-
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
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-Rashtah6 Sha’ban 1447 AH
25/1/2026 CEThe 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 -
Q&A: What Lies Behind the Intense Escalation of the Yemeni Crisis?
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answer to Question
What Lies Behind the Intense Escalation of the Yemeni Crisis?
(Translated)Question:
After the Southern Transitional Council (STC) forces in Yemen, led by Aidarus al-Zubaidi, a member of the Presidential Council, deployed their forces in Hadramawt and al-Mahrah, the situation became very complicated. STC President Rashad al-Alimi terminated the joint defense agreement with the UAE and demanded that it withdraw its forces from Yemen within 24 hours. Saudi Arabia immediately supported him and bombed Emirati weapons in the Port of Mukalla. Saudi Arabia then demanded that the UAE comply with Rashad al-Alimi’s demand and withdraw its forces from Yemen. The UAE subsequently withdrew, and finally, al-Zubaidi fled to the UAE. So, what lies behind this intense escalation of the Yemeni crisis? Is Britain losing its allies in Yemen? And does this conflict have international dimensions?
Answer:
To clarify matters, we will explain how this crisis was formed, and then what the results and situations of these events will lead to:
First: The local dimension of the crisis’s formation:
1- On the surface, the crisis began to take shape when the Yemeni Transitional Council, the most steadfast supporter of the project to restore the state of South Yemen, deployed its forces to seize control of Hadramawt and Al-Mahrah and expel the forces of the Tribal Alliance led by Amr bin Habrish from the oil facilities. “Yemeni forces loyal to the Southern Transitional Council announced their control, at dawn on Thursday, of the sites belonging to oil companies in the Al-Masila area of Hadramawt Governorate, following a military deployment that included the oil fields, the surrounding facilities, and supply routes. This came after the withdrawal of forces belonging to the Hadramawt Tribal Alliance from their positions in the area, following limited clashes at some points…” (BBC, 4/12/2025).
2- Al Jazeera reported on 3/12/2025, that a Saudi delegation headed by Mohammed al-Qahtani arrived in Mukalla, the capital of Hadramawt province, and brought together the parties there. An agreement was reached to end the escalation, and a memorandum of understanding to this effect was signed. “The Hadramawt Governorate Media Office stated in a statement that the agreement was signed by the Governor of Hadramawt, Salem Ahmed al-Khanbashi, and Sheikh Amr bin Ali bin Habrish, the First Deputy Governor and Head of the Hadramawt Tribes Alliance.” (Sky News, 4/12/2025). It was agreed that the Saudi delegation would remain in Hadramawt to guarantee the implementation of the agreement.
3- (Sheikh Amr bin Habrish, head of the Hadhramaut Tribal Alliance, which is demanding autonomous-rule for the oil-rich eastern Yemeni province, said that Hadhramaut is facing an armed foreign invasion targeting sites on the coast and plateau and threatening its oil facilities. In a televised address, bin Habrish accused the Southern Transitional Council forces of “launching a treacherous attack on positions belonging to the Hadhramaut Tribal Alliance, using drones in a clear violation of the agreement concluded between the alliance and the local authority in Hadhramaut province, which resulted in deaths and injuries.” (Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, 9/12/2025)).
Saudi Arabia rejected these developments. [Major General Mohammed Al-Qahtani (head of the special committee concerned with Yemen), and head of the Saudi delegation currently visiting Hadramawt Governorate, stressed his country’s position supporting the stability of the governorate, and rejected “any attempts to impose a fait accompli by force”].
4- Meanwhile, the head of the Yemeni Presidential Leadership Council, Rashad al-Alimi, adopted a position aligned with Saudi Arabia. “Al-Alimi affirmed his categorical rejection of any unilateral actions that disrupt security and stability and undermine the authority of the legitimate government, stressing the need for full adherence to the ceasefire agreement reached in Hadramawt Governorate. Al-Alimi’s statements came before his departure from the interim capital, Aden, to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” (Al-Quds Newspaper, 5/12/2025).
5- When Saudi Arabia’s efforts to restore the situation to what it was before the UAE deployed the Southern Transitional Council forces to Hadramawt and Al-Mahrah failed, reaching a dead end, the crisis intensified and took on regional dimensions. “On Tuesday, Rashad Al-Alimi, head of the Presidential Leadership Council in Yemen, issued a decision to cancel the joint defense agreement with the United Arab Emirates and gave Emirati forces 24 hours to leave Yemen.” (RT, 30/12/2025). He also ordered the Homeland Shield Forces (affiliated with the Ministry of Defense) to move and take over all camps in the two governorates.
6- Saudi Arabia immediately supported this move, and the crisis escalated. Saudi forces bombed weapons and ammunition sent by the UAE to the Port of Mukalla to support the Southern Transitional Council. “The Saudi-led coalition in Yemen announced on Tuesday that it had carried out a limited military operation targeting weapons and combat vehicles that had arrived from the UAE at the Port of Mukalla in Hadramawt Governorate.” (Sada News, 30/12/2025). Thus, a severe crisis formed in Yemen, which diplomatic efforts failed to resolve, and it worsened regionally. Saudi Arabia demanded that the Presidential Council expel the UAE from the Yemeni arena, and then bombed the weapons that the UAE had sent to the Southern Transitional Council in Hadramawt, threatening a severe crisis between Saudi Arabia and the UAE similar to what happened between Saudi Arabia and Qatar in 2017.
7- The threats continued until the UAE “submitted” and announced the withdrawal of its forces from Yemen. “The UAE Ministry of Defense announced on Tuesday the termination of the remaining counter-terrorism teams in Yemen of its own volition, ensuring the safety of its personnel, and in coordination with relevant partners…” (RT, 30/12/2025). Saudi Arabia continued to issue warnings to the UAE’s allies in Yemen (the Southern Transitional Council led by Aidarus al-Zubaidi) to withdraw from Hadramawt and al-Mahrah. The Council initially refused to comply, but then began to show some compliance under Saudi pressure, offering a joint presence or a partial withdrawal. “The Southern Transitional Council forces in Yemen began withdrawing from several areas in the Hadramawt coast and valley…” (Al-Modon, 31/12/2025). This withdrawal was not a final solution to the crisis, but rather a deception!
8- Then, Al-Zubaidi fled from Aden to Abu Dhabi via Somaliland on 8 January 2026, according to the coalition’s media announcement. The Saudi Defense Minister then stated that “the Kingdom, in consultation with southern figures, would form a preparatory committee to organize the Riyadh conference.” On Friday morning, Abdul Rahman Al-Subaihi, Secretary-General of the Southern Transitional Council in Yemen, announced the dissolution of the council and all its bodies, declaring “that they would work to achieve the just southern goal through a comprehensive southern conference under the sponsorship of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” (Al Jazeera, 9/1/2026).
Second: The international dimension
1- This dimension is clear and unambiguous. The rulers of Saudi Arabia are agents of America, implementing its policies, and the rulers of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are agents of the British, implementing Britain’s policies. They are on opposite sides, so their interests clash in Yemen, and they stand on the brink of conflict or enter one of its doors. However, the Yemeni parties involved in this conflict, until recently, were both agents of the British. Aidarus al-Zubaidi, who leads the Transitional Council in southern Yemen and is one of eight members of the Presidential Council, is an agent of Britain and coordinates all his actions with the UAE.
2- As for Rashad al-Alimi, the head of the Southern Transitional Council, he too was once aligned with the British, but he strongly supported Saudi Arabia and demanded the UAE’s withdrawal from Yemen. The UAE is Britain’s powerful tool for maintaining its influence in Yemen.
