Home

  • Q&A: The Fluctuations in Gold Prices


    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Answer to Question
    The Fluctuations in Gold Prices
    To: Ahmed Saeed
    (Translated)

    Question:

    Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh our esteemed Sheikh

    I hope this question reaches you in good health and well-being. I ask Allah (swt) to guide you in upholding His Deen and implementing His law.

    My question is: We have recently witnessed a significant rise in the price of gold, reaching more than double its original price in just a few years. Does this mean that gold, as a stable metal and a standard for currencies, is no longer so, but has become subject to change? Or is this change due to the control exerted by certain regimes and political circumstances?

    If so, how will the Islamic state, which will soon be established, Allah willing, maintain its stability and prevent manipulation of it by the enemies of Islam? Barak Allahu feek.

    Your brother in Islam, Ahmed Saeed, from the land of the Isra and Mi’raj, Palestine.

    Answer:

    Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh

    The fluctuations in gold prices are due to its status as a commodity. Therefore, speculation affects its price, causing it to rise and fall. This is especially true because the world’s major powers, particularly the United States, prioritize the dollar as the primary medium of exchange. They increase or decrease the printing of dollars without accountability. Furthermore, their colonial relationships with several countries contribute to the dollar’s stability in many cases, making it almost as if it were gold. If the situation were different, and currency was actually gold, and every piece of paper printed had to be backed by a certain amount of gold that could be exchanged for it at any time—what is known as reserve paper—then all fiat currency (i.e., non-reserve paper) would be worth no more than the paper it is printed on. To clarify this, I will mention two points that will aid to understand more:

    First: In my book, “Economic Crises: Their reality and solutions from the viewpoint of Islam,” I discussed the following:

    [Economic crises as a result of the reality of currency: When the world followed the gold standard in its monetary dealings it was living in a period of economic prosperity and monetary stability. But when this system vanished … and dealings became solely through the compulsory abstract banknotes (fiat). So, the situation deteriorated, and the incidence of crises accelerated, one after the other. The gold standard system was used to guarantee a fixed exchange rate, as the monetary unit of each country was gold or papers that represented full value in gold, and was liable for conversion at any time. Consequently, the exchange rate between the countries was constant because it was related to an acknowledged gold unit. For example, a dinar in Islam is defined as 4.25 a gram of gold, and the British pound was defined by law as 2.0 grams of pure gold and the French franc was equivalent of one gram and so on. Therefore, the exchange rate was fixed.

    This system stabilized the value of the monetary unit both internally within the country and externally. The evidence for this was that the standard prices of gold in 1910 were almost at the same level they were in 1890. However, after the abolition of this system the occurrence of these crises has become considerable…]

    Second: There is no fear for the Islamic state’s currency when it is established, Allah willing. There is no fear that it will be affected by the speculation of other countries if they refuse to adopt gold and silver as their currency and continue with the paper currency system and then try to influence the state, because of the advantages that the Muslim countries enjoy that make them safe from any external speculation. The following has been stated in the economic system regarding this matter:

    […the exchange rate between the Islamic State’s currency and the currencies of other countries would not have an effect upon the Islamic State for two reasons:

    1. The Islamic lands possess all the raw materials that the Ummah and the State need. Therefore, its need for other countries’ commodities would not be essential or necessary. It is self-sufficient of its local goods, thus not affected by exchange fluctuations.

    2. The Islamic lands possess commodities which all other countries need, for example oil. The Islamic State could restrict the sale of such commodities unless they are paid for by gold. The State could do away with other countries’ commodities by relying solely on its own local commodities, and who ever owns commodities that all other peoples need, could not in any way be affected by the fluctuation of the exchange rate. It is it who could control international markets, with none able to control its currency].

    Rest assured, dear brother, that the party has men of wisdom, awareness, and sound judgment, and before and after all else, the help and guidance of Allah (swt), sufficient to turn the plots of the enemies of Islam back upon themselves. And Allah is the protector of the righteous.

    I hope this is sufficient, and Allah Knows Best and is Most Wise.

    Your Brother,
    Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

    7 Ramadan 1447 AH
    24/2/2026 CE

    The Link to the Answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page: Click Here

  • Arousing the nationalist chauvinism and the separatist tendencies | Chapter 3

    Arousing the nationalist chauvinism and the separatist tendencies | Chapter 3

    HOW THE KHILAFAH WAS DESTROYED

    Author: Abdul Qadeem Zalloum

    Chapter 3:

    Arousing the nationalist chauvinism and the separatist tendencies

    The attempts of the European countries, especially Britain, France and Russia to remove the Khilafah State from existence continued. However, their attempts were mainly focused at striking the State from the back, through organised wars, armies and battles – but these failed. This failure was not exclusively due to the defensive capabilities of the Khaleefah, but primarily due to the international situation and due to differences over the sharing of spoils amongst these states.

    As for the attempts undertaken in Europe by the European states, mainly in Serbia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece and others, these were successful because the European countries proceeded by inciting nationalist chauvinism and separatist tendencies which they called ‘independence’. Thus, the European countries adopted this style (inciting nationalist chauvinism and separatist tendencies) all over the lands that were shaded by the banner of Islam and ruled by the Khaleefah of the Muslims. They specifically focused their work on the Arabs and the Turks. The British and French embassies in Istanbul, and those in the main areas of the Islamic lands started this incitement. Their work was notable mostly in Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, Cairo and Jeddah. Two main centres were established to carry out this mission, Istanbul, to strike the state in her main centre, and Beirut, in order to strike her in the provinces, especially in the countries inhabited by Arabic speaking Muslims.

    The role of the Beirut Centre in working against the Khilafah

    As for the Beirut centre, it was set up as a centre of Kufr to hit Islam and the Islamic State, and its plan was designed to work on a long term basis which would yield far reaching results. As for the Istanbul centre, a short term plan was designed for it, so that it yielded quick results, but also with far reaching consequences. Hence, the Beirut centre was used as a deadly poison, which converted thousands of Muslim sons into Kuffar, and transformed the Islamic relations in general to relations conducted according to the Kufr rules. Indeed, the centre’s effect in hitting the Islamic State during her clash with the Kuffar in the First world war was devastating.

    The Western Kuffar started their political activities in Beirut immediately after Ibrahim Pasha’s withdrawal from Al-Sham. In 1842, a committee was formed with the aim of establishing a scientific association under the auspices of the American Mission and according to its programme. The committee proceeded according to its programme for five years, until it managed in 1847 to establish an association known as “The Science and Arts Association”. This association was run by two Christian collaborators, who were known as the most dangerous of British collaborators. They were Butros Al-Bustani and Naseef Al-Yaziji, backed by Colonel Churchill from among the British and Eli Smith and Cornilos Van Dick. The goals of the association were at first vague, it however gave the impression that it aimed at spreading the various sciences among adults, just as schools would do with children, and at motivating adults, just like children would be motivated, into being cultured with the western culture, given the western thoughts and steered towards a specific direction. However, despite the activity of the association’s workers and their huge efforts, over a period of two years only fifty active members in the whole of Al-Sham joined. They were all Christians and most of them were from Beirut. No one from amongst the Muslims joined the association.

    Hence, another association was established in 1850 under the name of the “Eastern Association”. It was established by the Jesuits, under the tutelage of the French Jesuit father Henri Debrenier, and all its members were Christians. In 1857 yet another association was established. This association however adopted a new style and made its membership exclusive to Arabs and no foreigners were allowed to join; the founders were also Arabs. Hence, it managed to persuade some Muslims and some of the Druze to join in their capacity as Arabs. A large number joined and they reached 150 members. Among its administration board were some prominent personalities such as Muhammad Arsalan from the Druze, Hussein Bayham from the Muslims and Ibrahim Al-Yaziji and the son of Butros Al-Bustani from the Christians. The latter two were the ones who adopted the idea and endeavoured to work towards it. The success of the association encouraged the Kuffar to adopt a direct approach in inciting nationalist chauvinism and tendencies towards independence, without having to resort to the ploy of spreading science, and to work in an open manner, not through intrigue and deceit.

    In 1875, the “Secret Association” was established in Beirut by five young men from among those who graduated from the Protestant College in Beirut. They were all Christians and they managed to gather a small number of people. The association set about concentrating itself on the basis of a political idea. It was established as a political party and built on the basis of Arab nationalism. This association is considered to have been the first political party to be established in the Islamic lands on the basis of Arab nationalism. The association used to call for the Arabs, Arabism and nationalism. It used to incite hatred against the Ottoman State and called it the “Turkish” state. It worked towards separating the Deen from the state, establishing Arab nationalism as a basis for unity and shifting the Muslims’ loyalty from the Islamic Aqeedah towards being exclusively for Arab nationalism. It used to publish leaflets and distribute them in secret. Some of its leaflets used to accuse Turkey -according to them – of usurping the Khilafah from the Arabs, violating the noble Islamic Shari’ah and abusing the Deen, despite the fact that those who supervised and ran the association’s affairs were all Christians who nurtured hatred against Islam. The nationalist movements started to spread thereon and nationalist chauvinism began to be propagated. However, the activities of the European countries at the Beirut centre were designed to recruit spies and carry out activities aimed at destroying the thoughts and the souls. Hence the political status of this association was backward, although its effects were intellectually devastating.

    The role of the Istanbul centre in working towards hitting the Khilafah State

    This was as far as the Beirut centre was concerned. As for the Istanbul centre, it was used by the Western Kuffar to strike the Islamic State in the capital and to strike at the state’s officials. The Kuffar had undertaken several actions, the most important and the most devastating of which was the establishment of the “Young Turks”, whose alias was “Union & Progress”. The Committee had been established at first in Paris by Turkish youth who had been saturated by French thoughts and deeply cultured about the French revolution. It was established as a secret revolutionary Committee. The leader of this revolutionary group was Ahmed Redha Beik. He was a prominent personality among people and his idea was to import the Western culture to his home country of Turkey. The Committee established other branches in Berlin, Slanik and Istanbul.

    The Paris centre was meticulously organised, its programme was radical and the means of publicity it relied upon were solid. It published a newsletter entitled “The News”. It used to be smuggled into Istanbul along with the European mail and was taken by a group of Turks who promised to distribute it secretly. The association also published political leaflets which were smuggled in the same manner. As for the Berlin branch, this was formed by moderates, former ministers of state, former high ranking officials and skilful politicians. They used to call for reform and the organising of the state’s affairs according to the German ruling system. They suggested uniting the many groups of people from whom the Ottoman empire was formed, and establishing amongst them something akin to the German federation.

    As for the Slanik branch, the overwhelming majority of its members were from among educated officers who had a strong influence within the army. They used to prepare for the revolution. Some of the Sheikhs had joined them, increasing their strength further. They were also joined by some junior officials, such as Tal’at, who later became prime minister. However, they were governed and controlled by the Paris centre and they never violated its opinion. The Paris centre used to guide them with full dedication towards western opinions and theories and arouse within them inclinations towards struggle.

    The Masonic lodges, especially the greater Italian lodge in Slanik, used to welcome the activities of this association and championed their cause from a literal viewpoint. Meetings used to take place in the chambers of the Masonic lodges, where it was impossible for spies to gain access no matter how hard they tried. Many members of these lodges were affiliated to the Union & Progress. The Committee managed through this means to increase its members and strengthen its influence, thanks to the aid it was receiving. Furthermore, the members of “Union & Progress” used to benefit from Masonic styles in establishing a liaison with Istanbul and even get closer to the Palace itself.

    The “Young Turk” or “Committee of Union & Progress” quickly started to hold secret meetings and prepare for the revolution. It followed this trend up until 1908, when it staged a coup and seized power. It’s strength became manifest and Europe expressed its approval of the Committee.

    In the autumn of 1908, and shortly before the opening of parliament, the members of the Slanik branch held a conference. This was regarded as its first muscle flexing exercise. The leader of the party at the time was its Parisian founder Ahmed Redha Beik. He delivered a speech to the delegates in which he expressed his happiness and boasted about the success of the party. He also confirmed that the European kingdoms themselves had expressed goodwill towards the nationalist movement and expressed their satisfaction about the country’s status quo.

    At that time, in the autumn of 1908, Britain appointed a new ambassador to Istanbul called Gerald Luther. When he reached Istanbul, a group from the Union & Progress Committee greeted him very warmly, to the point that they took the horses off from his chariot and pulled the chariot themselves. All this was inspired by the Union & Progress Committee and from its own initiative. The fascination of the Committee’s men with the embellished Western thoughts reached a point where they were no longer aware of the contradiction of these thoughts to the reality of the state they were governing, in addition to their failure to perceive their contradiction to Islam. The extent of their recklessness and lack of vision drew the attention of the Europeans to their ignorance, until one of the diplomats working in Istanbul at the time said about them: “They often take the second step before the first.” The activists of Union & Progress rushed into handing the reins of government to those familiar with Western laws and Western thoughts, and they eventually gained the upper hand within the Young Turk party.

