-
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 -
Q&A: Trading in the Forex market
Answer to Question
Trading in the Forex market
To: Ameen Jarrar
(Translated)Question:
Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
The question is:
Trading in the Forex market (foreign exchange market) using a Contract for Difference (CFD), where trading and speculation are based on the price movement of an asset, rather than buying and selling it as usual.
The Forex market is a global market regulated by international bodies and institutions that oversee traders, financial intermediaries, and other institutions such as banks and reserve funds.
To enter the Forex market, I need a financial intermediary (broker) with whom I have a trading agreement and contract. This contract includes a CFD, where I deposit money with the broker and then trade foreign currencies through a mobile application.
[13/8, 12:41 PM] Osama Al-Fari’a]:
Many fatwas that have addressed this topic, whether their answer is permissible or forbidden (which is the majority opinion), have only addressed the issue of money leverage and overnight fees (riba). This is something that can easily be avoided during trading. However, the core of the question is the principle of the contract itself: Is it contrary to Islamic law?
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh
What I know about Forex is that (Forex is an abbreviation for “Foreign Exchange,” meaning the exchange of foreign currencies; it’s a huge global market for trading currencies with the aim of profiting from price differences). We previously answered a similar question on 14/10/2024, and I’ll quote what it said about currency trading:
[– Trading in gold and silver: As for gold and silver, selling and buying them for each other or for cash must be done hand to hand, as in the hadith narrated by Al-Bukhari and Abu Dawud on the authority of Omar:
«الذَّهَبُ بِالْوَرِقِ رِباً إِلَّا هَاءَ وَهَاءَ»
“Gold for silver is usury except hand to hand,” meaning hand to hand. Therefore, buying gold for silver or for cash is not valid except by hand to hand.
And because after we have learned how to trade online, the exchange does not happen immediately, but rather it may take hours or days, therefore it is not permissible to buy gold and silver with an electronic card via the Internet unless the card is deducted from the account immediately when buying gold or silver, i.e. hand to hand, so do not receive the gold or silver except at the time the amount is deducted from your account… And since there is no immediate exchange in trading online, but rather after a day or two, then it is not permissible.
– Trading in stocks and bonds is forbidden because stocks belong to joint-stock companies that are invalid according to Islamic law, and because bonds are linked to usury.We have detailed the subject of joint-stock companies in the book, The Economic System, as well as in the booklet, The Turbulence of the Stock Markets, and other books.We have mentioned in the booklet, The Turbulence of the Stock Markets, a summary of the matter as follows:
“As for the Shari’ah rule pertaining to the dealing in these shares and in securities, whether buying or selling, it is forbidden. This is because these shares are those of a company that is unlawful according to Shari’ah. They are in fact certificates of bills which contain mixed sums from a lawful capital and unlawful profits made from an unlawful transaction. Each bill represents the value of a share, and this share represents part of the assets that belong to the unlawful company. These assets have been mixed with an unlawful transaction which Shari’ah has prohibited. Thus, it is illicit money, whose buying and selling becomes unlawful, and dealing in such money is also illicit. This is also the case for bonds, in which money is invested with interest, and so is the case for bank shares and similar, since they all contain sums of illicit money; thus their buying and selling is unlawful, because the money contained in them is illicit.”
– Trading paper currencies on the Internet, such as the dollar and the euro, is forbidden because there is no hand-to-hand exchange, which is necessary in exchanging money. Hand-to-hand exchange, as it applies to gold and silver, also applies to paper money on the grounds of currency, i.e. using them as prices and wages. We mentioned the following in the Answer to Question on 11/07/2004:
[Dealing with paper currencies: Yes, what applies to gold and silver in terms of usury and other monetary rulings applies to them.This is because the realization of the reason (cash, i.e. its use as prices and wages) in these papers makes them take the rulings of money.Therefore, buying usurious items with these papers applies to what was mentioned in the hadith (hand to hand), i.e. it is not a debt.
The subject is as follows:
The Messenger (saw) says: «الذَّهَبُ بِالذَّهَبِ، وَالْفِضَّةُ بِالْفِضَّةِ، وَالْبُرُّ بِالْبُرِّ، وَالشَّعِيرُ بِالشَّعِيرِ، وَالتَّمْرُ بِالتَّمْرِ، وَالْمِلْحُ بِالْمِلْحِ، مِثْلًا بِمِثْلٍ، سَوَاءً بِسَوَاءٍ، يَداً بِيَدٍ، فَإِذَا اخْتَلَفَتْ هَذِهِ الْأَصْنَافُ فَبِيعُوا كَيْفَ شِئْتُمْ إِذَا كَانَ يَداً بِيَدٍ»“Gold is to be paid for by gold, silver by silver, wheat by wheat, barley by barley, dates by dates, and salt by salt, like for like and equal for equal, payment being made on the spot. If these classes differ, sell as you wish if payment is made on the spot” (Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of Ubadah bin Al-Samit, may Allah be pleased with him).
The text is clear when these usurious (riba) categories differ, that the sale is as you wish, i.e. like for like is not a condition, but the exchange is a condition.The word “categories” was mentioned generally in all usurious categories, i.e. the six, and nothing is excluded from it except by a text, and where there is no text, the ruling is that wheat is permissible for barley or wheat for gold, or barley for silver, or dates for salt, or dates for gold, or salt for silver, etc…no matter how different the exchange values and prices are, but hand to hand, i.e. it is not a debt. And what applies to gold and silver applies to paper money by virtue of the common cause (cash, i.e. its use as a price and wages).] End.
By studying how this online trading in buying and selling gold is done, it became clear that the collection or settlement is delayed for a day or two… from the date of the contract, and this is contrary to the agreed-upon condition of exchange, which the Prophet (saw) stipulated in his saying: “Hand in hand.” Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Al-Bara’ bin Azib, who said: We asked the Prophet (saw) about that, and he said: «مَا كَانَ يَداً بِيَدٍ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا كَانَ نَسِيئَةً فَذَرُوهُ»“Take what was from hand to hand and leave what was on credit.” Muslim narrated on the authority of Malik ibn Aws ibn al-Hadathan that he said: I came and said: Who is exchanging dirhams? Talhah ibn Ubaydullah said while he was with Umar ibn al-Khattab: Show us your gold, then come to us when our servant comes and we will give you your money. Umar ibn al-Khattab said: No, by Allah, you must either give him his money or return his gold to him, for the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «الْوَرِقُ بِالذَّهَبِ رِباً إِلَّا هَاءَ وَهَاءَ…»“Gold and silver are usury, except for this and that…”
Accordingly, it is not permissible to trade the euro, dollar, and other forms of currency over the Internet because there is no immediate exchange) End quote from the answer. I hope this is sufficient, and Allah Knows Best and is Most Wise. 11 Rabi’ al-Akhir 1446 AH Corresponding to 14/10/2024 CE] End of quote from the previous answer.
Therefore, since the transaction, as explained above, is invalid, the contract to perform the aforementioned work is also invalid.
This is what I believe to be the most preponderant view on this matter, and Allah Knows Best.
Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah11 Jumada Al-Awwal 1447 AH
2 November 2025 CE -
Essentials of Political Understanding and Policymaking – Part 5
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Prerequisites for Political Understanding and Policymaking
The Origins of International Law
-Part 5-
(Translated)https://www.al-waie.org/archives/article/19977
Al Waie Magazine Issue No. 47
Thirty-Ninth Year, Rabi’ al-Awwal 1447 AH corresponding to September 2025 CE
Luqman Harzallah – PalestineThe existence of entities and states in the world and their interaction with one another pushed them, over time, to agree on norms that punish those who violate them. Due to the influence of public opinion on rulers and entities, entities and states voluntarily adhered to these norms. International Customs were the basic nucleus from which International Law was later formed.
International customs may be general or specific. General international custom is a custom adhered to by all countries of the world, accepted by public opinion, and considered as a custom on a consistent basis, not transiently. Specific international custom is a custom specific to one region of the world. Therefore, the terms “customary international law” and “regional international custom” are used, depending on the scope of the countries that implement a particular custom. An example of this is the regional international custom that emerged following the Cold Wars between Britain and Iceland, which concerned fishing rights in international waters. Iceland obtained a British concession to fish within 200 nautical miles of Icelandic waters. This solution became a custom, and later international law, based on which the so-called exclusive economic zones in the seas are demarcated. An example of regional customs is the customary Arab practice before the Prophet’s (saw) mission, which prohibited fighting during the sacred months. Another general international custom is the immunity of messengers and ambassadors.
In the mid-seventeenth century, European countries rushed to regulate their relations. The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 established a law regulating their relations. This treaty served as a practical foundation for the subsequent enactment of international law encompassing the world, not just Europe. Among the most prominent conferences that regulated international relations was the Congress of Vienna in 1815, which worked to resolve many of the issues arising from the French Revolutionary Wars, and concluded with the demarcation of borders on the European continent. The same conference also included the Paris Conference in 1919, which resulted in the partition of the Ottoman Caliphate and the establishment of the League of Nations.
Public international law is the body of law that regulates relations between states in times of peace and war, and grants international organizations authority over states in this regard. This authority is exercised by executive international bodies, such as the UN Security Council, which are under the authority of the world’s leading state, or are contested by the world’s major powers that influence the international situation.
Examples of public international law include laws resulting from international agreements, such as the Geneva Convention. Public international law also includes laws issued at the level of a group of states and whose obligations are at the state level, not at the individual level, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
It is clear that international law is established by major powers that achieve victory in conflicts, or by major powers whose strength is equal and who realize that there is no victory in a conflict. They then move toward regulating their relations through an agreement unanimously agreed upon by the signatories, which then becomes international law. This can be achieved through international treaties and agreements, general legal principles, or what is derived from international custom. The agreement of European countries following the Treaty of Westphalia enabled these countries to stand on their own two feet and fight the Ottoman Caliphate, which had breached the walls of major European countries and threatened other countries. Therefore, it is clear that International Law (IL) was created to stop the spread of Islam towards Europe.
Western powers worked to establish organizations and bodies that drafted international laws and UN resolutions and tried individuals and countries on their basis. This was done in order to legally impose sovereignty over the world and make these bodies and organizations supreme. In this context, the League of Nations, then the United Nations, and the International Criminal Court were established. These bodies are linked to the world’s leading state in terms of orientation, and to the Security Council in terms of implementation in the case of the United Nations.
Therefore, these organizations and bodies are a tool in the hands of the world’s leading state to enforce its policies around the world. However, because other states participate in these organizations, this makes the leading state vulnerable to the wrath of other states.
Failure to adhere to international law embarrasses states, even the world’s leading state. Although they may, at any given moment, weigh up the importance of achieving a vital interest that requires violating international law, against the potential embarrassment that would befall them, they still seek to employ tricks to improve their image, and deflect the accusation of violating international law. For example, during his 2022 war on Ukraine, Russian President Putin sought to demonstrate that he was not violating International Law. He did not enter Ukraine by ground troops, until the breakaway republics called on him to defend them. Similarly, the United States did not enter the Iraq war in 2003, until it had mobilized public opinion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Although this lie embarrassed it later, America had achieved its goal, and it subsequently sought to mitigate the impact of public opinion that had formed after the revelation of its lie about weapons of mass destruction. Countries undoubtedly care about global public opinion, and global public opinion may even be reflected in domestic public opinion, embarrassing its government. The United States seeks to control domestic public opinion, which, in one way or another, influences elections and the decisions of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The need to examine the issue of international norms and International Law is important for political understanding and policymaking. It is also necessary to understand the status of the commitment of the major powers in international law. It is not right to assume that these countries cannot violate the International Law, nor is it right to assume that these countries do not care about the International Law at all. Instead, understanding the International Custom or the International Law helps in formulating the policy that leads to the desired goal. When the Prophet(saw)set out for the Umrah of Hudaybiyyah, he announced this and informed the Arabs that he was going to perform Umrah and that he was only carrying a weapon suitable for a rider, which was not a weapon of war. He prepared the atmosphere to put the Quraysh in a severe embarrassment, if they prevented him from entering Makkah, on top of the embarrassment if they opened its gates to him. He was looking forward to a peace treaty, so he pushed them towards it, using a regional custom that the Quraysh served the Haram and it was not right for them to prevent anyone from going there for worship.
International Standing (Al-Mawkif ad-Duwali)
The International Standing is the status of a country in the world and its relationship with other influential countries. It is also the structure of relations between influential countries in the world. This means that we should not view the International Standing in the same way as we view the policy of each individual country, because each country’s policy stems from its viewpoint upon life. Understanding that policy depends on understanding the idea and method (fikrah wa tareeqah) by which a country establishes its policy. This is unlike the International Standing, which is composed of relations between influential countries in the world. These countries do not necessarily have to share the same viewpoint upon life. Instead, the general situation is that these countries differ in their viewpoint upon, but they form relationships among themselves in peace and war.
The International Standing is shaped by the disparity between influential countries in the world, in terms of their status in international politics. This international standing is shaped by elements including a country’s military power, economic power, diplomatic power, industrial and technological power, and demographic power. Consequently, disparities between countries emerge, and consequently, disparities in the influence of countries on international relations and, consequently, on International Standing. Hence, the terms “world’s leading state,” “independent state,” “satellite state,” and “subordinate state” emerged. It is necessary to understand the standings of the world’s leading state and the standings of other states relative to it.
The world’s leading state is the state that takes the lead in shaping the International Scenario (climate) (al-jau as-siyaasee), through the relationships that connect other states to the leading state. States seek to achieve their interests by working to achieve the interests of the leading state, thus sharing interests with it, or by competing with or disputing with the foremost state. This makes the state disputing the leading state generally influence the International Scenario according to the extent of its dispute and its success in that dispute.
The world’s leading state shapes the global political climate, pushing states toward its ideology and political approach. Any state seeking to assume the standing of the world’s leading state must work to shift the scenario in its favor. Its path to becoming the world’s leading power must pass through competing with the world’s current leading power, shifting the political scenario in its favor, working to disengage it from the current leading power, exposing its injustice and the harm it causes the world through its continued leadership, and other necessary steps to disengage states from it and to help shape public opinion against its policies. It is necessary to adopt practical styles that demonstrate that the state that seeks to become the leading power is the most worthy of shouldering global responsibility, and so on.
