: “Last time Maliki was in power, the Country descended into poverty and total chaos. That should not be allowed to happen again. Because of his insane policies and ideologies, if elected, the United States of America will no longer help Iraq.” (Sky News Arabia, 29/1/2026). [Maliki had been nominated by the largest political bloc in the Iraqi parliament to head the government. (Al Arabiya, 14/2/2026)]. Despite his protests, Maliki, along with other Iraqis, was unable to overcome Trump’s insistence: [In response to threats from US President Donald Trump, former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki affirmed on Wednesday his rejection of “blatant American interference in Iraq’s internal affairs,” considering it a “violation of his country’s sovereignty.” In protest against Trump’s statements, hundreds demonstrated in Baghdad near the Green Zone, where the US embassy is located. (France 24, 28/1/2026)]. Thus, Trump’s statements unequivocally revealed the true nature of America’s dealings with agent states and its agents. Indeed, Maliki was rejected, and on 27/4/2026, the appointment of a figure acceptable to America took place, Ali al-Zaidi. This reveals that Iranian influence in Iraq is extremely fragile, not even reaching the level of influence itself. Rather, it was America that provided Iran with space and facilitated its actions in Iraq to implement its policies.
7- When America sought to end this role, it began demanding that the Iraqi government disarm these groups and set deadlines for doing so, just as it was demanding of Lebanon regarding the Lebanese-Iranian party. Indeed, two Iraqi groups agreed to disarm: [In early June, fighters from the Peace Brigades (Saraya al-Salam), militias loyal to the Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, gathered in Samarra to hand over their weapons to the Iraqi government. This disarmament process represented the group’s withdrawal from the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a powerful alliance comprised mostly of Shiite militias, operating both inside and outside the Iraqi state. Thousands of Peace Brigades fighters were the first to withdraw from this alliance, and they were not the last: Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, another powerful militia, also announced their withdrawal from the PMF. Several prominent Iranian-backed militias remain firmly committed to serving Tehran’s interests in Iraq and the wider region. However, the split of the PMF constitutes a real blow to Iran. (Independent Arabia 12/7/2026)]. The state sets a deadline for the surrender of weapons: [Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi said on Tuesday that his country would not allow any entity to bear arms outside the framework of the state after the end of September. During his meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House, al-Zaidi emphasized that his government’s approach is based on restricting weapons to official security forces. (Sky News Arabia,14/7/2026)]. Therefore, the political developments in Iraq today are linked to the US policy of eliminating Iran’s former role and influence in Iraq. America’s success in this regard appears significant, not only in terms of military and political pressure on Iraq but also in the financial situation. Iraqi oil revenues are transferred to an account in the US Treasury, so the Iraqi government cannot pay its employees’ salaries without the US Treasury’s approval!
8- One issue remains: the campaign to expose corruption and corrupt individuals in Iraq. This campaign can only be directed against those linked to Iran in Iraq, threatening them with it. Although it has affected others, the Iraqi regime, which America built to be a model of democracy in the region, is riddled with corruption from top to bottom, making it the most corrupt of all these regimes. [The Iraqi government, in its latest statements, says that it has arrested 21 officials so far, accused of involvement in cases of financial and administrative corruption, while a number of other wanted individuals remain at large… Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi confirmed, during a cabinet meeting, that the government is continuing to combat corruption and recover public funds… Economist Abdul Rahman al-Mashhadani, in an interview with Al Jazeera Net, estimates the economic cost of financial and political corruption in Iraq at more than one trillion dollars, noting that a large portion of the looted funds has been integrated into foreign economies. (Al Jazeera Net, 3/7/2026)].
9- Thus, after the Iraqi president appointed Ali al-Zaidi as prime minister, the list of American demands, according to Al-Sharq TV on 10/5/2026, included taking practical measures to remove Iranian influence from the Iraqi government and disarming armed factions. Indeed, al-Zaidi began implementing the American demands: [The dismissals and extensive changes made by Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi in sensitive security and economic institutions, after his meeting with US envoy Tom Barrack and prior to his anticipated visit to Washington, sparked controversy regarding whether his “measures” were a step to reassert state authority or a response to pressure targeting the influence of factions close to Iran. (Al Jazeera Net, 19/6/2026)]. Then, political developments in Iraq accelerated: [The Iraqi capital, Baghdad, witnessed an unprecedented security operation in the Green Zone, where Iraqi elite forces arrested 47 officials, including 12 current members of parliament, on corruption charges, on the orders of Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi. The campaign ousted the Deputy Oil Minister, Ali Maarij, who was subject to US sanctions. (BBC 30/6/2026)].
10- Thus, it becomes clear that political influence in Iraq is purely American influence. America rejected the nomination of the Coordination Framework, which is described as loyal to Iran, of Nouri al-Maliki, and imposed on it the nomination of Ali al-Zaidi. The Coordination Framework did so. Then it ordered al-Zaidi to remove these groups and disarm them, even though only a few days had passed since his appointment. He actually began to do so, and then he launched an anti-corruption campaign. Therefore, the anti-corruption campaign is a sword hanging over the loyalists of Iran in Iraq, even if it affects other officials, as it is difficult to find an official in Iraq who is free from corruption. It is as if al-Zaidi’s government, and behind it America, is threatening the armed factions, the groups loyal to Iran, and the officials with the necessity of implementing the state’s orders quickly, and in case of delay, corruption files await them, and these are large files. Without this connection, the anti-corruption campaign cannot be understood in a political system that America built corrupt in all its aspects.
11- As for what some believe—that Iraq is trying to balance American and Iranian influence, citing Ali al-Zaidi’s visit to the White House on 13/7/2026, where he was warmly received by President Trump, followed by his visit to Tehran on 23/7/2026—and also: [According to a report published by Axios, al-Zaidi insisted on proceeding with his official visit to the United States despite Iranian attempts to cancel it, before meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House. The report also noted that the Iraqi Prime Minister attended the funeral of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei a few days prior, before traveling to Washington, in a scene reflecting the balance Baghdad is trying to maintain in its relations with both Tehran and Washington. (Al-Arabiya,16/7/2026)], this balancing act is far from reality. Nothing demonstrates the reality of American influence in Iraq more clearly than the American military presence since 2003. Many officials speak of the withdrawal of American forces, only to discover later that they are still present and capable of striking even Iraqi factions, as they have been doing with helicopters. During the war on Iran, this indicates the proximity of the airports from which the attacks originated, as well as America’s facilitation of the establishment of temporary military bases by the Jewish entity in Iraq to launch attacks on Iran. Furthermore, Iraqi oil revenues are deposited into a special account in the US Treasury by various importing countries. America then funds the Iraqi government to the level of its compliance with US policy. Today, the US demands that the Iraqi government respond quickly by removing Iranian influence from the government and dismissing officials with ties to Iran, even those considered loyal US agents, such as Nouri al-Maliki. The US also pressured the Coordination Framework, described as loyal to Iran, to nominate al-Zaidi, only to then incite al-Zaidi to turn against them (the Coordination Factions). What the US urgently demands of al-Zaidi’s government today is the disarmament of armed factions linked to the Revolutionary Guard who carry out operations against the US. The Iraqi government has set a deadline of 30/9/2026, for these factions to surrender their weapons. This means the government will be using its security forces to attack Iraqis according to instructions issued by Washington! Trump boasts of influence and plunder in Iraq, claiming the government is sufficient to protect his country’s interests. [Trump said during his meeting with al-Zaidi in the Oval Office: “We don’t think we need the military there anymore,” adding, “The oil companies are all going in now and they’re doing partnerships with Iraq, and they’re getting along very well.” (AP News, Independent Arabia, 15/7/2026)]. Thus, America uses its proxies to advance its interests!
12- In conclusion, it is truly painful that Iraq, once the center of the Khilafah (Caliphate), whose Caliph said to the Roman Emperor “The answer is what you see, not what you hear” and then mobilized the Muslim armies and taught him a lesson that brought him back to his senses. This country is now run by America, not only politically, but also because America holds Iraq’s money. The Iraqi government cannot pay its employees’ salaries unless America agrees to release some of its funds! Truly, this is a great sin and a grave crime. Allah (swt) has spoken the truth regarding these regimes:
[سَيُصِيبُ الَّذِينَ أَجْرَمُوا صَغَارٌ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَعَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ بِمَا كَانُوا يَمْكُرُونَ]
“The wicked will soon be overwhelmed by humiliation from Allah and a severe punishment for their evil plots” [Al-An’am: 124].
The Ummah will not be saved from this humiliation unless it restores its Khilafah Rashidah (rightly guided Caliphate) by giving support to Hizb ut Tahrir, the pioneer that does not lie to its people. Only then will Allah’s promise be fulfilled.
[وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْض..]
“Allah has promised those of you who believe and do good that He will certainly make them successors in the land” [An-Nur: 55]. And then the glad tidings of the Messenger of Allah (saw) will be fulfilled after this oppressive rule under which we live. Hudhayfah 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 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 Allah’s victory will be achieved.
[وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيم]
“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]
22 Safar 1448 AH
5 August 2026 CE -
Q&A: The Situation in Sudan and the American Objectives
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answer to Question
The Situation in Sudan and the American Objectives
(Translated)Question:
“The battles between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces militia have recently reached their peak in North Kordofan State in south-central Sudan…” (Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, 28/7/2026). The fighting continues after more than three years, especially after the Rapid Support Forces seized control of El Fasher on 26/10/2025, and the army withdrew from it. The American proposal presented by US Envoy Massad Boulos on 20/6/2026, for a three-month truce, did not alleviate the escalation of these battles. So, where are things heading in Sudan? What does America aim to achieve with its proposed solution? And is it possible to achieve it soon? May Allah reward you with the good.
Answer:
To clarify the answers to the questions above, we will review the following:
1– The Rapid Support Forces signed the Sudanese Constitutional Charter on 22/2/2025, in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi. Subsequently, the Sudanese Founding Alliance (Tasees) was officially established. This alliance (coalition) announced on Saturday, 26/7/2025, the formation of a parallel government to the official authorities in the country. “The alliance’s spokesperson, Alaa El-Din Naqd, announced from Nyala, the capital of South Darfur State, in a statement via the X platform, that the alliance’s leadership body held a meeting and decided to form a presidential council consisting of 15 members, headed by the commander of the Rapid Support Forces, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), with the head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North, Abdel Aziz al-Hilu, as his deputy, and Mohamed Hassan al-Taishi as prime minister.” (Al-Jazirah, 27/7/2025)
2– On 26/11/2025, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced their control of El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur State in western Sudan, which they had been besieging since May 2024. The city holds strategic importance due to its location on the borders with Libya, Chad, and the western cities of the Darfur region. Also, it is the administrative and political capital. Its capture carries symbolic weight, not to mention its historical significance as the capital of the Darfur Sultanate (1604-1874), further enhancing its symbolic value in the narrative of the parallel “Sudanese Founding Alliance” (Tasees) government. (The RSF announced on Sunday that they had seized control of El Fasher, which had been under siege for over a year. This development means that the RSF has consolidated its control over all five Darfur states, and the country has effectively been divided into two parts: an eastern region under the control of the Sudanese army, and a western region under the control of the RSF.” (Al Jazeera, 28/10/2025). El Fasher was the only one of the five Darfur states that the RSF had not yet captured.
3- Thus, following the Rapid Support Forces’ takeover of Darfur, America’s long-planned scheme to separate Darfur from Sudan was realized. The Sudanese army contributed to this outcome by announcing its withdrawal from the city under the pretext of preventing systematic destruction and the killing of civilians, while it is well known that it handed the city over to the RSF on the instructions or at the behest of America to implement this plan. We clarified this clearly in our “Answer to a Question” issued on 3/11/2025, which stated:
[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.]. End Quote.
4- Following the Rapid Support Forces’ takeover of El Fasher on 26/10/2025, the parallel government’s Presidential Council announced on 1/6/2026, decisions concerning a unified national army, security, defense, and intelligence services, aimed at organizing the management of national security and defense files during the transitional period (Sky News Arabia, 1/6/2026). All of this demonstrates that the US had been planning for a long time to hand over El Fasher to the RSF. It appears they were simply waiting for the suitable time and circumstances. It is clear from all of this that the US is pursuing a carefully orchestrated strategy to divide Sudan by building a state on the ground, step by step, through the Nairobi Charter, the declaration of the parallel government, ministerial appointments, and decisions regarding the army and intelligence services. First, the constitutional structure of the entity to be established in the west was paved with the Nairobi Charter, then it announced to the world the political institutionalization of this entity through the formation of the parallel government headed by Hemedti and the appointment of Al-Taishi as Prime Minister, followed by decisions of the ministries and the banking system. All that remained was to move the parallel government, whose capital is Nyala, to El-Fasher, which has symbolic importance and still constitutes the administrative and political capital of the state.