To clarify:
a- In 2022, a Presidential Leadership Council was established, with Rashad al-Alimi holding presidential powers, while the other seven members held the powers of the vice president. Saudi Arabia and the US representative agreed to the formation of this presidential council, despite most of its members being from the Yemeni political establishment aligned with the British. However, they were unconcerned because Saudi Arabia controlled the council through financial and security support, especially since it included four members from the Southern Transitional Council to appease it. Furthermore, al-Alimi, who had been a British ally and held high-ranking political positions since the era of former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, resided in Saudi Arabia and relied heavily on Saudi financial and security aid. All of this gave Saudi Arabia significant leverage over him, which has grown considerably in recent times.
b- Therefore, his stance was sharp in opposing the attack launched by the Southern Transitional Council on the governorates of Hadramawt and Al-Mahrah at the beginning of December. He didn’t stop there, but also took a firm position demanding the UAE’s withdrawal from the Yemeni arena. This causes significant damage to Britain’s remaining influence in Yemen. This indicates a shift in allegiance, and his recent statement further suggests, if not confirms, this: “The head of the Presidential Leadership Council in Yemen, Rashad al-Alimi, stated today that protecting the strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia is a national responsibility. The Yemeni leadership understands the gains it achieves and is also aware of the risks of jeopardizing it, emphasizing that this partnership constitutes a fundamental pillar in supporting efforts to restore the Yemeni state.” (Al-Arabiya, 1/1/2026). Consequently, senior British agents within the Presidential Council attacked him, claiming he was acting beyond his authority. They issued a joint statement saying that they (“followed with grave concern the unilateral actions and decisions taken by the head of the Presidential Leadership Council, Rashad al-Alimi, including the declaration of a state of emergency and the issuance of political and security pronouncements. “Dangerous, even going so far as to claim that the United Arab Emirates should be expelled from the Arab coalition and from Yemeni territory.” (Independent Arabia, 30/12/2025)). However, Al-Alimi’s change of allegiance from the British to Saudi Arabia does not mean the end of British influence in South Yemen, but it has weakened it, especially after Abdul Rahman Al-Subaihi announced the dissolution of the Southern Transitional Council.
Third: Upon examining this intense conflict, we find that it revolves around Hadramawt and, subsequently, Al-Mahrah Governorate:
1- Hadramawt, which comprises approximately one-third of Yemen, remained on the margins of the conflict throughout the years of the Yemeni war. It was implicitly considered to be within the areas controlled by the Southern Transitional Council, which seeks to separate southern Yemen from the north. Saudi interventions there were limited. In 2024, Saudi Arabia supported the entry of Yemeni government forces (Rashad al-Alimi) into Hadramawt, while the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council opposed this. (Balqees website, 3/6/2024). Saudi interventions in Hadramawt remained limited until Trump came to power in America, at which point Saudi interventions intensified and reached their peak in recent threats against the UAE and the Southern Transitional Council.
2- As for the increased Saudi intervention in Hadramawt after the Trump administration took office, it is quite evident. Since the beginning of 2025, Saudi Arabia has been exerting considerable influence in Hadramawt, contacting tribal leaders and cultivating followers. It found its ideal partner, Amr bin Habrish, the leader of the Hadramawt Tribal Alliance and the First Deputy Governor of Hadramawt. Saudi Arabia provided him with support and empowered him, leading him to seek greater control and dominance in Hadramawt. (In February 2025, bin Habrish escalated his activities by forming the “Hadramawt Protection Forces,” coinciding with the announcement of the oil export halt. (Al Jazeera Net, 3/12/2025)). He was then received by senior officials in Riyadh, including the Minister of Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Saudi Army, after Saudi Arabia sent a military plane to transport him from Seiyun to Riyadh and showered him with support (Al-Arab Newspaper, 29/3/2025). Upon his return from Riyadh, he announced in May 2025 the establishment of six military brigades comprising 35,000 fighters, and the formation of new units, specialized security forces, such as private security and rescue services, and finally, Saudi Arabia pushed its man, Amr bin Habrish, to take control of the oil companies, which was the straw that broke the camel’s back for the Transitional Council led by Aidarus al-Zubaidi, so he rolled up his sleeves to bring Hadramawt back under his control, which ignited the crisis.
3- Then there is another matter, which is that the vast Hadramawt Governorate sits atop a precious treasure of natural mineral wealth, including rare earth minerals such as scandium, which was discovered in abundant quantities in the coastal Hadramawt districts of Brom Mayfa and Hajar. Scandium is used in the manufacture of aircraft and spacecraft, as confirmed by Aden City website, 7/11/2025, quoting the Geological Survey Authority in Hadramawt. This discovery in Hadramawt would put Yemen on the global map of rare earth minerals. In addition, the black sands of Hadramawt are rich in minerals such as ilmenite, rutile, zircon, and magnetite, which international companies are competing to invest in. There is also oil, marble, and granite in Hadramawt. “Yet Yemen stands out as the only Arab country that has secured a place for itself on the list of countries producing rare earth minerals in the Middle East…” (Energy Platform, based in Washington, 8/7/2025). These rare earth elements are what has driven the Trump administration in many of its international policies to counter China’s dominance over these rare earth elements, which govern sensitive industrial processes such as electronic chips.
4- Thus, it becomes clear that the Trump administration is the one that pushed Saudi Arabia to tamper with the stability of Hadramawt. The attempts by the tribal alliance, led by Bin Habrish, to seize control of oil companies and escalate calls for autonomy prompted the British-backed group (the UAE and its local proxies, such as the Southern Transitional Council) to attack and seize Hadramawt, along with Al-Mahrah Governorate. This drove Saudi Arabia, or rather the Trump administration, into a frenzy, resulting in harsh measures against the UAE—measures unprecedented since their alliance in Operation Decisive Storm in 2015. These harsh measures included bombing Emirati weapons and threatening its allies in the Southern Transitional Council. This indicates the great seriousness with which the Trump administration views this issue—the issue of rare earth minerals in Hadramawt. America is not out of the picture, even if it is confident in its Saudi instrument. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio contacted Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan “during which they discussed the situation in Yemen and issues affecting regional security and stability.” (RT, 30/12/2025).
Fourth: In conclusion, the new development on the Yemeni scene is that the Trump administration is focusing on Hadramawt because of its rare earth minerals, which would enable America to counter China’s dominance in this sensitive sector that governs other industrial operations. This also likely leads to a shift in the allegiance of Yemeni leaders from the British to America, most notably President Rashad al-Alimi. It should be noted that Chinese companies are already exploring for rare earth minerals in Hadramawt, so securing these minerals is a matter of urgency for Trump before China gains control over them. Thus, the agents of the kafir (disbelieving) nations are instigating the fighting in Yemen to meet the objectives of their masters. This series of tragic events continues not only in Yemen but also in Sudan and other Muslim countries, where Muslims kill each other in conflicts that their agent rulers convince them are in their best interest, encouraging them to sacrifice everything. However, these conflicts are in reality fought in defense of the interests of the kafir nations. This series will continue until the strongest group in the nation rises up, overpowers its rulers, holds them to a severe reckoning, and establishes a state of justice, mercy, and guidance—the Khilafah (Caliphate) State will be established according to the method of the Prophethood, after which there will be whatever good Allah wills for Islam and Muslims, blessings from heaven, grace, glory, and dignity.
[إِنَّ اللَّهَ بَالِغُ أَمْرِهِ قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدْراً]
“Certainly Allah achieves His Will. Allah has already set a destiny for everything.” [At-Talaq: 3]
And tomorrow is near for those who wait.
22 Rajab 1447 AH
11 January 2026 CE -
Q&A: Venezuela, the USA and China – A Fight for Rare Earth Elements
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمVenezuela, the USA and China: A Fight for Rare Earth Elements
Analysts and politicians have been following the situation in Venezuela, considering the USA’s actions and wondering why there has been an escalation in recent weeks. Trump suggested that he wants to open up US access to Venezuelan land, oil and assets that he says were “stolen” when the country nationalized its oil fields in the 1970s. He has also that he is targeting the illicit drug trade and human trafficking in Venezuela due to its effect on the USA. But a closer look at the situation shows that there is a geopolitical angle here with a clear link to China and America’s larger trade war with the country.
What is happening?
On December 16, Trump ordered a “total and complete blockade”, halting sanctioned vessels entering or leaving, paralyzing oil exports and creating storage crises for Maduro’s regime. While Venezuela has deployed its navy to escort tankers, U.S. operations continue with over 90 fatalities from related strikes. These strikes have coincided with a broader U.S. military buildup in the region, including large naval deployments in the southern Caribbean, as well as Donald Trump’s subsequent threats of potential land strikes.