The International Standing is fluid and not always stable. Therefore, anyone who seeks to attain a sound political understanding, and formulate a policy that benefits their country and people, must continually examine international relations to understand the International Scenario and its established situation, or whether it is undergoing a period of instability and change. The center of power shifted from the Romans to the Muslims, from France to England, and from England to Germany. The Soviet Union and the United States competed for influence over the world, then reached an agreement. Then the United States assumed the monopoly of shaping the International Scenario, and so on.
This is the world’s leading state. Other states are either independent, satellite or subordinate. A subordinate state is one whose policy is restricted by another state. Egypt, since the days of Abdel Nasser, has been submitting subordinately to America, engaged in American projects in the region, and implemented American policies, even though these policies have at times harmed Egypt and its economy. Saudi Arabia swung between its loyalty to the British and its loyalty to the Americans, until Salman and his son came to power. They then worked to implement American policies, even if they had no interest in them. Saudi Arabia launched Operation Decisive Storm against Yemen in 2015. This war consumed vast sums of Saudi Arabia’s resources, but Saudi Arabia gained nothing politically from it. The only benefit America gained from bringing the Houthis to the negotiating table was their ability to consolidate their position as a significant political force, participating in governing Yemen, or later monopolizing it after conflicting with the British agents there.
A satellite is one that is linked in its foreign policy with another state by a link of interest, not a link of submissive dependency. An example of this is Japan, which, since the end of World War II, and after emerging defeated, and imposing conditions on its military nature, has sought to achieve an industrial and economic status for itself. It has achieved a prestigious International Standing on the global level in this regard. However, in its foreign policy, it has been working to achieve its own interest by achieving America’s interest. It joined the Quadrilateral Dialogue (Quad) with the United States, Australia, and India in 2007, within the framework of containing China. Similarly, as a satellite, Turkey, after the coup against the British there, sought to achieve its interest by achieving America’s interest. It sent forces affiliated with it to Libya in 2020 in order to establish a foothold in the American center in Libya, and worked to abort the Syrian revolution, to prevent the collapse of the American-backed Syrian regime. It contained a group of officers who defected from the Syrian army, and the factions formed at the time, until it was able to insert its hand into the Syrian revolution, prevent decisive fronts from opening, and transform the front into a fight between factions, since the beginning of the Syrian revolution in 2011 until the present time. Then, when it wanted to subject the Syrian regime to a kind of normalization of relations with Turkey, and the regime refused, it mobilized the forces of those factions in 2024, until the Syrian regime was overthrown, and Turkey’s hand extended to control the scene in Syria in favor of America. However, at the same time, it was working to achieve its own interests and formulate its domestic policies based on its orientations, so its connection to America in foreign policy was one of interest, not subordination.
An independent state is one that conducts its domestic and foreign policy as it pleases and according to its own interests. China, for example, acts in its own interests based on its vision of what it should be and how it should achieve that. It wants to be a strong economic power and an unrivaled commercial power. It explored Africa for resources, then made its way to Latin America, establishing a port in Peru, 60% of which it owns and has a thirty-year concession to operate.
China has persevered in its pursuit of its goal despite obstacles from America. It views Taiwan as part of itself and adopts a policy it deems appropriate, even though America has made Taiwan a thorn in its side. The same applies to Russia in its domestic and foreign policy.
The observer should not imagine that there is a relationship of dependency between Russia and America, given Russia’s preoccupation with realizing America’s interests in some matters. This is because an independent state can achieve its interests by securing the interests of the world’s leading power. This does not make it a subordinate state or a satellite. This is because an independent state formulates this policy independently of the decisions of the leading power, while the interests of the satellite state are closely linked to its foreign interests with the world’s leading power.
It is very important to explore the depths of international relations and understand the standing of the leading power and other powers. This understanding enables the politician and observer to understand the connection between events and the leader of the International Scenario in the world. By understanding this, one can understand the political influence of the leading state on events, in terms of creating, extinguishing, shifting, or containing them. America pushed Ukraine towards NATO, igniting a war between Ukraine and Russia in 2022, thus affecting the alliance that was emerging between Russia and China. It worked to support Ukraine and put pressure on Russia, preventing Russia from benefiting from the SWIFT financial system, enacting a set of sanctions against it, and pushing Europe to participate in the sanctions against Russia, and even Europe itself was severely harmed by this war. However, America rallied Europe under its wing and strengthened NATO. This is a political event that the world’s leading state created to contain another event that Russia and China worked on, which was to form an alliance between them. In contrast, the revolutions in the Arab countries, when they occurred, were spontaneously initiated by the masses, and reached the point of toppling regimes in Egypt, establishing a new regime in Syria, America exploited the event to bring its own people into the regime in Yemen, and pushing those who oppress the people to oppress them, and those who defraud the people in the name of revolutionary political fronts to do so. It even pushed other countries to provide military assistance, pushing Russia and Iran towards Syria to stand with the regime, and pushing Turkey and Saudi Arabia to stand with the rebels. Thus, it was the most prominent influence on the event.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the observer and policymaker to accurately understand the International Scenario; otherwise, they will go off the rails and consider the subordinate state as an independent state, and the satellite state in conflict with the leading state! It is one of the wonders of this era that some people consider Bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, independent. This is because he was strong in his dealings with Jake Sullivan, the US National Security Advisor, and rejected his request to change his oil production policy during the first term of US President Biden’s administration in 2021.It is also strange that some people consider Iran a rival to America, as it has deployed factions affiliated with it in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, threatening American interests and even bombing their bases with missiles. However, if one were to look closely, one would find that what strengthened Bin Salman’s position against Biden was Biden’s rival in America, Donald Trump. They would also find that America itself, through Iranian parties and their agents, has controlled the political climate in Iraq, controlled the situation in Syria, and is almost controlling the government in Yemen.
[to be continued]
-
‘Ismah of the Rasool
This is chapter 32 from the book “Islamic Thought”
The ‘ismah (infallibility) of the prophets and messengers is an issue stipulated by the mind. For the fact that he is a Prophet or a Messenger necessitates he is infallible in conveying from Allah (swt). If there is a defect of the possibility of the absence of ‘ismah in one issue, then this defect would reach every issue; and then the whole prophethood and message would collapse. The proof that a person is a Prophet of Allah (saw) or a Messenger from Allah (saw) means he is infallible in regards to what he conveys from Allah (swt). So his infallibility in conveyance is inevitable, and the rejection of this infallibility is rejection of the message that he brought and the prophethood that he was sent with. As regards to his infallibility from doing the actions that disagree from the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt), it is definite that he does not commit kaba’ir (major sins) definitely, so he does not commit any of the kaba’ir absolutely. This is because performing a major sin means committing disobedience. Obedience is not partitioned and the disobedience is not partitioned. So if disobedience reaches to the action, then it would reach the propagation (tablaegh), as matter that contradicts the message and prophethood. That is why the prophets and messengers were infallible from committing kaba’ir, the same way they are infallible in propagation from Allah (swt). As regards the infallibility regarding the saga’ir (minor sins), the scholar had different views about it. Some of them said they are not infallible from them, for they are not disobedience; while others said they are infallible for they are disobedience. The true view about that is whatever its performance is considered haram and whatever its performance is considered obligatory, i.e. all the duties (furoodh) and the prohibition (muharraamat), they are infallible regarding them. Thus they are infallible from neglect on the obligations and from committing the prohibitions, whether they were kaba’ir or saga’ir. In other words, they are infallible from anything called disobedience (ma’siyah). Other than that, like khilaf-ul-awla (opposite to what is most appropriate), they are not infallible from them. So, they might do what is opposite to the most appropriate, absolutely, for in all its aspects, it does not enter under the meaning of the word ma’siyah (disobedience). This is what is necessitated by the mind and required by the fact they are prophets and messengers.