5- Then, on 20/6/2026, a new American proposal emerged through the US President’s Special Envoy for Arab and African Affairs, Massad Boulos, calling for acceptance of the status quo. His updated paper to the Sudanese government proposed a comprehensive and immediate 90-day nationwide humanitarian truce to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to those in need, protect civilians, and repair infrastructure, facilities, and public services. The paper also proposed “the establishment of a UN mechanism, with the participation of the African Union and the League of Arab States, to support limited military withdrawals that would facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, protect civilians, create conditions for the return of displaced persons, and establish a coordination committee to oversee the implementation of the agreement, along with mechanisms for monitoring and resolving any disputes that might arise during the truce.” The paper also called “for using the truce period to negotiate a permanent ceasefire and initiate a civilian-led transition process.” It calls for “negotiating a permanent ceasefire and related security arrangements, including steps for troop withdrawals and redeployments where necessary, prioritizing North Darfur and North Kordofan states in the first phase, in accordance with the UN mechanism, alongside implementing disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration programs, assembling forces in camps, and other related measures.” The document also stipulates “maintaining a unified national army accountable to an independent, elected civilian government, and deploying international observers based on the UN mechanism.”
6- The truce included in the American proposal, under the pretext of delivering humanitarian aid, when conducted with separatist rebel group like the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), it recognizes their entity and accepts what they do. Similarly, when the document speaks of “security arrangements, including steps for withdrawal and redeployment of forces,” it confirms the continued presence of the RSF and avoids any mention of dismantling or ending their existence. In fact, it implicitly calls for their continued presence when it calls for their redeployment. This equates the national army with those seeking to dismantle it, such as the RSF. The document also calls for “limited military withdrawals” under the pretext of “facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid, protecting civilians, and creating conditions for the return of displaced persons,” which confirms the preservation of these forces without their dissolution. In this paper, it affirms the legitimacy of the existence and dominance of the Rapid Support Forces when it calls for “a comprehensive and immediate nationwide humanitarian truce for 90 days” and when it calls for “using the truce period to negotiate a permanent ceasefire and to begin a transition process led by a civilian authority.” It does not refer to the RSF as separatist and rebel forces, but rather acknowledges their separatist government to divide Sudan.
It should be noted that the latest American proposal is not a new initiative but rather a revival of the proposal previously advanced by the Quartet—comprising the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates—on 12 September 2025. The proposal calls for a three-month humanitarian truce as a pathway toward a permanent ceasefire.
7–The Sudanese response to the latest US proposal, issued on 20/6/2026, was delivered on 25/7/2026. Details of the response were published later. Al Jazeera network on 10/7/2026, citing official Sudanese sources reported the response of the government to the latest American proposal. These sources said that the response: “reaffirmed the government’s commitment to ending the war through negotiations and establishing a 90-day humanitarian truce, contingent upon the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) withdrawing from all cities they have controlled since 11/5/2023” which is the date of the signing of the Jeddah Declaration by the two parties under US-Saudi sponsorship. The response also included: “guarantees for Sudan’s unity and territorial integrity, the preservation of the Sudanese Armed Forces as a unified national army, the integration of all military formations within it, an end to foreign interference in Sudanese affairs, and a halt to the provision of weapons and mercenaries to the RSF.” The second part of the Sudanese government’s response included; the withdrawal of the Rapid Support Forces from cities and their regrouping in designated locations in three phases: the first phase, to be implemented within 30 days; includes withdrawal from the Blue Nile region, North Kordofan state, and North, Central West Darfur. The second phase will begin 30 days after the completion of the first.
This involves the RSF withdrawing from cities in West Kordofan and South Darfur states. The third phase, to begin 30 days after the second, it includes withdrawal from East and South Kordofan states. The assembly point was designated as Kauda, the stronghold of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, which is allied with the RSF. The third part of the response: “included details of the political process through a comprehensive Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue leading to a civilian transitional government that would remain in power until free and fair elections were held.” The Sudanese government’s demand for the RSF to withdraw from the cities it seized and then redeploy to specific locations effectively acknowledges its existence and prevents its dismantling and elimination. It should be noted that the RSF will not easily comply with the government’s demands for withdrawal or negotiations; otherwise, it would not have rebelled, committed atrocities, perpetrated the crimes it committed, and caused the displacement of millions. The only way to resolve the matter is to decisively eliminate the RSF through military force.
8- Upon examining this plan, announced by Massad Boulos, Trump’s senior advisor on Arab and African affairs, on June 20th in Cairo, it becomes clear that these ceasefire plans, and those preceding them, actually serve the US plan to separate Darfur from Sudan. In other words, the plans presented by the US so far aim at two things: first, to portray the RSF as a parallel political entity with an administrative structure and a political program, capable of participating in the negotiations’ table; and second, is the United State aims to completely block the Sudanese army’s recapture of El Fasher and consolidate Hemedti’s control over it through these ceasefire agreements. Therefore, it is essential to view the ceasefire proposals put forward by the US, whether through Massad Boulos personally or through the Quartet, from this perspective: i.e., the gradual preparation for completing the separation of Darfur and linking the issue of negotiations to other conflict zones. Just as the US took its time in separating South Sudan, it is doing the same here! As for the humanitarian crisis in Sudan mentioned in the proposal, it is of no concern to the US or Trump!
9- To consolidate its control over Darfur, the Rapid Support Forces escalated their attacks beyond Darfur, specifically in the three Kordofan states that separate eastern Sudan, including the capital Khartoum, from the five Darfur states now under RSF control. There, warplanes launched airstrikes against RSF positions in several cities and villages to force them to abandon their offensive on El Obeid, the capital of North Kordofan state. It appears that the RSF’s attacks in Kordofan and its attempt to seize El Obeid are aimed at removing the conflict from areas under its control in the Darfur and divert attention away from them causing people to forget about them. The RSF is fighting in other areas, not its primary objective. A similar situation occurred in Blue Nile State on the Ethiopian border, where the Sudanese army announced on 10/7/2026 on its X platform its control over the areas of Deim Saad and Yara in Blue Nile State, in the southeast of the country, after foiling an attack launched by the RSF and the Sudan People’s Liberation.
Movement-North (SPLM-N). This followed its recapture of the strategic city of Kurmuk in Blue Nile State. Thus, it appears that fighting will continue in other areas to solidify the RSF control over all of Darfur, and that Darfur is not subject to negotiation for its return to the government, but rather negotiations will focus on the other areas where fighting is taking place! For this reason, the city of El Obeid has been witnessing violent attacks for weeks. The United Nations warned last May of escalating attacks in the Kordofan region, which claimed the lives of at least 880 civilians between January and April 2026. The Deputy Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Nazhat Shameem Khan, warned during a briefing to the UN Security Council on 16/7/2026, that: The most serious international crimes may be about to occur in El Obeid, the capital of North Kordofan State in southern Sudan. “It is for this Council and all States, to act now, to prevent further atrocities, to take responsibility and ensure that those likely to suffer yet again from what is unfolding are given protection,” she said…” (Anadolu Agency, 16/7/2026). While the duty is to preserve the unity of Sudan and defend every part of it. However, focusing on the Kordofan states while neglecting the Darfur states and failing to demand that the army liberate them from the separatist RSF is tantamount to accepting the separation of Darfur and remaining silent about it, while focusing on other states! Therefore, the fighting is escalating in those areas: “Battles between the Sudanese army and the RSF militia have recently reached their peak in North Kordofan State in south-central Sudan…” (Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, 28/7/2026). Thus, battles continue here and there outside the Darfur states, and the army continues fighting in those areas until the time comes to sign an agreement, at which point negotiations will focus on the withdrawal of these forces from areas outside Darfur, and Darfur will remain separated!
10- In conclusion, we reiterate to you, our people in Sudan, our appeal which we have made to you more than once, sincerely and devotedly to Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw), asking Allah that this appeal may be well heard and answered, and Allah is the Guardian of the righteous:
O our People in the Sudan of the great Islam… The Sudan of Dongola Mosque, the first mosque built by the first Muslims in Sudan… The Sudan of the great Islamic conquest during the era of Caliph Othman, may Allah be pleased with him, where he ordered the governor of Egypt to bring the light of Islam to Sudan, so he sent the soldiers of Islam led by Abdullah Ibn Abi Al-Sarh, and the conquest took place in the year 31 AH. Thus Islam spread rapidly, with Allah’s favour, until it filled all of Sudan: from its north to its south and from its east to its west… Then it continued during the era of the Muslim caliphs… O our people in Sudan, the fighting (Mujahid) Sudan against the British since the year 1896 until the middle of World War I, in 1916, when the strong, pious hero, Ali bin Dinar, the governor of Darfur, was martyred, that scholar and Mujahid who was credited with repairing the meeqat of Medinah and the people of Ash-Sham, Dhul-Hulaifa, and constructing wells of water for the pilgrims, which are called after him to this day, Abyar Ali.
O People of Sudan: we call on you to remedy the matter before regret becomes of no use. and stop this fighting between the conflicting parties, and give support to Hizb ut Tahrir to establish the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly Guided Caliphate), in it is the honour for Islam and the Muslims and the humiliation of the kufr and the kuffar (disbelief and disbelievers); and gaining of Allah’s pleasure is greater.
[إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَذِكْرَى لِمَنْ كَانَ لَهُ قَلْبٌ أَوْ أَلْقَى السَّمْعَ وَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ]
“Indeed in that is a reminder for whoever has a heart or who listens while he is present [in mind]” [Qaf: 37]
Thus, Sudan returns strong and powerful through Islam, with the banner of Al U’qab flying high, the banner of “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah:
[وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيم]
“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]
15 Safar 1448 AH
29/7/2026 CE -
Q&A: Defining the Nafs Linguistically and Technically, and What is Meant by Its Death During Sleep
Answer to Question
Defining the Nafs Linguistically and Technically, and What is Meant by Its Death During Sleep
To: Abi Arif
(Translated)Question:
To the esteemed Sheikh: Sheikh Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Ameer of Hizb ut Tahrir, may Allah protect him.
Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatulah Wa Barakatuh,
Our esteemed Sheikh, our teacher, our leader, and our Ameer, whom Allah has honoured, we ask Allah (swt) that you and your noble family may always be in good health, well-being, and blessings, and under the protection and care of Allah (swt). Ameen.
Furthermore, I apologize in advance, as I would like to ask about one matter, which is as follows:
I have found in the books of the eminent scholar Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, may Allah have mercy on him, the use of the terms: Aql (intellect) and Aqliya (mentality), especially in discussions of the Islamic personality. Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani defined both terms clearly, and in fact, he defined Aql (intellect) first before defining Aqliya (mentality).
However, I did not find a definition of the nafs in the books of Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, especially in his discussions of the Islamic personality. Rather, I found him defining the disposition (Nafsiyyah)directly.
My question is: What is Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani’s definition of the Nafs—if he has one? Or, what is your esteemed view on the definition and true nature of the Nafs? Is it correct to understand the Nafs as the vital energy?
May Allah reward you for your answer, and we ask Allah (swt) to reward you for all your good deeds with the best reward in this world and the hereafter. Ameen, O Lord of the Worlds
Wa Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatulah Wa Barakatuh
Your brother, Muhammad Arif Billah (Bogor, Indonesia)
I apologize, but I have another question:
Allah (swt) mentions in the Noble Quran that He takes the Nafs during sleep. What is meant by the death of the Nafs during sleep? Does this mean that the Nafs includes the mind’s energy, organic needs, and instincts, which seem to be suspended or “dead” during sleep? May Allah reward you abundantly!
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
Firstly: Yes, there is no specific definition of the word “Nafs” in our books because it is a shared term, and its meanings vary depending on the qareenah (contextual evidence) in which it is used. As for the “disposition,” it is a technical term that has a meaning that accompanies its usage.
To clarify this regarding shared terms, it is mentioned in the section on “The Islamic Personality Volume 3” (Arabic page 164) under the chapter on Shared Meanings:
[A shared term is one where a word is assigned to two different meanings, initially insofar as they are such. A shared term is one assigned to each of two or more meanings, such as the word ‘ayn’ (eye) for the organ of sight, the female slave, and gold, and the word ‘ruh’ (spirit) for the secret of life, the perception of connection with Allah, and Jibreel, and other such shared terms… Shared terms exist in the Arabic language. Abu al-Hasan al-Basri said: “Linguists have used the word “qur’” to refer to both purity and menstruation, which are opposites, thus indicating the existence of shared terms in the language.” It has also occurred in the Glorious Quran, as in the verse: [ثَلَاثَةَ قُرُوءٍ] “Three menstrual periods” and the verse:
[وَاللَّيْلِ إِذَا عَسْعَسَ] “By the night when it darkens”, meaning when it approaches and departs, thus it is shared between the approach and departure of the night. This indicates that shared terms exist in the Arabic language…
Therefore, determining the meaning of a shared term and assigning it to one of its meanings requires qareenah (contextual evidence). It must have a qareenah (contextual evidence) that clarifies the intended meaning.]
The qareenah (contextual evidence) is necessary in determining one of the meanings of the shared term. Thus, with regard to the word (Nafs), it appears with meanings according to the qareenah (contextual evidence), and among these meanings are:
First: The Hadith of Abu Hurayrah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw), said:
»أَلَمْ تَرَوْا الْإِنْسَانَ إِذَا مَاتَ شَخَصَ بَصَرُهُ؟ قَالُوا: بَلَى، قَالَ: فَذَلِكَ حِينَ يَتْبَعُ بَصَرُهُ نَفْسَهُ«
“Did you not see when the man died and his eyes were fixedly open? He (Abu Huraira) said: Yes. He (saw) said: It is due to the fact that when (the soul leaves the body) his eyesight follows the soul”.
