-
Political Statements and Political Analysis
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Political Statements and Political Analysis
(Translated)The news necessary for analysis in general is the foundation of political thinking. In fact, it is the daily bread of politicians. Without it, politics cannot be understood, political analysis cannot exist, events cannot be discerned, and their purposes remain unknown.
The Islamic Ummah has long suffered from misinformation in political statements. This is so much so that it has lost vast regions due to the misinterpretation of such statements. The Uthmani Khilafah (Ottoman Caliphate), for instance, lost the Balkans not because of military weakness, but due to malicious and misleading political statements. Britain and its European allies manufactured the Balkan crisis out of nothing, solely through statements. They deceived the Ottomans into believing that sweeping popular uprisings were taking place in the Balkan states, demanding independence and secession. This is even though these claims had no real basis on the ground. There were neither uprisings, nor even demands for independence and secession. Yet the repeated dissemination of these statements convinced the Ottomans that powerful separatist movements were indeed active in the region. The state swallowed the bait and began to act accordingly, which led to its exhaustion and overextension. Eventually, nationalist movements did in fact spread and fill the region, even reaching the very heart of the state. This ultimately led to the complete secession of the Balkans and later, to the fall of the Uthmani Khilafah (Ottoman Caliphate) itself.
To begin with, and in order to understand the importance of political statements in political analysis, it is essential to know the five key components of political analysis:
1- A political analyst must first follow-up on the events and incidents occurring in all countries around the world, gather news about them, and sort them based on importance and relevance, distinguishing between what is coincidental and what is intentional. With continued monitoring, experience, and the passage of time, this follow-up becomes expert. The analyst then develops the ability to select what is most important, and what is deliberate and significant.
2- The analyst needs prior foundational knowledge about the nature of events, incidents, places, people, and statements such as geographical, historical, political, and ideological information, in order to accurately grasp and deeply understand those events, incidents, and news reports.
3- As the analyst seeks to issue political judgments, it is essential that they adhere to two inseparable, and interconnected, principles:
a) Not isolating events from their circumstances, contextualization, and related factors, because separating events from what surrounds, and relates to, them strips them of their value, and detaches them from reality.
b) Avoiding generalization and sweeping comparisons, because generalization and analogical reasoning have no place in politics. In fact, they are a plague upon politicians, and among the most significant indicators of failure in political analysis.
4- Scrutinizing news and events involves, first, verifying their authenticity through reliable sources; second, linking them to the time they occurred; third, examining them within the context of the situation in which they took place; fourth, understanding the intended purpose behind their timing; and fifth, observing the immediate reactions to them, from all relevant and active parties.
5- Connecting the event, or news, to previously available information about it. Then linking the event to relevant analytical frameworks applicable to it and similar news. Finally issuing a judgment that is believed to be the closest to accuracy, and most consistent with reality.
The failure to adhere to these components in political analysis, and the improper handling of the massive volume of statements and news flooding today’s media and online social networks, along with the malicious methods used to shape and direct them, inevitably leads to a dangerous informational and political maze. This maze confuses minds, misleads intellects, diverts understanding from clarity, and steers thought away from sound judgment. The logical consequence is the occurrence of deadly political mistakes that mislead analysts in reaching accurate conclusions, causing them to fall into the traps of international intelligence agencies. This, in turn, has a devastating negative impact on the Ummah and on those striving for its revival.
Therefore, it is essential to adhere to these components most importantly, to closely monitor the flood of information related to events, to exercise caution when dealing with political statements issued by politicians in major and influential countries, and to make an effort to understand the intent behind these statements, before beginning to analyze them and before linking them to the established political frameworks known to us.
For example, American politicians issued statements suggesting that war with Iran was imminent. These were accompanied by the deployment of US aircraft carriers to the Middle East, along with shipments of multi-purpose missiles and weapons. At the same time, attention was drawn to the American-British base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, emphasizing that it is beyond the reach of Iranian missiles, and that it would play a major role in the upcoming war. These reports and events created an atmosphere of war and gave the impression that it was near. Then, suddenly, contradictory news emerged about direct negotiations taking place in Oman between American envoys to the Middle East, and Iranian officials. It was announced that the first round of talks had concluded with positive impressions, as if all the war-related information had merely been a natural prelude to launching a long series of negotiations between the two countries.
Likewise, information continues to pour in about the ongoing war by the Jews against the Gaza Strip, portraying that the people of Gaza have no options but displacement or death, and insisting on the need to surrender the weapons of the resistance and for its leaders to leave. Then, news emerges about the near success of negotiations sponsored by the United States. The same America that calls for turning Gaza into real estate projects now claims it will guarantee Hamas that the Jewish entity will commit to moving on to the second phase of negotiations, supposedly including an end to the war and a withdrawal from Gaza.
If political analysts had taken the politicians statements at face value the first time and built their analyses upon them, their conclusions would have been entirely contrary to reality. They would have fallen victim to deception in dealing with those waves of contradictory statements.
Therefore, before beginning any analysis, it is essential to wait patiently and carefully when receiving political statements. Only afterward should one move on to scrutiny, contextualized linkage, avoiding isolation of events, and refraining from generalizations.
-
Media is a Pillar from the States’ Pillars
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمMedia is a Pillar from the States’ Pillars
(Translated)Media has always had a clear impact on shaping public awareness, and directing it in a way that pleases the state. It has been instrumental in forming public opinion around particular issues, or thoughts either to highlight or oppose them. In Jahiliyyah Arab society, poetry served as a powerful and prestigious form of media. Leading poets held high social standing, due to their influence, and were sought after by some, and feared by others. As an example, a poet said,
كم خامل سما به إلى العلا، بيت مديح من بليغ ذلق “How many an indolent person has been elevated to the heights, by a house of praise from an eloquent and fluent poet.”