Our master Mohammad (saw) is a Prophet and a Messenger. So, like the other messengers and prophets, he is infallible from making an error in what he conveys from Allah (swt). This is a definite infallibility proved by the rational and shar’i evidence. The Rasool (saw) did not convey the ahkam except from the wahy (revelation). Allah (swt) says in the Surah of Al-Anbiaa’:
“Say: I only warn you with the wahy (inspiration).” [TMQ Al-Anbiaa’: 45]
Allah (swt) says in the Surah of An-Najm:
“Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only inspiration that is inspired.” [TMQ An-Najm: 3-4]
The word ‘speak’ (yantiq) is of the generality (umoom) words, so it includes the Qur’an and others. There is nothing in the Qur’an or the Sunnah that specifies it in the Qur’an, so it remains general, meaning that everything he speaks of legislation is an inspired wahy. It is invalid to specify what he speaks to the Qur’an only; it must rather remain general, including the Qur’an and the hadeeth. As regards specifying it in to what he conveys from Allah (swt), in terms of legislation and others, of ahkam, creeds, thoughts and stories, without including the style, and means from drawing plans to battles, or dusting the palm trees or the like, this is because he is a Messenger. Discussion is about a Messenger and study of what he was sent with and not in other than that. So the subject of the speech (of the Messenger) is what specifies. Thus the form of generality remains general in the subject it came with, and it is then considered a form of specification. This is due to His (swt) saying:
“Say: I only warn you with the wahy (inspiration).” [TMQ Al-Anbiaa’: 45]
It is also due to His (swt) saying in Surah of Sad:
“It is revealed to me only that I may be a plain warner.” [TMQ Sad: 70]
It shows that the aim is what he brought of creeds, ahkam and everything he was ordered to convey and to warn with. Therefore, it does not include the use of styles or his natural actions which are of man’s innate nature (fitrah), ie from his natural creations, such as walking, speaking, eating etc. It is specified in the men’s actions and their thoughts, and not in the styles, the means and the like. So, whatever the Messenger (swt) was ordered to convey of what is related to the actions and thoughts of men, is revelation from Allah (swt). The wahy includes the speech and actions of the Rasool (swt) as well as his agreement (sukoot), because we are commanded to follow him. Allah (swt) says:
“Whatever the Rasool brought it to you, take it; and whatever he forbade you from, abstain from (it).” [TMQ Al-Hashr: 7]
And He (saw) said:
“Verily, in the messenger of Allah you have a good example.” [TMQ Al-Ahzab: 21]
Thus the speech, the action and the agreement of the Rasool (swt) are shar’i evidence, and they are all revelation from Allah (swt). Rasool Allah (swt) used to receive the revelation, conveys what the wahy brings to him from Allah (swt), and settles the matters in accordance with the wahy, without deviating from the wahy absolutely. Allah (swt) said in Surat al-Ahqaaf:
“I only follow what is revealed to me.” [TMQ Al-Ahqaaf: 9]
And He (saw) said in Surat al-A’raaf:
“I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord.” [TMQ Al-A’raaf : 203]
This means, I don’t follow except that is revealed to me from my Lord. So he limited his adherence (ittibaa’) to that which is revealed to him from his Lord. All of this is explicit, clear and apparent to be general (a’amm); and what is related to the Rasool (saw) in regards to what he is ordered to convey is wahy (revelation) only. The Legislative life of the Rasool (saw) in explaining the ahkam to the people followed that approach.
So, he (saw) used to wait for revelation in many of the ahkam, such as the dhihar (pre-Islamic form of divorce) and the li’aan (sworn allegation of adultery committed by the wife) and others. He never said of a hukm on an issue, or made any legislative action or made a legislative agreement, except based on a wahy from Allah (swt). The Sahabah would be confused sometimes between the hukm of one of human actions and the opinion regarding a matter, a means or a style, so they asked the Rasool (saw): “ Is that wahy, O Rasool Allah, or it is the opinion and advice”: If he said to them, it is wahy, they kept silent, for they knew it is not from him. If he said to them; it is rather the opinion and the advice, then they would discuss with him, and he might of followed their opinion; as what happened in (the battle of) Badr, the trench and Uhud. He used to tell them in regards of other than what he conveys from his Lord: “You know better in regards of the matters of your dunya,”, as it was reported in the hadeeth of dusting the palm trees. Had he spoken in the matter of legislation without revelation, he would have not waited the revelation so as to say the hukm, and the Sahabah would have not asked him of whether that was a revelation or an opinion; he would have rather answered from himself, and they would have discussed with him without asking him.
Therefore, the Rasool (saw) used not to start a speech, action or acceptance except based on wahy from Allah (swt), and not based on an opinion from him. He (saw) is also infallible from making error in everything he conveys from Allah (swt).
-
Q&A: The American Strategy and the Two-State Solution
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمAnswer to Question
The American Strategy and the Two-State Solution
(Translated)Question:
We know that the American strategy for establishing a Jewish entity in the heart of the Muslim countries has, for the most part, been based on the two-state solution. However, under Trump, this strategy has begun to be abandoned, or at least kept quiet, which has raised questions. For example, Trump said, “When you look at the map, a map of the Middle East, ‘Israel’ is a tiny little spot compared to these giant land masses. I actually said: ‘Is there any way of getting more? It is tiny…” (Sky News, 19/8/2024). Does this mean that America’s two-state solution project is dead and finished, or is it still alive? Thank you.
Answer:
To clarify the answer, let us review the following points:
1- In 1959, at the end of Eisenhower’s term, America adopted its two-state solution project, which can be summarized as “supporting and preserving a Jewish entity and establishing a Palestinian entity alongside it.” Its agents in the region, most notably the Egyptian regime, then began working to implement the project, and for this purpose, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established. However, Britain, through the Jordanian regime, strongly opposed the project and adopted a secular Palestinian state project dominated by the Jews, similar to the secular state of Lebanon, which is controlled by Christians.
2– All of this was during the time when the West Bank was under Jordanian rule, and Gaza was under Egyptian rule. However, when the West Bank and Gaza, along with Sinai and the Golan Heights, fell under the control of the Jewish entity in a theatrical war in June 1967, the talk was no longer about establishing a Palestinian state, but rather about the withdrawal of the Jewish entity from these occupied territories based on Security Council Resolution 242. Then America put the Palestinian issue aside and began preparing for a provocative war. This was the October War of 1973 to jumpstart the peace process. The Egyptian regime, headed by Anwar Sadat, signed the Camp David Accords in September 1978. According to this agreement, the Jewish entity withdrew from Sinai, while remaining limited in its weapons as a buffer zone protecting the entity’s borders. It remains so to this day, despite the war of extermination waged by the criminal entity in Gaza on the Sinai borders!