In this Hadith, the sight follows the Nafs. The word Nafs here needs qareenah (contextual evidence) to clarify its meaning, and the qareenah (contextual evidence) is found in the Hadith of Umm Salamah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) entered upon Abu Salamah and his eyes had been opened, so he closed them, then he said:
«إِنَّ الرُّوحَ إِذَا قُبِضَ تَبِعَهُ الْبَصَرُ»
“When the Ruh (soul) is taken, the sight follows it.”
In this Hadith, the sight follows the Ruh (soul), and both Hadiths were narrated by Muslim… This means that the Nafs that the sight follows at death is the Ruh (soul), as mentioned in the Hadith of Umm Salamah, that the sight follows the Ruh (soul), meaning that the Ruh and the Nafs are one and the same.
Secondly: In Lisan al-Arab 6/233, regarding the meaning of the Nafs:
[1- The word “Nafs” is used to refer to the entire human being, as in the expression “I have three Anfus,” and as in the verse of Allah (swt):
[أَنْ تَقُولَ نَفْسٌ يَا حَسْرَتَا عَلَى مَا فَرَّطْتُ فِي جَنْبِ اللَّهِ]
“so that no ˹sinful˺ soul will say ˹on Judgment Day˺, ‘Woe to me for neglecting ˹my duties towards˺ Allah, while ridiculing ˹the truth˺” [Az-Zumar: 56]
2-And the Nafs is blood… and Al Nafs Al Ain, Al Nafis Al Aa’in, Al Nais Al Aa’in, Al Manfoos Al Ma’yoon, Al Nufus Al iyoon, is one who sets his sights on people’s wealth to seize it. Ma Anfasahu is how intense is his eye! This is according to Al-Lihyani. And it is said, “So-and-so was “Nafas” afflicted by the evil eye,” and “Nafastuk bi nafs” is “I afflicted you with the evil eye,” if you afflict him with the evil eye.
3-The term “Tanafasna” and “Tanafsna feeh” means: we envied each other and raced each other over it, and in the Holy Quran:
[وَفِي ذَلِكَ فَلْيَتَنَافَسِ الْمُتَنَافِسُونَ]
“So let whoever aspires to this strive ˹diligently˺” [Al-Mutaffifin: 26] That is, and in that let those who desire, follow through. And in the Hadith of Al-Mughirah, he is exhausted after competing, meaning that competition and rivalry over something made him sick.
And in the Hadith,
«…فَوَاللَّهِ لَا الْفَقْرَ أَخْشَى عَلَيْكُمْ وَلَكِنْ أَخَشَى عَلَيْكُمْ أَنْ تُبْسَطَ عَلَيْكُمْ الدُّنْيَا كَمَا بُسِطَتْ عَلَى مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ فَتَنَافَسُوهَا كَمَا تَنَافَسُوهَا وَتُهْلِكَكُمْ كَمَا أَهْلَكَتْهُمْ»
“By Allah, I am not afraid of your poverty but I am afraid that you will lead a life of luxury as past nations did, whereupon you will compete with each other for it, as they competed for it, and it will destroy you as it destroyed them.” It is from competition, desire for something, and exclusivity…] [End of quote from Lisan al-Arab.q]
As you can see, the meaning of “Nafs” requires qareenah (contextual evidence) within the text. There are other meanings for “Nafs” and its derivatives, each of which also requires qareenah (contextual evidence)
Thus, we haven’t defined the meaning of “Nafs” specifically because its meaning depends on the qareenah (contextual evidence). The meaning varies depending on the qareenah (contextual evidence) within the same text or in another text.
Secondly, regarding your question about the meaning of the verse,
[اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنْفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَى عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الْأُخْرَى إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ]
“It is˺ Allah ˹Who˺ calls back the souls ˹of people˺ upon their death as well as ˹the souls˺ of the living during their sleep. Then He keeps those for whom He has ordained death, and releases the others until ˹their˺ appointed time. Surely in this are signs for people who reflect” [Az-Zumar: 42] I outweigh that the meaning is that Allah, the Exalted, takes the Nafs when it dies, taking away all aspects of life. Similarly, He takes the Nafs during sleep, taking away their freedom of movement, discernment, and action, etc
For further clarification, I will mention what is stated in some books of tafseer and some books of linguistics:
1- It is stated in Al-Qurtubi’s interpretation – Surah Az-Zumar (39) – Verse 42:
[اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنْفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَى عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الْأُخْرَى إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ]
“It is˺ Allah ˹Who˺ calls back the souls ˹of people˺ upon their death as well as ˹the souls˺ of the living during their sleep. Then He keeps those for whom He has ordained death, and releases the others until ˹their˺ appointed time. Surely in this are signs for people who reflect” [Az-Zumar: 42].
It contains four issues: The first is the saying of Allah:
[اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنْفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا]
“It is˺ Allah ˹Who˺ calls back the souls ˹of people˺ upon their death” That is, He takes them when their appointed times have expired.
[وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا]
“As well as ˹the souls˺ of the living during their sleep”. There is disagreement on this point. It has been said that He (swt) takes them away from their actions while their souls remain in their bodies.
[فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَى عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الْأُخْرَى]
“Then He keeps those for whom He has ordained death, and releases the others” And it is the one that is asleep, so He (swt) releases it to act until its appointed time of death. Ibn Isa said… And Saeed bin Jubayr said: Indeed, Allah takes the souls of the dead when they die, and the souls of the living when they sleep, and they recognize each other as much as Allah wills them to recognize each other.
[فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَى عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الْأُخْرَى]
“Then He keeps those for whom He has ordained death, and releases the others” That is, he returns it. And on the authority of the Prophet (saw), he said: «كَمَا تَنَامُونَ فَكَذَلِكَ تَمُوتُونَ وَكَمَا تُوقَظُونَ فَكَذَلِكَ تُبْعَثُونَ»“Just as you sleep, you will die, and just as you are awakened, you will be resurrected.” And Umar said: “Sleep is the brother of death.” It was narrated in a Hadith (marfoo’) traced back to the Prophet (saw) on the authority of Jabir ibn Abdullah, it was said: “O Messenger of Allah, do the people of Paradise sleep?” He said: «لَا، النَّوْمُ أَخُو الْمَوْتِ وَالْجَنَّةُ لَا مَوْتَ فِيهَا»“No, sleep is the brother of death, and there is no death in Paradise.” [Reported by Ad-Daraqutni…]
In conclusion:
A- We did not specify the meaning of “Nafs” because its meaning is dependent on qareenah (contextual evidence). The meaning varies depending on the qareenah (contextual evidence) within the same text or another text.
B- I find it most preponderant that the meaning of the noble verse:
[اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنْفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَى عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الْأُخْرَى إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ]
“It is˺ Allah ˹Who˺ calls back the souls ˹of people˺ upon their death as well as ˹the souls˺ of the living during their sleep. Then He keeps those for whom He has ordained death, and releases the others until ˹their˺ appointed time. Surely in this are signs for people who reflect” [Az-Zumar: 42], is that Allah, the Exalted, takes the Nafs when it dies, taking away all aspects of life. Similarly, He takes the Nafs during sleep, taking away their freedom of movement, discernment, and action, etc.
This is what I see to be the most likely understanding regarding this matter, and Allah Knows Best and is Most Wise.
Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah14 Safar 1448 AH
28/7/2026 CEThe Link to the Answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page
-
Q&A: The Concept of Good (Hasana) and Evil (Saiy’a) in Verses 78 and 79 of Surah An-Nisa
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
Answer to Question
The Concept of Good (Hasana) and Evil (Saiy’a) in Verses 78 and 79 of Surah An-Nisa
(Translated)
To: Mahmoud Sunnuqrut
==========Question:
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, his companions, and those who follow him. Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you. May Allah protect and preserve you, our esteemed Sheikh, and increase you in His bounty and guide you to what He loves and is pleased with. We ask Allah Almighty to hasten victory and empowerment for us, and to bring them about through you in the near future… He is the Guardian of that and is Capable of it.
Allah (swt) says in His Noble Book, in verses 78 and 79 of Surah An-Nisa:
(أَيْنَمَا تَكُونُوا يُدْرِكْكُمُ الْمَوْتُ وَلَوْ كُنْتُمْ فِي بُرُوجٍ مُشَيَّدَةٍ وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ حَسَنَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَذِهِ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَذِهِ مِنْ عِنْدِكَ قُلْ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ فَمَالِ هَؤُلَاءِ الْقَوْمِ لَا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ حَدِيثاً * مَا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ حَسَنَةٍ فَمِنَ اللَّهِ وَمَا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ سَيِّئَةٍ فَمِنْ نَفْسِكَ وَأَرْسَلْنَاكَ لِلنَّاسِ رَسُولاً وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ شَهِيداً)
“Wherever you may be, death will overcome you—even if you were in fortified towers.” When something good befalls them, they say, “This is from Allah,” but when something evil befalls them, they say, “This is from you.” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Both have been destined by Allah.” So what is the matter with these people? They can hardly comprehend anything * Whatever good befalls you is from Allah and whatever evil befalls you is from yourself. We have sent you ˹O Prophet˺ as a messenger to ˹all˺ people. And Allah is sufficient as a Witness” [An-Nisa: 78-79].
How can we reconcile the fact that good and evil are from Allah, as the first verse states, with the fact that good (only) is from Allah, while evil is from oneself, as the second verse states, especially since the first verse contains a rebuke to those who said about evil, “This is from you,” at the end of the verse:
(فَمَالِ هَؤُلَاءِ الْقَوْمِ لَا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ حَدِيثاً)
“So, what is the matter with these people? They can hardly comprehend anything.”
I would appreciate a clear explanation from you, because after reviewing some video clips of several contemporary sheikhs, I did not find what I was looking for. Their words were mostly general and vague, lacking detail. May Allah reward you on our behalf with the best of rewards.
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatulah Wa Barakatuh
Firstly, my brother, the subject of your question is Allah Almighty’s statement in the two noble verses:
The first:
(وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ حَسَنَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَذِهِ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ يَقُولُوا هَذِهِ مِنْ عِنْدِكَ قُلْ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ فَمَالِ هَؤُلَاءِ الْقَوْمِ لَا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ حَدِيثاً)
“When something good befalls them, they say, “This is from Allah,” but when something evil befalls them, they say, “This is from you.” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Both have been destined by Allah” So what is the matter with these people? They can hardly comprehend anything” [An-Nisa: 78].
And the second:
(مَا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ حَسَنَةٍ فَمِنَ اللَّهِ وَمَا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ سَيِّئَةٍ فَمِنْ نَفْسِكَ وَأَرْسَلْنَاكَ لِلنَّاسِ رَسُولاً وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ شَهِيداً)
“Whatever good befalls you is from Allah and whatever evil befalls you is from yourself. We have sent you ˹O Prophet˺ as a messenger to ˹all˺ people. And Allah is sufficient as a Witness” [An-Nisa: 79].
The first verse was revealed concerning the Jews and the hypocrites, because when the Messenger of Allah (saw) arrived in Medina, they said: “We have been experiencing a decrease in our fruits and crops ever since this man and his companions came to us.” They attributed the decrease and drought, calling it evil (saiyi’a), to the Messenger (saw)… But if there was fertility in the crops and fruits (which they called good (hasana), they attributed it to Allah, saying, “It is from Allah.” So the noble verse was revealed stating that every fertility in crops and fruits, or every drought and decrease that befalls crops and fruits, is all Allah. Then Allah (swt) clarified their ignorance, saying:
(فَمَالِ هَؤُلَاءِ الْقَوْمِ لَا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ حَدِيثاً)
“So what is the matter with these people? They can hardly comprehend anything” [An-Nisa: 78].
The second verse relates to people’s deeds. If someone does good and finds goodness, blessing, and success, it is (hasana), then let him praise Allah (swt), for that is from Allah’s favor and generosity upon him. And if he does evil and finds harm or is afflicted with a calamity (saiy’a), then let him realize that this is due to his evil deeds, as Allah (swt) said in another verse:
(وَمَا أَصَابَكُمْ مِنْ مُصِيبَةٍ فَبِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِيكُمْ وَيَعْفُو عَنْ كَثِيرٍ)
“Whatever affliction befalls you is because of what your own hands have committed. And He pardons much” [Ash-Shura: 30].
And in this there is wisdom, for Allah, Al Aziz (the Almighty), Al Hakim (the Wise), has clarified the matter in the second verse in order to expel the whispers of Satan from the hearts of the believers. The first verse indicates that (fertility and prosperity, and drought and famine) are from Allah (swt). Therefore, Satan may whisper in people’s hearts that your actions, whether good or evil, are not your choice, but rather you are compelled to them, for (your good deed and your bad deed) are from Allah (swt), so you will not be questioned about them. So, Allah (swt) revealed the second verse to clarify that a person is responsible for the actions he performs by his choice. If he does good and receives good in this world or in the Hereafter, it is a favor and grace from Allah, the Exalted. And if he does evil and receives a calamity or punishment in this world or in the Hereafter as a result, it is because of the evil he did.