مثل بني الأنف ومثل هرم، وكالذي يعرف بالمحلق “Like the sons of Al-Anf and the pyramid, and the one known as Al-Muhallaq.”
وكم وكم حط الهجا من ماجد، ذي رتبة قعساً وقدرٍ سمق “And how many a noble person of high rank, and lofty stature has satire struck down.”
مثل الرَّبيع وبني العجلان، مع بني نمير جَمَرَات الحَدَق “Such as Al-Rabi’ and the sons of Al-Ajlan, with the sons of Namir, are but embers in the gaze.”
This poetic excerpt illustrates how eloquent praise can elevate someone of low status to great heights, like the examples of Banu Al-Anf and Al-Muhallaq, and how harsh satire can disgrace the noble, such as Al-Rabi’ and Banu Al-Ajlan. It reflects the immense influence of poetry in Arab culture, capable of both raising and ruining reputations.
The Arabs greatly revered tribal affiliation, and few among them would not take pride in their lineage, unless a shame or disgrace was associated with it, such as occurred with Banu al-Anf al-Naqa. However, even they were elevated in status, when praised by a poet, and thus rose in esteem.
قوم هم الأنف والأذناب غيرهم، ومن يسوي بأنف الناقة الذنبَ “They are Al-Anf, the nose, while others are merely tails, and who can compare the nose of a she-camel to its tail?”
This verse praises a once-ridiculed tribe.
Or as Jarir mentioned about Namir, which was a source of pride for those who claimed to be related to it, and he said,
فغض الطرف إنك من نمير، فلا كعباً بلغت ولا كلاباً “Lower your gaze for you are from Namir, you have not surpassed neither the tribe of Ka‘b nor dogs.”
Before Islam, Arab leaders had their poets, who would glorify their deeds, power, and authority through praise in poetry, while vilifying, belittling, and weakening their enemies through satire. Their poetry would spread among the people, which was exactly what the leaders desired. As a result, kings and leaders would honor these poets greatly, in a manner befitting their actions.
Hassan ibn Thabit was one of them. Hassan used to visit the Ghassanid kings, benefiting them with his poetry and benefiting himself from their wealth. However, when Islam came, he placed his poetry at the service of the Messenger of Allah (saw), using it to defend Islam, spread its risaalah (message), and satirize its enemies.
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said,
«اهْجُوا قُرَيْشًا فَإِنَّهُ أَشَدُّ عَلَيْهَا مِنْ رَشْقٍ بِالنَّبْلِ» “Satirize Quraysh, for it is more severe for them than arrows being shot.” So he sent for Ibn Rawahah and said, «اهْجُهُمْ» “Satirize them.” He did, but the Prophet (saw) was not satisfied. Then he sent for Ka‘b ibn Malik, but again was not satisfied. Then he sent for Hassan ibn Thabit. When Hassan entered, he said, “It is time for you to call upon this lion who strikes with even his tail!” Then he stuck out his tongue and began to move it, and said, “By the One who sent you with the truth, I will tear them apart with my tongue just as leather is torn.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said,
«لاَ تَعْجَلْ فَإِنَّ أَبَا بَكْرٍ أَعْلَمُ قُرَيْشٍ بِأَنْسَابِهَا وَإِنَّ لِي فِيهِمْ نَسَبًا حَتَّى يُلَخِّصَ لَكَ نَسَبِي» “Do not rush. Abu Bakr knows the genealogies of Quraysh better than anyone, and I have lineage among them. So have him clarify my lineage for you.” Hassan went to Abu Bakr (ra) and then returned, saying, “O Messenger of Allah, he has clarified your lineage for me. By the One who sent you with the truth, I will extract you from them as a hair is pulled from dough.” Aishah (ra) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say to Hassan, «إِنَّ رُوحَ الْقُدُسِ لاَ يَزَالُ يُؤَيِّدُكَ مَا نَافَحْتَ عَنِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ» “Ruh al-Qudus will continue to support you as long as you defend Allah and His Messenger.” She also said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say, «هَجَاهُمْ حَسَّانُ فَشَفَى وَاشْتَفَى» “Hassan satirized them, and he brought healing and satisfaction.” Narrated by Muslim.
The Messenger of Allah (saw) ordered the killing of certain disbelievers who composed poetry, because of the influence they had on people, against the Muslims. Among them were Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf, and two female singers in Makkah, on the day of the Conquest, whom the Prophet (saw) commanded to be killed.
In our time, we are surrounded by the rapid advancement of technology. At the beginning of this era of modern technology, media consisted mainly of official state outlets, where each country had its own radio stations, television channels, and newspapers, whether fully official, or semi-official. However, as times changed, and the need arose for so-called independent media, often sponsored by states. Then, came the rise of social media, a powerful form of media that is unrestrained by any regulation, though at times deliberately manipulated. States are now faced with the challenge of trying to control this vast and complex landscape of media outlets.
In the Muslim World, most states have adopted a similar approach. It is is keeping government-run media alive in the face of strong competition from satellite channels, and social media platforms. There is no doubt that state-run media has become severely weakened, or appears weak in this competition. There was a time in the past when it was virtually the only media source available to the public, and it was strong for that very reason. It was the sole, or nearly sole, option for viewers, listeners and readers.