3- Then America moved to the northern front, ordering the Jewish entity to invade Lebanon in 1982 to expel the Palestine Liberation Organization from there and force it to recognize the Jewish entity and conclude a peace agreement with it. The head of the organization, Yasser Arafat, signed this on 25/7/1982, in what became known as the McCloskey Document, in which he said: “The organization now recognizes Israel’s right to exist.” In 1988, Arafat announced at the Palestinian National Conference held in Algeria, as well as in a meeting before the United Nations in New York, his acceptance of the establishment of a Palestinian state. Then Britain and its agent, the King of Jordan, agreed to disengage from the West Bank in this year.
4- After that, America held the Madrid Conference in 1991 to proceed with the implementation of its two-state solution project. Then, the Oslo Accords were concluded between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Jewish entity in 1993, for the organization to officially recognize the Jewish entity. Also, the Wadi Araba Agreement (26/10/1994) was concluded between the entity and Jordan, for Jordan to give up the West Bank that was part of it, and then announce its recognition of the Jewish entity. America rose and contained the two agreements to implement its two-state solution project. After the end of Bush’s two terms at the end of 2008, Obama came to power in Washington. He requested direct negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and the Jewish entity under American sponsorship on 2/9/2010, hoping that within a year the two-state solution would be implemented. However, the negotiations ended without reaching an agreement.
5- After Obama’s two terms at the end of 2016, Trump came to power in early 2017 and continued his first term, then lost in the elections. Biden succeeded him in early 2021. After the end of Biden’s term, Trump won again and became president in early 2025.
In these two periods—the Trump and Biden periods—a different approach emerged from previous American presidents. Since America announced its approach to the two-state solution, previous presidents had mentioned the solution without going into the details of a Palestinian state. Shortsighted people assumed that the Palestinians would be given a sovereign state in part of Palestine. When Trump and Biden came to power, they delved into some details, stating that what the Palestinians would be given is a demilitarized state, similar to limited, powerless autonomy, dominated by Jews, with some differences between them in the strength and ambiguity of their statements. Here, the questions arose: Has America’s two-state solution project ended, or has it not ended and is still continues? It is worth mentioning that the statement of the Jews about Palestine has no weight except with a rope (help) from the people (America). The American statement is the subject of the discussion:
6- A careful examination of the issue reveals the following:
A- We previously answered a Question and Answer dated 23/2/2017, regarding the two-state solution after Trump began his first term in office, which stated:
[(1- The text of President Trump’s statements as was reported in all the world and local media and as was broadcasted live, as follows:
“American President Donald Trump has written on Wednesday a new perspective in US policy towards the Middle East after he confirmed that the two-state solution is not the only way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, pointing out that he was open to alternative options if they lead to peace. All the former American presidents have defended the two-state solution, whether Republicans or Democrats” (France 24 website, 16/2/2017) and Trump said, “I look at the two-state solution and the one state solution (…) if Israel and the Palestinians were happy, I would be happy with (the solution) they prefer, both solutions suit me” (Aljazeera Live website, 16/2/2017), the resolution of a single state mentioned by America for the first time through Trump, he did not illustrate, does it means giving self-autonomy to the Palestinians inside the one Jewish state?! Or does it mean a secular state that the Palestinians share in the management of the Jewish state, which is similar to the English project introduced by Britain in 1939 when it brought out the White Book on Lebanon’s formula? Note that the two-state solution is the same American project introduced since 1959, the era of Republican President Eisenhower and it made the so-called international community accept and it discarded the one-state solution introduced by Britain. Whatever the case, what appears from analysing these statements and its indications is that America has not abandoned its two-state solution; the American ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley confirmed this, saying: “First and foremost, the two-state solution is what we support. Anyone who says that the United States does not support a two-state solution would be mistaken … certainly we support the two-state solution, but we also think outside the box … which is needed to attract the two sides to the table, which is what we need in order to make them agree.” (Reuters, 16/02/2017).
This confirms that Trump did not abandon the two-state solution, which is the US State policy since 1959, but he wanted to try another way to put pressure, as his ambassador said (certainly we support the two-state solution, but we also think outside the box …) that it is by considering the use of other methods.] END QUOTE.
B- Trump’s (Republican) statements supporting the Jews accelerated during his first and second terms in office:
* US President Donald Trump announced the United States’ recognition of Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as the capital of “Israel.” Trump also affirmed that the United States supports the two-state solution if it is approved by the Israelis and Palestinians. (BBC, 6/12/2017)
* US President Trump said on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meetings,believes a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would “work best,” adding, “It is a dream of mine to be able to get that done prior to the end of my first term.” (BBC, 26/9/2018)
* US President Trump said,“When you look at the map, a map of the Middle East, Israel is a tiny little spot compared to these giant land masses. I actually said: ‘Is there any way of getting more? It is tiny…” (Sky News, 19/8/2024).
* Earlier, US President Donald Trump reiterated his plan for the United States to control Gaza and deport Palestinians from it, saying he was “committed to buying and owning Gaza…” (BBC, 10/2/2025). Then, ten days later, he declared, “He would not impose a plan to deport Palestinians from Gaza, but rather ‘propose it’…” (CNN, 21/2/2025). This is manipulating words!
C- On the other hand, Biden’s (Democrat) statements have sometimes gone beyond Trump’s in support of the Jews:
* When Trump lost the elections and was replaced by Biden at the beginning of 2021, America returned to talking about establishing a Palestinian state in some form, without specifying how or where. US President Joe Biden stated to reporters on 3/9/2024, “There are several models for a two-state solution, noting that several countries in the United Nations do not have their own armed forces.” Biden is referring to a state for the Palestinians of one of those types, without armed forces, i.e., self-rule or something similar!
* When US President Biden visited Tel Aviv on 18/10/2023, following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, he met with officials there and said: “Israel must again be a safe place for the Jewish people. If there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one.” (Al Jazeera, 18/10/2023).
* In a speech he delivered at the White House during the celebration of the Jewish Festival of Lights (Hanukkah), Biden said: “You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist.” (Asharq Al-Awsat, 12/12/2023).
7- By contemplating the previous Question and Answer, as well as these statements and positions, it becomes clear that there is no major difference between the positions of Trump and Biden except in some methods that do not change the essence of the issue at all…The United States is the one that is managing this issue on the basis of two states: a state for the Jews in most of Palestine, which it supports financially, militarily, internationally, and even regionally through its agents and followers among the rulers in the Muslim countries.. and a demilitarized (autonomous) state for the Palestinians in part of Palestine with Jewish hegemony over it!! Regardless of the desire of the “Palestinian Authority (PA) and the agent rulers” to call it a Palestinian state, this does not change anything of its reality, as America does not want it to be a sovereign state even over part of a part of Palestine, but rather more like self-rule without weapons except what is necessary for the police within the Jewish hegemony!! Two factors emerged during the presidential terms of Trump and Biden to consolidate a Jewish entity that confirm what we mentioned above, although they were more prominent during the Trump era, and they are:
The first: which is currently taking place today, is strengthening the Jewish entity and providing it with money and weapons so that it remains the major power that is militarily superior to all its surroundings.