And, thus, things are set right, for fertility and barrenness, that is, sustenance (rizq), are all from Allah (swt), whether little or much, fertility or barrenness. And what befalls a person as a result of his own choice: if what befalls him is good, he will be rewarded in this world or the Hereafter, so it is a favor, generosity, and mercy from Allah (that is, from Allah), and if what befalls him is evil, as a punishment in this world or the Hereafter, then that is because of the evil he did (that is, from himself).
Secondly, for further clarification, I will quote below what was said about the two noble verses in some tafsirs:
1- In Ibn Kathir’s tafsir, it says:
[Then Allah (swt) says:
(مَا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ حَسَنَةٍ فَمِنَ اللَّهِ)
“Whatever good befalls you is from Allah.”
That is, by the grace, favor, kindness, and mercy of Allah
(وَمَا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ سَيِّئَةٍ فَمِنْ نَفْسِكَ)
“…and whatever evil befalls you is from yourself.”
That is: from your own actions, as Allah (swt) says:
(وَمَا أَصَابَكُمْ مِنْ مُصِيبَةٍ فَبِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِيكُمْ وَيَعْفُو عَنْ كَثِيرٍ)
“Whatever affliction befalls you is because of what your own hands have committed. And He pardons much” [Ash-Shura: 30].
Al-Suddi, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ibn Jurayj, and Ibn Zayd said:
(فَمِنْ نَفْسِكَ)
“is from yourself”
That is: because of your sin. Qatada said:
(مَا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ حَسَنَةٍ فَمِنَ اللهِ وَمَا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ سَيِّئَةٍ فَمِنْ نَفْسِكَ)
“Whatever good befalls you is from Allah and whatever evil befalls you is from yourself”. O son of Adam, you are punished for your sins.
And he mentioned to us that the Prophet of Allah (saw) used to say:
“لا يصيب رجلا خَدْش عود، ولا عثرة قدم، ولا اختلاج عِرْق، إلا بذنب، وما يعفو الله أكثر”
“No man is afflicted by a scratch from a stick, nor a stumble of the foot, nor a twitch of a vein (muscle), except due to a sin, and what Allah forgives is greater.”
This which Qatadah transmitted has been narrated with a connected chain of transmission in As- Sahih:
“والذي نفسي بيده، لا يصيب المؤمن هَمٌّ ولا حَزَنٌ، ولا نَصَبٌ، حتى الشوكة يشاكها إلا كَفَّر الله عنه بها من خطاياه”
“By Him in Whose Hand is my soul, no worry, nor grief, nor fatigue befalls the believer, not even the prick of a thorn, except that God expiates some of his sins thereby.”]
2- In Al-Qurtubi’s tafsir: states:
(أَيْنَما تَكُونُوا يُدْرِكْكُمُ الْمَوْتُ وَلَوْ كُنْتُمْ فِي بُرُوجٍ مُشَيَّدَةٍ وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ حَسَنَةٌ يَقُولُوا هذِهِ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ يَقُولُوا هذِهِ مِنْ عِنْدِكَ قُلْ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ فَمالِ هؤُلاءِ الْقَوْمِ لَا يَكادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ حَدِيثاً)
“Wherever you may be, death will overcome you—even if you were in fortified towers.” When something good befalls them, they say, “This is from Allah,” but when something evil befalls them, they say, “This is from you.” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Both have been destined by Allah.” So what is the matter with these people? They can hardly comprehend anything” [An-Nisa: 78].
He (swt) says:
(وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ حَسَنَةٌ يَقُولُوا هذِهِ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ)
“When something good befalls them, they say, “This is from Allah,” That is, if the hypocrites experience prosperity, they say:
This is from Allah.
(وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ)
“but when something evil befalls them” that is: barrenness or drought, they said, “This is from you,” meaning, “This has befallen us because of your ill omen and the ill omen of your companions”
And it was revealed concerning the Jews and the hypocrites, because when the Messenger of Allah (saw) came to Medina, they said, “We have been experiencing a decrease in our fruits and crops ever since this man and his companions came to us.” Ibn Abbas said, “And the meaning of: (مِنْ عِنْدِكَ) “This is from you” That is, because of your poor planning. And it was said: (مِنْ عِنْدِكَ) “This is from you” Because of your ill omen, as we mentioned, meaning because of the ill omen that befell us.
They said this as an expression of superstition. Allah (swt) says:
(قُلْ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ)
“Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Both have been destined by Allah.”
That is, hardship and ease, victory and defeat are from Allah, that is, by Allah’s decree and destiny.
(فَمَالِ هَؤُلَاءِ الْقَوْمِ)
“So what is the matter with these people?” Meaning the hypocrites.
(لَا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ حَدِيثاً)
“They can hardly comprehend anything” That is; what is wrong with them that they do not understand that everything is from Allah…]
I hope this is sufficient, and Allah Knows Best and is Most Wise.
Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah4 Safar 1448 AH
18/7/2026 CEالنسخة العربية
https://www.facebook.com/AtaAboAlrashtah/posts/122144655807129051 -
Q&A: Conditions of the Party’s Idea (Fikra): “Crystallization, Purity, and Clarity”
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answer to Question
Conditions of the Party’s Idea (Fikra): “Crystallization, Purity, and Clarity”
To: Jumah Alsaad
(Translated)Question:
My honourable brother, Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
Question: On page 4 (Arabic version) of the book “Party Structuring (Attakattul el-Hizbi)” – Line 8 from the top, it states: “First: The movements were established upon a general, undefined idea (fikrah), which was either vague or somewhat vague. In addition, the idea lacked crystallization (tablawr), purity (naqaa’) and clarity (safaa’)” End quote.
I would appreciate further clarification on the meaning of the following words: “crystallization,” “purity,” and “clarity.” What is meant by them? Please provide some examples, if possible, for clarification.
May Allah guide you to what He loves and is pleased with. Your brother, RadiAnswer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh,
What was mentioned in the book “Party Structuring (Attakattul el-Hizbi)”, in the statement: “In addition, the idea lacked crystallization (tablawr), purity (naqaa’) and clarity (safaa’),” is inspired by the states of matter.
Matter is a gas, then becomes a liquid/fluid, then becomes solid where its parts begin to crystallize… And when crystallization occurs, the parts of matter take a shape and become crystals with specific, distinctive shapes. Among the clearest crystals are diamond crystals, where it is clearly evident that they take specific, distinctive shapes.
Three things are observed during crystallization:
1- A crystal takes on a specific shape, making it distinguishable from others. In the case of thought, crystallization means clarifying and defining its features, so that the intended thought acquires a clear form that separates and distinguishes it from others, preventing it from remaining merely a vague, emotional call. For example, stating that revival is intellectual advancement is a crystallization of the idea of revival, which in the minds of many people takes on a fluid, undefined form. Similarly, defining the mind as the transmission of sensations of reality to the brain, along with prior information used to interpret this reality, is a crystallization of the meaning of the mind, which was fluid in the perception of many. Likewise, crystallizing the meanings of society, spirit, good and evil, and all the other matters mentioned, for example, in the book “Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir”… all of these are examples of crystallizing thought and establishing clear, specific boundaries for thought that distinguish it from others. The same applies to all definitions; their purpose is to crystallize the defined thought in a way that distinguishes it from others.
Therefore, a correct definition is said to be comprehensive and exclusive, meaning it encompasses all the elements of the defined term and excludes anything that is not one of its members within the definition, and in doing so, it clarifies its features.
2- The possibility of the presence of impurities in the crystal that are not of its kind, like the impurities that are sometimes found in diamond crystals. There may be crystallization in the idea, but parts that are not of it may enter into it, such as mixing things into the Islamic idea that are not from it, such as the entry of philosophical ideas among Muslims, as happened in Islamic history with the influence of Eastern philosophies and Greek philosophy… or the entry of Western ideas such as freedom in the Western sense, democracy and human rights, or adopting the concept of republic and taking of power, or saying that Islam is socialism, etc., ideas that are not from Islam but have come to be attributed to it. These are impurities that make the idea impure.
3- The introduction of ambiguity and lack of clarity into the crystal makes the vision through it unclear, lacking transparency. This happens to an idea when there is a disconnect between its pure source and its rulings. For example, Islamic thought is based on Islamic doctrine, and its rulings stem from this doctrine. To prevent any confusion or obscurity in the idea of Islam and its rulings, the relationship between the idea and the ruling with its source must be clear. That is, there must be a constant connection between ideas and rulings and the doctrine, so that thought is based on the doctrine and the rulings are derived from it. If this connection is not maintained, the idea becomes clouded. This has become clearly evident in our time, where Muslims, for example, see no harm in taking and dealing with usury based on fatwas far removed from the correct evidences. They are not disgusted by their division into nations and homelands, contrary to what Islamic law requires. They find it acceptable to deal with foreigners and take them as role models in their ideas, laws, and behavior. And wrongdoing has become widespread without any real condemnation. Thus, the idea of Islam has become confused in the minds of many due to the lack of a constant connection with the Islamic doctrine and ensuring that the rulings are taken and derived through a correct Shariah deduction from the evidences of the Islamic Shariah law.
Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah26 Muharram 1448 AH
11 July 2026 CE -
Q&A: The Current Reality in Iran and the Renewed Strikes Between It and America
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answer to Question
The Current Reality in Iran and the Renewed Strikes Between It and America
(Translated)Question:
[With the exchange of strikes between America and Iran for the second time in two days, the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) stated in a statement today, Sunday, that (the violation of the ceasefire by the United States contravenes Article 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding signed on June 18th between Trump and Masoud Pezeshkian). In response, Trump threatened a return to war, writing in a post on his Truth Social platform earlier today: “There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started…” The US military announced on Saturday night that it had carried out airstrikes on targets on Qeshm Island, hours after Iran targeted an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz… [Al-Arabiya.net, 28/6/2026]. Trump, along with his crony Netanyahu, had launched an attack on Iran on 28/2/2026, during which the Supreme Leader and about forty senior officials were killed, and significant damage was inflicted. Despite this, Iran signed a memorandum of understanding with Trump on 18/6/2026, to establish peace between them, as if the bloodshed and destruction had never occurred! As for the rest of the Muslims, whether near or far from Iran, they watch what is happening as if they are neutral parties between Iran and America, or rather, closer to America! How long will Muslims remain divided, buffeted by the winds of the kafir (disbelieving) colonizers, after they were once the masters of the world, spreading light and justice?
I ask you for an answer that clarifies the reality of these events. And how can this Ummah return to being alive and dignified? Thank you.
Answer:
To answer the questions above, we will review the reality of events and the return of the Ummah, alive and dignified. And Allah is the One from whom help is sought:
First: The Reality of Events:
1- On 17/6/2026, Bloomberg published a draft of the 14-point memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran. Its content was identical to what the semi-official Iranian news agency Mehr reported on 14/6/2026, citing a source close to the Iranian negotiating team. Then came the unexpected signing of the memorandum suddenly between Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and his American counterpart, Trump, at the Palace of Versailles in France on the sidelines of the G7 Summit on 18/6/2026. Although the signing was scheduled to take place in Switzerland, the tyrant Trump wanted to remind Muslims of the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, which led to the demise of the Khilafah (Caliphate), the state of the Muslims, and shattered their unity. It is as if, by choosing the Palace of Versailles, which previously altered the course of history by abolishing the Khilafah, Trump is trying to market himself as a leader who makes history in the footsteps of his predecessors! And so, the memorandum was signed remotely, electronically, at the Palace of Versailles, under the supervision of the mediator between the two parties, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. Thus, it was declared to have officially entered into force. This took place between America and Iran, despite the fact that America, along with its “crony Netanyahu”, had launched a surprise military operation at the end of last February targeting the regime’s top political and military leaders, most notably the Supreme Leader, the ultimate decision-maker. The war was initially planned to last four days, but it lasted for forty days, failing to achieve its objective of overthrowing the current regime or installing agent leaders to transform Iran from a state orbiting America into an agent state. Iran’s 47 years of orbiting America had emboldened America to seek to make it an agent (subordinate) state, especially as America began to push it out of areas where it had previously been permitted to operate in, such as Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.
However, this situation led some in Iran to consider independence from the regime. The Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) played a significant role in this, as we explained in our “Answer to a Question” issued on 3/6/2026 We stated: (…as happened in Venezuela when US forces kidnapped its president, and his vice president and her entourage surrendered to America. However, this did not happen in Iran after the assassination of its Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, and some of the regime’s leaders. The Revolutionary Guard stood firm and decided to confront this aggression and attack the enemies… seeking independence from America, unlike the political faction, which desires to engage with America and work with it as a satellite state, at least, rather than a subordinate state…). The Revolutionary Guard’s steadfastness, strength, and influence stemmed from its prior involvement in selecting the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba. He supported them and relied on them to maintain his rule. He did not approve of the memorandum of understanding and peace with the US after they assassinated his father, the previous Supreme Leader, and a number of officials.