Today, these states, while still maintaining their official media institutions, are well aware that such outlets will never surpass a certain ceiling of influence over the public, and that ceiling is quite low. This is because those in power know full well that the competition is fierce, and that government media is plagued by stagnation, bureaucratic complexity, financial and administrative corruption, and a declining level of public trust in the rulers of these countries.
The next step was to launch so-called independent media outlets, through new laws that allowed a limited margin of media activity, involving figures from within the political medium, and others. These media outlets were secretly tied to the state in ways the public could not see, while being given a certain degree of freedom in their media work, which was enough to make them appear entirely different from official state media, in the eyes of the people.
Thus, if it is a news outlet, its news broadcasts would show less focus on the actions of the president and the government, compared to the official state media. Its programs would be bolder, its guests more diverse, and its reporters more professional, and open to a wider range of information sources. If it is an entertainment or variety outlet, it would be more liberal or rather, looser in moral boundaries in its talk shows, the personalities it hosts, and the dramas, songs, and movies it promotes through commercial advertisements. If it is a religious outlet, it presents a conservative image of religion, whether through its hosts, its content, its guests, or the pre-prepared material it broadcasts, whether that material is documentary, narrative, or entertainment in nature.
Regardless of the type or style of these media outlets, they aim to make certain individuals within the institution become well-known, even beyond the channel itself, whether through being hosted by regional or international networks, participating in media forums or festivals, preferably as speakers, or through other means of gaining fame. This, in turn, increases their acceptance and popularity among the local public.
Regardless of the type or style of the media outlet, its personnel are those who are content with the ruling system in the country, even if some of them claim dissatisfaction with the performance of those in power. Nevertheless, all of them are fundamentally satisfied with the system itself, and do not think beyond its framework. So it should come as no surprise if we learn that certain state agencies maintain close contact with all these media outlets, in order to regulate their output in a way that serves the state’s overall direction.
If one of these states succeeds in pushing this media sector to operate on a regional level, so that its audience extends beyond the country itself to the entire region, then that state has achieved a significant breakthrough, that is recognized on the regional stage. It also secures for itself a regional standing in the eyes of its patrons in the West.
What remains is the role of social media, which has entered every home, and become the focus of everyone’s attention. It has captured the interest of the general public on a massive scale, and as a result, every entity seeking to influence people has turned its attention to it creating platforms, influencers, YouTubers, pages, and more. Among these entities are the regimes that rule the countries. These regimes have gone beyond merely using social media as direct tools of influence. They have extended their reach to connect with other active platforms as well, ensuring that no content directed at the public strays from the regime’s overall policy of shaping public awareness.
However, social media contains security loopholes, that are difficult for regimes to control, and these fall into two main areas:
The first area concerns groups that are neither supporters, nor traditional opponents, of the regime. Instead they are groups that reject the regime’s very existence and work to overthrow it. The regimes are unable to control the content these groups produce for the public, as part of their influence aims to dismantle the collective awareness being shaped by the ruling states, whilst building a new direction in public awareness. Therefore, the main effort made by governments to counter the influence of these platforms has been to block their websites, though this has had only a limited effect.
The second area is that of the personal pages and accounts of individuals. On these platforms, people express what’s on their minds, and among them are individuals who follow those groups that reject the legitimacy of the current ruling regimes. The general public has become increasingly bold in speaking, and writing, on their pages, which has posed a major challenge to these regimes. In response, the states have taken security measures to intimidate the public, in the hope of closing this gap in the media sphere. These measures include enacting cybercrime laws, conducting security surveillance, and other forms of crackdowns.
Through all these measures, and their connections with media outlets and influential social media pages, the regimes in our countries have built a cohesive media system. The media system is aimed at controlling the direction of public awareness, steering people’s emotions in a way that protects the regimes during times of crisis, promoting a specific culture that serves the ruling authorities, and ensures their continued dominance, and combating any other culture they perceive as a threat to their rule, among other objectives.
The impact of this media system became evident during the Gaza War, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, when media outlets split into two distinct camps:
One camp supported the actions of the resistance in Gaza, or leaned toward it, in its coverage, while the other camp adopted an opposing viewpoint, even if indirectly. The public’s rejection of the second camp led them to gravitate toward the first camp, whether those media outlets were local or regional. However, both camps, especially the, first worked on a specific portrayal.
It was portraying the military efforts of the mujahideen in Gaza as a powerful force, capable of standing up to the military might of the Jews, needing only supporting fronts to distract the enemy, without directly entering into war. This is despite the fact that the Jews threw their full military weight into the war on Gaza, calling upon the support of the US, Europe, and regional and non-regional regimes, who backed them with equipment, supplies, and even manpower at times.
As a result, viewers came to expect a decisive victory from the people of Gaza, and a crushing defeat of the Jewish army on the battlefield. However, as the war dragged on, and the killing and destruction increased, a sense of despair began to creep into people’s hearts.
People’s minds and emotions were then redirected to believe that Gaza’s need was purely humanitarian, not military. As a result, public attention became fixated on scenes of destruction, images of tents, displacement, starvation, and the bodies of martyrs left in the streets. The emotional impact on people was immense, as their compassion was genuine. The media skillfully steered these emotions toward calls for humanitarian aid, aid that would only reach Gaza with the approval and permission of the very criminals responsible for the genocide.
People were also directed to offer Dua for Gaza, rather than to send what would truly repel the harm of the Jews and their allies, the armies. Thus, these media outlets led the public toward treating the symptoms of the crisis, rather than addressing its root causes.