On the surface, this may not seem unusual as USA has a history of taking steps to put pressure on Modarao. But pre-2025 measures focused mainly on financial sanctions, asset freezes, and designations of specific networks like Rosneft in 2020 or evasion ships in 2021, aiming to disrupt without broad physical intervention. These caused economic pressure but allowed shadow fleets to persist, with limited direct seizures. While Trump has repeatedly raised the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, the recent seizure is the first of a Venezuelan oil cargo amid U.S. sanctions that have been in force since 2019. It is also the Trump administration’s first known action against a Venezuela-related tanker since he ordered a massive military buildup in the region.
This shift to “maximum pressure” came around the same time that the White House issued an official statement affirming the Trump administration’s commitment to the Monroe Doctrine. Signed in 1823, the doctrine said the US would reject other countries’ influence in Latin America. A new “Trump Corollary” to the doctrine states that “the American people – not foreign nations nor globalist institutions – will always control their own destiny in our hemisphere”.
With China’s connections to the region, we can understand why there is a growing analysis that America is trying to secure the region against them. Especially when the blockade has disrupted Venezuela’s principal source of revenue – oil. And one of the major buyers of said oil is China.
“The most interesting aspect of all of this is that by squeezing Venezuelan oil, you are not only putting tremendous pressure on the Maduro regime, you are also impacting China strategically… The longer it goes on, it may create negotiating space in U.S.-China diplomacy, because Venezuelan oil is discounted to China, and it’s the type of heavy crude that China can refine…Without VZ oil, China will have to go to the market to Russia and the Middle East, which will be more costly to them,” said Aaron Roth, retired Coast Guard captain and principal, federal strategy & security, for the Chertoff Group.
For years, China has extended credit lines to Venezuela under loans-for-oil deals, with shipments in December on track to average more than 600,000 barrels per day. While the oil itself only accounts for a small percentage of Chinese oil imports, it is needed if they want to wean themselves off a dependency on Middle Eastern oil.
But this, on its own, doesn’t explain why the USA would suddenly increase their aggression against Venezuela.
The current tensions between China and the USA
Looking at the bigger picture, we can see that the situation in Venezuela began around the time that Chinese restrictions on Rare Earth Elements came into effect. Starting December 1, foreign companies anywhere in the world need approval from the Chinese government to export products containing even trace amounts of rare earth elements that originated in China or were produced using Chinese technology. This move came in response to the US expanding the list of Chinese firms denied access to most-advanced US semiconductor chips and other technologies. China’s decision also represents a sharp escalation in China’s export controls, directly countering the earlier US-China deal announcements from October-November 2025.
About which, the White House had previously released statements:
On October 30, the White House announced a deal with China that it later said would “effectively eliminate” all current and proposed export controls on rare earths and other critical minerals. This followed China’s decision in April to virtually halt exports of rare earths and its announcement in October of further restrictions that were expected to chokehold exports of critical minerals to the United States.
“China will issue general licenses valid for exports of rare earths, gallium, germanium, antimony, and graphite for the benefit of U.S. end users and their suppliers around the world,” the White House said on November 1.
While China maintains that it’s not a ban, China announced new measures that build upon its earlier semiconductor-focused restrictions, extending to products made outside China that have as little as 0.1 percent of Chinese rare earths in them or use mining, separation, or magnet-making technology developed by Chinese firms.
This isn’t an unusual move – China has previously displayed a willingness to use export controls as a tool of economic coercion. Around fifteen years ago, China curtailed rare earths to Japan over a dispute in the East China Sea. And now, they restricted its exports of critical minerals in response to the United States’ tariffs and export controls.
But it is significant because China controls up to 90 percent of the world’s processing capacity, including more than 99 percent for three kinds of rare earths necessary for heat-resistant magnets. It also has an average market share of 70% for 19 of the 20 most strategic critical minerals and 94% for rare earth containing permanent magnets.
With near total control of the world’s critical minerals production, China maintains significant economic leverage over access to inputs that are necessary for everything from everyday products like smartphones to advanced weapons systems like the F-35.
This is an area where the USA is lagging behind, and they are aware of it. The President has described the U.S. reliance on foreign adversaries—particularly China—for minerals as a “self-inflicted wound” that undermines their technology leadership and defence readiness.
The USA had previously been willing to let China take the lead across mining, processing, and manufacturing, viewing it as a cost-efficient arrangement rather than a strategic risk. But now, that strategic risk has turned into a vulnerability which gives China power over them. This is not position that the USA can or is willing to be in. As the global hegemon, their power relies on being ahead of other countries in all critical areas – including technological advancements. This is especially important when we consider their policy towards China – seeing it as regional adversary that needs to be contained.
But they are reliant on China for much of the hardware required for next-generation technologies, across both military systems and the energy sector. And as we can see with China’s recent actions, this makes the USA vulnerable and puts their foreign policy objectives at risk.
The USA has made it clear that they now see control over mineral supply chains as the primary determinant of military readiness and national survival. And as such, have begun a series of interlocking legislative, diplomatic, and military initiatives designed to dismantle the China’s decade long dominance over the supply chain, and develop their own.
The Trump administration has enacted policies to ramp up the supply of critical minerals in the U.S. and from allied countries, while also engaging in a high-stakes trade and tariff battle with China. The Biden administration was also focused on this issue, and pursued a strategy of grants and loans, while engaging with allies and partners to build support for collective action. But the Trump administration has gone further.
Those who doubt the centrality of minerals to U.S. strategy should consider the recent agreement between Washington and Kyiv, which granted U.S. entities preferential access to Ukraine’s mineral reserves as partial repayment for wartime assistance.
Minerals are becoming a crucial resource. And Venezuela has vast mineral wealth – with abundant deposits of bauxite, coltan, gold and rare-earth minerals.
Venezuela’s ‘Orinoco Mining Arc’ is known to contain significant deposits of Rare Earth Elements (REEs) alongside its vast gold, iron, and bauxite reserves. While reports on the exact quantities are still developing, Venezuela could potentially become global source of Rare Earth Elements.
And China is currently benefiting from it – with an involvement in the Orinoco Mining Arc (OMA) through both official agreements with the Venezuelan government and informal trade networks.
“Investigations cited by Venezuelan watchdogs suggest substantial smuggling—often routed through neighbouring countries before ending up with Chinese processors, the global choke point for separation and refining. Volumes are uncertain; the mechanism is credible”. Source
And so, Venezuela has become the latest ‘battle ground’ in the trade war between China and the USA. But this doesn’t mean that this situation will turn into an all-out war – as some analysts have suggested. Condemnations aside, starting a military fight in America’s backyard would spark tensions that goes beyond China’s current objectives. So far, this seems to be the next step in their political- economic ‘war’ not the start of an all-out military one.
-
Q&A: Concession (Rukhsah) and Strict Ruling (ʿAzimah)
Answer to Question
Concession (Rukhsah) and Strict Ruling (ʿAzimah)
To Zahid Talib Naʿim
(Translated)Question:
Our Shaykh, the eminent scholar Aṭa Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah,
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings,
I hope that this question reaches you while you are in complete health and well-being. I ask Allah to hasten for His believing servants succession and empowerment on earth, and to relieve the distress from the Muslims in general and from our people in Gaza in particular.
It is mentioned in The Islamic Personality Volume III, page 64 (Arabic version): “That is because acting upon the strict ruling, which is refraining from eating, is permissible, but it is a permissible act that inevitably leads to the prohibited, which is the destruction of the self. Thus it becomes prohibited in accordance with the legal principle ‘a means to the prohibited is prohibited.’ Therefore, acting upon the strict ruling here becomes prohibited, and acting upon the concession becomes obligatory, due to an incidental reason, which is the realization of destruction)”
Is leaving the concession (rukhsa) and acting upon the strict ruling (azimah) prohibited? And is leaving the strict ruling and acting upon the concession obligatory? Does this contradict the principle that commanding something is not a prohibition of its opposite, and prohibiting something is not a command for its opposite? Is refraining from eating described as prohibited, or is it considered leaving an obligation? And is the one who eats in this situation described as having performed an obligation and avoided the prohibited?