The second: normalization, in what Trump called the Abraham Accords; which is the one that he achieved halfway through in his first term and now wants to complete. Therefore, American envoys are touring in the region not only to persuade Saudi Arabia to join the so-called Abraham Accords, but are also laying the groundwork and opening negotiations, which are currently underway between Syria and Lebanon and the Jewish entity. America wants to expand this process to include other agent rulers in the Muslim countries!
In conclusion, America did not abandon the two-state solution, but under Trump and Biden, it has declared the intended state of Palestine to be a kind of self-autonomy dominated by the Jews. Previous presidents, however, mentioned the two-state solution without delving into the nature of the state they envision for the Palestinians!
8- Finally, Palestine is a jewel in the history of the Muslims since Allah (swt) linked it with His Sacred House with one bond, when He took His Messenger (saw) from the Sacred Mosque to the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
[سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي أَسْرَى بِعَبْدِهِ لَيْلاً مِنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ الْأَقْصَى الَّذِي بَارَكْنَا حَوْلَهُ]
“Glory be to the One Who took His servant ˹Muḥammad˺ by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque whose surroundings We have blessed” [Al-Isra: 1]
And made it a good and blessed land. And he attracted the hearts of Muslims to the capital of Palestine (Bait ul Maqdis) by making it their first Qiblah before Allah gave the Muslims their second Qiblah (the sacred Ka’ba) sixteen months after the Hijra. That was before Palestine came under the rule of Islam when the second Caliph, Omar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), conquered it in the year 15 AH. He took it over from Sophronius and he gave him his famous covenant (the Omari Covenant), one of the texts, based on the request of the Christians there, was (that no Jews should live with them there). Then Palestine became a graveyard for the Crusaders and the Tatars. There were decisive battles with the Crusaders and the Tatars: Hattin (583 AH – 1187 CE), and Ain Jalut (658 AH – 1260 CE), and they will be followed, Allah willing, by other decisive battles with the Jews to restore Palestine pure and clean to the abode of Islam.
The continued existence of the Jewish entity in Palestine until today is not due to their strength, for they are not people of fighting and victory, but as Allah (swt) says:
[لَنْ يَضُرُّوكُمْ إِلَّا أَذًى وَإِنْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ يُوَلُّوكُمُ الْأَدْبَارَ ثُمَّ لَا يُنْصَرُونَ]
“They can never inflict harm on you, except a little annoyance. But if they meet you in battle, they will flee and they will have no helpers” [Aal-i-Imran: 111].
Their survival is due to the failure of the rulers in the Muslim countries. The Muslims’ misfortune lies in their rulers, for they are loyal to the kaffir colonialists, the enemies of Islam and Muslims. They see and hear about the Jews’ occupation of Palestine, their brutal crimes, and their various massacres, yet it is as if they neither see nor hear.
[صُمٌّ بُكْمٌ عُمْيٌ فَهُمْ لَا يَرْجِعُونَ]
“They are ˹wilfully˺ deaf, dumb, and blind, so they will never return ˹to the Right Path” [Al-Baqarah: 18]
They have prevented armies from supporting their brothers and sisters in Gaza until today, and the martyrs are multiplying and the wounded are increasing… and the rulers are watching what is happening, and the best of them is the one who counts the martyrs under the name of the dead and then counts the wounded as if he is a neutral party, although he is closer to the Jews! They are placing the “seats of power” above their country and their people! Even though, this Ummah is the best nation brought forth for humankind, it will not remain silent for long, Allah willing, regarding this tyrannical rule by these Ruwaibidha (insignificant ignorant (rulers)). the Messenger of Allah(saw) gave us the glad-tidings of the return of the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Caliphate) after this oppressive rule as stated in Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad and Al-Tayalisi on the authority of Hudhayfah ibn Al-Yaman: «… ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكاً جَبْرِيَّةً، فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةٌ عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ نُبُوَّةٍ»“…Then there will be oppressive rule (ملكًا جبرية) for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah on the method of Prophethood.’ Then he (saw) was silent.” Then Muslims will be honoured and the kuffar will be humiliated.
[وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ]
“And on that day the believers will rejoice * at the victory willed by Allah. He gives victory to whoever He wills. For He is the Almighty, Most Merciful” [Ar-Rum: 4-5]
The strange thing is that the Kuffar, especially the Jews, realize this more than many Muslims today. The Jews realize that the Khilafah will lead to their destruction. Their Prime Minister said in a press conference broadcast live by the media, including Al Jazeera, on 21/4/2025: “We will not allow the establishment of a Caliphate on the shores of the Mediterranean.” He added, “We will not accept the presence of a Caliphate state here or in Lebanon, and we will work to guarantee the security of Israel.”
Nonetheless, it will be established, Allah willing, against their will, and will remove them from this pure land, especially since Hizb ut Tahrir, the party devoted to Allah (swt) and true to the Messenger of Allah (saw), is the one leading the effort to establish the Khilafah with men who have been true to their covenant with Allah, and who are assured of Allah’s victory:
[وَاللّٰهُ غَالِبٌ عَلَى أَمرِهِ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ]
“Allah’s Will always prevails, but most people do not know” [Yusuf: 21]
10 Rabii’ Al-Awal 1447 AH
2/9/2025 CE -
Essentials of Political Understanding and Policymaking – Part 4
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Prerequisites for Political Understanding and Policymaking
The History of Nations, Their Characteristics, Alliances, and Conflicts
– Part 4 –
(Translated)https://www.al-waie.org/archives/article/19932
Al-Waie Magazine, Issue 469
Thirty-ninth Year, Safar 1447 AH, corresponding to August 2025 CE
Luqman Herzallah – PalestineWhen history is studied, the student must distinguish what benefits him from what does not. This distinction is made by linking the study of history, to the purpose for which it is studied. If one seeks literature and eloquence, he delves into the history of his nation’s writers. If one seeks entertainment, he engages in the myths of nations. If driven by curiosity, he pursues matters in history that have no answers. However, the politician does not take these paths. Instead, he proceeds in the direction dictated by his goal, the study of the politics, guardianship of the affairs, of yesterday.
History:
The history of nations, states, and leaders consists of reports about conditions that took place, related to managing affairs and changing situations. At the time, these were political events, and today they have become history. Studying the history of nations, states, and leaders is beneficial in many aspects. The history of leaders enlightens the insights of the active politician engaged in politics, as he reflects on the actions of leaders who changed the course of events, rescued their countries from crises, spared their nations from calamities, or elevated their nations to the ranks of global powers. This confirms to him that what is possible in politics is reality itself, and it is also what reality can become when handled by the hand of a politician.
The history of states benefits the politician by providing real experience of the development of the international balance of power, the emergence of international customs and laws, and the effective tools that have been used throughout time to enforce political orientations and achieve planned policies.
The study of the history of nations gives the politician insight into nations and peoples, their traits, and how events related to them are connected to the qualities carried by those nations.
Current leaders in the world often draw inspiration from historical leaders of their nations. The leaders of the Islamic Ummah derived their contributions from the Prophet (saw), from the Khulafaa’ Rashidun (Rightly-Guided Caliphs) after him—Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them)—and from Khulafaa’ (Caliphs) who excelled in caring for the Ummah and the state, such as Harun al-Rashid and Suleiman the Magnificent (may Allah have mercy on them).