These media outlets diverted the people from calling for the mobilization of armies in support of the people of Palestine, even though the crisis in Palestine is, at its core, a military crisis. It would have been more appropriate, and necessary, for those specialized in such matters, namely the military forces in the region, to intervene. However, this was not what the tsars of these media outlets, nor the regimes backing them, wanted. In fact, this course of action was strictly forbidden, even though it had strong popular support at the beginning of the war.
Social media pages, run by individuals and groups dissatisfied with the existence of these regimes, played a significant role in calling for military intervention in the Gaza war. However, with the help of their tightly controlled media systems, these regimes succeeded in diverting the public away from this option.
These media outlets also played a role in attaching people’s hopes to political solutions being promoted, and to the delegations that came and went throughout the region, in the hope that they might bring an end to the suffering in Gaza and provide relief. As a result, the criminal, oppressive leaders of certain regional states were given status and importance. People forgot the truth, which is that no real relief can come from an oppressor who aids your enemy against you, and that true relief only comes by following the commands of Allah (swt) in resolving crises.
Throughout the war, people turned to Allah in Dua, yet the oppressors and their media convinced them to wait for relief to come from the political delegations of Qatar, Egypt, America, and others like them.
The public’s reliance on media during the Gaza war was evident, and their engagement with social media was intense, especially with platforms that provided the most live footage and breaking news. The weakness of the official state media institutions was clearly exposed.
This is a highly valuable lesson for those working toward change in the region. The powerful impact of media on the public must not be overlooked. In the upcoming Islamic State, by Allah’s Permission, the official media institution must be given full freedom to operate under a new leadership, made up of politically aware individuals, with expertise in media. The institution must be restructured to serve the overarching goals of implementing and spreading the Dawah of Islam.
Likewise, other media outlets operating under the authority of the newly established Islamic State must be reorganized in accordance with the Islamic system. They must be informed of the state’s public policies, media regulations, and the public image the society is expected to present. At the same time, constant surveillance over these outlets must be lifted, and direct communication between media and state agencies especially security agencies, must be avoided. However, there must be strict adherence to the Shariah Laws and firm commitment to the general policy of the Islamic State.
The Middle East is experiencing great turmoil. We ask Allah (swt) that it be resolved with the establishment of the great Islamic State, the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Caliphate), and that He (swt) supports those who will lead it. Every aspect of people’s lives is in need of recalibration, including the media.
-
The Believer’s Need for Steadfastness
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
The Believer’s Need for Steadfastness
(Translated)Allah (swt) said,
[يُثَبِّتُ ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ بِٱلۡقَوۡلِ ٱلثَّابِتِ فِي ٱلۡحَيَوٰةِ ٱلدُّنۡيَا وَفِي ٱلۡأٓخِرَةِۖ وَيُضِلُّ ٱللَّهُ ٱلظَّٰلِمِينَۚ وَيَفۡعَلُ ٱللَّهُ مَا يَشَآءُ]
“Allah keeps firm those who believe, with the firm word (al-qawl ath-thaabit), in the worldly life and in the Hereafter. And Allah sends astray the wrongdoers. And Allah does what He wills.” [TMQ Surah Ibrahim: 27]
The noble ayah contains three sentences. In the Arabic language, it is known that a sentence is a set of words that carries a meaning and expresses a thought. Thought is a judgment about a reality, and it becomes a concept for a person, when they understand the reality of the thought and believe it.
Thus, the Quranic verse contains three concepts that a Muslim is required to adopt: 1. Allah’s (swt) granting of steadfastness to the believers with the firm word (al-Qawl ath-Thabit) in this worldly life and in the Hereafter 2. Allah’s (swt) leading the wrongdoers astray. 3. Allah (swt) does whatever He wills.
Regarding the first concept in the first sentence, Ibn Ashur says, وَالْقَوْلُ، الْكَلَامُ. وَالثَّابِتُ الصَّادِقُ الَّذِي لَا شَكَّ فِيهِ. وَالْمُرَادُ بِهِ أَقْوَالُ الْقُرْآنِ لِأَنَّهَا صَادِقَةُ الْمَعَانِي وَاضِحَةُ الدَّلِيلِ، فَالتَّعْرِيفُ فِي الْقَوْلِ لِاسْتِغْرَاقِ الْأَقْوَالِ الثَّابِتَةِ. وَالْبَاءُ فِي بِالْقَوْلِ لِلسَّبَبِيَّةِ. وَمَعْنَى تَثْبِيتِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِهَا أَنَّ الله يسر لَهُم فيهم الْأَقْوَالِ الْإِلَهِيَّةِ عَلَى وَجْهِهَا وَإِدْرَاكَ دَلَائِلِهَا حَتَّى اطْمَأَنَّتْ إِلَيْهَا قُلُوبُهُمْ وَلَمْ يُخَامِرْهُمْ فِيهَا شَكٌّ فَأَصْبَحُوا ثَابِتِينَ فِي إِيمَانِهِمْ غير مزعزعين وعاملين بِهَا غَيْرَ مُتَرَدِّدِينَ. وَذَلِكَ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ظَاهِرٌ، وَأَمَّا فِي الْآخِرَةِ فَبِإِلْفَائِهِمُ الْأَحْوَالَ عَلَى نَحْوٍ مِمَّا عَلِمُوهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا، فَلَمْ تَعْتَرِهِمْ نَدَامَةٌ وَلَا لَهَفٌ“The word (al-qawl) means speech, and ‘firm’ (al-thabit) means truthful, without any doubt. What is meant by it are the words of the Qur’an, for they are truthful in meaning and clear in evidence. The definite article in ‘the word’ (al-qawl) denotes comprehensiveness of all firm words. The preposition ‘bi’ in bi’l-qawl indicates causation. The meaning of Allah’s (swt) making those who believe steadfast through it is that Allah (swt) facilitates for them the divine words in their proper form and enables them to understand their proofs until their hearts are reassured by them, and no doubt ever enters them. Thus, they become steadfast in their faith, unshaken, and act upon it without hesitation. This is evident in worldly life; as for the Hereafter, it is by them finding circumstances similar to what they learned in the world, so they feel no regret nor grief.”