    When they realised that controlling the army leads to controlling the whole power, they endeavoured to make the new appointments based on a party policy. Hence, all the officers became party members rather than experts or military men. They also introduced legislation stating that by law, every citizen of the Ottoman State is entitled to the same rights enjoyed by the Turks and should fulfil the same obligations.

    This Committee gained total control of the whole State, its present and its future. Hence the idea which the West had adopted to hit the State and destroy the Khilafah came to fruition. This idea came to power through the members of the ruling party and its supporters who not only deemed that Islam was unsuitable for this era, they rather deemed that suitability as whole, lay in Western thoughts and the Western culture. They also deemed the preservation of Turkish nationalism to be amongst their main activities as a party, to the point where their loyalty to Turkish nationalism came above any other loyalty. Hence, they boasted about it and devoted their attention to it, to the extent that they considered Turkey to be better than the rest of the Islamic countries and the Turk to be better than the rest of the Muslims.

    Therefore, the founding of the Young Turks or the Union & Progress party was one of the most horrific acts perpetrated by the West in its drive to hit the Islamic State and Islam. The results of such a move were swift, for no sooner had the party seized the reins of power than the pickaxe of destruction started to work on the body of the State and to dig between its subjects a ditch over which a bridge could not be arched. This is so because nationalism is the most harmful thing that divides people and generates amongst them animosity, hatred and war. Although affiliation to the Committee was open to all citizens of the state, it was the nationalist policy of the unionists within the state that evoked the nationalist idea in the Ottoman elements. Hence, the Albanians in Astana founded their own Committee, soon to be followed by the Circassians and the Kurds. The Romans and the Armenians had established in the past secret organised Committees, thus they were made legal.

    The Arabs for their part established the Committee of “Arab-Ottoman Brotherhood” in Astana and they opened the Committee’s club under the same name. However, the Union & Progress Committee was chauvinist, especially towards the Arabs, for they allowed all the nationalities to establish ethnic groups, but they started at the same time opposing any Arab Committees. So, they dissolved the Arab Committee and shut down its club by government decree. They also pursued a policy of ethnic discrimination within the armed forces. They summoned all the Arab officers from their respective lands to Istanbul and prevented them from joining the Officers’ academic mission to Germany. They decided to prevent the Arab members of the Union & Progress from joining the “Central Committee” of this Committee. This Committee had been open to all the citizens of the Ottoman State, with no discrimination between a Turk, an Arab, an Albanian or a Circassian. However, when this party seized power and since the Turks enjoyed most of the influence, they acted in this despotic manner by excluding the Arabs within this Committee from the sensitive posts. They also embarked upon turning the Committee into an exclusively Turkish Committee. This was followed by numerous measures implemented in certain government departments, such as stripping the ministry of Awqaf from the Arab minister and handing it to a Turkish minister, and such as the deliberate appointment of Turks to the posts of foreign affairs and home affairs ministries. Also the deliberate posting of Turkish Walis to the Arab provinces, chosen from among people who could not speak Arabic.

    Then they crowned this by adopting the Turkish language as the official language, to the point where they started teaching Arabic grammar and inflection in Turkish. Their contempt for the Arabic language was such that the ambassador of the Ottoman State to Washington published a communiqué in 1909 in which he prohibited the Ottomans living in America from addressing the embassy in other than the Turkish language, despite his full knowledge that the State’s subjects in America were no less than half a million and none of them could speak Turkish.

    This racism between Arabs and Turks became conspicuously rampant amongst the armed forces. The Turkish officers affiliated to Union & Progress used to display this racism in their conduct and when it came to promotions and to assuming the high ranking military posts. The Arab officers expressed their anger but never doubted their obligation to remain loyal to the State, for the point at issue was not an issue of union between Arabs and Turks, it was rather an issue of one Islamic Ummah, and a Khaleefah in Istanbul whose obedience Allah (swt) commanded and whose disobedience He (swt) prohibited; the Muslim is a brother to another Muslim, he does not demean him or wrong him. Therefore, some of the Arab officers were affected by this status quo, and at the end of 1909, they requested a meeting with influential figures within the Committee of Union & Progress. The latter accepted and they held a lengthy meeting in Istanbul. They discussed the measures which they had to take in order to settle this dispute between Arabs and Turks once and for all. The meeting was on the verge of restoring the unity, discarding racism and rallying around the Islamic Aqeedah alone, but some of the Turkish youth, to whom Turkish nationalism took precedence to the Islamic Aqeedah, such as Ahmed Agha Beik and Yusuf Aqshurah Beik among others, found it too painful to relinquish their nationalism and devote their loyalty to Islam alone. Hence, they intervened and lashed out at the Arabs with harsh words and glorified the Turks. As a result, the meeting ended with the situation becoming worse than it had been before it started.

    The Committee continued to pursue its policy of racism and when the Turks gained the upper hand, they embarked upon changing the programme of the Committee so as to turn it into an exclusively Turkish affair. This amendment triggered the resignation of all the Arabs, the Albanians and the Armenians as well as the Turks to whom the Islamic Aqeedah rather than their nationality remained the basis.

    The role of the European embassies in establishing the Arab Committees and parties

    In the wake of these events, the European embassies became active in their contacts with the Arabs. Hence, they established the “Decentralisation Party”, with Cairo as its centre and Rafiq Al-Athim as its president. They also established the “Reform Committee” in Beirut and the “Literal Forum” among others. The British and the French infiltrated the ranks of the Arabs who had carried the nationalist tendency and opened for them the coffers of their countries. So on 18th June 1913 and under the auspices of the French, the Arab youth held a conference in Paris, and this represented the Arab nationalists’ first declaration of alignment towards Britain and France against their Ottoman State.

    When the Union & Progress men sensed this, they established the “Turk Ojaghi Committee” meaning the Turkish family. Its objective was to wipe out Islam and turn the Ottoman elements into Turkish ones. Then they started encouraging the publication of atheistic books and journals, such as the book written by the famous Turkish author Jalal Nouri Beik under the title of “The history of the future”, in which he wrote: “It is in the interest of the Astana government to coerce the Syrians to leave their homelands. Arab lands, especially Iraq and Yemen, must be turned into Turkish colonies, in order to spread the Turkish language which must be the language of the Deen. In order to protect our entity, it is imperative for us to turn all the Arab countries into Turkish countries, because the new Arab generation has started to sense a racial chauvinism and it is threatening us with a major calamity against which we should take precautions as of now.” Thus, the nationalist tendency and the patriotic chauvinism made an impact on the souls, and loyalty to Islam shifted to be replaced by loyalty to nationalism and patriotism. This led to resisting all that Islam carries in terms of what could be regarded as a threat to patriotism and nationalism. The criterion of those who assumed power within the state was that of nationalism and patriotism rather than Islam, even when it came to calling for the unity of the ranks between Arabs and Turks.

    Furthermore, when Jamal Pasha was in Syria, he witnessed the Arab youth perpetrating treason against the State by acting on the guidance of France and the orders of Britain. He became absoloutly certain of this when he seized documents found in the French consulate in Damascus. He wanted to win the Arabs over in order to maintain unity among the citizens of the State. Hence, he invited the Arab leaders to a gathering held in Damascus and delivered a speech in which he exhorted them to unity. Some of what he said in his speech was the following: “And you have to trust the fact that the Turkish Committee, which you have witnessed in Astana and in the other parts inhabited by Turkish elements, does not clash in any way with the Arab aspirations. You do know beyond any doubt that the Ottoman empire has witnessed the establishment of Bulgarian, Greek and Armenian movements, and now there exists an Arab movement. The Turks had totally forgotten their existence to the point where they feared to even mention their people. The patriotic spirit had completely died to the point where it was feared that the Turkish people were about to completely disintegrate. Therefore, it was with the aim of quelling this imminent threat that the men of the Young Turks rose with a zeal that deserves admiration. Hence, they took up arms and embarked upon teaching the Turks the patriotic spirit.” He added : “Today, I find myself capable of confirming to you that the Turkish aspirations do not in any way clash with the Arab aspirations, for the Turks and the Arabs are but brothers in their patriotic objectives.” He also added : “And briefly, the utmost aspirations of that party, the party of Young Turks (Union & Progress) are to gain for the Turkish people the respect of all the peoples of the world, and to establish its right to exist alongside the peoples of the twentieth century.”

    It was with these words that Jamal Pasha wanted to unite the Muslims under the banner of the Islamic Khilafah and to foil the endeavours undertaken by the Arabs to break away from the Turks, namely from the Khilafah and to seek the help of the British and the French Kuffar.

    It is correct to say that Jamal Pasha was right in hanging the traitors who had been collaborating with France and Britain against the Khilafah, for they were either Kuffar or Muslim apostates for believing in the unsuitability of Islam. He was also right in striking every traitor and every individual who worked against the Khilafah, even if he himself was working for patriotism, let alone if this individual was working against the Khilafah with the Kuffar and under their command. However, Jamal Pasha and the party of the Young Turks, namely Union & Progress, deserved to be punished and imprisoned for nursing the patriotic idea. This soothing speech he delivered was wrong and patriotic separatism should not be dealt with in this manner to say the least, for the speech in fact indicates the presence of corrupt doctrines, and a disregard for Islam as being the only bond that gathers the citizens of the State and as being the only ideology upon which the Khilafah is built.

    The words he should have uttered, which would have been considered decisive and final, and it is forbidden to say otherwise, is that all of us should give our loyalty to the Islamic Aqeedah alone. It is forbidden to have loyalty to anything else. This Aqeedah should alone be the criterion for our actions. However, instead of saying this he calmed the Arabic speaking Muslims by saying : “The Arab aspirations and the Turkish aspirations do not clash with one another”, and by saying : “The Turks and the Arabs are but brothers in their patriotic objectives”, and also by saying : “The utmost aspirations of that party, the party of Young Turks, is to gain for the Turkish people the respect of all the peoples of the world and to establish its right to exist alongside the peoples of the twentieth century,” namely with the British, the French, the Italians and the Greeks, in other words with the Kuffar.

  • Q&A: Hadiths Mentioning Ar-Raya (the Banner) and Al-Liwa’ (the Flag)

    Q&A: Hadiths Mentioning Ar-Raya (the Banner) and Al-Liwa’ (the Flag)

    Answer to Question
    Hadiths Mentioning Ar-Raya (the Banner) and Al-Liwa’ (the Flag)
    To: Mafaheem Islamiyah
    (Translated)

    Question:

    Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh, Our Sheikh. How are you?

    Our Sheikh, I have a question:

    How many Hadiths speak about Ar-Raya (the banner) of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and how authentic are they?

    And with your permission, if you narrate a Hadith, please mention the authenticity of its Sanad (chain of transmission).

    Answer:

    Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh:

    Regarding the Liwa’ (flag) and Raya (banner) and flag and what is written on them, the following is stated in our books, especially (the book “Ajhiza” [The Institutions of State in the Khilafah (In Ruling and Administration)], p.200 Arabic edition / p.163 English edition):

    [The State has flags (Alwiyah) and banners (Rayat) as deduced from the flags and banners of the first Islamic State, which the Messenger of Allah (saw) established in al-Medina al-Munawwarah. These will be as follows:

    1- Flag and banner, are linguistically called alam. Al-Qamus al-Muhit mentions under the root (r/w/y) that al-raya is ‘al-alam, plural being rayaat. It mentions under the root (l/w/y) that al-liwa’ is al-‘alam, plural alwiyah.

    Besides; The Law designated each one of these terms a shar’i meaning as follows:

    The flag (liwaa’) is white, on which it is written ‘la ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah’ with black script. It is tied to the amir of the army or the leader of the army. It is used as a sign of his location, and it goes along with this location.

    The evidence to tying the flag to the amir of the army is that “the Prophet (saw) entered Makkah on the day of its conquest while raising a white flag.” This was narrated by Ibn Majah through Jabir. An-Nasa’i also narrated through Anas that when the Prophet(saw) appointed Usama ibn Zayd as amir to the army for invading the Romans, he tied his flag with his own hands.