In America, its leaders draw their determination and direction from the founding fathers who built America, preserved its unity, and established it to become the foremost state in the world, such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
In Russia, its leaders derive their vigor and even their political orientations from their historical figures like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great.
Thus, the study of history is essential for shaping role models for young leaders and motivating them to emulate their predecessors in contribution and capability.
What concerns us in our discussion here, is what can be gained from history in terms of political understanding and policy-making. Therefore, it is necessary for us to study the history of our Ummah and the history of the active nations in the world. This study requires focusing on the pivotal points in the history of nations, not on the entire detailed history of those nations. This must be approached as follows:
Firstly: A general study of the history of any nation from its inception, which leads to a clear picture of the characteristics that have accompanied this nation since its beginning. This is something that influences our view of that nation both in times of its rise and its decline. If a nation possesses the qualities of leadership, resilience, the fulfillment of its responsibilities, and the ability to bear responsibility for others, then that nation will not perish. If it stumbles, it will quickly return, gather its strength, and once again shape the world according to its own way.
However, if a nation possesses traits of wickedness, cunning, strong networking with others, or ease in winning friends and neutralizing enemies, then such a nation becomes a calamity for the world, bringing nothing but misery and war in pursuit of its own interests. If a people combine deceit with cowardice and a habit of intrigue, then that people becomes a source of unrest for any state that they control, and they must be prevented from taking any leadership position in any country that they can rule over, and so on.
Secondly: It is necessary to study the pivotal moments in the history of nations, that brought about fundamental changes in their course, as well as to study the state of the world at those turning points, when the change occurred in favor of the nation or against it. In this way, the politician understands the fluctuations of the international scenario, and foresees the rise of one nation and the decline of another.
For example, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was a pivotal moment in the history of the Islamic Ummah, followed by the sending of letters to the kings and emperors of the world. The battles of Qadisiyyah and Yarmouk were also pivotal in the state’s emergence onto the global stage, as was the conquest of Constantinople. Conversely, Peter the Great’s war against the Uthmani Khilafah (Ottoman Caliphate) in the region of the Sea of Azov, after he had established a port there to block sea supplies to the Crimean Tatars, was one of the decisive wars in the history of Tsarist Russia. Likewise, the American Revolution, which led to the birth of the United States of America, and the two World Wars, were also such turning points.
These junctures provide a picture of the international scenario, its transformations, the causes of its shifts, the reasons behind the weakening of some states and the strengthening of others, and the political intrigues and traps woven by some nations against others. History repeats itself, though each time in a different form.
Thirdly: It is necessary to study the dangers that surrounded nations, and the major wars waged against them, to identify their historical adversaries and the vulnerabilities through which they were breached in their wars.
Russia views Europe as nothing but an enemy, and this is historically confirmed: Europe invaded Russia significantly three times, the Great Northern War led by the Kingdom of Sweden, the Battle of Borodino led by Napoleon, and when Hitler invaded them during World War II. This highlights the fact that Russia was invaded all three times through its western gateway, which made the protection of its western frontier a matter of life and death. For this reason, Russia took an extremely fierce stance when Ukraine requested NATO membership, a move encouraged by America to ignite this hotspot, which indeed erupted in 2022.
Fourthly: It is necessary to study recent history, due to its connection with current issues, by examining the political projects undertaken by states and whether they are still pursuing them or have abandoned them due to failure or success.
If the history of a given issue, around which current events are unfolding, is not known, then any analysis of the present circumstances without looking into its history is incomplete. The different dimensions of the issue cannot be fully revealed without understanding its past. For example, when examining the Palestinian issue, one must know its history from the time it was targeted by the British, through its occupation, to its being handed over to the Jews, and the granting of authority over parts of it to Jordan and Egypt. Then come the related projects of a one-state or two-state solution, the relationship between the Jews and Jordan, the Jewish view of Jordan throughout the issue’s history, and the plans drawn up by the Americans to reach the two-state solution, starting with encouraging the partition of Palestine into two states in 1950, then adopting the two-state project in 1959, then steering the Oslo Accords of 1993 to their advantage, leading up to the Deal of the Century in 2020. This also includes the shift from the Arab Peace Initiative to normalization and then “peace,” the changes in Jewish orientations between Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the shifts in Jewish loyalties between Britain and America, America’s eventual control of the entire stage, and the division within the two American parties, with each supporting different factions among the Jews. Thus, whenever a new event occurs, its context becomes understandable.
It is also necessary to observe a very important matter: history is a mixture of events and facts. There are events that happened to a nation or state tied to specific circumstances, and there are historical facts independent of circumstances. One must adopt the facts, and set aside the events tied to temporary conditions. For example, the Islamic Ummah is not a bloodthirsty nation, even if in its history blood was shed due to domestic disputes. Looking closely at those disputes, their roots are found in circumstances that arose, or in external groups that confused the Ummah while it was off guard. An example of this is the events with the Khawarij, the establishment of the Fatimid State, and the Qarmatians’ control of the Sacred Masjid. However, these did not take the history of the Ummah out of its true context, namely, carrying the responsibility of spreading its ideology to the world. The Ummah remained on this course until its state was brought down, and now it has returned to work for the rebuilding of its state once again.
So, the event tied to circumstances was the bloodshed in the Ummah’s disputes, and this is not to be taken as its essence. The historical fact is the Ummah’s responsibility to spread its ideology, and this is what must be taken.
Thus, forming a historical picture of the active nations and those that were, or could become, active is essential for the politician whether he seeks to engage in political understanding or in shaping policies.
The characteristics of peoples
The study of the characteristics of peoples is essential for political analysis, as well as for those formulating policies related to a people or a nation.
The policies decided by political leaders in a given country are not separate from the traits they carry, and these traits stem from the nature of the people from whom they emerge. The choice of objectives is inseparable from the characteristics of peoples: a people aspiring to dominance over others will choose different goals than a people concerned only with themselves, whilst a people who feel responsible for others will adopt political objectives, unlike those whose nature is selfishness.
The characteristics of peoples influence the plans and methods employed to reach a goal. A people that detests injustice will not follow the same course as a people accustomed to it, even if both peoples are pursuing the same objective.
The policy drawn by the leading state in the world, toward peoples and nations, must take into account the characteristics of those peoples. For example, the expansion of the Islamic state into Al-Sham and Africa involved a military form, while Islam reached Indonesia and spread widely there through Muslim traders without war. Thus, if a state employs the same approach toward two different peoples without considering their natures, it will not achieve the same results with both, and may even face failure.
Similarly, there is a difference between the German people and the Afghan people: America occupied Germany for many years, yet the Germans never even threw a single stone at them. However, when America occupied Afghanistan, it found no peace until it withdrew after twenty years in a humiliating manner. Therefore, a policymaker must take into account the characteristics of peoples when devising policies concerning them.