May Allah accept from us and from you righteous deeds, and may Allah bless you.
23/6/2024 – Zahid Talib Naʿim
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatallhu wa Barakatahu
May Allah bless you for your good supplication, and we supplicate Allah for you with goodness.
The place you are asking about in The Islamic Personality, Volume 3, is in the chapter “Concession and Strict Ruling”, and this is its complete text:
[This is with respect to the reality of concession (rukhsa) and strict ruling (azimah) legislatively. As for acting upon the concession or upon the strict ruling, then acting upon whichever of them one wishes is permissible; he may act upon the concession, and he may act upon the strict ruling. That is because the texts of concessions indicate that…
It may be said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ أَنْ تُؤْتَى رُخَصُهُ، كَمَا يُحِبُّ أَنْ تُؤْتَى عَزَائِمُهُ» “Allah loves that His concessions be taken just as He loves that His commands be observed.” (Narrated by Ibn Ḥibban). This is a request, and it is evidence that it is recommended. And the compelled person, if he fears destruction upon himself, it is obligatory upon him to eat the flesh of carrion, and it is prohibited for him to refrain from eating it. And the one choking who finds nothing except wine must remove his choking with wine if he fears destruction, and it is prohibited for him to refrain and perish. And the fasting person, if exhaustion reaches him to the level of perishing, it is obligatory upon him to break his fast, and it is prohibited for him to remain fasting and perish, and so on. This indicates that acting upon the concession is obligatory; therefore, the concession may be obligatory, may be recommended, and may be permissible. The answer to that is that the discussion is about the concession insofar as it is a concession. And the concession, insofar as it is a concession, is decisively permissible based on the previous evidences. Thus, the ruling of the concession, insofar as it is legislated, is permissibility. As for the saying of the Messenger (saw): «إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ أَنْ تُؤْتَى رُخَصُهُ» “Allah loves that His concessions be taken.” there is no indication in the hadith of recommendation (nadb); rather, it indicates permissibility (ibaḥah), because it explains that Allah loves that His concessions be taken, and He loves that His strict rulings be observed, and seeking one of them is not more deserving than seeking the other. The text of the hadith is: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ أَنْ تُؤْتَى رُخَصُهُ، كَمَا يُحِبُّ أَنْ تُؤْتَى عَزَائِمُهُ» “Allah loves that His concessions be taken just as He loves that His commands be observed.” Therefore, there is no indication in the hadith that acting upon a concession may be recommended. As for eating the flesh of carrion, it does not mean only the compelled person for whom destruction is certain; rather, merely fearing destruction is considered compulsion, and in this case eating is permissible for him and not obligatory. However, if destruction is certain were he not to eat, then at that point it becomes forbidden for him to refrain from eating, and it becomes obligatory upon him to eat. This is not because it is a concession, but because it has become obligatory. That is because acting upon the strict ruling, which is refraining from eating, is permissible, but this permissible act has come to inevitably lead to the forbidden, which is the destruction of life. Thus it becomes forbidden, in accordance with the legal principle: “The means to the forbidden is forbidden.” Therefore, acting upon the strict ruling here becomes forbidden, and acting upon the concession becomes obligatory, due to an incidental cause, which is the certainty of destruction. This is not the ruling of the concession in and of itself, but rather a case to which the principle “The means to the forbidden is forbidden” applies. This is not specific to concessions, but is general for all permissible matters. An example of that is the drowning person drinking wine, and the one whose destruction is certain breaking the fast, and other similar cases. Accordingly, the concession in and of itself, and in terms of its legislation as a concession, its ruling is that it is permissible. If abandoning it and acting upon the strict ruling leads inevitably to a forbidden matter, then the permissible becomes forbidden. [End]
And you ask:
[Is abandoning the concession and acting upon the strict ruling prohibited? And is abandoning the strict ruling and acting upon the concession obligatory? Does this contradict the principle that commanding something is not a prohibition of its opposite, and prohibiting something is not a command of its opposite? And is refraining from eating described as prohibited, or is it the abandonment of an obligation? And is the one who eats in this situation described as having performed an obligation and avoided the prohibited?] End.
The answer to that is as follows:
1- As established in the book “The Islamic Personality, Volume Three”, acting upon the concession, insofar as it is a concession, is permissible. This is the original ruling of the concession. Naturally, this applies when no detailed evidence exists indicating that the concession in a particular case is recommended and preferred over the strict ruling, or that the strict ruling in a particular case is recommended and preferred over the concession. We have explained these cases in the book “Taysir al-Wuṣul ila al-Uṣul”, where it states on pages 42–44 (Word file):
“The concession, insofar as it is legislated as a concession, its ruling is permissibility. If one continues to act upon the strict ruling, that is permissible for him, and if he acts upon the concession, that is also permissible for him.
As for why the strict ruling and the concession are equal in the ruling of permissibility, it is because the Messenger of Allah (saw) says: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ أَنْ تُؤْتَى رُخَصُهُ، كَمَا يُحِبُّ أَنْ تُؤْتَى عَزَائِمُهُ» “Allah loves that His concessions be taken just as He loves that His commands be observed.” This clarifies that both are equal in obedience to Allah in terms of performance.
This applies if no text exists indicating that either the concession or the strict ruling, in a particular case, is more beloved to Allah.
Example: Allah Almighty says:
[أَيَّامًا مَّعْدُودَاتٍ فَمَن كَانَ مِنكُم مَّرِيضًا أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِّنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ يُطِيقُونَهُ فِدْيَةٌ طَعَامُ مِسْكِينٍ فَمَن تَطَوَّعَ خَيْرًا فَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّهُ وَأَن تَصُومُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ]
“[Fasting for] a limited number of days. So whoever among you is ill or on a journey [during them] – then an equal number of days [are to be made up]. And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] – a ransom [as substitute] of feeding a poor person [each day]. And whoever volunteers excess – it is better for him. But to fast is best for you, if you only knew” [Surat Al-Baqarah: 184]. From this it is understood that whoever is permitted to break the fast due to an excuse, and is able to fast without hardship, then his fasting is better than his breaking the fast, such as one who travels the distance permitting concession in an airplane or a comfortable car; he may fast and he may break the fast, but his fasting is better in this case, based on the indication of:
[وَأَن تَصُومُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ]
“But to fast is best for you, if you only knew” [Surat Al-Baqarah: 184].
Likewise, it is authentically reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «لَيْسَ مِنَ الْبِرِّ الصِّيَامُ فِي السَّفَرِ»“It is not righteousness to fast while traveling.” This was said when he saw a traveling man who was fasting and had been exhausted by fasting. From this hadith it is understood that whoever’s travel is difficult and exhausting, then breaking the fast is better for him.
Thus, in the first case, it is understood from the verse that fasting is better, meaning acting upon the strict ruling is better. In the second case, it is understood from the hadith that breaking the fast is better, meaning acting upon the concession is better.
As for when no specific text exists indicating preference between the strict ruling and the concession in particular cases, then taking either the concession or the strict ruling is equally permissible for both, based on the previously mentioned hadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw) at the beginning of the discussion.)
2- In the case of the concession of eating or drinking what is prohibited in a state of necessity, as we explained above—namely: “As for eating the flesh of carrion, it does not mean only the compelled person for whom destruction is certain; rather, merely fearing destruction is considered compulsion” – then the ruling of the concession is permissibility, like all other concessions.