It is clear to anyone with insight the necessity of steadfastness for the believer in this life, in the grave, and on the Day of Judgment, and his need for Allah’s granting him steadfastness, for this world is a place of trial and temptation.
Allah (swt) says,
[وَنَبۡلُوكُم بِٱلشَّرِّ وَٱلۡخَيۡرِ فِتۡنَةٗۖ وَإِلَيۡنَا تُرۡجَعُونَ]
“And We test you with evil and with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned.” [TMQ Surah Al-Anbiya 35]
And He (swt) says,
[أَحَسِبَ ٱلنَّاسُ أَن يُتۡرَكُوٓاْ أَن يَقُولُوٓاْ ءَامَنَّا وَهُمۡ لَا يُفۡتَنُونَ]
“Do the people think that they will be left to say, ‘We believe’ and they will not be tested?” [TMQ Surah Ar-Rum 2]
Every believer is exposed to trials from time to time of various kinds. This is affirmed in the hadith found in Sahih al-Jami narrated by Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman from the Messenger of Allah (saw), «تُعرَضُ الفِتَنُ على القُلوبِ عَرْضَ الحَصِيرِ عُودًا عُودًا، فأيُّ قلبٍ أُشْرِبَها نُكِتَتْ فيه نُكتةٌ سَوداءُ، وأيُّ قلبٍ أنْكَرَها نُكِتَتْ فيه نُكتةٌ بيضاءُ، حتى يصِيرَ القلبُ أبيضَ مثلَ الصَّفا، لا تَضُرُّه فِتنةٌ ما دامَتِ السمواتُ والأرضُ، والآخَرُ أسودَ مُربَدًّا كالكُوزِ مُجَخِّيًا، لا يَعرِفُ مَعروفًا، ولا يُنكِرُ مُنكَرًا، إلا ما أُشْرِبَ من هَواه»“Temptations will be presented to the hearts like a reed mat, stick by stick. Any heart that absorbs them will have a black mark put in it, and any heart that rejects them will have a white mark put in it, until the heart becomes white like a stone, unaffected by any trial of temptation so long as the heavens and the earth endure. However, the other becomes black, dusty, like an overturned vessel, not recognizing good nor rejecting evil, except what is in accord with its desires.”
Indeed, Allah even bestows His favor upon His Messenger (saw) by granting him steadfastness so that he does not incline towards the disbelievers. Allah (swt) says,
[وَلَوۡلَآ أَن ثَبَّتۡنَٰكَ لَقَدۡ كِدتَّ تَرۡكَنُ إِلَيۡهِمۡ شَيۡٔٗا قَلِيلًا]
“And if We had not strengthened you, you would almost have inclined to them a little.” [TMQ Surah Al-Isra 74].
The “firm word” includes the statement of tawhid (monotheism) “La ilaha illa Allah – There is no God but Allah,” as Ibn Abbas (ra) said. It also includes the words of the Qur’an, as Ibn Ashur stated, and it encompasses everything that stems from the Islamic creed and everything built upon it, for it is the standard by which a Muslim measures every word and every action.
Describing the word as “firm” indicates steadfastness and commitment to that word, so as to produce uprightness, which Allah (swt) commanded His Messenger (saw) and the believers with, in His saying,
[فَٱسۡتَقِمۡ كَمَآ أُمِرۡتَ وَمَن تَابَ مَعَكَ]
“So remain steadfast as you have been commanded, you and those who have turned back with you.” [TMQ Surah Hud: 112].
Allah’s granting steadfastness to those who believe is a reality both in the life of this world and in the Hereafter.
As for the second concept in the verse — Allah’s leading the wrongdoers astray — Ibn Ashur says, وَيُضِلُّ اللهُ الظَّالِمِينَ، أَيِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ، أَيْ يَجْعَلُهُمْ فِي حَيْرَةٍ وَعِمَايَةٍ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَفِي الْآخِرَةِ. وَالضَّلَالُ: اضْطِرَابٌ وَارْتِبَاكٌ، وَالظَّالِمُونَ: الْمُشْرِكُونَ، قَالَ تَعَالَى:
[إِنَّ ٱلشِّرۡكَ لَظُلۡمٌ عَظِيمٞ]
“And Allah leads the wrongdoers astray, meaning the mushrikeen, that is, He leaves them in bewilderment and blindness in this world and in the Hereafter. Misguidance is disturbance and confusion, and the wrongdoers are the mushrikeen, as Allah (swt) said,
[إِنَّ ٱلشِّرۡكَ لَظُلۡمٌ عَظِيمٞ]
“Indeed, associating others with Allah is a great injustice.” [TMQ Surah Luqman: 13]”
The misguidance attributed to Allah (swt) is in the form of allowing, facilitating, and gradually leading on, not compulsion, because Allah (swt) holds people accountable for the deeds they perform within the domain over which they have control: if good, then it is good; and if evil, then it is evil. This is indicated by His saying,
[فَمَن يَعۡمَلۡ مِثۡقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ خَيۡرٗا يَرَهُۥ*وَمَن يَعۡمَلۡ مِثۡقَالَ ذَرَّةٖ شَرّٗا يَرَهُ]
“So whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it.” [TMQ Surah Al-Zalzalah: 7–8] and other similar verses.