The Messenger of Allah (saw) teaches us this. When Quraysh sent negotiators to him at Hudaybiyyah, he adopted a different approach for each one according to what suited him. When Quraysh sent the Ahabeesh, led by Hulays ibn Alqamah al-Kinani, the chief of the Ahabeesh who were allies of Quraysh, the Prophet (saw) said,
«إن هذا من قومٍ يتألّهون، فابعثوا الهدي في وجهه حتى يراه»
“This man is from a people who revere the sacred. Send the sacrificial animals to pass in front of him so that he may see them.” When Hulays saw the sacrificial animals flowing toward him in their garlands, their hair worn out from long restraint away from their place of sacrifice, he was deeply moved and returned to Quraysh without meeting the Prophet (saw), out of reverence for what he had witnessed. He told them what he saw, but they said to him, “Sit down, you are just a Bedouin and have no knowledge.” At this, Hulays became angry and said, “O people of Quraysh, by Allah, this is not what we pledged to you, nor what we agreed upon with you! Is one who comes to honor the House of Allah to be turned away from it? By Him in whose hand is Hulays’s soul, you will either let Muhammad proceed with what he came for, or I will march with the Ahabeesh against you as one man!” [Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Hisham].
The characteristics of peoples can be discerned by tracing their history. What is meant is not a detailed reading of their history, but rather looking at the pivotal moments within it, and that is sufficient.
It is necessary to examine the history of their rise, the history of their decline, their dealings with their enemies, as well as their response to crises that befall them. From studying these stages, general characteristics of these peoples can be derived.
The characteristics of peoples can also be discerned from the nature of their lands. Peoples who live in regions open to the seas, trade routes, transportation, and fishing develop traits that suit the nature of their land and their common occupation. For this reason, the English were among the most capable peoples in dealing with others and communicating with them, and among the most cunning and deceitful.
By contrast, the Arabs lived in harsh lands, between deserts and high mountains. Their life was difficult, their food dry, and they were unbothered by hardship in their living. In fact, the vastness of their deserts broadened their horizons, so Allah (swt) guided them to trade as a way out of their difficult livelihood. Thus, they combined the ability to connect with others with the strength of their toughness. They did not take to hypocrisy nor did they like lying.
The Prophet (saw) described their traits when he left the gathering of Banu Shayban after asking them for support, saying,
«يا أبا بكر أية أخلاق في الجاهلية ما أشرفها بها يدفع الله عز وجل بأس بعضهم عن بعض، وبها يتحاجزون فيما بينهم»
“O Abu Bakr, what noble morals in the Days of Ignorance! By them Allah (swt) repels the violence of some of them against others, and by them they restrain themselves among one another.” [Dala’il al-Nubuwwah, Al-Bayhaqi].
Thus, the nature of the land and its common occupation are among the causes of a people’s collective traits, and history bears witness to this.
Agreement and Conflict
Historically, communities and later states did not live isolated from one another. If this was not the case for communities and states in the past, then it is even more evident today that states cannot live in isolation from others, especially those that have a motive to engage with the outside world.
We exclude from this discussion those tribes and groups that still live in remote jungles, even though they themselves are not completely isolated from their surroundings, as they wage wars and secure interests among neighboring tribes. However, they are excluded on the grounds that they have no influence whatsoever on the international arena.
The states of this world are either influential or influenced. Therefore, any community that decides to withdraw from the world will inevitably be affected by the ambitions of those states that choose to be influential.
The states of the world engage with others either out of a drive for dominance or a drive for colonialism. The drive for dominance may stem from the desire for the supremacy of race, the supremacy of nation, or the supremacy of an ideology, all of which fall under this framework. The drive for colonialism encompasses every form of exploitation of other states’ resources and wealth, whether through military occupation or through political or economic agreements.
These two drives push the players on the international stage toward either conflict or agreement. The drive for racial supremacy was Hitler’s tool in rallying the Aryan race to wage wars for control over Europe. Although he moved toward Denmark and Norway to secure the iron shipments coming from Sweden, the broader direction he displayed was driven by the superiority of his race, and thus, this drive led toward conflict.
As for the Islamic state, it swept across lands, opening them up, driven by the supremacy of its ideology, Islam, without regard to wealth or resources. The conquest of Egypt and Al-Sham was carried out in the same manner as the conquest of the poor lands of the Arabian Peninsula.
The drive for supremacy cannot reconcile with the drive for supremacy of another, except through temporary truces, after which it resumes working for the dominance of its principle, race, or nation.
As for the drive of colonialism, it is a vile motive that pushes the strong to consume the weak by humiliating and even enslaving them, in order to exploit the resources of their land for the benefit of their enemy. For this reason, the Western capitalist states prioritized conflict for the sake of colonialism above every other motive during the period in which they colonialized the Islamic world and Africa.
It reached the point where France colonialised Niger and employed Nigerien children to extract uranium from its mines, which was then shipped to France to fuel its nuclear reactors that light up France with electricity, while the people of Niger died in the mines and had no light when night fell upon them.
The drive of colonialism was also what drove King Leopold II of Belgium, who controlled the African Congo, to cause the death of ten million Africans, not to mention the slave trade, which was treated as a commodity by Europeans in past times.
Conflict arises between those driven by motives of dominance. Two countries then clash in a struggle that sweeps across their borders and pushes them into a state of actual war, until one side yields and surrenders, and the stronger prevails in dominance over both countries.
However, since nationalistic borders were sanctified, this type of conflict has become internationally condemned. Thus, states resorted to circumventing this international stance through popular referendums. For instance, in Austria there was already popular sentiment in favor of unification with Germany, before the Anschluss process (Anschluß Österreichs) that annexed Austria to Germany. Likewise, Russia encouraged separatist movements in eastern Ukraine, then recognized the separatist republics, Donetsk and Luhansk. These republics then requested Russia’s protection against Ukrainian aggression, and this staging was important for Russia, so as not to appear in violation of international law.
Conflict also occurs among those with the same orientation, stemming from a state’s drive for dominance within its own sphere and, consequently, in the world, as well as from competition over resources. The Western capitalist states clashed violently in Muslim lands, leading America to pull the rug out from under England’s feet in its former colonies by igniting regions and eliminating agents. For example, America set Yemen ablaze through the strikes led by “Saudi Arabia” against Yemen in 2015, thereby providing the Houthis who at that time aligned with America an opportunity to enter the political arena in Yemen and to pull the rug out from under Ali Abdullah Saleh and those who stood behind him after his assassination.
Indeed, America ignited Iraq in order to end its subordination to England and to take control of its resources.
On the other hand, the same interests that drive states into conflict also drive them into agreement. In 1961, America saw it in its interest to enter a phase of détente with the Soviet Union, in order to curb the ambitions of other major powers. However, once it had exhausted its benefit, it abandoned détente in 1979.
It is necessary to note the difference between conflict based on hostility and conflict based on competition. When the European states clash with America, their conflict is in the realm of competition over the spoils of the world, since Europe sees that it and America share the same values and civilizational orientation, and that America is in fact the offspring of Europe. Thus, they form a single front, unifying against others while competing among themselves.
In contrast, the conflict between Russia and Europe is not driven by competition, but by hostility and this hostility is historical between these two fronts.
The study of conflict and agreement is only necessary with regard to the states that are active in the world, or issues connected to them. It is also necessary for nations and peoples that possess the elements required to become major powers. As for others, examining them is of no importance at all.
Historically, conflict and agreement have driven states to agree upon customs, and then laws respected by all. They have also driven states to form alliances and hold international conferences.
(To be continued…)