2- However, this changed after the political leadership in Iran (the President, the Speaker of Parliament, and the Foreign Minister) managed to convince the Supreme Leader that the Memorandum of Understanding was in Iran’s best interest. The President exerted considerable effort in this regard, and subsequently, the Supreme Leader’s written approval was published on the X platform and other social media pages on 18/6/2026. In it, he stated: “I, as a matter of principle, held a different view; however, out of the commitment that the esteemed president—as the head of the Supreme National Security Council—gave to me on his own behalf and on behalf of the other members regarding the safeguarding of the rights of the Iranian nation and the Resistance Front, and his explicit acceptance of that responsibility, I granted my permission.” It was as if he was holding the president of his country and other officials accountable for any negative consequences for Iran resulting from the agreement. Thus, the Memorandum was signed, and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian declared on the X platform on 18/6/2026, following the signing: ” This is a historical document and a message from a powerful Iran: Peace will be realized in the shadow of mutual respect. The Islamic Republic of Iran has always been committed and steadfast to global peace while preserving its dignity and independence, as well as to progress and regional cooperation.”
The Revolutionary Guard’s voice then fell silent in obedience to the Supreme Leader. Iranian parliament member Mohammad Manan Raisi revealed the Supreme Leader’s position at a gathering of his supporters, declaring his opposition to the memorandum: (Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei asked the members of the Supreme National Security Council to respond to these questions ‘related to the memorandum of understanding’ separately, and unusually, he stipulated the approval of 75% of its members for the memorandum to be ratified. Only one member of the National Security Council opposed it, while the rest voted in favor. It cannot be said that the Supreme Leader accepted the agreement with complete satisfaction, but he cannot be considered opposed to it either (Iran International, 18/6/2026)).
Their approval, with one exception, of the memorandum of understanding and their readiness to sign a final agreement with America indicate that this paves the way for their country’s return to its former status as a satellite state, unlike the previous opinion of the Revolutionary Guard advocating for independence!3- Thus, the political wing gained the upper hand whose ultimate goal was for Iran to return to its former orbit within America’s sphere of influence, like Turkey, rather than becoming an agent state like Egypt, Syria, and other regional countries. Consequently, the political wing of the government took the lead in events and negotiations, while the Revolutionary Guard retreated somewhat. I say somewhat because the IRGC’s influence hasn’t been completely extinguished; it remains at odds with the political faction. For example, Iranian television announced on Friday the establishment of a communication line with the US regarding the Strait of Hormuz. (Al-Arabiya, 26/6/2026). However, the Revolutionary Guard denied this: (Revolutionary Guard spokesman Hossein Mohebbi denied on Friday evening what he described as claims by US officials about the establishment of a hotline between Iran and the United States concerning the Strait of Hormuz, asserting that it was pure fabrication. Earlier on Friday, Press TV had reported the establishment of a communication line between Iran and the United States regarding the Strait of Hormuz. (Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, 26/6/2026)). Furthermore, the Revolutionary Guard responded to US attacks on Iran’s eastern coast: (Sepah News published a statement from the Revolutionary Guard: “The United States had launched an attack on Iranian coasts, prompting a response in which the Revolutionary Guard Navy bombed US military positions in the region. The statement accused Washington of violating its commitments under the memorandum of understanding signed between the two parties.” (Al Jazeera, 26/6/2026).
4- Signing the Memorandum of Understanding meant Iran’s acceptance of a permanent ceasefire with its aggressors and its pledge not to fight them. The first clause of the Memorandum of Understanding states that they will “declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other…” This means that Iran has abandoned its resistance against America, which attacked it, killed its senior leaders, and destroyed its nuclear and vital facilities. Although the second clause stipulates non-interference in internal affairs, the other clauses of the agreement contradict this. For example, Article 8 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran states: [The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material, pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon… (Al-Sharq, 18/6/2026)]. Sky News reported on 24/6/2026: [US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Iran would not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, indicating that Iran was not in a good position to negotiate while its military and capabilities were being destroyed. Trump added that nuclear inspectors would be on the ground in Iran in due course]. Simply stating this constitutes interference.
Furthermore, Article 6 provides America with an avenue to interfere in Iran’s affairs, as it stipulates that “The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days.” This is not only an avenue for interference, but something even worse!
5- Despite all this, the agreement is manipulated with terms. On one hand, it could be interpreted as serving Iran’s interests, while on the other, it could be interpreted as serving America’s interests. In other words, it is fraught with problems, and its sixty-day timeframe may not be sufficient to resolve them, leading to an extension. This includes issues such as lifting the embargo and opening the Strait of Hormuz.
[Iran warned against what it considered “vague arrangements” regarding passage through the Strait of Hormuz, given its status as a littoral state… (Sky News, 26/6/2026)]. This ambiguity was further highlighted in the clashes between Iran and America today: The Revolutionary Guard stated in a statement on Sunday that “the US violation of the ceasefire contravenes Article 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding and will lead to a complete halt in the negotiation process. It also claimed that the arrangements necessary to control navigation in the Strait of Hormuz are in Iran’s hands, according to the Memorandum of Understanding signed on June 18 between Trump and Masoud Pezeshkian” (Al-Arabiya.net, 28/6/2026)). The memorandum also stipulate that (The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal). It should be noted that Iran had previously demanded the withdrawal of US forces from the entire region, and for America to release $12 billion of frozen Iranian funds on the condition that they be used to purchase American agricultural and food products! Trump’s Vice President, Vance, told reporters at a press conference on Monday that “the released frozen Iranian assets would be allocated to “buy American soy, American corn, and American wheat for the benefit of the Iranian people” (Al-Arabiya, 25/6/2026)). Iran has denied this. Ghalibaf asserted on Thursday (that the US claim that Tehran would use the unfrozen assets to purchase American agricultural products was false. (Al-Arabiya, 25/6/2026)). Then came the final agreement’s ratification by the UN Security Council! One side interprets this as Iran’s inability to renege on its commitment, while another sees it as a guarantee of US adherence, as if it weren’t in its interest! Furthermore, Reuters reported on 18/6/2026, citing an informed source, that a reconstruction and development fund, stipulated in the memorandum of understanding, exists. The report stated that “the fund’s objective is to create an economic incentive to reach a final agreement between Tehran and Washington, and this fund will only be established upon the signing of the final agreement.” This is a deceptive ploy to entice Iran to continue negotiations until the final agreement is signed, while awaiting a fund that will do more harm than good! All these are ambiguous and vaguely worded clauses!
6- Trump realizes that he has failed to achieve his objectives through military action and has been shocked by the resistance of the Revolutionary Guard to his aggression. Reality is now putting pressure on Trump, who has lost much in this war he launched. His prestige has plummeted, and trust in him has weakened worldwide, even within the United States and among his own party and supporters. This will undoubtedly affect the midterm congressional elections in November and subsequently the general elections two years later. Articles 4 and 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding, which pertain to the Strait of Hormuz, are indirectly linked to the US midterm congressional elections. As is well known, Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the US imposition of a naval blockade on it—a waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes—have paralyzed maritime traffic, resulting in a sharp rise in fuel and gas prices, which has naturally been followed by a parallel increase in food prices.
This automatically impacts the midterm elections, which is why Trump was keen to sign the agreement with Iran to restore traffic flow through the Strait of Hormuz. Reopening the Strait would quickly lower global oil prices. Thus, Trump found his opportunity in negotiations and the Memorandum of Understanding to land a negotiated victory he couldn’t achieve through military aggression! When the Revolutionary Guard stood against him with its heroic resistance, he found refuge within the political establishment (the President, the Speaker of Parliament, and the Foreign Minister). These figures played a major role in persuading the Supreme Leader to accept the negotiations and the Memorandum of Understanding, thereby silencing the Revolutionary Guard. America’s eagerness to reach an agreement with Iran is underscored by Article 3, which states: “The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent.” Even if an extension is required! After America failed with the military option to change the regime into a subordinate state, it showed a strong desire to negotiate and reach a final agreement and accepted its return to being a satellite state as it was, after voices emerged calling for complete independence from America, especially from the Revolutionary Guard. Trump considered this a victory and the political wing, especially the president, facilitated it for him! Iran’s readiness to negotiate and then sign a final agreement, with its view that America did not achieve its goals towards it through war, means its return to square one as a satellite state.
7- After that, following the signing of the agreement, Trump attempted to improve relations with Iran and Muslims in general. On the one hand, Trump mentioned in an interview with the American news website Axios on 19/6/2026, “…and I sadly hurt the other Ayatollah This came after the Supreme Leader’s approval of the memorandum of understanding, as if he were thanking him. On the other hand, he pretended to be pressuring the Jewish entity while they were acting at his behest in their wars and peace negotiations! Trump publicly rebuked Netanyahu, stating in Evian, France, at a press conference on the sidelines of the G7 summit on 16/6/2026: “I’m not happy with the way ‘Israel’ is handling themselves with Lebanon…Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon… Without me there would be no Israel…” (Al Jazeera,16/6/2026). His deputy, Vance, said at a press conference: (If I was in the cabinet of the ‘Israeli’ government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world… Two-thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected your homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars” (New York Times, 18/6/2026)).
Trump and his deputy’s statement would be true if they were being honest, but how can it be when the Jewish entity only acts with America’s backing in its aggression against Palestine, Lebanon, and everywhere else?! The Jewish entity is too insignificant to be considered on its own, 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].
The Jewish entity has no inherent strength except through divine support and human backing. They severed their connection with Allah since the time of their prophets, leaving them with only human support! America supports them in their aggression against Lebanon and what they call the buffer zone. Trump is behind their aggression and the continued existence of their entity, as evidenced by his statements mentioned earlier. May Allah (swt) fight them! How they are deluded! They still occupy parts of Lebanon and bombard Lebanese areas with American weapons, justified by American claims of self-defense!
8- This is the reality of events in brief, and Trump should not have been given through negotiations what he could not take through war, especially since Iran is not a small or weak country. It has the power to withstand a long war, defeat America, and expel it from the region in humiliation, just as it was expelled from Afghanistan in 2021. Then it will finally become independent in its policies, neither remaining a satellite state nor falling to the level of a client state. With a vast land area of 1.6 million square kilometers, diverse terrain including mountains, deserts, valleys, and a coastline, a population of approximately 90 million, and strategic importance, Iran possesses borders with numerous countries, providing access points against any potential blockade. It has energy resources such as oil and gas, as well as other natural resources, and the capacity to provide for its own food supply thanks to its ample arable land. It also has military industries capable of producing weapons for self-defense, such as long-range missiles and drones, all of which can be further developed, along with civilian industries. Indeed, Iran has nuclear capabilities. When Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement in 2018, Iran was able to enrich uranium to approximately 60%, reaching around 440 kg, a significant increase from the 3.67% limit stipulated in the 2015 agreement.
Therefore, signing a memorandum of understanding and then beginning negotiations to finalize its terms is a major concession! It saves America, which lost the battle and became embroiled in a war that lasted over four months. However, the Iranian political leadership lacked genuine will and principled resolve, they even stood against the Revolutionary Guard when it sought independence from American influence and was prepared to sacrifice itself to repel American aggression and its crony, the Jewish entity. Instead, the president of the republic signed the memorandum, granting Trump what he couldn’t achieve through war!
Secondly: As for how the Muslim Ummah will return to being alive and honorable after this humiliation in which it lives, the matter is not unknown, but it is written in the Book of Allah, Al-Qawi Al Aziz, and in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw), the truthful and trustworthy; a Khilafah for the Muslims that rules them according to what Allah (swt) has revealed.
[وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ أَنْ يُصِيبَهُمْ بِبَعْضِ ذُنُوبِهِمْ وَإِنَّ كَثِيراً مِنَ النَّاسِ لَفَاسِقُونَ] “And judge between them ˹O Prophet˺ by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires. And beware, so they do not lure you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. If they turn away ˹from Allah’s judgment˺, then know that it is Allah’s Will to repay them for some of their sins, and that many people are indeed rebellious” [Al-Ma’idah: 49]. And a Caliph who will fight with them in the cause of Allah; narrated by Muslim, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, on the authority of the Prophet (saw), that He (saw) said:«إِنَّمَا الْإِمَامُ جُنَّةٌ يُقَاتَلُ مِنْ وَرَائِهِ وَيُتَّقَى بِهِ»
“The Imam is but a shield behind whom people fight and by whom they are protected.”
Long centuries spoke of the greatness of the Islamic state, the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Caliphate), and the pride and justice of the Muslims. They supported Allah (swt) by ruling according to what He (swt) revealed, and He (swt) supported them. When their state was destroyed by the conspiracies of the kafir colonizers and their agents in Muslim countries, the Muslims became humiliated, disgraced, and lived in miserable conditions.
[وَمَنْ أَعْرَضَ عَنْ ذِكْرِي فَإِنَّ لَهُ مَعِيشَةً ضَنْكاً]
“But whoever turns away from My Reminder will certainly have a miserable life” [Ta-Ha: 124].