3- If destruction is certain by not eating or drinking the prohibited, then this means:
a- That acting upon the strict ruling (not eating the prohibited) in this case falls under the principle: (The means to the prohibited is prohibited). This is because the strict ruling was originally permissible for the one who fears destruction if he does not eat or drink the prohibited. However, for the one whose destruction is certain if he does not eat or drink the prohibited, the strict ruling—though originally permissible—becomes prohibited in this case, just like any other permissible matter becomes prohibited when the principle (The means to the prohibited is prohibited) applies. According to this principle, a permissible matter that leads to a prohibited matter becomes prohibited. Thus, by virtue of this principle, the strict ruling that was permissible before its application transforms into prohibition, because it becomes a means to the prohibited, which is the destruction of life. Evidence has been reported prohibiting the destruction of life.
b- Likewise, the concession of eating for one who fears destruction if he does not eat or drink the prohibited had the ruling of permissibility, in accordance with the original ruling of concessions. But if destruction is certain, then its ruling transforms into obligation, because saving one’s life from destruction is obligatory. And saving one’s life in a case of certain destruction cannot occur unless he eats or drinks the prohibited. Thus, the realization of the obligation—saving life—in that specific case necessitates eating or drinking the prohibited. Since the obligation cannot be fulfilled except by it, it becomes obligatory by the principle: (That without which an obligation cannot be fulfilled is itself obligatory). Thus, acting upon the concession in this specific case becomes obligatory.
4- What is mentioned above does not contradict the principle: (Commanding something is not a prohibition of its opposite, and prohibiting something is not a command of its opposite), for saying that acting upon the strict ruling is prohibited in the specific case of certain destruction has its evidence, which is the principle: (The means to the prohibited is prohibited), and saying that acting upon the concession is obligatory also has its evidence, which is the principle: (That without which an obligation cannot be fulfilled is itself obligatory). Thus, saying that eating or drinking the prohibited is obligatory does not stem from the idea that refraining from eating or drinking is prohibited, but rather from the legal principle (That without which an obligation cannot be fulfilled is itself obligatory). Likewise, saying that acting upon the strict ruling by refraining from eating or drinking the prohibited is prohibited does not stem from the idea that acting upon the concession is obligatory, but rather from the legal principle (The means to the prohibited is prohibited). Therefore, the discussion here is not a linguistic discussion regarding the implication of command and prohibition, but rather a discussion supported by legal evidences related to its details. Hence, saying that acting upon the concession is obligatory is not based on a linguistic implication derived from prohibiting the strict ruling, nor is saying that acting upon the strict ruling is prohibited based on a linguistic implication derived from commanding the concession.
I hope the matter has now become clear.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah06 Rajab 1447 AH
Corresponding to 26/12/2025 CEThe link to the answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page.
-
Q&A: Using Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Photography, Drawing, and Videos
Answer to Question
Using Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Photography, Drawing, and Videos
To: Islam Abu Khalil and Raed Al-Harsh Abu Mu‘adhQuestion:
1- Question from Islam Abu Khalil:
As-salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu, our honorable Sheikh. May Allah protect you and make Islam established on Earth by your hands.
I wanted to present an important question in this era for many people regarding artificial intelligence, and I hope that the answer will be beneficial for everyone if you publish it on your official page, in sha’ Allah.
Today, many people use artificial intelligence to create images of humans or animals. A person inputs certain information along with some parameters into the AI and asks it to create an image, and it produces images or video clips, whether in the form of animation or realistic. It is also possible to input an image of an existing person to create a podcast or a program, or one may request the creation of an image of a person who does not exist at all.
First question:
Is it permissible in the Shariah to use artificial intelligence (AI) to create images of humans or animals? And likewise to create animations or video clips for da‘wah purposes or in general?
Second question:
If creating images of humans using artificial intelligence (AI) is permissible, must these images abide by the Shariah rules? Meaning: must the woman be covered (hijab) or not?
May Allah reward you with all good for your responses.
Islam Abu Khalil — 25/11/2025
2– Question of Raed Al-Harsh Abu Mu‘adh:
As-salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.
Today, with artificial intelligence, we can convert text into an image, and we can also change the features or type of the image or convert it into animation, and we can also create videos based on textual input. Is altering an image (such as converting it into a cartoon or anime) considered “drawing by hand,” or is it something else? Or is it an “automatic generation” based on algorithms and not direct human action?
Answer:
Wa ‘alaykum as-salamu wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.
Your two questions are similar, and here is the answer:
First: Artificial intelligence (AI) programs are a vast door opened for humanity, and artificial intelligence is evidence of the greatness of the Creator, Exalted is He, who
[عَلَّمَ الْإِنْسَانَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ]
“taught man that which he knew not” [Surah Al-‘Alaq: 5]. Thus, the human became capable of harnessing machines, calculations, algorithms, and computer programs to perform tasks and carry out missions that are difficult for a human being to achieve with his mere effort… Artificial intelligence is a major leap in science and application, and is capable of causing major changes in methods, means, and the course of people’s lives and civil progress, etc.
Second: Artificial intelligence is not limited to a single field, but has multiple uses according to the multiplicity of fields of science, knowledge, and application… It can be used effectively in the field of health, medicine, and hospitals, and in the field of sciences and inventions, and in education, and in the military field and wars, and in various arts… and many other fields. Like all sciences and inventions, it can be used for good or evil depending on what the human chooses. It can be harnessed for the good of humanity and the benefit of people, and it can be harnessed for evil, corruption, injustice, and consuming people’s wealth wrongfully, etc.
Third: The question we are answering concerns the use of artificial intelligence programs in the field of photography, drawing, videos, robots, and similar matters. To answer this question, we review the following:
1- Linguistically, “tasweer” (creating an image) means producing a likeness of a creature that resembles its creation, that is, producing something similar to it. The closer the created image is to the actual creature, the stronger and greater the skill… So creating an image means producing a resemblance to it. The “musawwir” are therefore the ones who create likenesses. But transferring the actual thing itself by any tool is not called “tasweer.” The forbidden tasweer is that which has a soul, and the reality of tasweer is drawing something that resembles it by hand or by a camera or by any tool on land or air… and it is not the transferring of the actual object itself.
2- As for the fact that the prohibited image-making is that which has a soul, that is due to the following evidences:
a. Sahih al-Bukhari: On the authority of Sa‘īd ibn Abī al-Ḥasan who said: I was with Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with both of them) when a man came to him and said: “O Abā al-‘Abbās, I am a man whose livelihood is only from the work of my hands, and I make these images.”So Ibn ‘Abbās said: “I will not tell you except what I heard the Messenger of Allah say; I heard him say:
b. Sahih al-Bukhari: On the authority of ‘Ubaydullāh, from Nāfi‘, that ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with both of them) informed him that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَصْنَعُونَ هَذِهِ الصُّوَرَ يُعَذَّبُونَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يُقَالُ لَهُمْ أَحْيُوا مَا خَلَقْتُمْ»“Those who make these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection. It will be said to them: ‘Give life to what you have created.’”
c.Sahih Muslim:On the authority of Nāfi‘, from al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad, from ‘Ā’ishah, that she bought a cushion on which were pictures. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) saw it, he stood at the door and did not enter. She recognized—or it was recognized on his face—the dislike. So she said: “O Messenger of Allah, I repent to Allah and to His Messenger! What sin have I committed?”
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:«مَا بَالُ هَذِهِ النُّمْرُقَةِ؟»“What is the matter with this cushion?” She said: “I bought it for you to sit on and rest your head on.”The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:«إِنَّ أَصْحَابَ هَذِهِ الصُّوَرِ يُعَذَّبُونَ وَيُقَالُ لَهُمْ أَحْيُوا مَا خَلَقْتُمْ»“The people who make these images will be punished, and it will be said to them: ‘Bring to life what you have created.’”
d. And this is confirmed by the fact that the imaging of what is not of living beings has come with its permissibility as mentioned in al-Shakhṣiyyah 2 (Islamic Personality Vol. 2) – Chapter of Imaging:[(As for the permissibility of depicting what has no soul—such as trees and the like—it has come explicitly in the Hadiths.
In the Hadith of Abu Hurayrah: «فَمُرْ بِرَأْسِ التِّمْثَالِ يُقْطَعْ فَيُصَيَّرَ كَهَيْئَةِ الشَّجَرَة» “Order that the head of the statue be cut off so that it becomes like the form of a tree.”(It was narrated by Ahmad, and also narrated by al-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud).And this means that the statue shaped like a tree has nothing (prohibited) in it.And in the Hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas:He said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:«كُلُّ مُصَوِّرٍ فِي النَّارِ يَجْعَلُ لَهُ بِكُلِّ صُورَةٍ صَوَّرَهَا نَفْساً فَتُعَذِّبُهُ فِي جَهَنَّمَ، وقَالَ: فإِنْ كُنْتَ لَا بُدَّ فَاعِلاً فَاصْنَعْ الشَّجَرَ وَمَا لَا نَفْسَ لَهُ»“Every image-maker will be in the Fire. For every image he made a soul will be created for him, and it will punish him in Hell.And he said: If you must do so, then make (images of) trees and things that have no soul.”] End.