    – The banner (rayah) is black, on which it is written ‘la ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah’ with white script. It is carried by the leaders of the army divisions (regiments, detachments, and other army units). The evidence is that the Messenger (saw) while being the leader of the army in Khaybar, he said: “I will give the Raya tomorrow to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and Allah and His messenger love him; and he gave it to ’Ali”. This hadith is agreed upon. ’Ali (ra) was considered then the leader of a division or a regiment in the army. Al-Harith b. Hassan b. Al-Bakri also said in the hadith, “We came to Medina and we saw the Prophet (saw) the Mimbar, with Bilal standing in front of him wearing his sword. There were black banners in front of the Messenger(saw)I asked ‘what are these banners?’ They said: ‘it is Amr b. al-’As who has just arrived from an expedition’”. “And there were black banners (rayaat)” this means there were many banners carried by the army though its amir was one, which was Amru ibn Al-Ass. This indicates there is one flag (liwaa’) in the same army, but the banners (rayaat) are many in each army. Thus, the flag (liwaa’) is a sign (‘alam) to the amir of the army only, while the banners (rayaat) are signs (a’lam) carried by the soldiers…]

    2- In addition to what has been mentioned previously, I add a Hadith narrated by al-Tabarani in al-Mu’jam al-Awsat (223/1):

    [224 – Ahmad ibn Rushdin narrated to us, saying: ‘Abd al-Ghaffar ibn Dawud Abu Salih al-Harrani narrated to us, saying: Hayyan ibn ‘Ubayd Allah narrated to us, saying: Abu Majlaz Laheq ibn Humayd narrated to us, on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, who said:

    «كَانَتْ رَايَةُ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ سَوْدَاءَ وَلِوَاؤُهُ أَبْيَضُ، مَكْتُوبٌ عَلَيْهِ: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ اللهِ»

    “The Raya (banner) of the Messenger of Allah (saw) was black, and his Liwa’ (flag) was white, on which was written: There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” This Hadith is not narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas except through this chain of narration, and it is unique to Hayyan ibn ‘Ubayd Allah. Ibn Hibban mentioned Hayyan in al-Thiqat (6/230), and Abu Hatim said about him in al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil (3/246): “He is truthful.”]

    The issue of the Raya (banner) and Liwa’ (flag) is well-known, and the Raya (banner) was raised for Muslims in the early days of Islam, requiring no further explanation.

    I hope this is sufficient. And Allah Knows Best and is Most Wise.

    Wa Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh

    Your Brother,
    Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

    28 Sha’ban 1447 AH
    16/2/2026 CE

    The Link to the Answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page:

  • Foundations of the Education Curriculum in the Khilafah State | Introduction & Policy

    Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim

    “Recite in the name of your Lord who created – (1) Created man from a clinging substance. (2) Recite, and your Lord is the most Generous – (3) Who taught by the pen – (4) Taught man that which he knew not. (5) No! [But] indeed, man transgresses.” [Al-Alaq: 1-5]

    1. INTRODUCTION

    The culture (thaqafa) of any nation is the backbone of its existence and survival. Based on this culture, the Ummah’s civilisation (hadhara) is founded, and its goals and objective are defined, and its way of life is defined. The individuals of the Ummah are moulded by this culture in one melting pot such that the Ummah becomes distinguished from the other nations. This culture is: The Ummah’s intellectual doctrine (‘aqeedah) and the rules, solutions and systems emanating from this intellectual doctrine. It is also the knowledge and sciences built upon it, as well as the events linked to this intellectual doctrine such as the Ummah’s conduct (Seerah) and history. If this culture is wiped out, this Ummah, as a distinct Ummah, would disappear; thus its objective and way of life would change, and its allegiance would shift, and it would stumble in its path following other nations’ cultures.

    The Islamic culture is the knowledge (ma’arif) stimulated by the Islamic intellectual doctrine. This is regardless whether this knowledge includes the Islamic doctrine like the science of “tawheed”; or is built upon the intellectual doctrine such as jurisprudence (fiqh), exegesis (tafseer) of the Qur’an, and the Prophetic traditions (hadith); or whether it is a prerequisite to understand the rules emanating from the Islamic intellectual doctrine such as the knowledge required for ijtihaad (scholarly exertion) in Islam, such as the sciences of the Arabic language, classification of the Prophetic traditions (mustalah al-hadith), and the science of the foundations of jurisprudence (Usul). All of this is Islamic culture because the Islamic intellectual doctrine is the motive for its research. Similarly the history of the Islamic Ummah is a part of its culture due to what it contains of news about its civilization (hadhara), men (rijal), leaders and scholars. Pre-Islamic Arab history is not part of Islamic culture whereas pre-Islamic Arab poetry can be considered part of this culture due to what it contains of evidences that help understanding of the words and syntax of the Arabic language, and consequently help in the making of ijtihaad, tafseer of the Qur’an and understanding hadith.

    The Ummah’s culture creates the character of its individuals. It moulds the individual’s intellect and his method of judging things, statements and actions just as it moulds his inclinations, thereby influencing his mentality, disposition (nafsiyya) and behaviour (sulook). Thus, the preservation and spread of the Ummah’s culture in the society is among the chief responsibilities of the State. The Soviet Union historically fostered its children upon Communist culture and attempted to prevent any infiltration of capitalist or Islamic thought into its culture. The entire West nurtured its children upon its capitalist culture that is built upon separation of religion from life. It organised and founded its life upon that basis, and waged wars -as it continues to do so today – to prevent the Islamic culture from penetrating its doctrine and culture. The Islamic State endeavoured to implant the Islamic culture into its children and prevented anyone from calling within the state for any thought not built upon the Islamic intellectual doctrine within the State. The state also carried its culture to other States and nations via Da’wah and Jihad. This will continue until Allah inherits the earth and whoever resides on it (i.e. until the Day of Judgement).

    Among the most important guarantees of the preservation of the Ummah’s culture is that its culture be memorised in the hearts of its children and preserved in books, together with the Ummah having a State ruling over it and taking care of its affairs according to the rules and canons emanating from the intellectual doctrine of this culture.

    Education is the method to preserve the Ummah’s culture in the hearts of its children and the pages of its books, whether it is a formal or non-formal education curriculum. The education curriculum means education regulated by State adopted systems and canons, with the State responsible for implementing it e.g. setting the starting age, subjects of study and education method. Whereas non-formal education curriculum is left to Muslims to teach in homes, mosques, clubs, via media, periodical publications etc without being subjected to the organisation and canons of the education curriculum. In both cases, however, the State is responsible to ensure that the thoughts and knowledge (being taught) either emanate from the Islamic intellectual doctrine or are built upon it. We present herein the foundations of the education curriculum in the Khilafah State.

    2. EDUCATION POLICY AND ITS ORGANISATION IN THE KHILAFAH STATE

    The education system in the Khilafah State is composed of the totality of the Shari’ah rules and administrative canons related to the education curriculum. The Shari’ah rules related to education emanate from the Islamic ‘aqeedah and they have Shari’ah evidences, such as the subjects of study and separating between male and female students. As for the administrative canons related to education, they are the permitted means and styles which the ruler in authority considers beneficial in implementing the system and achieving its goals. They are worldly matters susceptible to development and change according to what appears most suitable to implement the Shari’ah rules related to education and the Ummah’s basic needs. Likewise they can be adopted from the experiments, expertise and permitted research of other nations.

    This system of Shari’ah rules and adminstrative canons requires an alternative apparatus with the competence to achieve the basic objectives of education in the Khilafah State, namely building the Islamic personality. This apparatus oversees the supervision, organisation and accounting of all aspects of education with respect to setting the curriculum, selecting qualified teachers, tracking the advancement and progress of students’ learning, and supplying schools, institutes and universities with the required laboratories and necessary educational tools.

    We now present most of the articles of the “Education Policy” from “The Introduction of the Constitution” (Muqaddimat Ad-Dustoor) which is the draft constitution of the Islamic State.

    Article 170

    The Islamic creed constitutes the basis upon which the education policy is built. The curriculum and methods of teaching are all designed to prevent a departure from this basis.

    Article 171

    The purpose of education is to form the Islamic personality in thought and behaviour. Therefore all subjects in the curriculum must be chosen on this basis.

    Article 172

    The goal of education is to produce the Islamic personality and to provide people with the science and knowledge related to life’s affairs. Teaching methods are established to achieve this goal; any method that leads to other than this goal is prevented.

    Article 174

    A distinction must be drawn in education between the empirical sciences on the one hand and all that is related to them such as mathematics, and the cultural sciences on the other. The empirical sciences, and all that is related to them, are taught according to need and are not restricted to any stage of education. As for the cultural sciences, they are taught at the primary level before the secondary level according to a specific policy that does not contradict Islamic thoughts and rules. In higher education, these cultural sciences are studied like other sciences provided they do not lead to a departure from the stated policy and goal of education.

    Article 175

    The Islamic culture must be taught at all levels of education. In higher education, departments should be assigned to the various Islamic disciplines as will be done with medicine, engineering, physics etc.

    Article 176

    Arts and crafts may be related to science, such as commerce, navigation and agriculture arts and crafts. In such cases, they are studied without restriction or conditions. Sometimes, however, arts and crafts are connected to culture when influenced by a particular viewpoint of life, such as photography or sculpture. If this viewpoint of life contradicts the Islamic viewpoint of life, such arts and crafts are not adopted.

    Article 177

    The State’s curriculum is one. No curriculum other than that of the State is allowed to be taught. Private schools are allowed as long as they adopt the State’s curriculum and establish themselves on the State’s educational policy and accomplish the goal of education set by the State. Teaching in such schools should not be mixed between males and females, whether for students or teachers; and they should not be specific for a certain deen, madhab, race or colour.

    Article 178

    It is an obligation upon the State to teach every individual, male or female, those things that are necessary for the mainstream of life. This should be obligatory and provided freely in the primary and secondary levels of education. The State should, to the best of its ability, provide the opportunity for everyone to continue higher education free of charge.

    Article 179

    The State provides libraries and laboratories and all means of knowledge outside schools and universities, to enable those who want to continue their research in the various fields of knowledge, like fiqh, Hadith and tafseer of Qur’an, thought (fikr), medicine, engineering and chemistry, inventions, discoveries, etc. This is done to create in the Ummah an abundance of mujtahideen, outstanding scientists and inventors.

  • Q&A: End of Times Prophecies and the Descent of the Masih

    Q&A: End of Times Prophecies and the Descent of the Masih

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Answer to Question
    End of Times Prophecies and the Descent of the Masih (Peace Be Upon Him)
    To: Hamzeh Shihadeh
    (Translated)

    Question:

    Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh,

    We ask Allah, our Sheikh, that you are in good health and well-being, and that He bestow upon you, upon us, and upon all Muslims a Khilafah (Caliphate) on the method of Prophethood.

    We are confused by the stories and accounts of the descent of the Prophet Isa, peace be upon him, at the end of time, the coming of the awaited Mahdi, the one-eyed Dajjal, and the people of Gog and Magog. What is authentic and what is rejected?

    Answer:

    Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh,

    May Allah bless you for your kind prayers for us, and we pray for you to receive all the good.

    First, it must be noted that reports found in Islamic texts, whether concerning past or future events, must be authenticated in order to be accepted; i.e., they must not be weak or fabricated. I will mention some of the authentic evidence related to your question, but I will not list all of it; you can find more in relevant books of Islamic jurisprudence:

    A- Regarding Gog and Magog, they are mentioned in the Holy Quran:

    In Surah Al-Kahf:

    [قَالُوا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِنَّ يَأْجُوجَ وَمَأْجُوجَ مُفْسِدُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَهَلْ نَجْعَلُ لَكَ خَرْجاً عَلَى أَنْ تَجْعَلَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَهُمْ سَدّاً * قَالَ مَا مَكَّنِّي فِيهِ رَبِّي خَيْرٌ فَأَعِينُونِي بِقُوَّةٍ أَجْعَلْ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ رَدْماً * آتُونِي زُبَرَ الْحَدِيدِ حَتَّى إِذَا سَاوَى بَيْنَ الصَّدَفَيْنِ قَالَ انْفُخُوا حَتَّى إِذَا جَعَلَهُ نَاراً قَالَ آتُونِي أُفْرِغْ عَلَيْهِ قِطْراً * فَمَا اسْطَاعُوا أَنْ يَظْهَرُوهُ وَمَا اسْتَطَاعُوا لَهُ نَقْباً * قَالَ هَذَا رَحْمَةٌ مِنْ رَبِّي فَإِذَا جَاءَ وَعْدُ رَبِّي جَعَلَهُ دَكَّاءَ وَكَانَ وَعْدُ رَبِّي حَقّاً * وَتَرَكْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ يَمُوجُ فِي بَعْضٍ وَنُفِخَ فِي الصُّورِ فَجَمَعْنَاهُمْ جَمْعاً]

    “They pleaded, “O Ⱬul-Qarnain! Surely Gog and Magog are spreading corruption throughout the land. Should we pay you tribute, provided that you build a wall between us and them?” * He responded, “What my Lord has provided for me is far better. But assist me with resources, and I will build a barrier between you and them * Bring me blocks of iron!” Then, when he had filled up ˹the gap˺ between the two mountains, he ordered, “Blow!” When the iron became red hot, he said, “Bring me molten copper to pour over it.” * And so the enemies could neither scale nor tunnel through it * He declared, “This is a mercy from my Lord. But when the promise of my Lord comes to pass, He will level it to the ground. And my Lord’s promise is ever true.” * On that Day, We will let them1 surge ˹like waves˺ over one another. Later, the Trumpet will be blown,2 and We will gather all ˹people˺ together” [Al-Kahf: 94-99].