But this will not last long, Allah willing, for the Khilafah will return, by Allah’s true promise,
[وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْناً يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئاً 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 establish for them their faith which He has chosen for them; and will indeed change their fear into security—˹provided that˺ they worship Me, associating nothing with Me. But whoever disbelieves after this ˹promise˺, it is they who will be the rebellious” [An-Nur: 55].
And the glad-tiding of His Messenger (saw) will be rewarded after this coercive ruling in which we live. Ahmad narrated… 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 oppressive rule (ملكًا جبرية) for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method. Then he (saw) was silent.”
The Khilafah will return, Allah (swt) willing, and Allah’s victory is for those who support His (swt) Deen – a promise from Allah (swt). [وَلَيَنْصُرَنَّ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَقَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ] “Allah will certainly help those who stand up for Him. Allah is truly All-Powerful, Almighty” [Al-Hajj: 40]
However, Allah Almighty decreed that victory would not descend upon us from the heavens, carried to us by His angels, and that He would establish a Khilafah for us while we sit idly by. Rather, we must work, strive, and exert ourselves, seeking truthfulness and sincerity in our actions, and we would be reassured by Allah’s promise of succession for those who believed and did good deeds. Thus, with these two things: belief and good deeds,
[وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ…]
“Allah has promised those of you who believe and do good that He will certainly make them successors in the land” [An-Nur: 55]
All of this is evident in the life of the Messenger of Allah (saw), how He (saw) acted and how he endured harm… until the victory of Allah (swt) came to him; Allah granted him victory, and this is the way of Allah (swt).
[سُنَّةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَلَنْ تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلاً]
“˹This is˺ Allah’s way, already long established ˹in the past˺. And you will find no change in Allah’s way” [Al-Fath: 23]
This is how the Messenger of Allah (saw), acted, and this is how his Companions (ra) followed his example. This is how we must be, and Allah’s victory will surely come, by His permission, and may it be soon.
This is what will save the Ummah, restore its glory, strengthen its power, and make its enemies think a thousand times before attacking it. This is only possible with the return of the Khilafah, so that the earth may shine with its goodness and justice. Just as the Khilafah ended the arrogance of the Caesars and the Chosroes, so too will it end the arrogance of their followers, such as the tyrant Trump and his ilk among the kafir colonizers.
[وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بنَصْرِ 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]
[إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَذِكْرَى لِمَنْ كَانَ لَهُ قَلْبٌ أَوْ أَلْقَى السَّمْعَ وَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ]
“Surely in this is a reminder for whoever has a ˹mindful˺ heart and lends an attentive ear.” [Qaf: 37]
-
Q&A: The Concept of the Transition to Dar al-Muhajireen and the Borders of Dar al-Islam
Answer to Question
The Concept of the Transition to Dar al-Muhajireen (Migration) and the Borders of Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) during the Prophet’s Time
To: Yeni Camii
(Translated)Question:
Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
I am attaching a question I sent you two months ago. I am giving you the benefit of doubt for not answering it, and my prayers for you are constant. However, I wanted to send it again as a reminder, and I have made a slight edit to it. I am confident that it will be of interest to you. May Allah bless you and reward you with the good.
Question: Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
I ask Allah the Exalted, Almighty that this message reaches you in your perfect health and well-being, and with His (swt) utmost pleasure on you. I also ask Him, may He be glorified and exalted, to grant you your wishes soon and to renew the glory and honour of this Ummah through you soon.
[* The “Introduction”, section one, page 24 (Arabic) (page 23 of the electronic version), contains a commentary on the Hadith narrated by Imam Muslim in his Sahih on the authority of Sulayman ibn Buraydah on the authority of his father: «ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ» “Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Emigrants (Muhajirin) and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Emigrants”] End Quote.
It is understood from the preceding Hadith that those tribes who accepted Islam and then agreed to migrate to Medina, the abode of the emigrants, would have the same rights and obligations as those who had migrated before them. Those who did not accept to migrate would be like the Bedouin Muslims who lived in the desert surrounding Medina; they would be subject to the same laws as all believers, and they would not receive any share of the spoils of war or booty (Fai’). However, there is a point to consider here, as the statement on page 24 (and the abode of the emigrants was the abode of Islam with anything else being the abode of disbelief (Dar Al-Kufr). This statement implies that the abode of Islam is exclusively Al-Medina Al-Munawara, and the surrounding lands of the Bedouin Arabs are the abode of disbelief.
However, on page 14 of the same book, there is evidence indicating that the surrounding Bedouin lands are also the abode of Islam. This is explicitly stated where it says: [And listening to and obeying the Messenger of Allah is with regards to his orders and prohibitions, in other words, in respect to the implementation of laws. Another evidence is what Ahmad narrated, Ibn Hibban in his Sahih collection and Abu ‘Ubayd in Al-Amwal by ‘Abd Allah b. Amr from the Prophet who said:
«وَالْهِجْرَةُ هِجْرتَانِ: هِجْرَةُ الْحَاضِرِ وَالْبَادِي؛ فَأَمَّا الْبَادِي فَيُطِيعُ إِذَا أُمِرَ وَيُجِيبُ إِذَا دُعِيَ، وَأَمَّا الْحَاضِرُ فَأَعْظَمُهُمَا بَلِيَّةً وَأَعْظَمُهُمَا أجْرا». “There are two kinds of emigration, the emigration of the town dweller and the emigration of the Bedouin. As for the Bedouin, when he is called (to fight in Jihad) he must respond, and he must obey when he is commanded, and as for the town dweller, he is the one who is more severely tested and more greatly rewarded.”. The angle of inference is clear from his words (saw) «فَيُطِيعُ إِذَا أَمر وَيُجِيبُ إِذَا دُعِيَ» “…he must respond and, must obey when he is commanded” since the desert was part of the abode of Islam (Dar Al-Islam) even if it was not the abode of emigration (Dar Al-Hijrah). And accordingly with the evidence of the narration of Wathilah b. Al-Asqa’ in AlTabarani, Al-Haythami said through a chain whose people are all trustworthy that the Messenger of Allah said to him «وَهِجْرَةُ البَادِيَةِ أَنْ تَرْجِعَ إِلَى بَادِيَتِكَ، وَعَلَيْكَ السَّمْعُ وَالطَّاعَةُ فِي عُسْرِكَ وَيُسْرِكَ وَمَكْرَهِكَ وَمَنْشَطِكَ وَأَثْرَةٍ عَلَيْكَ…») “The migration of the nomad is to return to your wilderness, and to listen and obey in times of hardship and ease, whether you are willing or unwilling, and when someone is given undue preference to you…”] End Quote.
Question:
1- Are the statements between pages 14 and 24 truly contradictory? If not, how can we reconcile them?
2- Doesn’t the application of Islamic rulings to the Bedouin, through their obedience to Allah and His Messenger after their conversion to Islam, indicate that their lands had become lands of Islam? The evidence presented on page 14 clearly demonstrates the application of these rulings and the obligation of obedience…
3- If it is established that the Bedouin lands were lands of Islam, does the Hadith in Muslim on page 24 still constitute evidence for differentiating rights between a Muslim living within the abode of Islam and one living outside of it? [Friday night, 25 Sha’ban 1447 AH…] End.
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assaalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh,
First, may Allah bless you for your kind prayers for me, and I pray for your well-being. Here is the answer:
1- There is no contradiction between what is stated in the book, “Introduction to the Draft Constitution, Part One,” in the two places you mentioned in the question, because each place speaks of a different reality than the other. To understand the truth of the matter, it is necessary to know the reality of the Islamic state in the early days of Islam. When the Prophet (saw) moved to Al-Medina Al-Munawarah during the Hijra, Al-Medina Al-Munawarah was the abode of Islam. There were other Jewish tribes and states around it with whom the Prophet (saw) made agreements. These tribes were not part of the abode of Islam, even though they were close to it, indeed adjacent to it. The book “The Islamic Personality, Volume Two,” clarifies the reality of these Jewish tribes:
– [As for the evidence that it is not allowed to seek assistance from the disbelievers in their description/capacity as an independent State, this is due to what Ahmad and An-Nasai narrated from Anas who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: «لا تستضيئوا بنار المشركين» “Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists.” The fire (nar) of a people is a metaphoric expression (kinaya) for their entity in war as an independent tribe or State.
Al-Bayhaqi said: The authentic (sahih) is what Al-Hafidh Abu Abdullah informed us via a chain leading (saq) to Abu Hameed as-Sa’idi who said:«خرج رسول الله ﷺ حتى إذا خلَّف ثنيَّة الوداع إذا كتيبة قال: من هؤلاء؟ قالوا بني قينقاع وهو رهط عبد الله بن سلام قال: وأسلموا؟ قالوا: لا، بل هم على دينهم، قال: قولوا لهم فليرجعوا، فإنّا لا نستعين بالمشركين» “The Messenger of Allah (SAW) went out until he left behind Thaniyya al-Wada’ when there was a squadron (kateeba). He said: ‘Who are these?’ They said: ‘Banu Qaynuqa and they are the company of Abdullah bin Salam.’ He said: ‘Have they embraced Islam?’ They said: ‘Rather they are on their religion.’ He said: ‘Tell them to return. Verily we do not seek assistance of the polytheists.”
The Messenger (SAW) returned the company of Abdullah bin Salam of Banu Qaynuqa since they came as a nation (taifa) united in a Kafir squadron, and they came under their flag in their capacity as being from Banu Qaynuqa between whom and the Messenger were treaties; they were like a State. Due to this, he rejected them. Their rejection was due to their coming under their flag and with their State, by the evidence of his (SAW) accepting the assistance of the Jews in Khaybar when they came as individuals. This hadith of Abu Hameed As-Sa’idi includes the Shari’ah reason (illah), so if it exists the rule exists and if it is absent the rule is absent. The reason in the hadith is clear in the hadith’s text where it says: “When there appeared an squadron. He said: Who are these? They said: Banu Qaynuqa who are the company of Abdullah bin Salam.” The meaning of their being a squadron is that they are an independent army with an independent flag, since for every squadron there is flag. So they were a Kafir squadron with an independent flag and from the Jewish Banu Qaynuqa who were of the rank of a State between whom and the Messenger were treaties. This was the reason for rejecting them, not merely because they were disbelievers with the evidence that he commanded them to return based upon this and their rejection of Islam not due to their rejection of Islam alone.
The Prophet (saw) turned back the group of Abdullah ibn Salam from the Banu Qaynuqa’ because they came as a united force, a battalion of disbelievers, under their banner, as they were from the Banu Qaynuqa’, with whom the Prophet had treaties and who were, in effect, a state. Therefore, he rejected them. Their rejection stemmed from their coming under their banner and within their state, as evidenced by his (saw) acceptance of the Jews’ assistance in Khaybar when they came individually. This Hadith of Abu Humaid contains a legal I’la (divine reason); if it is present, the ruling applies, and if it is absent, the ruling does not. The I’la in the Hadith is evident in its text, for it states:
«إذا كتيبة قال: من هؤلاء؟ قالوا: بني قينقاع وهو رهط عبد الله بن سلام»
“When there was a squadron. He said: ‘Who are these?’ They said: ‘Banu Qaynuqa and they are the company of Abdullah bin Salam.”
The Messenger (SAW) returned the company of Abdullah bin Salam of Banu Qaynuqa since they came as a nation (taifa) united in a Kafir squadron, and they came under their flag in their capacity as being from Banu Qaynuqa between whom and the Messenger were treaties; they were like a State. Due to this, he rejected them. Their rejection was due to their coming under their flag and with their State, by the evidence of his (SAW) accepting the assistance of the Jews in Khaybar when they came as individuals. This hadith of Abu Hameed As-Sa’idi includes the Shari’ah reason (illah), so if it exists the rule exists and if it is absent the rule is absent. The reason in the hadith is clear in the hadith’s text where it says: “When there appeared an squadron. He said: Who are these? They said: Banu Qaynuqa who are the company of Abdullah bin Salam.” The meaning of their being a squadron is that they are an independent army with an independent flag, since for every squadron there is flag. So they were a Kafir squadron with an independent flag and from the Jewish Banu Qaynuqa who were of the rank of a State between whom and the Messenger were treaties. This was the reason for rejecting them, not merely because they were disbelievers with the evidence that he commanded them to return based upon this and their rejection of Islam not due to their rejection of Islam alone. This is strengthened by the hadith of Anas: “Do not seek light by the fire of polytheists” since it is (mutasallit) over the entity just as it is strengthened by the Messenger’s accepting assistance from Quzman in the same place of the event of Uhud although he is a polytheist. The meaning of this is rejecting the assistance of disbelievers in their capacity as an entity, and accepting their assistance in their capacity as individuals. Therefore seeking assistance of disbelievers as a Kafir nation or tribe or State, and under their own flag as a part of their State is absolutely not allowed in any case. [End quote].
Another quote includes:
– [It is obligatory to implement the Islamic rules upon all those in Dar al-Islam under the rule of the Islamic State just like they are implemented upon Muslims equally, whether he is a dhimmi or mu’ahid or must’amin. The ruler is not given a choice in that; rather it is obligatory to implement the Islamic rules upon them without hesitation because Allah ta’ala said in relation to the People of the Book:
[فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْحَقِّ] “Rule/Judge between them with all that Allah revealed and do not follow their desires after the Truth came to you” [Al-Ma’idah: 48].