What further confirms that Allah’s leading the wrongdoers astray is by way of allowing, facilitating, and leading them on is His statement,
[قُلۡ مَن كَانَ فِي ٱلضَّلَٰلَةِ فَلۡيَمۡدُدۡ لَهُ ٱلرَّحۡمَٰنُ مَدًّاۚ]
“Say, ‘Whoever is in error — the Most Merciful will prolong his span [in error]” [TMQ Surah Maryam: 75].
This misguidance from Allah (swt) is specific to those characterized by wrongdoing, as is indicated by linking the ruling to a derived term (مشتقّ), the subject case (اسم الفاعل) al-ẓalimin (“the oppressors”). In the usool of fiqh (foundations of jurisprudence), linking a ruling to a derived term evidences that the cause lies in the source of derivation, here, wrongdoing. Thus, as long as the servant persists in wrongdoing, he deserves misguidance until he turns away from his wrongdoing and repents to Allah (swt).
It is more appropriate to understand ẓulm (oppression) here in its general sense, so that it includes polytheism (shirk) and disbelief (kufr), as well as wrongdoing against oneself, and committing sins, since there is no specific qualifier that restricts ẓulm to mean only polytheism.
As for the statement of Allah (swt),
[إِنَّ ٱلشِّرۡكَ لَظُلۡمٌ عَظِيمٞ]
“Indeed, associating others with Allah is a great injustice” [TMQ Surah Luqman: 13] it indicates that polytheism is described as ẓulm, and indeed as a great ẓulm, but it does not mean that ẓulm is limited exclusively to polytheism. This is what the rules of Arabic grammar mandate.
Accordingly, anyone who is characterized by any form of wrongdoing deserves to be led astray, and prolonged in that state until he repents from it, whether it is polytheism and disbelief, or an evil deed, or wrongdoing against oneself. Allah (swt) said,
[قُل لِّلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوٓاْ إِن يَنتَهُواْ يُغۡفَرۡ لَهُم مَّا قَدۡ سَلَفَ]
“Say to those who disbelieve that if they desist, they will be forgiven for what has passed.” [TMQ Surah Al-Anfal: 38] and He (swt) also says,
[وَمَن يَعۡمَلۡ سُوٓءًا أَوۡ يَظۡلِمۡ نَفۡسَهُۥ ثُمَّ يَسۡتَغۡفِرِ ٱللَّهَ يَجِدِ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٗا رَّحِيمٗا]
“And whoever does evil or wrongs himself, then seeks Allah’s forgiveness, will find Allah All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [TMQ Surah An-Nisa: 110].
As for the third concept in the noble Quranic verse, it is that Allah (swt) does whatever He (swt) wills. He (swt) is capable of all matters; nothing can prevent Him, none can overturn His judgment, and none can repel His command. He (swt) does with His creation whatever He wills.
This concept comes as a confirmation of what preceded it: Allah (swt) grants steadfastness when He (swt) wills to grant it, and He (swt) leads astray when He (swt) wills to lead astray. Indeed, He (swt) is not to be questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned.
The verse contains a rhetorical nuance, namely the explicit mention of the subject case in all three sentences, as the Divine Name, “Allah makes firm,” “Allah leads astray,” and “Allah does what He wills.”
Ibn Ashur says about this, وَإِظْهَارُ اسْمِ الْجَلَالَةِ فِي وَيُضِلُّ اللهُ الظَّالِمِينَ وَيَفْعَلُ اللهُ مَا يَشاءُ لِقَصْدِ أَنْ تَكُونَ كُلُّ جُمْلَةٍ مِنَ الْجُمَلِ الثَّلَاثِ مُسْتَقِلَّةً بِدَلَالَتِهَا حَتَّى تَسِيرَ مسير الْمثل“The explicit mention of the Name of His Majesty in ‘Allah leads astray the wrongdoers’ and ‘Allah does whatever He wills’ is intended so that each of the three sentences stands independently in its meaning, until it flows like a proverb,” in addition to emphasizing the importance of the subject, Glorified and Exalted is He, and His Power to do whatever He wills.”
Finally, we point out that some mufasiroon among them al-Ṭabari, al-Qurṭubi, and others mentioned that the Reason (sabab) for the Revelation (nuzool) of the verse was the questioning of the deceased by the two angels in the grave. However, this does not necessitate restriction, because of the principle that, العبرة بعموم اللفظ لا بخصوص السبب“the consideration is given to the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause (sabab),” as established in the usool ul-fiqh (foundations of jurisprudence).
Thus, Allah’s making the believers firm is a reality both in this world and in the Hereafter; Allah’s leading astray is a reality for the wrongdoers as long as they persist in their wrongdoing; and Allah does whatever He wills, as indicated by the generality of the connecting pronoun (ism mawsool) “whatever.”
We ask Allah (swt) to guide us and all the Muslims to the truth, and to make us and them steadfast upon the truth until we meet Him (swt) while He is pleased with us.