    B- As for the descent of the Prophet Isa, peace be upon him, at the end of time, the coming of the awaited Mahdi, and news of the one-eyed Dajjal, we have addressed these matters in previous answers, and I will quote some of them for you:

    * Answer to a Question on 1/2/2014 CE states:

    [Ahmad narrated in his Musnad on the authority of Abu Saeed al-Khudri, who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «أُبَشِّرُكُمْ بِالْمَهْدِيِّ يُبْعَثُ فِي أُمَّتِي عَلَى اخْتِلَافٍ مِنَ النَّاسِ وَزَلَازِلَ، فَيَمْلَأُ الْأَرْضَ قِسْطاً وَعَدْلاً، كَمَا مُلِئَتْ جَوْراً وَظُلْماً، يَرْضَى عَنْهُ سَاكِنُ السَّمَاءِ وَسَاكِنُ الْأَرْضِ، يَقْسِمُ الْمَالَ صِحَاحاً» فَقَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ: مَا صِحَاحاً؟ قَالَ: «بِالسَّوِيَّةِ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ…»“I give you glad tidings of the Mahdi. He will be sent to my Ummah at a time of discord among the people and turmoil. He will fill the earth with justice and equity, just as it was filled with injustice and oppression. The inhabitants of the heavens and the inhabitants of the earth will be pleased with him. He will distribute wealth “Sihahan.” A man said to him: What does “Sihahan” mean? He said: “With equality among people”.”]

    Answer to a question dated 1/4/2016, it states:

    [Regarding the Mahdi, there are Hadiths on the subject that are: authentic (Sahih), good (Hassan), weak (Dha’eef), and fabricated (Mawdhu’). Throughout history, many have claimed to be the Mahdi… It is not difficult for one to distinguish the authentic from the weak in this matter. It suffices, as stated in the authentic Hadiths, that the Mahdi is a just ruler who will come at the end of time, find injustice, and rule with justice, removing the oppression. His name will be the same as the name of the Prophet (saw) and his father, namely, “Muhammad ibn Abdullah.” He will be given the pledge of allegiance between the Corner and the Maqam of Abraham… He may be one of the Caliphs of the second Khilafah Rashida (Rightly Guided Caliphate). And Allah knows best:

    – Nu’aim Bin Hamad narrated regarding the trials on the authority of Abu Huraira (ra), he said: «يُبَايعُ الْمَهْدِيُّ بَيْنَ الرُّكْنِ وَالْمَقَامِ، لَا يُوقِظُ نَائِماً، وَلَا يُهْرِيقُ دَماً»“The Mahdi will be given the oath of allegiance between the Rukn and the Maqam, without waking anyone who is asleep, and without shedding blood.” In another narration from Qatada, he said, The Messenger (saw): «إِنَّهُ يَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْمَدِينَةِ إِلَى مَكَّةَ فَيَسْتَخْرِجُهُ النَّاسُ مِنْ بَيْنِهِمْ، فَيُبَايعُونَهُ بَيْنَ الرُّكْنِ وَالْمَقَامِ وَهُوَ كَارِهٌ»He will leave Medina for Mecca, and the people will bring him out from among them, and they will pledge allegiance to him between the Corner and the Maqam, while he is unwilling.”

    – Ibn Hibban reported in his Sahih on the authority of Asim, on the authority of Zirr, on the authority of Abdullah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw), said: «لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يَمْلِكَ النَّاسَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِي، يُوَاطِئُ اسْمُهُ اسْمِي، وَاسْمُ أَبِيهِ اسْمَ أَبِي، فَيَمْلَؤُهَا قِسْطاً وَعَدْلاً».“The Hour will not come until a man from my family rules the people, whose name matches my name, and whose father’s name matches my father’s name, and he will fill it with justice and equity.”

    – Al-Hakim included in Al-Mustadrak ‘ala Al-Sahihayn on the authority of Abu Saeed Al-Khudri (ra), that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «يَخْرُجُ فِي آخِرِ أُمَّتِي الْمَهْدِيُّ يَسْقِيهِ اللَّهُ الْغَيْثَ، وَتُخْرِجُ الْأَرْضُ نَبَاتَهَا، وَيُعْطِي الْمَالَ صِحَاحاً، وَتَكْثُرُ الْمَاشِيَةُ وَتَعْظُمُ الْأُمَّةُ، يَعِيشُ سَبْعاً أَوْ ثَمَانِياً»“The Mahdi will emerge at the end of my Ummah. Allah will send down rain for him, the earth will bring forth its vegetation, he will give money equitably, livestock will increase, and the Ummah will grow in number. He will live for seven or eight years,” meaning Hajj years… And there are other Hadiths

    When we see a man with these characteristics, we can investigate whether he is the Mahdi or not. But if he is not, we do not investigate whether he is the Mahdi or not; rather, he falls under the category of deception and false claims.] End quote.

    * Answer to a Question on 17/4/2014, stated:

    [Regarding the subject of Isa, peace be upon him, his descent to Earth, and the killing of the Dajjal… there are authentic (Sahih) Hadiths on this subject indicating that the Dajjal is a misguided and misleading man who will come at the end of time, sometimes claiming to be God, and sometimes claiming to be the Masih (Prophet Isa), falsely and slanderously. He will show people something resembling Paradise and something resembling Hell. What people see as Paradise is in reality fire, and what people see as Hell is in reality cool, fresh water… He will severely punish those who disobey him and grant those who obey him worldly pleasures such as food, meat, and water… and withhold them from those who disobey. However, withholding these pleasures from the believer does not harm him, for the Dajjal is too insignificant in Allah’s eyes to be able to tempt the believer… In any case, he is a trial and tribulation for people. The believer knows that he is a lying deceiver, so he remains steadfast in his belief no matter how severe the Dajjal’s actions may be… During this Dajjal’s infliction of people and his claim to be the Masih, Isa (peace be upon him) will descend and kill the Dajjal.

    – Muslim narrated on the authority of Uqbah ibn Amr Abu Mas’ud al-Ansari, who said: I went with him to Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, and Uqbah said to him: Tell me what you heard from the Messenger of Allah (saw) concerning the Dajjal. He said: «إِنَّ الدَّجَّالَ يَخْرُجُ، وَإِنَّ مَعَهُ مَاءً وَنَاراً، فَأَمَّا الَّذِي يَرَاهُ النَّاسُ مَاءً، فَنَارٌ تُحْرِقُ، وَأَمَّا الَّذِي يَرَاهُ النَّاسُ نَاراً، فَمَاءٌ بَارِدٌ عَذْبٌ، فَمَنْ أَدْرَكَ ذَلِكَ مِنْكُمْ، فَلْيَقَعْ فِي الَّذِي يَرَاهُ نَاراً، فَإِنَّهُ مَاءٌ عَذْبٌ طَيِّبٌ»،“The Dajjal will emerge, and with him will be water and fire. What people see as water will be a scorching fire, and what people see as fire will be cool, sweet water. So, whoever witnesses that, then let him fall into what he sees as fire, for it is sweet, pure water.” Then Uqbah said: “And I heard it, confirming what Hudhayfah said.”

    – Muslim reported that Anas ibn Malik said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «مَا مِنْ نَبِيٍّ إِلَّا وَقَدْ أَنْذَرَ أُمَّتَهُ الْأَعْوَرَ الْكَذَّابَ، أَلَا إِنَّهُ أَعْوَرُ، وَإِنَّ رَبَّكُمْ لَيْسَ بِأَعْوَرَ، وَمَكْتُوبٌ بَيْنَ عَيْنَيْهِ ك ف ر».“There is no prophet who did not warn his nation about the one-eyed liar. Indeed, he is one-eyed, and your Lord is not one-eyed. And written between his eyes is K-F-R.” In another narration by Muslim: «مَكْتُوبٌ بَيْنَ عَيْنَيْهِ كَافِرٌ، يَقْرَؤُهُ كُلُّ مُؤْمِنٍ، كَاتِبٍ وَغَيْرِ كَاتِبٍ».“Written between his eyes is Kafir (disbeliever), which every believer, literate or illiterate, can read.”

    – And in a narration by Muslim about the place where Isa (peace be upon him) will descend, and about the place where he will kill the Dajjal:

    «فَبَيْنَمَا هُوَ كَذَلِكَ إِذْ بَعَثَ اللهُ الْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ، فَيَنْزِلُ عِنْدَ الْمَنَارَةِ الْبَيْضَاءِ شَرْقِيَّ دِمَشْقَ، بَيْنَ مَهْرُودَتَيْنِ، وَاضِعاً كَفَّيْهِ عَلَى أَجْنِحَةِ مَلَكَيْنِ، إِذَا طَأْطَأَ رَأْسَهُ قَطَرَ، وَإِذَا رَفَعَهُ تَحَدَّرَ مِنْهُ جُمَانٌ كَاللُّؤْلُؤِ، فَلَا يَحِلُّ لِكَافِرٍ يَجِدُ رِيحَ نَفَسِهِ إِلَّا مَاتَ، وَنَفَسُهُ يَنْتَهِي حَيْثُ يَنْتَهِي طَرْفُهُ، فَيَطْلُبُهُ حَتَّى يُدْرِكَهُ بِبَابِ لُدٍّ، فَيَقْتُلُهُ..

    “While he is in that state, Allah will send the Masih, son of Mary, and he will descend at the White Minaret east of Damascus, wearing two dyed pieces of cloth, placing his hands on the wings of two angels. When he lowers his head, it drips, and when he raises it, pearls like gems will descend from it. The disbeliever who smells his breath will die.” His breath ends where his gaze ends, so he pursues him until he catches him at the gate of Lod, and kills him…”] End quote.

    CAs for the influence of the Masih ad-Dajjal on our actions when he appears at the end of time, it will not affect the believer, for the following reasons:

    – Because his falsehood is clear to every person of sight and insight. His claim to be God is a false claim that no rational person would believe. He is a person of limited physical form, deficient, indeed severely deficient. He is one-eyed, and therefore he is a created being, and this is clear to every rational person.

    – His claim to be Isa, son of Mary, is likewise false, for he is one-eyed, and what has been narrated about the attributes of Isa, peace be upon him, is that he was in a perfect form and of good character… Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih on the authority of Abdullah ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

    «أُرَانِي اللَّيْلَةَ عِنْدَ الكَعْبَةِ، فَرَأَيْتُ رَجُلاً آدَمَ، كَأَحْسَنِ مَا أَنْتَ رَاءٍ مِنْ أُدْمِ الرِّجَالِ، لَهُ لِمَّةٌ كَأَحْسَنِ مَا أَنْتَ رَاءٍ مِنَ اللِّمَمِ قَدْ رَجَّلَهَا، فَهِيَ تَقْطُرُ مَاءً، مُتَّكِئاً عَلَى رَجُلَيْنِ، أَوْ عَلَى عَوَاتِقِ رَجُلَيْنِ، يَطُوفُ بِالْبَيْتِ، فَسَأَلْتُ: مَنْ هَذَا؟ فَقِيلَ: المَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ.. وَإِذَا أَنَا بِرَجُلٍ جَعْدٍ قَطَطٍ، أَعْوَرِ العَيْنِ اليُمْنَى، كَأَنَّهَا عِنَبَةٌ طَافِيَةٌ، فَسَأَلْتُ: مَنْ هَذَا؟ فَقِيلَ: المَسِيحُ الدَّجَّالُ»

    “I dreamt at night that I was at the Kaba, and I saw a dark man like the most handsome of dark men you have ever seen. He had hair reaching to between his ears and his shoulders like the most excellent of such hair that you have seen. He had combed his hair, and water was dripping from it. He was leaning on two men or on the shoulders of two men doing tawaf around Kaba. I asked, ‘Who is this?’ It was said, ‘al- Masih ibn Maryam.’ Then we were with a man with wiry hair and blind in his right eye, as if it was a floating grape (or dim from light). I asked ‘Who is this?’ It was said to me, ‘This is al-Masih ad-Dajjal.’”

    – Likewise, the Masih ad-Dajjal has the word “kafir” written between his eyes, as mentioned in the Hadith, both the illiterate and the learned believer can read it. Therefore, he carries his own denial with him. The Prophet (saw) informed us in his Hadiths about the Masih ad-Dajjal, stating that he will not affect the believers. He clarified his reality and true nature, explaining that he is a trial and tribulation from which the believers will be saved by Allah’s permission.

    This is what I believe to be the most likely interpretation, and Allah Knows Best and Most Wise.

    There is no need to delve further into the subject of the Masih ad-Dajjal, as what we have mentioned is sufficient, Allah willing.

    Your Brother,
    Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

    18 Sha’ban 1447 AH
    6/2/2026 CE

    The Link to the Answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page:

  • The conspiracies of the European countries against the Islamic State | Chapter 2

    The conspiracies of the European countries against the Islamic State | Chapter 2

    HOW THE KHILAFAH WAS DESTROYED

    Chapter 2: The conspiracies of the European countries against the Islamic State

    Despite the differences amongst the Kuffar over the division of the Muslims’ lands, they were in full agreement of the idea to destroy Islam. They pursued several methods for this purpose. Initially, they aroused the feelings of nationalism and independence in the European countries. They incited people against the Islamic State and they supplied them with weapons and money in order to revolt against it, as was the case in Serbia and Greece. In this way, the European countries tried to stab the Islamic State in the back. France invaded Egypt and occupied it in July 1798, then marched onto Palestine and occupied it. France wanted to occupy the rest of Al-Sham in order to deal the Islamic State the fatal blow, but was however defeated, later being forced to leave Egypt and surrender the lands she had occupied back to the Islamic State.