He (swt) also says in relation to them:
[وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ] “Rule between them with all that Allah revealed and do not follow their desires. And beware that they do not seduce you from just some of what Allah revealed to you” [Al-Ma’idah: 49]. And He (swt) says:
[إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ لِتَحْكُمَ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِمَا أَرَاكَ اللَّهُ] “Verily We revealed to you the Book in truth so that you rule between the people with what Allah revealed” [An-Nisa: 105]. This is general covering Muslims and non-Muslims since the word “nas” (people) is general: ﴿لِتَحْكُمَ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ﴾ “…so that you rule between the people” [An-Nisa: 105]. As for the Supreme’s statement:
[سَمَّاعُونَ لِلْكَذِبِ أَكَّالُونَ لِلسُّحْتِ فَإِنْ جَاءُوكَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ] “Listeners to falsehood, eaters of illicit wealth (suht). If they come to you then rule between them or turn away from them” [Al-Ma’idah: 42], the meaning is those who come to the Islamic State from outside it to arbitrate to the Muslims in his dispute with another disbeliever or disbelievers. The Muslims are given a choice between ruling/judging between them or turning away from them. The ayah was revealed about those whom the Messenger of Allah (SAW) made a treaty with from the Jews of Madinah and they were tribes considered as other States, not inc in the Malysia book and were not subject to the Islamic rule, but were other states: accordingly there were treaties between him (saw) and them. Whereas if the disbelievers were submitting to the rule of Islam such as when they were dhimmis or they came must’amin submitting to the rule of Islam i.e. consenting to enter Dar al-Islam together with submitting to the rule of Islam like mu’ahids or must’amins, it is not allowed to rule between them except with Islam. Whoever among them refuses to return to the rule of Islam, the ruler compels him and punishes him because of it since he entered into a pledge with the condition of being bound by the rules of Islam whether it was the pledge of dhimmah or treaty or security without distinction between them as long as he is in Dar al-Islam.
The Messenger of Allah (saw) wrote to the people of Najran, and they were Christians
«إن من بايع منكم بالربا فلا ذمة له» “Whoever among you contracts with riba then there is a no pledge (dhimmah) for him” (Narrated by Ibn Abi Shaibah).” Ibn Umar narrated:
«أن اليهود جاءوا إلى النبي ﷺ برجل وامرأة زنيا فأمر بهما فرجما» “The Jews brought to the Prophet (saw) a man and a woman who comitted fornication, so he (saw) commanded that they were stoned.” (Reported by Al-Bukhari) Al-Bukhari also reported: «أن النبي ﷺ قتل يهودياً بجارية قتلها على أوضاح لها» “The Prophet (saw) killed a Jew for killing a girl in order to take her ornaments.”… These Jews were of the Muslims’ citizens, and what is apparent is that this was after the end of the Jewish entities and their being protected as citizens under the Muslims’ authority.] End of Quote.
2- After the elimination of the Jewish states surrounding Medina, the dominion of Islam extended to include the regions where these tribes resided, as well as the surrounding Bedouin/desert areas. However, the dominion of Islam did not encompass the Arabian Peninsula until some time later… Thus, the Bedouin around Medina became subjects of the state and its citizens, meaning they became subject to the authority and rulings of Islam… These are the ones whom the Noble Quran mentions in the words of Allah (swt): [مَا كَانَ لِأَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهُمْ مِنَ الْأَعْرَابِ أَنْ يَتَخَلَّفُوا عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَلَا يَرْغَبُوا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ عَنْ نَفْسِهِ] “It was not ˹proper˺ for the people of Medina and the nomadic Arabs around them to avoid marching with the Messenger of Allah or to prefer their own lives above his” [At-Tawbah: 120]. And His (swt) saying:
[وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُمْ مِنَ الْأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَرَدُوا عَلَى النِّفَاقِ لَا تَعْلَمُهُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ سَنُعَذِّبُهُمْ مَرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَى عَذَابٍ عَظِيمٍ]
“Some of the nomads around you ˹believers˺ are hypocrites, as are some of the people of Medina. They have mastered hypocrisy. They are not known to you ˹O Prophet˺; they are known to Us. We will punish them twice ˹in this world˺, then they will be brought back ˹to their Lord˺ for a tremendous punishment” [At-Tawbah: 101]. And His (swt) saying:
[سَيَقُولُ لَكَ الْمُخَلَّفُونَ مِنَ الْأَعْرَابِ شَغَلَتْنَا أَمْوَالُنَا وَأَهْلُونَا فَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَنَا يَقُولُونَ بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ مَا لَيْسَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ قُلْ فَمَنْ يَمْلِكُ لَكُمْ مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئاً إِنْ أَرَادَ بِكُمْ ضَرّاً أَوْ أَرَادَ بِكُمْ نَفْعاً بَلْ كَانَ اللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيراً]
“The nomadic Arabs, who stayed behind, will say to you ˹O Prophet˺, “We were preoccupied with our wealth and families, so ask for forgiveness for us.” They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts. Say, “Who then can stand between you and Allah in any way, if He intends harm or benefit for you? In fact, Allah is All-Aware of what you do” [Al-Fath: 11]. Including other additional verses.
The desert surrounding Medina was subject to the authority of Islam, and its inhabitants were subjects of the state. However, migration to Al-Medina Al-Munawarah was not obligatory for them; rather, it was sufficient for them to submit to the state. They are the ones referred to in the “Introduction to the Draft Constitution, Part One” where it says:
[Another evidence is what Ahmad narrated, Ibn Hibban in his Sahih collection and Abu ‘Ubayd in Al-Amwal by ‘Abd Allah b. Amr from the Prophet (saw) who said:
«وَالْهِجْرَةُ هِجْرَتَانِ هِجْرَةُ الْحَاضِرِ وَالْبَادِي فَأَمَّا الْبَادِي فَيُطِيعُ إِذَا أُمِرَ وَيُجِيبُ إِذَا دُعِيَ وَأَمَّا الْحَاضِرُ فَأَعْظَمُهُمَا بَلِيَّةً وَأَعْظَمُهُمَا أَجْراً». “There are two kinds of emigration, the emigration of the town dweller and the emigration of the Bedouin. As for the Bedouin, when he is called (to fight in Jihad) he must respond, and he must obey when he is commanded, and as for the town dweller, he is the one who is more severely tested and more greatly rewarded.” The angle of inference is clear from his words (saw): «فَيُطِيعُ إِذَا أُمِرَ وَيُجِيبُ إِذَا دُعِيَ» “he must respond and, must obey when he is commanded”, since the desert was part of the abode of Islam (Dar Al-Islam) even if it was not the abode of emigration (Dar Al-Hijrah)].
These people were from the desert of Al-Medina Al-Munawarah and were subjects of the state under its authority… This is supported by what Abu Ubaid mentioned in the book of “Al-Amwal”:
[- Muhammad ibn Ja’far narrated to us, Shu’bah narrated to us, on the authority of ‘Amr ibn Murrah, on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn al-Harith, on the authority of Abu Kathir al-Zubaydi Zuhayr ibn al-Aqmar, on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr, on the authority of the Prophet (saw), who said:
«الْهِجْرَةُ هِجْرَتَانِ: هِجْرَةُ الْبَادِي، وَهِجْرَةُ الْحَاضِرِ، فَأَمَّا هِجْرَةُ الْبَادِي فَعَلَيْهِ أَنْ يُجِيبَ إِذَا دُعِيَ وَأَنْ يُطِيعَ إِذَا أُمِرَ، وَأَمَّا هِجْرَةُ الْحَاضِرِ فَهِيَ أَشَدُّهُمَا بَلِيَّةً، وَأَعْظَمُهُمَا أَجْراً»
“There are two kinds of emigration, the emigration of the town dweller and the emigration of the Bedouin. As for the Bedouin, when he is called (to fight in Jihad) he must respond, and he must obey when he is commanded, and as for the town dweller, he is the one who is more severely tested and more greatly rewarded.”.
– Sa’id ibn ‘Ufayr told me: Sulayman ibn Bilal told me, on the authority of ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Harmalah, who said: I heard ‘Abdullah ibn Niyar al-Aslami say: I heard ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr narrating on the authority of ‘A’ishah, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said – and ‘A’ishah mentioned the Bedouins in his presence – so He (saw) said: يَا عَائِشَةُ لَيْسُوا بِأَعْرَابٍ، هُمْ أَهْلُ بَادِيَتِنَا، وَنَحْنُ أَهْلُ حَاضِرَتِهِمْ، فَإِذَا دُعُوا أَجَابُوا، فَلَيْسُوا بِأَعْرَابٍ. “O Aisha, they are not Bedouins. They are the people of our desert, and we are the people of their city. So, if they are called upon, they will answer. They are not Bedouins”. Abu Ubaid said: I think that the Prophet (saw) made the name of migration obligatory for them through belief, even if they were in their places, except that the people of the city have their virtue as I informed you. This is something that clarifies for you that they have a right over the Muslims if they need that, whether that right is little or much, it is only according to what the Imam sees fit…] End Quote.
3- As for the rest of the deserts in the Arabian Peninsula that were not around Medina, they were not under the authority of Islam, and had not yet been included under the abode of migration and the abode of Islam until the rule of Islam extended to the entire Arabian Peninsula and became established there, so it all became the abode of Islam… And to such tribes in those deserts that were not under the authority of Islam, the Hadith of Sulayman ibn Buraydah mentioned in the book “Introduction to the Constitution, Part One,” when explaining Article 5 and Article 6 of the draft constitution, applies:
[These two articles have been drafted in order to explain the rules pertaining to those who carry the Islamic citizenship irrespective of whether they were Muslims or the people of Dhimmah (non-Muslim citizen of the Islamic State). As for the Muslims, this is due to the fact that the Messenger has denied the Muslims who live outside the Islamic State and who do not hold the Islamic citizenship from the rights enjoyed by the State’s subjects. On the authority of Sulayman Ibn Buraydah on that of his father who said: «كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ إِذَا أَمَّرَ أَمِيراً عَلَى جَيْشٍ أَوْ سَرِيَّةٍ أَوْصَاهُ فِي خَاصَّتِهِ بِتَقْوَى اللَّهِ وَمَنْ مَعَهُ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ خَيْراً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: اغْزُوا بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ، قَاتِلُوا مَنْ كَفَرَ بِاللَّهِ، اغْزُوا وَلا تَغُلُّوا وَلا تَغْدِرُوا وَلا تَمْثُلُوا وَلا تَقْتُلُوا وَلِيداً، وَإِذَا لَقِيتَ عَدُوَّكَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فَادْعُهُمْ إِلَى ثَلاثِ خِصَالٍ أَوْ خِلالٍ، فَأَيَّتُهُنَّ مَا أَجَابُوكَ فَاقْبَلْ مِنْهُمْ وَكُفَّ عَنْهُمْ، ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى الإِسْلاَمِ، فَإِنْ أَجَابُوكَ فَاقْبَلْ مِنْهُمْ وَكُفَّ عَنْهُمْ، ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ إِنْ فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَلَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، فَإِنْ أَبَوْا أَنْ يَتَحَوَّلُوا مِنْهَا فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ يَكُونُونَ كَأَعْرَابِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَجْرِي عَلَيْهِمْ حُكْمُ اللَّهِ الَّذِي يَجْرِي عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، وَلا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ إِلاَّ أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ» “When the Messenger of Allah appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Emigrants and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Emigrants. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai’ except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers).” (Recorded by Muslim). This narration indicates clearly that the one who does not migrate to Dar Al-Islam will not enjoy any of the rights of citizenship even if he were a Muslim. The Messenger of Allah (saw) invited them to come under the authority of Islam so that they may enjoy what the Muslims enjoyed and undertake the obligations which the Muslims undertook; he said: «ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ إِنْ فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَلَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ» “Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Emigrants (Muhajirin) and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Emigrants”. This text stipulates that migration is required for them to have what we have and for our obligations to be upon them, in other words, for them to fall under the laws. The understanding of the narration is that if they did not move they would not have what the emigrants had, in other words, what they had in the abode of Islam (Dar Al-Islam), so these narrations explain the difference in the laws between the one who moves to the abode of the emigrants and the one who doesn’t, and the abode of the emigrants was the abode of Islam with anything else being the abode of disbelief (Dar Al-Kufr).].