-
Humanism is a Satanic Call to Abolish Religions
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Humanism is a Satanic Call to Abolish Religions
(Translated)https://www.al-waie.org/archives/article/19803
Al-Waie Magazine Issue 466
39th Year, Dhul-Qi’dah 1446 AH / May 2025 CEThe United States is not satisfied with its colonialist capitalist policies in its relations with the world alone. America also seeks to spread cultural agendas, and leads satanic campaigns that collectively represent a new religion. Its main tools in promoting these agendas are the United Nations and the international organizations and institutions affiliated with it. It uses international agreements related to political, economic, and social life, as well as civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as means to embed its cultural ideas deep within societies.
In a previous article published in Issues 438–440 of Al-Waie Magazine entitled “The United Nations Calls for a New Global Religion That Unites All Faiths,” I outlined the main features of the new global religion that America and the United Nations want to impose on the world. It is based on the creed of pantheism (the unity of existence), adopts the idea of religious pantheism as a mode of worship, and seeks to replace the social system, or personal status laws, with sexual libertinism and chaos.
In this article, we address the concept of humanism, considering it the bond that America and the United Nations want to establish among people in place of the bond of faith in religion. They seek to make this idea shape how people view one another, regulate relationships between individuals in public life and between individuals and the state, and determine each country’s perspective and stance toward other nations and peoples.
It is important to first clarify that the term “humanism” (الإنسانوية) is different from the term “humanity” (الإنسانية), even though some advocates of humanism use the term “humanity” or “humanist doctrine.”
Humanitarianism is a value that holds significance in Islam, and Islam commands its realization. However, the value of humanitarianism is not a religion that defines what is good or evil, nor is it a foundation upon which thoughts are built. Humanism, on the other hand, is a concept that contradicts religion. In fact, humanism is intended to replace religion. Therefore, it is essential to be cautious and not to confuse these terms.
Humanism is an ancient concept, and the meanings associated with it have evolved over time. For this reason, it is difficult to provide a single, precise, and comprehensive definition of the term. Humanism goes beyond merely addressing the humanitarian aspect. It adopts its own worldview, based on the centrality of the human being in existence. It emphasizes the value of the human as the center of the universe, and from this centrality, all thoughts must be derived to serve the human being and liberate him from any constraints that limit his freedom, including religious teachings and laws. This has sparked numerous and intense objections against it.
Arab humanist scholars attempt to trace the roots of humanism within Islamic heritage, claiming that this tendency existed in early Islamic tradition, and was not solely a product of the Western Renaissance. They argue that it is a shared aspect of human thought throughout history, even if expressed in different forms. They cite certain texts, correspondences, and treaties written by some Muslim Khulafaa’ (Caliphs) as evidence among them, the famous letter of Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) to his governor Malik al-Ashtar, whom he appointed over Egypt. They cling to a particular phrase from that letter, الرعية صِنْفَانِ؛ إِمَّا أَخٌ لَكَ فِي الدِّين وإِمَّا نَظِيرٌ لَكَ في الْخَلْقِ “Citizens are of two types: either your brother in the Deen or your equal in creation.”
The frequent references by humanist thinkers to the stances and statements of prominent historical Islamic figures reflect their emphasis on the human value that Islam commands to uphold. However, this does not indicate the presence of modern humanist thought among Muslims. Although Islam affirms the humanitarian value, it did not instruct that this value be made a foundational concept for defining relationships between people or for determining societal systems and legislation. There is no evidence that any Khalifah (Caliph), alim, thinker, or philosopher in Islamic history treated the value of humanity as a Deen, or as a foundation for thoughts, or as the basis for human relations, as is established in contemporary humanist thought.
Researchers of humanism, whether advocating for it or critiquing it, often seek to trace its historical origins and determine where and how the idea first emerged. However, I do not see much benefit in delving into the historical origins of this concept. What truly matters today is understanding what modern humanist thought has settled upon, so that we may grasp the dangers of this ideology and how to guard against it. What concerns us is the set of ideas being promoted by humanists today around the world, including in the Islamic world.
Perhaps the most concise summary of humanist thought can be found in the work of the British humanist scholar Stephen Law, in his book “Humanism: A Very Short Introduction” published in 2011 and translated into Arabic in 2016. In it, Stephen Law outlines the key ideas upon which humanists generally agree. In his essay, “What is Humanism?” published on 7 January, 2014, stated that “most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view,” and continued to state as follows:
“1. Humanists place particular emphasise on the role of science and reason. They believe that, if we want to know what is true, reason and science are invaluable tools – tools we should apply without limit. No beliefs should be placed beyond rational, critical scrutiny.
2. Humanists are atheists. That is not to say that they must be atheists in the positive sense, however. Humanists need not deny there is a god or gods. But they do not sign up to belief in a god or gods. Humanists tend to be similarly sceptical about the existence of other supernatural agents of the sort that many religions suppose exist, such as angels and demons.
3. Humanists suppose that this is very probably the only life we have. There is no heaven or hell awaiting us. Nor are we reincarnated.
4. Humanists usually believe in the existence and importance of moral value. Humanists tend to have a particular interest and concern with moral and ethical issues. Most Humanists believe that actions can be objectively morally right or wrong. They therefore deny that the existence of objective moral values entails the existence of God. So far as knowledge of right and wrong is concerned, Humanists place strong emphasis on the role of science and/or reason…
5. Humanists emphasize our individual moral autonomy and responsibility. They insist each individual must ultimately take responsibility for making moral judgements, even if that judgement is that that individual ought to stick with the moral framework handed to them by a tradition or community. They suppose that, convenient though it might be if we could each could hand over responsibility for making tough moral decisions to some external religious, political or other leader or authority, that cannot be done (except perhaps in some very special cases)…
6. Humanists are secularists in the sense that they favour an open, democratic society and believe the State should take neutral stance on religion. The State should not privilege religious over atheist views, but neither should it privilege atheist views of those of the religious. Humanists believe the State should protect equally the freedom of individuals to hold and promote both religious and atheist points of view…
7. Humanists believe that we can enjoy significant, meaningful lives even if there is no God, and whether or not we happen to be religious…”
Stephen Law mentions that there are other views commonly associated with humanism, but not necessarily embraced by all humanists. Instead, they may critique or reject them.