    The birth of the Wahhabis and the Saudi rule

    Britain had attempted through her agent Abdul-Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud to strike the Islamic State from within. The Wahhabis by then had managed to establish an entity within the Islamic State, led by Muhammad ibn Saud and later by his son Abdul-Aziz. Britain supplied them with weapons and money and they moved on a sectarian basis to seize the Islamic lands which were under the authority of the Khilafah. They took up arms against the Khaleefah and fought the Islamic armed forces (the army of the Amir ul-Mu’mineen), all the time goaded and supplied by the British. The Wahhabis wanted to seize the lands ruled by the Khaleefah in order to rule these lands according to their Math’hab (school of thought), and suppress all the other Islamic Mathahib that differed from theirs by force. Hence, they raided Kuwait and occupied it in 1788, then marched northwards until they besieged Baghdad. They wanted to seize Karbalaa’ and the tomb of Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) to destroy it and ban the visiting of it. Then in 1803, they launched an attack on Makkah and occupied it. In the spring of 1804, Madinah fell under their control. They destroyed the huge domes which used to shade the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and stripped them of all the gems and precious ornaments. Having completed their seizure of the whole of Al-Hijaz, they marched on towards Al-Sham. Nearing Hims in 1810 they attacked Damascus for a second time and they also attacked Al-Najaf. Damascus defended itself bravely and gloriously. However while besieging Damascus, the Wahhabis moved at the same time to the north and spread their authority over most of the Syrian lands as far as Aleppo. It was a well known fact that this Wahhabi campaign was instigated by the British, for Al Saud were British agents. They exploited the Wahhabi Math’hab, which was Islamic and whose founder was a Mujtahid, in political activities with the aim of fighting the Islamic State and clashing with the other Mathahib, in order to incite sectarian wars within the Ottoman state. The followers of this Math’hab were unaware of this, but the Saudi Amir and the Saudis were fully aware. This is because the relationship was not between the British and Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, but between the British and Abdul-Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud and then with his son Saud.

    Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, whose Math’hab had been Hanbali, made Ijtihad in a host of matters and deemed that the Muslims who followed other Mathahib differed with his opinion in such matters. Hence, he set about calling for his opinions, working towards implementing them and attacking the other Islamic opinions fiercely. He faced a barrage of opposition and rejection from the various scholars, Amirs and prominent figures, who considered that his opinions differed from what they had understood from the Book of Allah and His Messenger. For instance, he used to say that visiting the grave of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is Haram and a sinful act. He even went as far as to say that whoever set off in a journey to visit the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw), would not be allowed to shorten his prayer while travelling, since the purpose of the journey would be to commit a sinful act. He made reference to the Hadith in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) is reported to have said: “Journeys should only be made to three mosques: This Mosque of mine, the Sacred Mosque and Al-Aqsa Mosque.” Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab understood from this Hadith that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had forbidden travelling to other than the three mosques. Hence, if one were to travel to visit the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw), he would be travelling to other than the three mosques, hence, it would be Haram, and a sinful act. Other Mathahib deemed the visiting of the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) as being Sunnah and a Mandub action that yields a reward, because the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “I had in the past forbidden you from visiting the graves, but you may now visit them.” By greater reason the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) should be included in this Hadith, in addition to other Ahadith which they quoted. They said that the Hadith which Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab used as an evidence, was specific to mosques. Therefore, its subject is related to travelling to mosques and does not exceed it. The Hadith is not general, but rather specific and related to a certain subject: “Journeys should only be made to three mosques.” Hence, it would be forbidden for a Muslim to specifically visit the Aya Sofia mosque in Istanbul, or the Ommayyad mosque in Damascus, because the Messenger of Allah (saw) has confined the travel of mosques to three mosques and no more. It would be forbidden to travel to other than these three mosques. Apart from this, it is permitted to travel on business, to visit family and friends, on sightseeing and tourism amongst other reasons. Hence, the Hadith does not categorically forbid travelling and restrict it to these three mosques, it rather forbids travelling with the intent to visit mosques other than the three mosques it mentioned. Likewise, the followers of other Mathahib deemed his opinions as being wrong and contradictory to what they had understood from the Book and the Sunnah. Soon, the difference between him and them intensified and he was banished from the country.

    In 1740, he sought refuge with Muhammad ibn Saud, the Sheikh of the tribe of Anzah, who was at odds with the Sheikh of Uyaynah and who lived in Al-Dir’iyyah, which was only six hours away from Uyaynah. Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab was made welcome and was met with hospitality. He started spreading his opinions and thoughts amongst people in Al-Dir’iyyah and the surrounding areas. After a period of time his thoughts and opinions gained some helpers and supporters. Amir Muhammad ibn Saud inclined towards these thoughts and opinions and started approaching the Sheikh (Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab). In 1747, Amir Muhammad declared his approval and acceptance of the opinions and thoughts of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab. He also pledged his support to the Sheikh (Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab) and to these thoughts and opinions. With this alliance the Wahhabi movement was established and it came into being in the shape of a Da’awah and in the shape of a rule, for Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab used to call for it and teach people its rules, whilst Muhammad ibn Saud used to implement its rules upon the people who were under his command and authority. The Wahhabi movement started to spread to the areas and tribes neighbouring Al-Dir’iyyah in both aspects, the Da’awah and the rule. The Imara of Muhammad ibn Saud started to spread as well until he succeeded in ten years to make an area of 30 square miles submit to his authority and to the new Math’hab. However, it was an expansion achieved through Da’awah and the authority of the Sheikh of Anzah. No person challenged him and no person opposed him, even the Amir of Al-Ihsaa’ who had expelled Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab from Uyaynah did not oppose his foe in this expansion and he did not amass his troops to fight him until However, he was defeated, and Muhammad ibn Saud seized his Imara. Consequently, the authority of Anzah, represented by the authority of Muhammad ibn Saud and the authority of the new Math’hab became the ruling authority of Al-Dir’iyyah and its surroundings, as well as Al Ihsaa’. In this way the Wahhabi Math’hab was implemented over these lands by the force of the authority.

    However, in the wake of its clash with the Amir of Al-Ihsaa and the conquest of his land, the Wahhabi movement stopped there. Little became known of whether it expanded further or carried out any activities. It rather remained confined to that area. Muhammad ibn Saud stopped at that point and the Wahhabi Math’hab stopped at the borders of this area and the movement fell into a slumber and stagnated.

    In 1765 Muhammad ibn Saud died. He was succeeded to the Sheikhdom of Anzah by his son Abdul-Aziz. His son followed in his fathers footsteps and ruled the area under his control. However, he did not carry out any activities for the movement, nor any expansion into the surrounding areas. Hence, the movement remained asleep and was characterised by stagnation. Hardly anything was heard of this movement and none of its neighbours used to mention it or fear its invasion.

    However, 41 years after the start of the Wahhabi movement, from 1747 till 1788, and 31 years after its stoppage and the stagnation of its movement, (from 1757 till 1787), its activity suddenly started again. The movement adopted a new method in spreading the Math’hab and it became widely and highly publicised beyond its borders and all throughout the Islamic State as well as to the other superpowers. This movement started to cause its neighbours disquiet and concern and even started to cause disquiet and concern to the whole of the Islamic State.

    In 1787 Abdul-Aziz moved to establish a house of Imara and adopt a hereditary system of rule, or what is known as succession to the throne. This entailed that Abdul-Aziz would confirm his son Saud as his successor. A huge crowd led by Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab gathered. This huge crowd of people were addressed by Abdul-Aziz who declared that the right to Imara was confined to his family and the right to succeed him was confined to his sons. He also declared that his son Saud was confirmed as his successor. Hence this huge crowd of people, headed by Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab agreed with him and acknowledged his declarations. A house of Imara for a state rather than a tribe or a host of tribes was therefore established. It seemed also that the succession to the head of the Wahhabi Math’hab was also confined to the family of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab. Once the issues of succession to both the Amir and the head of the Math’hab were settled, the movement suddenly came to life again and resumed its conquests and expansions. It resorted once more to waging war in order to spread the Math’hab. In 1788, Abdul Aziz embarked upon equipping and preparing a huge military raid. He attacked Kuwait, conquering it and seizing it. The British had been trying for their part to seize Kuwait from the Ottoman state but they had failed. This was because other states, such as Germany, Russia and France had opposed them, and because the Khilafah State itself resisted them. Hence, the severance of Kuwait from the Ottoman state and the advance towards the north for its protection was sufficient to catch the imagination of the major states such as Russia, Germany and France, as well as the Ottoman State. Furthermore, the characteristics of this war which was a sectarian one, used to arouse the spiritual emotions.

    In this way, the Wahhabis resumed their activities suddenly, and after a lull that had lasted for several decades. They resumed this activity with a new method, which was to spread the Math’hab through war and conquest in order to remove the features of all the other Mathahib from existence, and replace them by their Math’hab. They began their activities by attacking Kuwait and seizing it. Then they followed this activity with several attempts at expansion. Accordingly they became a cause of concern and a nuisance to their neighbours within the Arabian peninsula – Iraq, Al-Sham, and the Ottoman state in its capacity as the Khilafah State. They brandished the sword to fight the Muslims and to force them to abandon what they carried in terms of opinions alien to the Wahhabi Math’hab, and to adopt the opinions of the Wahhabi Math’hab. They fought the Khaleefah and conquered the Islamic lands. Then in 1792, Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab died and his son succeeded him in his post just as Saud succeeded his father Abdul-Aziz. The Saudi Amirs then proceeded in this course, adopting the Wahhabi Math’hab as a political tool to strike the Ottoman state (the Khilafah State), and to incite sectarian wars between Muslims.

    The British conspiracy against the Islamic State

    The brokerage and loyalty of Al Saud to the British was a well known matter to the Khilafah state and to the major powers such as Germany, France and Russia. It was also known that they were steered by the British. The British themselves never used to conceal the fact that they supported the Saudis as a state. Furthermore, the huge arsenals and equipment which reached them via India and the finance to cover the war effort and to equip the armed forces were but British weapons and money. Therefore, the other European countries, especially France, were opposed to the Wahhabi campaign for it was considered a British campaign. The Khilafah State had tried to strike the Wahhabis but to no avail, and her Walis in Madinah and Baghdad were unable to curb them. As a result she instructed her Wali in Egypt Muhammad Ali, to dispatch a task force to deal with them. He hesitated at first. Indeed he was a French agent, and it was France who had helped him stage the coup in Egypt and seize power, then forced the Khilafah to recognise him. So on the basis of France’s agreement and incitement, Muhammad Ali responded to the Sultan’s demands in 1811 and dispatched his son Tosson to fight the Wahhabis. Several battles took place between the Egyptian army and the Wahhabis, and the Egyptian army managed to conquer Madinah in 1812. Then in 1816, Muhammad Ali sent his son Ibrahim from Cairo, who crushed the Wahhabis until they retreated to their capital, Al-Dir’iyyah and fortified themselves there. Thereafter, Ibrahim besieged them in April 1818. The siege continued all throughout the summer until 9th September 1818 when the Wahhabis capitulated. The armies of Ibrahim destroyed Al Dir’iyyah and razed it completely. It was said that he ploughed it so that no trace of it was left. This marked the end of the British campaign.

    France’s attempt at hitting the Islamic State

    France then attempted to strike the Islamic State from the back through her agent Muhammad Ali, the Wali of Egypt. France openly supported him internationally and politically, and he broke away from the Khaleefah and declared war against it. He marched towards Al-Sham in 1831 with the aim of conquering it. He occupied Palestine, Lebanon and Syria and started to infiltrate Anatolia. However, the Khaleefah dispatched a strong army to fight him. Britain, Russia and two of the German states turned against Muhammad Ali. In July 1840, Britain, Russia and two German states held what became known as the “Quadrilateral Alliance”, according to which these states would undertake to defend the unity of the Ottoman State and to oblige Muhammad Ali, by force if necessary, to surrender Syria. This stand taken by the European countries turned the international situation in favour of the Khaleefah. It helped to resist Muhammad Ali and drive him out of Syria, Palestine and Lebanon. Muhammad Ali returned to Egypt whereupon he accepted to be a Wali under the authority of the Khaleefah.