The request for migration was directed to tribes or groups that were not in Dar Al-Islam but in Dar Al-Kufr. When they embraced Islam, their lives were protected by Islam, but they did not become directly subject to the authority of Islam, nor did they become directly part of Dar Al-Islam because they were located in Dar Al-Kufr, which was not subject to the authority of Islam. So, they were asked to migrate in order to become subject to the authority of Islam… This is also clarified by what was narrated about the Prophet (saw), regarding his conquest of Dar Al-Kufr, as we explained in the book “Introduction to the Constitution, Part Two”:
[…As for the second matter, its proof is what was mentioned in the Hadith of Sulayman ibn Buraydah on the authority of his father, in the Prophet’s advice to the commanders of the armies, that the Prophet (saw) used to say to those he appointed as commanders of the army: «… ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى الإِسْلامِ، فَإِنْ أَجَابُوكَ فَاقْبَلْ مِنْهُمْ وَكُفَّ عَنْهُمْ، ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ إِنْ فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَلَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، فَإِنْ أَبَوْا أَنْ يَتَحَوَّلُوا مِنْهَا فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ يَكُونُونَ كَأَعْرَابِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَجْرِي عَلَيْهِمْ حُكْمُ اللَّهِ الَّذِي يَجْرِي عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، وَلا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ إِلا أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ» “Invite them to (accept) Islam, if they respond to you accept it from them, and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of the Muhajireen, and inform them if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims, and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers)” [reported by Muslim] The reason for using this Hadith as evidence is that the Prophet (saw) said: «ثُـمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَـى دَارِ الْمُهَـاجِرِينَ، وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ إِنْ فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَلَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ» “Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of the Muhajireen, and inform them if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen.”
This text stipulates that migration is a condition for them to have the same rights and obligations as us, meaning that the state’s laws apply to them. If they do not migrate, they do not have the same rights and obligations like us, therefore, the laws do not apply to them. Furthermore, the Prophet (saw) considered migration to the land of the Muhajireen a condition for their entitlement to spoils of war (Fai’) and booty. All other forms of wealth are measured against this condition. Thus, those who do not migrate to the land of the Muhajireen are treated like non-Muslims in terms of being deprived of their wealth. This means that financial laws are not applied to them because they have not migrated to the land of the Muhajireen. The land of the Muhajireen was Dar Al-Islam, while all other lands were considered Dar Al-Kufr. Therefore, the Prophet (saw) would wage war against any land other than the land of the Muhajireen, considering it a land of war. However, if its inhabitants were Muslims, he would not fight or kill them, but rather invite them to come to Dar Al-Islam. If they were non-Muslims, he would fight them, as this Hadith indicates, and as is also indicated by what was narrated from Anas, who said: «كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ إِذَا غَزَا قَوْماً لَمْ يُغِرْ حَتَّى يُصْبِحَ، فَإِنْ سَمِعَ أَذَاناً أَمْسَكَ، وَإِنْ لَـمْ يَسْمَعْ أَذَاناً أَغَارَ بَعْدَمَا يُصْبِحُ» “Whenever the Messenger of Allah (saw) wanted to attack a people, he would wait until dawn, if he heard the Adhan, he would refrain, and if he did not hear it, he would pray and then attack” (Reported by Al- Bukhari)
The Prophet (saw) considered any land other than the land of the Muhajireen (i.e., any land other than the land of Islam) to be a land of war, even if Muslims lived there. In other words, it was Dar Al-Kufr, and its rulings were the same as those of a land of disbelief in terms of applying the laws, including financial rulings. The only difference between Muslims and non-Muslims in such a land was that Muslims were not to be fought, killed, or have their wealth seized, while non-Muslims were to be fought, killed, and have their wealth seized. Beyond that, the rulings were the same. This is the proof of the difference between a Dar Al-Kufr and Dar Al- Islam. Whoever lived in Dar Al-Kufr or Dar Al-Harb. So, whoever resides in Dar Al-Kufr or Dar Al- Harb and his allegiance is that of disbelief, then, all the rulings of Dar Al-Kufr applies to him, whether he is a Muslim or not, except that the Muslim is protected in blood and wealth]. End Quote.
This shows that at that time, Dar Al-Kufr contained tribes that had embraced Islam but were not subject to Islamic rule and were not part of Dar Al-Islam. Therefore, when the Prophet (saw) Dar Al-Kufr inhabited by such Muslim tribes, he would not launch an attack until he ascertained whether the tribe he intended to raid had converted to Islam. If they had, he would not attack them. This means that the raids were against tribes in Dar Al-Kufr that were not subject to Islamic rule and were not part of Dar Al-Islam, because Dar Al-Islam was not to be raided or attacked. Such tribes were required, if they converted to Islam, to move to Dar Al-Islam and not remain in Dar Al-Kufr.
4- After the expansion of Islamic rule and its encompassing of the entire Arabian Peninsula, the issue of these tribes moving to Dar Al-Islam became irrelevant because they naturally became subject to Islamic rule and part of Dar Al-Islam without having to leave their original lands.
I hope this answer is sufficient, and Allah Knows Best and Most Wise.
Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah9 Muharram 1448 AH
24 June 2026 CE -
Q&A: Seeking Support from Muslim Rulers These Days
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answer to Question
Seeking Support from Muslim Rulers These Days
To Saadi Dheeb Awad
(Translated)Question:
Assalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatahu. I pray to Allah Almighty that my message finds you in the best of health. My question, esteemed Sheikh, is this:
This hadith is authentically narrated in the two Sahihs (Bukhari and Muslim) from the Prophet (saw) with the wording:
“وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَيُؤَيِّدُ هَذَا الدِّينَ بِالرَّجُلِ الْفَاجِرِ “
“Indeed, Allah supports this religion even with a wicked man.”
Since our rulers are wicked, why are they excluded from the request for support when the hadith explicitly states they could support this religion?
From observing the current situation, and while acknowledging that armies are the source of strength and protection these days, I believe that addressing the ruler and receiving his response is easier than addressing subservient armies that obey the ruler’s orders, killing, slaughtering, and exterminating people. What we see is evidence of this.
How did the Aws and Khazraj tribes support the cause? Was it through the individual members and knights of the tribe, or through the leaders of the two tribes?
I request clarification, along with relevant Islamic legal evidence if possible.
Answer:
Wa Assalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatahu,
1- Regarding the hadith you mentioned, it does not pertain to supporting the establishment of a state, but rather to the permissibility for a person who is a dhimmi (protected non-Muslim) or under treaty who lives in the Khilafah (Caliphate) to fight alongside the Muslims in their army against their enemies. To clarify the matter for you, I will quote some relevant texts:
The hadith you mentioned was narrated by Bukhari and Muslim:
«… ثُمَّ أَمَرَ بِلَالاً فَنَادَى بِالنَّاسِ إِنَّهُ لَا يَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا نَفْسٌ مُسْلِمَةٌ، وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَيُؤَيِّدُ هَذَا الدِّينَ بِالرَّجُلِ الْفَاجِرِ»
“…Then he ordered Bilal to call out to the people, ‘None but a Muslim will enter Paradise, and indeed, Allah supports this religion even with a wicked man’” (The wording is from Bukhari). This means that it is permissible for a non-Muslim or a sinner living in an Islamic state, such as a dhimmi, to fight in the Islamic army if he is skilled in the arts of war. Among the evidence for this is the following:
A- It was mentioned in The Islamic Personality Volume 2, Chapter on seeking help from non-Muslims in fighting:
It is permitted to seek assistance from the disbelievers in their capacity as individuals on condition that they are under the Islamic flag irrespective of whether they are dhimmis or not, or whether they are citizens of the Islamic State or not. As for seeking assistance from them as a specific nation with an entity independent from the Islamic State, this is absolutely not allowed. So it is forbidden to seek their assistance in their capacity as an independent State. The evidence for permitting the seeking of assistance of disbelievers as individuals is “Qazman went out with the companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) on the day of Uhud while he was a polytheist, and he killed three of the Banu Abd al-Dar, the standard-bearers of the polytheists, until the Prophet (saw) said: “Indeed, God strengthens this religion even with a wicked man” (Narrated by al-Tabari in his history).
B- It is also mentioned in Nayl al-Awtar by al-Shawkani, Chapter on what has been said about seeking help from polytheists: [B- Similarly, in Nayl al-Awtar by al-Shawkani, in the chapter on seeking help from polytheists, it is stated: [Among the things that indicate the permissibility of seeking help from polytheists is the following: “That Qazman went out with the companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) on the day of Uhud, while he was a polytheist, and he killed three men from Banu Abd al-Dar, the standard-bearers of the polytheists. Until the Prophet (saw) said:
«إنَّ اللَّهَ لَيَأْزُرُ هَذَا الدِّينَ بِالرَّجُلِ الْفَاجِرِ»
‘Indeed, Allah strengthens this religion even with a wicked man.’” This is confirmed by the biographers.]
As you can see, the hadith is evidence that it is permissible for a person who is a dhimmi or a treaty-bound person to fight with the Muslims in their army against their enemies… and it has no relation to supporting the establishment of the Khilafah.
2- Regarding your question about the permissibility of seeking support from Muslim rulers these days, this matter is discussed in detail in our private messages to those working in the field of seeking support. However, I will quote from them what pertains to your question about seeking support from rulers in Muslim countries these days:
[…
If a territory has a governing authority that, in relation to surrounding entities—whether a tribe or a state—oversees the affairs of its people, manages their lives, rewards the virtuous among them, punishes the wrongdoers, and so forth…And if it possesses the strength and resilience to defend itself against surrounding entities, then it is indeed an entity to which the request for support applies.
• There are two ways to seek help:
The first method: Requesting support from the head of the entity, whether a tribal chief or the head of state…
The second method: Requesting support from a group of the people of power within the entity…
The application of this method in both cases depends on the nature of these entities, whether they are states or tribes:
* If the entity is independent in its affairs, it is permissible to request support from either of the above methods: from its leader or from a number of the people of power within it.
* If it is linked to a foreign power and does not wish to sever ties, and we are aware of this, we will not accept its support unless it cuts its relationship with the foreign power. In this case, we will only resort to the second method (if necessary), i.e., from a group within the people of power.
• By studying and reflecting upon the Seerah (Biography of the Prophet (saw)), these matters become clear: …
We have explained it in detail for those working to seek victory, along with its evidence… However, I will mention one point from it that relates to your question:
[As for tribes with ties to foreign powers, and states with foreign connections, we do not seek their support if we know of their foreign affiliations. Nor do we accept their support in one matter and their withholding it in another to appease the foreign state they support. Rather, if necessary, the approach in the second case is the one followed: seeking the support of men from among them who, together, would form a force capable of bringing about change. This is what happened with the tribe of Shayban ibn Tha’labah, as mentioned in ‘Uyun al-Athar (1/202):
[Qasim ibn Thabit mentioned, in what I saw from him, a hadith narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas on the authority of Ali ibn Abi Talib, concerning his and Abu Bakr’s departure with the Messenger of Allah (saw) for that purpose. Ali said: Abu Bakr was always at the forefront of good deeds, so he asked: “Who are these people?” They replied: “They are from the tribe of Shayban ibn Tha’labah.” Abu Bakr turned to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: “May my father and mother be sacrificed for you! These are distinguished men among their people, and among them are Mafruq ibn Amr, Hani ibn Qubaysah, Muthanna ibn Harithah, and Nu’man ibn Sharik. Mafruq ibn Amr surpassed them in beauty and eloquence…”
Mafruq said, “Perhaps you are a brother of Quraysh?” Abu Bakr replied, “Have you heard that he is the Messenger of Allah? Here he is.” Mafruq said, “We have heard that he says so. So, what do you call to, O brother of Quraysh?” Then the Messenger of Allah (saw) stepped forward and said, “I call to bear witness that there is no god but Allah alone, without partner, and that I am the Messenger of Allah, and that you give me refuge and support me, for Quraysh has conspired against Allah’s command, denied His messengers, and turned to falsehood instead of truth. And Allah is the Self-Sufficient, the Praiseworthy.”
Then Mafruq said: By Allah, O brother of Quraysh, you have called for noble morals and virtuous deeds, and indeed, a people have lied about you and conspired against you…
It was as if he wanted to include Al-Muthanna ibn Haritha in the conversation, so he said…
(We only came here because of a covenant made with us by Chosroes that we would not cause any trouble nor harbor any troublemaker. And I see that this matter to which you are calling us is something that kings dislike. If you wish us to shelter you and support you from the direction of the Arabian waters, we will do so. The Messenger of Allah (saw), said:
«ما أسأتم في الرد إذ أفصحتم في الصدق وإن دين الله لن ينصره إلا من حاطه من جميع جوانبه»
“You did not err in your response, for you spoke the truth, and Allah’s religion will only be victorious through those who protect it from all sides”…)]
When the Prophet (saw) learned that there was a treaty between the Banu Shayban and the Persians, and that the Banu Shayban would support him against the Arabs but not against the Persians, he did not accept this condition from them, even though they had agreed to support him against Quraysh and the Arabs.They stipulated that this support be separate from the Persians because of the treaty they had made with the Persians. Although the Prophet (saw) needed support against the Quraysh, he did not agree unless they support him against all disbelievers.]
This, in brief, is how the call for support was made during the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw). And this is what we follow, with Allah’s help, and we ask Him, the Exalted, to grant us success in resuming Islamic life by establishing the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly Guided Caliphate) according to the Prophetic methodology…
And this is sufficient, and Allah Knows Best.
Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah27 Dhul Qi’dah 1447 AH
Corresponding to 14/05/2026 CEThe link to the answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page.