Thus, the prohibition in the above texts is restricted to what has a soul, and specific to it and not general, by the indication of “until he breathes into it the soul” and “Give life to what you have created,” and the exception of the tree and the like. Meaning that the prohibited image is the one that has a soul.Therefore, the other unrestricted or general texts are carried upon the restricted and the specific, as in the principles (of jurisprudence), meaning: carried upon (images) of beings that have a soul.Such as the Hadiths:(Ibn ‘Umar): «إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَصْنَعُونَ هَذِهِ الصُّورَةَ يُعَذَّبُونَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ» “Indeed, those who make these images will be punished on the Day of Resurrection.” (Ibn ‘Abbas): «كُلُّ مُصَوِّرٍ فِي النَّارِ»“Every image-maker will be in the Fire.” And similar Hadiths.
3- As for the fact that the reality of image-making is that it involves imitation of a created being that has a soul and is not a transfer of its actual essence, this is due to the following evidences:
a. It is mentioned in ‘Umdat al-Qari, commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, regarding the Hadith of ‘A’ishah, Mother of the Believers (may Allah be pleased with her), who said:
قَدِمَ رسولُ الله ﷺ، مِنْ سَفَر وقَدْ سَتَرْتُ بِقِرَامٍ لي عَلَى سَهْوَةٍ لي فِيهَا تَماثِيلُ، فَلَمَّا رآهُ رسولُ الله ﷺ، هَتَكَهُ وَقَالَ: «أَشَدُّ النَّاسِ عَذَاباً يَوْمَ القِيامَةِ الَّذِينَ يُضاهُونَ بِخَلْقِ الله»
“When the Messenger of Allah (swt) returned from a journey, I had screened a small room of mine with a curtain having images. He tore it down and said:‘The people who will be most severely punished on the Day of Resurrection are those who imitate the creation of Allah.’”“هتكه” means: he tore it and removed it. “يضاهون” means: they imitate or resemble the creation of Allah.
b. It is mentioned in Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar regarding the same Hadith:«أَشَدُّ النَّاسِ عَذَاباً يَوْمَ القِيَامَةِ الَّذِينَ يُضَاهُونَ بِخَلْقِ اللَّه»“The people who will be most severely punished on the Day of Resurrection are those who imitate the creation of Allah.”[His statement “يُضَاهُونَ بِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ” means: they make what they create resemble what Allah creates… And in the narration of al-Zuhri from al-Qasim in Sahih Muslim: “الَّذِينَ يُشَبِّهُونَ بِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ” — those who resemble (their created forms) to the creation of Allah.]]
And based on that, the prohibited imaging is that which is of something possessing a soul, in imitation of the creation of Allah — meaning that the forbidden image is the one that imitates the creation of Allah, that is, resembles the creation of Allah. And the closer the resemblance is to the actual creation, the stronger the “creativity” in the image… And therefore those who imitate the creation of Allah are called, in other Hadiths, “the image-makers” (al-muṣawwirūn):
«إِنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَذَاباً يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ الْمُصَوِّرُونَ» “Indeed, the people who will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection are the image-makers.”
«إِنَّ مِنْ أَشَدِّ النَّاسِ عَذَاباً يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ الْمُصَوِّرُونَ» “Verily, among the most severely punished people on the Day of Resurrection are the image-makers.”
This was stated in response to a question posed to the founding Ameer (may Allah have mercy on him) on 23/3/1969: (And he (saw) said: «يَا عائِشَةُ أَشَدُّ النَّاسِ عَذَاباً عِند اللَّهِ يَوْمَ القيامةِ الَّذينَ يُضاهُونَ بِخَلقِ اللَّهِ»“O ‘Aisha, the people who will be most severely punished before Allah on the Day of Resurrection are those who imitate the creation of Allah”, meaning those who make images.)
Although, imitation or resemblance is not the reason for prohibition, and therefore depicting trees and other things without a soul is permissible as we mentioned. However, imitation or resemblance is a description of the forbidden image of something with a soul, meaning it falls under the principle of determining the actual subject of the ruling: if the image resembles the creation of Allah, it is prohibited; but if the image is a mere depiction of the thing itself, it is not prohibited. Because depicting a creature is to create an example or form resembling it, not transferring its essence. And transferring the essence: (is not imaging a person, meaning taking an example from them, but it is the actual person or thing itself being imprinted as an impression. Accordingly, the Hadith forbidding image-making does not apply to it. This is from the principle of determining the relevant context (taḥqīq al-manāṭ), not from the search for evidence alone — one investigates the actual reality of the thing to which the ruling is to be applied, then applies the ruling.) This was stated in the Answer to a Question on 23/3/1969.
Fourth: Based on what has been mentioned above, we answer the questions:
1- We have clarified the rulings on drawing, sculpting (statues), and photographic imaging in our books (Islamic Personality, Volume Two) and in the answers to questions we have published, including an Answer dated 19/03/2017, which contains many details and evidences. We have shown that hand drawing of beings with souls and sculpting them into statues (except for children’s toys) is prohibited by Sharia as long as it is done by human effort, in imitation of creation, and one can refer to the answer where the evidences are detailed.
2- After the invention of the computer, it became possible to do drawing and imaging of beings with souls using drawing programs through the use of the mouse, in computer drawing. This is a distinct shift in drawing and imaging, as the creator uses programming abilities to produce drawings and images. However, drawing by human effort remains imitation of creation, and the closer the resemblance to the creature, the stronger the creativity.
3- As for photographic imaging, it is permissible and not prohibited because it is a transfer of the actual thing, not an imitation of it. The evidences are:
a- From the Answer to Question dated 23/3/1969:[And as for the photographic image… it is like a mirror. Just as the mirror reflects the essence of the thing upon it, so does the photographic device. What the device produces, besides not being a drawing or forming, it is also not image-making of a person, meaning taking an example from them. Rather, it is the actual person or thing itself being imprinted as an impression. Therefore, the Hadith forbidding image-making does not apply to it. This is from the principle of determining the relevant context (taḥqīq al-manāṭ), not from the search for evidence alone — one investigates the actual reality of the thing to which the ruling is to be applied, then applies the ruling. The reality here is that it is an imprint or reflection, not a drawing or forming, therefore the ruling of image-making does not apply. It is covered by the general permissions, and thus photographic imaging is not prohibited. (05 Muharram 1389 AH / 23 March 1969 CE)]
b- From the Answer to Question dated 22/1/1971:[Image-making is engraving, drawing, and other things that a person directly practices. Allah has forbidden the Muslim to directly draw any being with a soul, whether on paper, clothing, walls, or other; and forbidden the Muslim to directly engrave any being with a soul, whether on stones, utensils, or other; and forbidden to practice anything resembling drawing or engraving of any being with a soul, whether on leather, walls with plaster, sculpting, or coloring on clothing, etc. Everything that falls under the word “image-making” linguistically is prohibited, including sculpting, drawing, engraving, printing, and so on. However, what is not considered image-making linguistically is not prohibited, and therefore photographic imaging, satellite imaging, and the like are not prohibited.(22/01/1971)]
4- As for the production of images, drawings, or videos of beings with souls using artificial intelligence, its reality is as follows:
a. A person writes a text in an AI program requesting, through this text, the formation of images of a being with a soul. For example, they may request: “Draw President X in sports clothing”, and the AI program produces an image of the requested president in sports attire, either in photographic form or as a drawing, etc.