  • The struggle between Islam and Kufr | How the Khilafah was destroyed | Chapter 1

    The struggle between Islam and Kufr | How the Khilafah was destroyed | Chapter 1

    Chapter 1: The struggle between Islam and Kufr

    The fierce struggle between the Islamic thoughts and the Kufr thoughts, and between the Muslims and the Kuffar, has been intense ever since the dawn of Islam. When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was sent, the struggle was only an intellectual one, and was not associated with any material struggle. This status quo continued until the Islamic State was established in Madinah, whereupon the army and the authority were established and since then, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) combined the material struggle with the intellectual struggle. The verses of Jihad were revealed and the struggle went on. It will continue in this way – a bloody struggle alongside the intellectual struggle – until the Hour comes and Allah (swt) inherits the Earth and those on it. This is why Kufr is an enemy of Islam, and this is why the Kuffar will be the enemies of the Muslims as long as there is Islam and Kufr in this world, Muslims and Kuffar, until all are resurrected. This is a decisive and a constant fact. Hence the understanding of it should remain clear to the Muslims at all times throughout the whole of their life, and it should be taken as a criterion to judge the relationships between Islam and Kufr and between the Muslims and the Kuffar.

    The pure intellectual struggle continued for thirteen years. It was the harshest and most ferocious of struggles. Eventually the Islamic thoughts vanquished the Kufr thoughts, and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) made Islam triumphant. The State that protects the honour of the Muslims and is the shield of Islam and spreads the guidance amongst people by way of Jihad, was established in Madinah.

    The fiercest and harshest of wars between Islam and Kufr and between the Muslim and the Kuffar armies broke out in successive battles. Victory in all these wars was to the Muslims. Although the Muslims were defeated in some of the battles, they however always won the war, and they did not lose a war for six centuries, rather remaining victorious in all of their wars during that time. The Islamic State remained the leading nation throughout the whole of that period. Apart from the Muslims, this has never happened to mankind, rather it has been exclusive to the Islamic State. However the disbelievers, especially the European states, had been mindful of Islam, for they wanted to attack it, and they had been mindful of the Muslims, for they wanted to destroy their entity. They attempted to attack or conspire against the Muslims whenever the opportunity arose.

    Between the end of the sixth century Hijri (eleventh century CE) and the beginning of the seventh century Hijri (twelfth century CE), the European countries sensed the condition that the ruling system in the Islamic State had reached regarding the fragmentation of the Wilayahs (provinces) from the body of the state, and the independence of some Walis (governors) in key areas concerning the internal policy such as the armed forces, finance, authority and the like. In fact, they had become more like a federation of states rather than a single united state. The Khaleefah’s authority had been reduced in some Wilayahs to the supplication for him on the pulpits, minting coins bearing his name and sending him an amount of money from the Kharaj. The European states had sensed this, hence they dispatched the crusades against the Muslims, and war broke out. The Muslims were defeated in this war and the Kuffar captured the whole of Al-Sham : Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. They occupied these territories for decades, even keeping some areas such as Tripoli for a hundred years.

    Although the battles which took place between the crusaders and the Muslims were continuous throughout the hundred years, and although the Muslims’ attempts at recapturing the lands over which the crusaders defeated them did not subside, these wars did however unsettle the Islamic Ummah, and they lowered the status of the Islamic State. The Muslims lost the war and they were defeated by the Kuffar. Victory in the war was to the Kuffar against the Muslims. Although the victory of Kufr against Islam never materialised, neither intellectually nor spiritually, the shame and humiliation which befell the Muslims was beyond imagination. Thus, the era of the crusades, is considered an era of defeat for the Muslims, for despite their victory in the end against the crusaders with their expulsion from Al-Sham, they did not pursue the conquests and the wars with the disbelievers. No sooner had the crusades ended, the Mongols arrived, and the massacre of Baghdad took place. This setback was followed by the fall of Damascus at the hands of the Mongols in the same year, (656 AH, 1258 CE). Then came the battle of Ayn Jaloot on 3rd September 1260 where the Mongols were destroyed. In the wake of the destruction of the Mongols, the emotions of Jihad were aroused in the souls of the Muslims, and they sensed the need for a resumption of carrying the Da’awah to the world. Hence, the Muslim conquests of the Kuffar began once again, and Jihad against the Byzantines was resumed. Battles broke out and successive victories followed. It was around the seventh century of Hijrah (the 13th century CE) when the Islamic Ummah resumed the conquests. The wars continued and several successive battles took place, and the Muslims always emerged as the victorious, for although the Muslims were beaten in some battles, they used to win the wars and conquer the lands. The Islamic State was the leading nation and she continued to occupy the premier position for four centuries, until the mid 12th century AH (the 18th century CE). Then the industrial revolution in Europe emerged in a remarkable manner that had a profound impact on the states’ powers. Muslims stood idle and confused by this revolution, hence the balance of power in the world changed and the Islamic state began her slide from the leading spot gradually, until eventually she became the coveted object of the greedy. Hence, she started evacuating the lands she had conquered and the lands which had been previously under her authority. The disbelieving countries started usurping from her the land of Islam piece by piece, and this marked the start of the ebb and the end of the tide for the Muslims. Since then, the European countries started to focus upon the removal of the Islamic State from the international scene, and upon the complete removal of Islam from life’s affairs and from the relationships between people. In other words, they started thinking about a new campaign of crusades. However unlike the first crusades, the new crusades were to be more than just a military invasion to defeat the Muslims and vanquish the Islamic State. The new crusades were more horrific and had more profound consequences. They were designed to uproot the Islamic State so that no trace of it would be left, and so that not one single root would be able to grow again. They were designed also to uproot Islam from the souls of the Muslims so that nothing could remain except a host of clerical rites and spiritual rituals.

    For Audio

  • Q&A: The Events in Syria and the Retreat of the Syrian Democratic Forces

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Answer to Question
    The Events in Syria and the Retreat of the Syrian Democratic Forces
    (Translated)

    Question:

    Events are rapidly unfolding with a swift momentum in northeastern Syria, and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are losing control over the areas at a very fast pace, with the Syrian regime taking them over. How did all of this happen? How should this be understood given that both the regime and the SDF are agents of America? And despite the American green light to the Syrian government being as clear as daylight in seizing those areas, what is the Trump administration planning in Syria or its surroundings?

    Answer:

    In order for the answer to the above questions to become clear, we present the following matters:

    First: The stages of America’s support for the SDF in Syria

    1. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF or the QASAD) are a broad alliance that was established in October 2015 with the aim of fighting the Islamic State organization (ISIS/ISIL/DAESH). It consists of Kurdish, Arab, Syriac, Armenian, and Turkmen fighters. The largest component of the SDF is the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ), which are responsible for the security and defense of the lands of the self-administration cantons declared in Rojava. (Wikipedia). America intensified its support for the Syrian Democratic Forces since their establishment in 2015 and since the American intervention in Syria in 2014, which preceded the Russian intervention. American forces provided the SDF with aerial protection and lavished them with financial support and weapons. America’s commitment to them reached the point that it killed hundreds of Russian Wagner forces who were attempting to cross the Euphrates eastward in February 2018. America repelled all Turkish statements and efforts aimed at undermining the SDF.

    Thus, American support for the SDF continued since its founding, providing military air cover as well as political cover, in addition to financial and weapons support, and facilitating its control over the fertile lands around the Euphrates, oil and gas fields, and power stations. America also resisted Turkey’s opposition to this American policy in northeastern Syria. All of this was part of America’s preparation of tools to fight Islam should the Islamic Caliphate (Khilafah) be launched from Damascus.

    2. Today, Trump has seen that the government of Ahmed al-Sharaa is more capable of achieving America’s interests in the region, foremost among them two matters: keeping the system of governance in Islam away from Syria, and submitting to the demands of the Jewish entity in Syria and Palestine, such that this entity is not resisted even while it attacks day and night! Therefore, Trump’s positions, followed by those of his ministers, regarding the end of the SDF’s role and the Syrian regime replacing it in serving America’s interests in the region, have become evident. This is no longer hidden, but rather openly declared day and night by the American envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, during his tours, as well as in the statements of the Turkish and Syrian presidents.

    a. Tom Barrack stated: “The role of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) as the “primary anti-ISIS force on the ground” has “largely expired” as the Syrian government is ready to assume security responsibilities,” (Al-Jazeera Net, 21/1/2026).

    In another statement on the X platform, Barrack said: “Syria’s situation has “fundamentally” transformed, with Damascus joining the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS as its 90th member in late 2025. Syria is now “willing and positioned to take over security responsibilities” including control of ISIL (ISIS) detention facilities and camps, (Aljazeera; BBC, 20/1/2026).

    He also stated in a lengthy post on his X page, translated by the U.S. Embassy in Syria:

    “Today, the situation has fundamentally changed. Syria now has an acknowledged central government that has joined the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS (as its 90th member in late 2025), signaling a westward pivot and cooperation with the US on counterterrorism. This shifts the rationale for the US-SDF partnership: the original purpose of the SDF as the primary anti-ISIS force on the ground has largely expired, as Damascus is now both willing and positioned to take over security responsibilities, including control of ISIS detention facilities and camps.” (X; CNN Arabic, 21/1/2026).

    b. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said on Wednesday that Kurdish forces in northern Syria must lay down their arms and immediately dissolve their ranks in order to reach a solution without further bloodshed, after Damascus granted them a four-day deadline to present a plan for integrating al-Hasakah into the central state. (Al-Jazeera Net, 21/1/2026).

    c. The Syrian presidency announced in a statement on Monday that Syrian transitional president Ahmed al-Sharaa held a phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump. According to the statement published by the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), “…the two presidents stressed the importance of preserving Syria’s territorial unity and independence, and supporting all efforts aimed at achieving stability. Both sides underlined the need to guarantee the rights and protection of the Kurdish people within the framework of the Syrian state.” (SANA; CNN Arabic, 19/1/2026).

    Second: From all of this, it becomes clear that America is granting the green light to Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa to end the SDF. America today does not hide its intentions, nor does it exert any effort to use diplomatic language. It openly declares that the SDF, as an American tool to fight “terrorism,” has ended, and that America now wants to rely on a larger tool, namely the government of Ahmed al-Sharaa. Both are American tools, and America replaces its tools as it wishes. All of this, together with developments on the ground, points to many matters, including the following:

    1. The issue of replacing one agent with another agent: During the ash-Sham revolution, which exhausted America and caused Obama’s hair to turn gray, America continued to search for a strong agent capable of governing to replace its agent Bashar, against whom Syria had risen. We stated in an Answer to a Question dated 26/7/2025 that this clarifies that the American plan in Syria “is based on a fundamental premise: replacing one agent with another. For that purpose, Turkey was given the green light to dismantle Bashar’s regime and build a new one loyal to it.”

    Turkey and its intelligence services undertook this American mission and prepared Ahmed al-Sharaa, who was previously known as al-Julani. Months before the end of the Biden administration, America allowed Turkey to lead the operation of handing Syria over to the new American agent, Ahmed al-Sharaa. Turkey, on behalf of America, contacted Iran and Russia and neutralized their forces in Syria. America requested Bashar al-Assad to hand over the country, and so it happened. The new agent was installed in place of the old one, and Turkey remained the main conduit of America’s communication with him.

    2. America began demanding that its new agent commit more “prohibited acts,” and he began proving his compliance under Turkish pressure. He abandoned the rayah (banner) bearing “Tawhid” and replaced it with a secular flag, issued amnesty for remnants of Bashar, while continuing to imprison young shabab of the Khilafah who are working to realize the glad tidings of the Messenger of Allah (saw) after this tyrannical rule under which we live:

    «…ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكاً جَبْرِيَّةً فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ. ثُمَّ سَكَتَ»

    “…Then there will be tyrannical kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then He will remove it when He wills to remove it. Then there will be a Caliphate upon the method of Prophethood.” Then he remained silent.

    He reduced Qur’an class allocations in schools, and Trump demanded that he not respond to the repeated and severe attacks of the Jewish entity, which even reached Damascus itself. Trump then demanded that he negotiate with the Jewish entity, and rounds upon rounds of negotiations took place led by his foreign minister al-Shaybani without shame or piety—neither before Allah and His Messenger nor before the believers, especially the people of Gaza. The demands of Ahmed al-Sharaa’s government from the Jewish entity during these negotiations were so trivial that the criminal Bashar had negotiated beyond them in the 2008 negotiations sponsored by Turkey before the ash-Sham revolution erupted. By accepting all these “prohibited acts,” America opened a direct political channel with him, in addition to intelligence channels and Turkish channels. The first political channel was the meeting between America’s agent Bin Salman (MBS) and al-Sharaa in Riyadh on 14/5/2025. These channels then expanded, and al-Sharaa received praise from the American president, who later received him at the White House on 11/11/2025, albeit through the back door and without official ceremonies. Trump stated that evening that he was “in agreement” with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and affirmed that Washington would do everything it could to make Syria successful. (RT, 11/11/2025).

    3. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan discussed in the White House ways to resolve the existing problems in Syria concurrently with the visit of Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa to Washington and his meeting with President Trump. Fidan announced that discussions were held in the White House with U.S. Secretary of State Rubio, the U.S. President’s Special Envoy Witkoff, the U.S. Envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack, and Syrian Foreign Minister As’ad al-Shaybani. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance later joined the meeting. The participants discussed possible ways out of the current problems in Syria. (RT, 11/11/2025).

    4. During this period, America was lifting sanctions on Syria in stages to ensure at each stage that al-Sharaa was proving himself a loyal American agent. Consequently, Syria joined the international coalition to fight ISIS. The U.S. Embassy in Damascus announced on 11/11/2025 that Syria had joined the international coalition to fight ISIS, becoming officially the 90th member. (Anadolu, 12/11/2025). America then lifted sanctions on Syria when President Donald Trump signed the cancellation of the Caesar Act imposed on Syria since 2019. (Al-Jazeera, 19/12/2025).

    Third: During the current events, the SDF forces were withdrawing from the areas, and according to statements by their commander Mazloum Abdi, this withdrawal from west of the Euphrates to its east was upon the advice of the “friends and mediators” (Kurdistan 24 website, 16/1/2026). And certainly America is at the head of these friends and mediators, which had been pushing for the implementation of the SDF agreement with the Syrian government on 10/3/2025:

    (“Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and the commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces Mazloum Abdi signed on Monday an agreement stipulating the integration of all civil and military institutions affiliated with the Kurdish self-administration within the framework of the Syrian state, according to what the presidency announced…” (Al-Arabiya, 10/3/2025)).

    Then the Syrian government signed a second agreement with the SDF, pursuant to which the SDF withdraws and hands over “immediately” the governorates of Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa. The American envoy welcomed it and considered it a pivotal turning point, and that America wants a unified Syria: (The American envoy to Damascus, Tom Barrack, considered that the agreement whose signing was announced by Syrian President Ahmad al-Shara’ with the commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces Mazloum Abdi constitutes a “pivotal inflection point”. Barrack said in a post on the X platform: “This agreement and ceasefire represent a pivotal inflection point, where former adversaries embrace partnership over division,” Barrack praised the agreement, saying it will lead to “renewed dialogue and cooperation toward a unified Syria” (X: Al-Arabi Television, 18/1/2026).

    Fourth: The hardline wings within the SDF—especially those cooperating with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)—were delaying implementation in the hope that a loophole might open for them in American policy. They insisted that the integration of the SDF into the army be as a single bloc rather than as individuals. Al-Arabiya reported on 17/1/2026, citing the Erbil meeting, that the SDF commander Mazloum Abdi sought to persuade the Americans to allow integration as three divisions within the Syrian army. However, this loophole did not open in the American position, neither at the Erbil meeting nor before it. The government of al-Sharaa then began the offensive—i.e., enforcing the agreement by force—starting from neighborhoods of the city of Aleppo. Consequently, the SDF was compelled to sign a second agreement with the government under which it would “immediately” hand over the governorates of Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa. America endorsed this agreement. As we mentioned earlier, the SDF attempted to delay implementation with every agreement, but the intervention of the Arab tribes and their onslaught against the SDF left no room for that, even though the Syrian president called on the tribes to remain calm. Al-Sharaa said: “We advise our Arab tribes to remain calm and allow room for the implementation of the provisions of the agreement.” Arab militias have joined the army in its clashes with the Syrian Democratic Forces since Saturday (CNN Arabic, 19/1/2026).

    Fifth: Thus, events accelerated at a swift pace:

    1- The Syrian government announced that the process of integrating SDF fighters would be carried out on an individual basis and not as a bloc or as military divisions within the army and the interior ministry. The government also announced reassurances regarding the population’s “cultural” rights and the granting of citizenships. It then actually began taking control of areas in the governorates of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, entered al-Hasakah governorate, and extended its control over it, leaving the SDF with no room for negotiation except over al-Hasakah. The Syrian Ministry of Defense announced on Monday evening a ceasefire between Syrian forces and the SDF starting at 8pm (about an hour from then) for a duration of four days. This came following the announcement by the Syrian presidency of the reaching of a mutual understanding between the government and the SDF regarding issues related to the future of al-Hasakah governorate (Al Jazeera Net, 20/1/2026). This agreement granted the SDF only a limited number of appeasement measures: the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported on Tuesday, quoting the Syrian presidency, that the commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces, Mazloum Abdi, would put forward a candidate from the SDF for the position of deputy minister of defense, in addition to proposing a candidate for the post of governor of al-Hasakah, names for representation in parliament, and a list of individuals for employment within Syrian state institutions (CNN Arabic, 20/1/2026). The presidency stated that, in the event of agreement, “Syrian forces will not enter the centers of the cities of al-Hasakah and al-Qamishli and will remain on their outskirts, with the timetable and details related to the peaceful integration of al-Hasakah governorate, including the city of al-Qamishli, to be discussed later.” (BBC, 20/1/2026). The two sides also agreed that Syrian government forces would not enter Kurdish villages, with their security to be undertaken by local security forces from the people of the area. (CNN Arabic, 20/1/2026).

    2- After America decided to transfer ISIS prisoners from the prisons that had been under SDF control to Iraq, the SDF requested from America an extension of the deadline until the completion of the prisoners’ transfer, and this is what occurred. The Syrian Ministry of Defense announced the extension of the ceasefire deadline with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) for 15 days in support of the American operation to evacuate prisoners of ISIS/ISIL from the prisons. The Ministry of Defense clarified on its account on the X platform that the extension would begin tonight at eleven o’clock local time, and that this comes in support of emptying SDF prisons of ISIS/ISIL prisoners and transferring them to Iraq (Al Jazeera, 24/1/2026). Thus, the process of closing the page of the SDF and the page of its commander, America’s small agent Mazloum Abdi, is underway after he completed the American task, and America ended his services in exchange for a “small retirement salary,” namely the appointment of employees here and there—something that may be temporary. For the one who manages events in the region is America, and if its interests require a change in positions, it orders its agents among the rulers to implement it without their eyelids fluttering or any sense of shame touching them. [أَلَا سَاءَ مَا يَحْكُمُونَ] “Unquestionably, evil is that which they decide.” [Al-Ma’idah:50]

    Sixth: It is painful that Syria has become fully submissive to America after all the sacrifices made by its people to change the regime and establish the rule of Islam in its place. America purchases cheap loyalties to secure a crooked chair whose occupant serves America in order to remain seated and control all Syrian territory. He abandons the application of Islam and jihad to liberate occupied land, removes Syria from the confrontation front with the enemy—something even the fugitive criminal Bashar al-Assad did not dare do—and forgets or pretends to forget that throwing himself into America’s arms will not preserve his position if America finds a more capable agent. In those before him are lessons enough. will the rulers, their aides, and their entourages, America’s agents, not take heed from the way America brings down its agents, suffices itself with their services, and abandons them after their dreams have sunk, discarding them without remorse and without shedding a single tear for them, after they had spread corruption throughout the land in service to America—only for it then to throw them onto the roadside once it dispenses with their services in favor of a new agent more capable of serving it than the one before him? And true concerning these agent rulers is the saying of Allah the Exalted:

    [فَأَذَاقَهُمُ اللَّهُ الْخِزْيَ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَلَعَذَابُ الْآخِرَةِ أَكْبَرُ لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ]

    “So Allah made them taste disgrace in worldly life. But the punishment of the Hereafter is greater, if they only knew.” [Surah Az-Zumar 39:26].

    8 Sha’ban 1447 AH
    27/1/2026 CE

  • Q&A: Political Conflict/Struggle and Intellectual Struggle: Are They Fixed “Methods” or Variable “Styles”?

    Answer to Question
    Political Conflict/Struggle and Intellectual Struggle: Are They Fixed “Methods” or Variable “Styles”?
    To: Ahmed Bakr
    (Translated)

    Question:

    Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh:

    Our Ameer and Sheikh, may Allah protect you, support you, and grant you victory.

    Is political conflict/struggle a fundamental tenet of the method or merely one of its styles? May Allah protect you, continue your glory, grant you success, benefit others through you, open doors for you, and elevate your status.

    To clarify, I am aware that it is part of the method, just as the intellectual struggle is. However, this matter sparked discussion and differing understandings among the members here in one of our meetings. The issue remained unresolved, and sometime later, a question was raised, and we await a definitive and comprehensive answer.

    Answer:

    Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh.

    We previously answered a similar question on the 14th of Safar 1429 AH – 20/2/2008 CE, and it stated:

    [Political and intellectual action are part of the method, as the stage of interaction necessitates them and cannot occur without them. Indeed, there is no interaction without political and intellectual action.

    As for political struggle and intellectual struggle, they are a clear challenge to political and intellectual action. This challenge is a style; it may be necessary in one instance but not in another.]

    To illustrate the point, distributing a leaflet can be done in a confrontational manner, openly and defiantly, or it can be done in a more ordinary way. Conflict and struggle inherently involve a blatant challenge meaning, along with its associated consequences. These styles vary depending on the situation, and I will give you some examples: The Prophet (saw) used styles of varying intensity with the kuffar. For instance, when one of the leaders of Quraysh (perhaps Utbah) went to Him, the Prophet (saw) presented Islam to him with convincing arguments and profound wisdom, in a calm and impactful style. The man returned to Quraysh transformed, as described by the leaders who had sent him, especially after praising the words he had heard from the Prophet (saw).

    While one of the chiefs of Quraysh (likely Wa’il) met the Prophet (saw), this chief of disbelief was holding decayed bones. He showed them to the Prophet (saw) and asked, “Can your Lord bring this back to life?” The Prophet (saw) replied, «نعم ويبعثه حياً» “Yes, He will resurrect you.” Then the Prophet (saw) added, «ويدخلك جهنم» “And He will cast you into Hell…” Here, the Prophet (saw) not only answered his question but also added a rebuke.

    Thus, the style of the argument can be intensified or softened according to the nature of the person being addressed.

    To clarify further, read this verse:

    [اذْهَبْ أَنتَ وَأَخُوكَ بِآيَاتِي وَلَا تَنِيَا فِي ذِكْرِي * اذْهَبَا إِلَىٰ فِرْعَوْنَ إِنَّهُ طَغَىٰ * فَقُولَا لَهُ قَوْلاً لَّيِّناً لَّعَلَّهُ يَتَذَكَّرُ أَوْ يَخْشَىٰ]

    “Go forth, you and your brother, with My signs and never falter in remembering Me * Go, both of you, to Pharaoh, for he has truly transgressed ˹all bounds˺ * Speak to him gently, so perhaps he may be mindful ˹of Me˺ or fearful ˹of My punishment˺.”” [Ta-Ha: 42-44].

    It is clear from this verse that what is required is a calm and gentle intellectual discussion.

    Now read this noble verse on the same subject, which is also between Musa and Pharaoh, but in a different context. After Musa presented Pharaoh with clear proofs and evidence, he remained arrogant and persisted in his tyranny. At that point, Musas’ words to him were not gentle, but rather harsh, describing him as “doomed,” meaning destroyed and cursed…And this noble verse:

    [وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا مُوسَىٰ تِسْعَ آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ فَاسْأَلْ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِذْ جَاءَهُمْ فَقَالَ لَهُ فِرْعَوْنُ إِنِّي لَأَظُنُّكَ يَا مُوسَىٰ مَسْحُوراً * قَالَ لَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ مَا أَنزَلَ هَٰؤُلَاءِ إِلَّا رَبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ بَصَائِرَ وَإِنِّي لَأَظُنُّكَ يَا فِرْعَوْنُ مَثْبُوراً]

    “We surely gave Moses nine clear signs ˹You, O Prophet, can˺ ask the Children of Israel. When Moses came to them, Pharaoh said to him, “I really think that you, O Moses, are bewitched.” * Moses replied, “You know well that none has sent these ˹signs˺ down except the Lord of the heavens and the earth as insights. And I really think that you, O Pharaoh, are doomed.”” [Al-Isra: 101-102].

    The initial, gentle discussion was intended to present evidence and proofs, but after conclusive evidence and insights were presented, and yet arrogance and tyranny persisted, then the discussion became more heated…

    I hope I have made the picture perfectly clear.

    Therefore, in our books on political actions during the interaction phase, we say: “…in these political actions, intellectual struggle and political conflict/struggle are prominent…”

    Conflict and struggle become prominent at this stage due to the confrontation with the leaders of disbelief, and this approach is usually suitable for them. However, with other disbelievers, or at another time, political and intellectual action may require a different style.

    I reiterate that political and intellectual action is from the method, as the stage of interaction necessitates and requires them. Escalating political and intellectual action—that is, struggle and conflict—is the style, and it is employed at the appropriate time and place.

    Your Brother,
    Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

    6 Sha’ban 1447 AH
    25/1/2026 CE

    The Link to the Answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page

  • Q&A: The US National Security Strategy Document

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Answer To Question
    The US National Security Strategy Document
    (Translated)

    Question:

    On 5/12/2025, Trump announced to the public the new 33-page US National Security Strategy document. What is the difference between this document and the previous ones, such as Biden’s strategy?