This also applies to video production. A person can ask a designated program to produce a video with specific specifications, for example, to produce a video of a Friday sermon for a particular preacher. The program uses the information at its disposal and produces a video of the preacher delivering the sermon as requested, and so on.
b. Based on what we mentioned in points (Fourth – 1 and 3), if the image is a transfer of the actual thing, such as a photographic image in place and time, there is no problem. However, if the image is in the form of imitation of the thing in terms of its creation — as in hand drawing or computer drawing — it is not permissible, because the word image-making applies to it, i.e., (they imitate Allah’s creation).
If, moreover, this image includes things that are not real, i.e., not as in actual reality, such as altering the features of someone’s face, the type of clothing, showing the person giving Friday sermon while they are not there, or forming an image of a deceased person, etc., meaning not in the actual form of the person at the place and time when showing the image, then, in addition to being prohibited, the texts prohibiting deceit, lying, and causing harm apply due to manipulation of images against reality:
- The Prophet (saw) said: «الْخَدِيعَةُ فِي النَّارِ وَمَنْ عَمِلَ عَمَلاً لَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْرُنَا فَهُوَ رَدٌّ» “Deception is in the Fire, and whoever does a deed not upon our command, it is rejected.” (Bukhari)
- The Prophet (saw) said: «لَا ضَرَرَ وَلَا ضِرَارَ» “There is no harm and no causing harm.” (Ahmad; also Ibn Majah, and Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak)
- The Prophet (saw) said: «وَإِنَّ الْكَذِبَ يَهْدِي إِلَى الْفُجُورِ وَإِنَّ الْفُجُورَ يَهْدِي إِلَى النَّارِ» “Indeed, lying leads to immorality, and immorality leads to the Fire.” (Muslim: “And beware of lying, for lying leads to immorality, and immorality leads to the Fire.”)
Accordingly, any imaging that changes the reality of a thing and displays it differently from its reality is a lie and deception, which is not correct and not permissible. Likewise, causing harm to a protected person who is depicted untruthfully through manipulation of the image is also not correct and not permissible according to the above evidence. Whoever uses artificial intelligence programs to produce such images is sinful.
The sin increases if these images and videos:
- – generate images of the Messengers and Prophets, peace and blessings be upon them, or generate videos representing them and speaking in their tongues, because of the sanctity of the Prophets. Allah, glory be to Him, chose the Prophet with prophethood and the message, which is a special privilege for him and not for other humans. Generating an image or video of the Prophet or the Messenger to whom Revelation was sent is an aggression against the message, a failure to give prophethood its due, and a failure to give the message its proper status, and this is a great injustice to the message and the Messenger.
- – generate an image or video that promotes ideas of disbelief, promotes immorality and vice, insults reputations, or promotes any other actions and speech that are prohibited.
This is what I consider most likely regarding this issue, and Allah Knows Best and Judges Best.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah18 Jumada al-Akhira 1447 AH
Corresponding to 9 December 2025 CEThe link to the answer from the Ameer’s Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/AtaAboAlrashtah/posts/12211107198312a -
Q&A: Sudan After the Rapid Support Forces Take Control of El Fasher
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
Answer to Question
Sudan After the Rapid Support Forces Take Control of El Fasher
(Translated)Question: “Massad Boulos, senior advisor to US President Donald Trump on Middle East affairs, confirmed that the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces had agreed to a three-month ceasefire, based on the plan of the Quartet, which includes the UAE, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, announced on September 12.” (Sky News Arabia, 3/11/2025).
This agreement to the American plan by the Sudanese parties—the regime and the Rapid Support Forces—came after the Rapid Support Forces seized control of El Fasher in Sudan. What lies behind this agreement to the American plan? Furthermore, what happened to the Sudanese army that allowed the Rapid Support Forces to seize control of El Fasher, the capital of the Darfur region? It is a very large and heavily fortified city that the army had fiercely defended against the Rapid Support Forces attacks for a long time. How did the city succumb? And what are the dimensions and repercussions of this?
Answer:
To clarify the answer to these questions, let’s examine the following:
First: Al Jazeera reported on its website on 28/10/2025: “The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced on Sunday morning their control of El Fasher, after a siege that lasted more than a year. This means extending the forces’ influence over all five Darfur states and dividing the country between an east controlled by the Sudanese army and a west under the control of the Rapid Support Forces.” This brief account from Al Jazeera makes it clear that the Rapid Support Forces’ control of El Fasher is more than just a victory in a battle for a city; it is a remarkable takeover of an entire region! The RSF had been besieging the city for a year, yet they lacked the sophisticated weaponry necessary to achieve a victory against the Sudanese army units defending it. These units had valiantly defended the city for a year, but suddenly, #Burhan‘s government handed it over to the separatist rebel Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), the commander of the Rapid Support Forces. The handover was blatant and unambiguous:
1- “Sudan’s Sovereign Council Chairman Abdel Fattah al-Burhan stated that the Sudanese people and armed forces would prevail, emphasizing that the leadership’s assessment in El Fasher (the capital of North Darfur State) was to evacuate the city due to the systematic destruction it had suffered.” (Al Jazeera Net, 27/10/2025). He then followed this with empty rhetoric: (In a televised address, al-Burhan added, “Our forces are capable of achieving victory, turning the tables, and reclaiming the land,” adding, “We are determined to avenge all of our martyrs”)
2- “Sudanese military sources told Al Jazeera that the Sudanese army evacuated a division headquarters in El Fasher “for tactical reasons.”” (Al Jazeera Net, 27/10/2025).
These statements from Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and his military sources clearly indicate, not implicitly, that the army evacuated El #Fasher, leaving it to be plundered by the Rapid Support Forces.
Secondly, Burhan’s government and its military leadership refrained from providing military and logistical support from their central areas of control to their forces in El Fasher for a year. As a result, these forces remained besieged, fighting and repelling the RSF attacks with whatever resources they had from within the city. The Burhan government’s military command, which boasted of clearing #Khartoum, Omdurman, and Bahri of the RSF, was certainly capable of supporting its large contingents in El Fasher, but it failed to do so for a year. In other words, the plan was to let those contingents collapse.
Third: Upon closer examination, we find that the handover of the forces of the rebel separatist Hemedti took place concurrently with talks being conducted by #America, between the two Sudanese parties in America with the aim of a ceasefire: (“After the Sudanese Sovereignty Council denied the existence of any direct or indirect negotiations with a delegation from the Rapid Support Forces in Washington, diplomatic sources revealed that the Sudanese Foreign Minister, Mohi El-Din Salem, arrived in the United States on an official visit aimed at discussing efforts to stop the war that has been raging in Sudan for more than two years.” (Al-Arabiya, 24/10/2025)).
This means one thing: America brought together in #Washington the delegations of its two Sudanese agents—Burhan’s and Hemedti’s—and the Sudanese Sovereignty Council’s denial of holding negotiations with the RSF in Washington serves as proof. The implementation of America’s orders to its two agents was carried out openly two or three days later in El Fasher. According to the previous same source (sources told Al-Arabiya/Al-Hadath on Friday that the Sudanese minister will hold a series of meetings in Washington with US administration officials, including Massad Boulos, senior advisor to the US president on Middle East and Africa Affairs. They added that Salem will also meet with a number of his Arab counterparts, noting that the visit comes at the official invitation of the US administration to discuss several issues of mutual interest. A US official also explained to Al-Arabiya/Al-Hadath that Boulos will chair the Quartet meetings on the Sudanese crisis).
Further evidence of America’s gathering of its two agents’ delegations in Washington is this: [A diplomatic official confirmed yesterday, Thursday, that the Quartet (the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt) would meet today in Washington with representatives of the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces to push both sides toward a three-month humanitarian truce. He said the goal was “to exert unified pressure to solidify the ceasefire and allow humanitarian aid to reach civilians,” Al-Arabiya, 24/10/2025]. This means that the timing of the RSF storming of El Fasher and the Sudanese army’s evacuation of it, coinciding with the Washington meeting, leaves no doubt that the decision to hand over the strategic city to the RSF was made in Washington and that the two Sudanese parties immediately began implementing it on the ground, i.e., two days later, with the outcome achieved on the third day.