    Answer:

    A careful examination of these documents reveals no fundamental difference between the National Security Strategy documents published by the Republican Trump in 2017 and 2025, or those published by Reagan in 1988, Bush Sr. in 1990, and Bush Jr. in 2002, and those announced by Democratic presidents: Clinton in 1994 and 1998, Obama in 2010 and 2015, and Biden in 2022. The only difference lies in the style and language used; all of them aim to maintain and reinforce American global hegemony. While Republicans express American global leadership bluntly and without ambiguity, Democrats resort to flowery and deceptive language, sometimes through misleading and other times through convoluted and ambiguous statements. In my answer, as the question suggests, I will focus on the differences between these strategies rather than delving into their details, except to the extent necessary to clarify the difference between Biden’s strategy and Trump’s strategy. To illustrate this, and with Allah’s guidance, I say:

    1- The Answer to a Question we issued on 18/11/2016, stated the following:

    (…The broad outlines of the US politics do not differ between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, but the styles vary. The reason for this is attributed to the background of the emergence of the two parties. The Republican Party does not care much to appear in the democratic impressions that they loud-mouth, but is predominated by a cowboy attitude saturated with arrogance and it has emerged from this milieu and still it prevails it… And the cowboy culture tends to the person who shows strength, beats and kills the other, blows up here and there… Nor do they care about the crimes of killing innocent people, as they are prevalent in their country, and they love to bear arms and use them as fancies. The US Senate rejected on Monday a proposal of the Democratic Party that allows expanding investigations of the criminal and psychological history for those interested in purchasing individual weapons… Thus, the Republicans do not care about the regulation of gun possession because of the control of producers and arms dealers lobby on them…Whereas, the Democratic Party is predominated by deception, appearing in the false democratic impressions and imitating the English style. It provides poison enveloped with fake fat, and kills you with a smile, while the Republican party offers the pure poison, so it kills you while biting on its teeth… Democratic presidents therefore are better able to deceit and win the trust of dupes, whereas Republican presidents do not deceive anyone because their enmity is blatantly declared. This can be seen when reviewing people’s vision of examples of not-so-distant history of Presidents of both parties… Bush utters by the crusade war whereas Obama cites a Quranic verse in Cairo… and both are plotting a scheme against Islam…! That is just as we said earlier: “Democratic presidents therefore better able to deceive and win the trust of dupes, whereas Republican presidents do not deceive anyone because their enmity is blatantly declared.”

    Even in the logo of the two parties, there is a difference in connotation, fits what we have said. Since the American cartoonist – German origin – Thomas Nast in (1870 and 1874), published a drawing in Harper’s Magazine showing a picture of a donkey wearing a lion’s body to scare a group of animals, among them a giant wild elephant that smashes his surroundings… Since then, the donkey has become the Democratic party logo, and the elephant became the logo of the Republican party, and the two logos reflect the image of the two parties… Thus, the actions of Trump are not a new innovation of the actions of the Republican candidates, except to the extent of personal characteristics that distinguish a person from another, but the general characteristics of the Republican Party remains almost applicable to all the party’s candidates with the exception of personal characteristics as mentioned above.) End of Quote.

    2- Therefore, the inherent arrogance of the Republicans and the deceptive tactics of the Democrats are clearly evident in the strategic documents announced by presidents from both parties.

    * Biden’s strategy, for example, seeks to perpetuate American leadership and entrench global hegemony and order through misleading terms such as cooperation, democracy, human rights, and diplomacy.

    * As for Trump, whose personality is characterized by excessive arrogance, a lust for power, a love of theatrics, a lack of wisdom, a tendency towards internal conflicts and the elimination of opponents, and a state of euphoria, he aims to maintain American global leadership through blatant and undisguised slogans such as “America First” and “Peace Through Strength,” even going so far as to insult his allies without any pretense. This is what Trump explicitly stated in his strategic document: (“The goal of this strategy is to tie together all of these world-leading assets, and others, to strengthen American power and preeminence and make our country even greater than it ever has been” (National Security Strategy 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf)).

    Furthermore, in almost all the subheadings under the heading “Priorities,” the protection, enhancement, and sustainability of American dominance are emphasized and reinforced. These include: Realignment through peace, economic security, balanced trade, securing access to critical supply chains and materials, reviving our defense industrial base, energy dominance, and preserving and growing America’s financial sector dominance.

    3- The national strategy documents announced by Democratic presidents such as Biden, Obama, and Clinton were based on maintaining American hegemony through so-called soft power and international institutions like the United Nations and NATO, using deceptive terms like democracy and human rights. According to the Democratic national strategy document, America is the world’s policeman, and while this role comes with costs and burdens, they see these as a necessary price to pay to ensure the continuation of the American world order and the expansion of its imperial influence.

    However, in Republican strategies, as seen in the documents of Nixon and Trump, the logic differs. They demand that allies pay for America’s protection and the security umbrella it provides. This was clearly evident in Trump’s 2025 document under the subheading “Burden-Sharing and Burden-Shifting,” which obligated NATO countries to “spend 5 percent of GDP on defense” (US National Security Strategy 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf; mc-doualiya.com).

    As is apparent, despite the varying methods employed, the different means used, and the fluctuating priorities according to circumstances and shifts, the fundamental objective of national security strategy documents—whether issued by Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, or other leaders of the colonialist state—remains a single, constant goal: to maintain America’s global leadership, consolidate its hegemony, and prevent the emergence of any power that rivals the United States!

    4- Therefore, the strategy document announced by Trump does not represent a fundamental change in objectives, but rather a change in the methods used to achieve those objectives. As also stated in the Question and Answer dated 18/11/ 2016: (As for the change of US policy on key issues traded in the era of the former president, the broad outline is not expected to change, but the styles may change. The American system is controlled by different institutions, each with its own powers that increase or decrease… and this affects maintaining the outline of US policy almost invariable with differences in styles.) End of Quote.

    5- This can be confirmed by examining the emergence of American political parties after the formation of the United States. They all share a common origin, maintaining American hegemony and tyranny. These parties differ only in their methods and personal tyranny.

    a. After European (settlers and tourists) managed to seize America, especially North America, and enslave its indigenous inhabitants, the Native Americans, they began working to form a state. According to Wikipedia, [The Thirteen Colonies were the British colonies on the Atlantic coast of North America which broke away from the British Crown in the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), and joined to form the United States of America]. The Philadelphia Convention adopted the current American Constitution on 17/9/1787, and it was ratified the following year, 1788, making these states part of a single republic with a central government. Later, the United States acquired territories from France, Spain, Mexico, and Russia, and annexed the Republic of Texas and Hawaii. The republic was then officially established the following year, on 1789, the United States of America. George Washington was the first President of the United States (1789-1797).

    b. The Democratic-Republican Party originated from a faction in Congress comprised of opponents of the centralist policies of Alexander Hamilton, who served as Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington

    c. The Democratic-Republican Party persisted until 1828, when the current Democratic Party was formed by supporters of Andrew Jackson. The current Republican Party was then formed in 1854. Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president of the United States in 1865…

    6- Therefore, these parties share a common origin: to impose American hegemony. They differ only in their methods, their degree of cunning, and the extent of their personal tyranny. The differences don’t extend beyond these three points.

    For example, the new strategic document announced by Trump is the most arrogant example of cowboy behavior. As we mentioned earlier, while the Democrats, like foxes, offer poison in a veneer of false sweetness (under the guise of democracy, human rights, and diplomatic niceties), the Republicans impose the poison as it is, gritting their teeth and brandishing brute force. Trump’s slogan, “America First,” is in reality nothing more than a policy of colonial extortion, even with allies, by imposing tributes: “Pay money for protection.”

    7- Thus, upon closer examination of Trump and Biden’s strategies, it becomes clear that the only difference lies in style, cunning, and the extent of personal tyranny. Although what we mentioned above indicates this, both strategies addressed a number of international issues, many of which are almost identical in their views, such as Europe and China. Some issues, such as the Western Hemisphere, show a difference in style, cunning, and personal tyranny, while others, such as the Middle East, are characterized by a shared, albeit hateful, scheming approach. We will briefly mention what was stated in Biden’s and then Trump’s strategies regarding the Western Hemisphere and the Middle East:

    A. The Western Hemisphere: Because the Monroe Doctrine pertains to this region, we will mention something about Monroe and his doctrine:

    (He was the fifth President of the United States, serving from 1817 to 1825. He received the state of Florida to administer in 1819. In 1823, he announced the Monroe Doctrine, in which he expressed the United States’ opposition to any European intervention in the affairs of the Americas. This was stated in a declaration issued by President James Monroe in a letter he delivered to the US Congress on December 2nd, 1823. The Monroe Doctrine called for guaranteeing the independence of all nations in the Western Hemisphere against European intervention aimed at oppressing them or interfering in their self-determination. (Wikipedia, slightly adapted))

    Subsequent American presidents followed suit in implementing it, albeit with varying methods and degrees of malice and tyranny. We will briefly mention what was issued by Biden and Trump in their respective strategies to illustrate the difference between them.

    * Biden’s strategy indicates that this region (is the most influential on the United States, with annual trade reaching $1.9 trillion, in addition to shared values, democratic traditions, and family ties. This strategy deems it essential for the United States to revitalize its businesses in the Americas. Biden’s strategy also indicates that the United States will continue to modernize its border infrastructure and build a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system with the countries of the region. It will also continue its mission of expanding legal pathways for immigration and combating smuggling). This strategy does not allow any other major power to have effective influence that rivals or surpasses American influence, but rather employs deception and malicious tactics using democracy and human rights… and resorts to military action only as a last resort, not as an initial step

    * As for Trump’s strategy, it begins with threats of military action, even if those threats are never carried out!Trump’s strategy is rife with arrogance, threats, and intimidation. His strategy (paraphrased) includes the following: […(Applying the Monroe Doctrine to protect America’s security and restore its control over the Western Hemisphere—America itself, Canada, and South America—and preventing foreign powers from deploying forces there)… and considers it “a region exclusively for the United States of America”]… Therefore, Trump asked Canada to join, making it the 51st state. He threatened Panama to cancel its agreements with China, and Panama complied. He also launched an attack on 3/1/2026 on Venezuela, bombing its capital Caracas, and its president, Maduro, and his wife were arrested in an act of arrogance reeking of abhorrent, traditional colonialism! This treatment of the Western Hemisphere was dubbed the Trump Doctrine, a complement to the Monroe Doctrine. Trump even extended his threats to Greenland, a territory belonging to Denmark, a NATO member! Trump’s tyranny is blatant!!

    B- The Middle East issue, as we mentioned earlier (including the Middle East, where they conspired against it and its people), the two strategies were not content with what they stipulated regarding supporting the Jewish entity and expanding normalization between it and the rulers, nor to plundering the Ummah’s wealth, especially the Gulf’s oil and other resources, nor to dominating navigation through the Middle East’s waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb. They did not stop there, but also stipulated fighting terrorism, which, in their malicious understanding, is Islam and Islamic rule. Trump states in his Middle East strategy: “…that the region not be an incubator or exporter of terror against American interests or the American homeland, and that Israel remain secure.” Biden states in his strategy: “countering terrorist threats…” The intention behind all of this is to threaten Islam, the fundamental ideology of the region’s people, since its inhabitants are Muslims striving to establish their state based on their Islamic ideology, liberate their lands from American and Western hegemony, overthrow their subservient regimes, and eliminate the Zionist entity. It is not merely about burying the normalization agreements.

    8- In conclusion, the backbone and essence of the “National Security Strategy” documents announced by American presidents since World War II has remained constant and unchanging. What changes are the methods of implementation, the malice, and the personal tyranny in imposing, protecting, and perpetuating American hegemony, fighting Islam and its people, and doing their utmost to prevent the establishment of the Islamic state, the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly Guided Caliphate) on the method of Prophethood. But how evil is their judgment! The Khilafah Rashidah disturbs their sleep, even just by mentioning its name. As the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said a few days ago on 21/12/2025, “this Islamist ideology is a direct threat to our freedom because, at its core, it is a political ideology that seeks to create a global caliphate.” And we say: ]مُوتُوا بِغَيْظِكُمْ[“May you die in your rage!” [Aal-i-Imran: 119]. For the Muslim Ummah will rise and establish its state, the Khilafah Rashidah, on the method of Prophethood, by Allah’s (swt) permission, after this oppressive rule under which we live.

    «…ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكاً جَبْرِيَّةً فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ. ثُمَّ سَكَتَ»

    “…’Then it will be an oppressive rule, and it will last as long as Allah wills it to last. Then He will remove it when He wills to remove it. Then it will be a Khilafah (Caliphate) on the method of Prophethood.’ Then he remained silent” (Narrated by Ahmad). And at that time, the fate of the tyrant Trump and his cronies will be no different from the fate of Chosroes and Caesar after the establishment of the Khilafah.

    [بَلَاغٌ فَهَلْ يُهْلَكُ إِلَّا الْقَوْمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ]

    “This is˺ a ˹sufficient˺ warning! Then, will anyone be destroyed except the rebellious people?” [Al-Ahqaf: 35].

    25 Rajab 1447 AH
    14/1/2026 CE