Fourth: This meeting in Washington is the second step following the first, when America gathered its agents and followers in the region in what is called the Quartet (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt) and began implementing its will to impose a ceasefire in Sudan. Al-Arabiya reported on 12/9/2025, the statement issued after that meeting: (The joint statement read: “At the invitation of the United States, the foreign ministers of the United States, Egypt, #Saudi_Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates held in-depth consultations on the conflict in Sudan, recalling that it has caused the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and poses grave risks to regional peace and security. The ministers affirmed their commitment to a common set of principles to end the conflict in Sudan.”) The fourth point of the statement read: “The future of governance in Sudan will be determined by the Sudanese people through a comprehensive and transparent transitional process not subject to the control of any warring party.” It also stated in one of its points: “All efforts will be made to support a negotiated settlement of the conflict with the effective participation of the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces.”
On the one hand, this Quartet is a formula chosen by America so that its solution in Sudan appears to have a regional character as well, that is, with the approval of key countries in the region. However, these countries do not move unless Washington moves them, and they do not take any step without America. On the other hand, the text of the statement indicates the recognition of the two parties to the conflict in Sudan on an equal footing and calls on them to participate effectively. That is, the statement does not refer to the Rapid Support Forces as separatist and rebel forces, nor does it call on them to stop their rebellion, especially since they formed a separatist government to split Sudan.
Fifth: After the Rapid Support Forces took control of El Fasher, a strategic city, their control of it meant taking over the entire Darfur region, with its five states, most of which were already under their de facto control. Therefore, agreeing to a three-month truce, or even demanding it, means American recognition of the RSF control and legitimate presence in the Darfur region and in the most important city of the region, El Fasher. This truce, which America is proposing and dressing up as a “Quartet” agreement, is followed by further steps of negotiations between the two parties to the conflict in Sudan, after America’s plans enabled the RSF to control all of Darfur, and after America’s agent, Hamdan Dagalo (#Hemedti), had established a separatist government, which he announced at the end of February 2015 in Nairobi, the capital of #Kenya, with himself as its head. It was operating from Nyala, the capital of South Darfur State, and now the way is certainly completely paved for Hemedti’s separatist government to move to El Fasher.
Sixth: As for the American position, it was explicit and did not even express displeasure at the Rapid Support Forces’ control of El Fasher. Instead, it called for the next step in the American plan for Sudan: a ceasefire. This would completely block the Sudanese army’s path to retaking El Fasher and ensure Hemedti’s control over it was firmly established, undisturbed by any clashes:
[Massad Boulos, advisor to US President Donald Trump on African affairs, called on the warring parties in Sudan to consider and immediately approve a proposed humanitarian truce. He added that he had presented a three-month humanitarian truce proposal, which was welcomed by both sides in the Sudanese conflict. He urged the Rapid Support Forces to proceed with the humanitarian truce and cease fighting. Boulos had stated the previous day that the world was watching with grave concern the actions of the Rapid Support Forces and the situation in El Fasher, calling for the protection of civilians.] (Al Jazeera Net, 27/10/2025).
This was then confirmed again, as reported by Sky News on 3/11/2025: [Massad Boulos, senior advisor to US President Donald Trump on Middle East affairs, confirmed that the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces had agreed to a three-month ceasefire, based on the plan of the Quartet, which includes the UAE, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, announced on September 12th. Boulos explained, in statements he made from #Cairo on Monday, that technical and logistical discussions were underway before the final signing of the ceasefire, noting that representatives of both sides had been in Washington for some time to discuss its details. He added that the ceasefire proposal represents a real opportunity to end the crisis, emphasizing that the army and the Rapid Support Forces are engaged in discussing a paper presented by the US with the support of the Quartet, aimed at achieving peace. He pointed out that the conflict in Sudan has become a threat to the region and the world, especially to the security of the Red Sea.] (Sky News Arabia, 3/11/2025).
Seventh: Amidst US President Trump’s boasting that he is a peacemaker and ends wars, America is clearly and unequivocally proceeding with its plan, and at an accelerated pace, to divide Sudan and separate the Darfur region, just as it previously separated South Sudan. This is what we have repeatedly warned against. In the answer to a question titled “Drone Attacks and Developments in the War in Sudan” we stated the following on 21/5/2025:
[(It is clear from all this that the major attacks in eastern Sudan, especially on the strategic facilities of the city of Port Sudan, are linked to the war in Darfur. They are aimed at forcing the army to move away from attacking El Fasher and head east to defend Port Sudan) we added: (Fourth: It is painful that the kaffir colonial America can manage a fight that reaps lives in Sudan and harness its agents to implement it openly, not secretly, and publicly, not hidden. Burhan and Hemedti are fighting with the blood of the people of Sudan for no reason other than to serve America’s interests, as it wants to repeat the division of Sudan as it did in separating the south from Sudan. It is now doing its utmost to separate Darfur from what remains of Sudan. Therefore, the army focuses its attention on the rest of Sudan’s regions, and the RSF focus their attention on Darfur. If the sincere in the army
become active in regaining control of Darfur, the RSF will move the battle to other regions in Sudan to distract the army, so its forces withdraw from Darfur to eastern Sudan, in which the RSF are intensifying their attacks with drones. This is to enable the RSF to take complete control of Darfur!
Prior to that, in the answer to a question titled “Acceleration of Military Operations in Sudan” dated 6/2/ 2025, we warned that the puppet political and military leadership in Sudan, which takes its instructions from the Trump administration, is directing the army to open corridors for the Rapid Support Forces from the central region towards Darfur. We stated:
[Sixth: Accordingly, it is most likely that the field developments in Sudan are arranged and managed by Trump and that they aim to achieve the following:
– Accelerating the American plan to prepare the atmosphere by dividing the country between America’s agents on the basis of Darfur under the control of the Rapid Support Forces and the rule of Hemeti, while the army led by Burhan controls central and eastern Sudan, so two entities appear in Sudan, and this matter was imposed by virtue of Hemeti’s control over Darfur. We have previously mentioned this plan in response to a question dated 19/12/2023, where we explained at that time “that America is preparing the atmosphere for division… when America’s interests require it. Even if America’s interests require another separation after South Sudan, it will do this separation in Darfur… and it seems that the time for this separation has not come yet… but preparing the atmosphere for it is what is currently happening.” This is what we said previously, and it seems that America’s interest is close to accelerating the separation of Darfur as it did in South Sudan… and this is very dangerous if Trump succeeds in implementing it… so the Ummah must stand in his face and not be silent as it was silent when South Sudan was separated!]
Eighth: Hizb ut Tahrir has been warning since the beginning of this year, and indeed since 2023 when America ignited the war between its two agents in 2023, that America’s plan to divide Sudan would come to fruition. And now, the steps toward partition are unfolding before your very eyes, with many Sudanese people becoming embroiled in this carnage between America’s agents to achieve America’s goals and maintain its influence in Sudan. Today, the American plan is close to realizing the secession and the separation of the Darfur region from Sudan, and this is happening while you stand by and watch! Is there a single wise and powerful leader in the army who will sit down for an hour and decide to be sincere to his Lord, and take the necessary steps to thwart America’s plan and eliminate its agents who have killed tens of thousands of Sudanese and displaced millions, for no other purpose than to carry out Washington’s demands? Is there a single wise and powerful leader in the army who will place Sudan’s power in sincere hands, granting Nusra (material #victory) to Hizb ut Tahrir, which has long cried out, warned, and called for the establishment of Islam, so that from Sudan, the Islamic State, a second Khilafah (Caliphate) on the method of Prophethood, may be established? And how great is this wise and strong man who meets Allah (swt), and Allah has used him to fulfill the glad-tiding of His noble Prophet (saw) of the return of the Khilafah Rashida (Rightly Guided Caliphate) after this oppressive rule in which we live:
«…ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكاً جَبْرِيَّةً فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ ثُمَّ سَكَت»
“…then it will be an oppressive rule, and it will be as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will lift it when He wills to lift it, then there will be a Khilafah (Caliphate) on the method of Prophethood.” Then he was silent.” [Extracted by Ahmad].
12 Jumada Al-Awwal 1447 AH
3/11/2025 CE