These include, in his words:
“Speciesism. Humanists, as defined above, are not obliged to believe that only human beings matter, morally speaking….
Utilitarianism. Many Humanists are drawn to some form of consequentialism, and some would probably describe themselves as utiiitarians. True, almost all Humanists believe that happiness and suffering matter, morally speaking, and should certainly be taken into account when weighing up ethical questions…
Scientism. Some Humanists embrace scientism – the view that every meaningful question can in principle be answered by application of the scientific method…
Naturalism. Humanists are not obliged to embrace naturalism, the view that the natural/physical reality is the only reality there is, and/or that the natural/physical facts are the only facts that there are…”
Stephen Law affirms the conflict between humanism and religion, and highlights the eagerness of humanists to build relationships with religious individuals and institutions in order to facilitate the achievement of secular humanist goals. He asserted, “Many Humanists would go further and insist that, in some respects, our lives may become rather more meaningful in the absence of gods and/or religion. Some argue that religions can sometimes act as an impediment to our leading meaningful lives by, for example, leading us not to think hard about the Big Questions; forcing us to live a certain way out of fear cosmic punishment; and/or wasting our lives promoting false beliefs because of a mistaken expectation of a life to come… The thought that religion is a necessary underpinning for morality is also contradicted by history… Moreover, while religious belief may be a powerful social adhesive, it comes with risks attached… While there can be benefits to religious belief, and there are plenty of anecdotes about people whose lives have been dramatically “turned around” by religion, there would also appear to be benefits to a more Humanist approach to moral education and raising moral citizens.”
These are the prevailing humanist thoughts among Western humanists, and they are the very same ideas being promoted in the Islamic World under various other campaigns that oppose Islam. These thoughts have preachers and advocates within the Muslim world. Many openly promote them under the banner of the humanist doctrine, while others do not explicitly declare their adherence to humanism, but knowingly or unknowingly promote humanist thoughts as part of other movements that aim to undermine Islam, such as the call to reform religion, or reinterpret religious texts through a modernist lens.
Those who call for humanism from within the Muslim community often recycle the language and concepts that define humanism, but they try to appear as though they are not opposing Islam or rejecting its rulings. Some may believe in Allah and identify as Muslims, yet they avoid discussing matters of creed in terms of Iman and evidence, or rejection and denial. They call for abolishing the Islamic bond of Aqeedah (doctrine) and establishing instead a bond based purely on humanism. They strongly criticize anyone who insists that religious creed is the correct basis for human relations, and see no problem in confining Iman merely to the heart.
They advocate for excluding the divine Deen from consideration in any aspect of human relations. In their view, humanism is the new “religion” that will put an end to wars. Through this “religion,” peace will prevail among nations, the wounds caused by wars and religious conflicts will be healed, and societies will be driven toward material progress.
Among the contemporary figures who promote and theorize humanism is Mohammed Arkoun (from Algeria), who writes his ideas in French, as he is part of the Western intellectual framework. Another is Abdel Rahman Badawi (from Egypt), the author of “A History of Atheism in Islam.” Also among them are Rasoul Mohammed Rasoul and Mohammed Habash, the latter being a student of his uncle, his wife’s father, Sheikh Ahmad Kaftaro, who served as the Mufti of Syria under the Ba’athist regime for four decades.
There are other humanist advocates as well, but Mohammed Habash is perhaps the most vocal proponent of humanism in the Islamic World. He persistently promotes humanist ideas that are in clear conflict with Islam. A review of his views reveals just how dangerous and deviant humanist ideology can be.
Humanists who affiliate themselves with Islam adopt the seven core humanist principles summarized by Stephen Law, along with several other ideas commonly associated with humanism. However, they face a challenge when it comes to atheism and agnosticism, which are central to Western humanist thought. To reconcile this, they classify belief in God, atheism, and agnosticism all as forms of subjective, faith-based acceptance. As a result, believing humanists do not rely on conclusive rational evidence to affirm their faith. They are content with emotional or instinctive belief without examining evidences, arguing that since atheists and agnostics exist, they too must have some form of justification for their stances, and that all such stances in faith must be respected.
These believing humanists selectively adopt from religion only what aligns with humanist ideals and reject what contradicts them without applying any scholarly or methodological standards in accepting or rejecting religious texts. For instance, Mohammed Habash claims to believe in Allah and in Islam. He reads the Qur’an and cites verses that suit his narrative, interpreting them according to his own perspective. He accepts certain hadiths and rejects others not based on Shariah juristic principles such as the strength of the chain of transmission or linguistic interpretation, but solely based on whether they conform to humanist thinking. For him, the only criterion is compatibility with humanist ideology.
He has no problem with atheism and sees no issue in criticizing religions, including Islam, considering this part of the freedom of expression that he champions. He views “human brotherhood” and “national unity” as bonds that connect him with polytheists and atheists alike.
In Mohammed Habash’s book “Neighbors on One Planet”, under the chapter titled “Neighbors: Muslims and Communists”, he writes, “Workers of the world, send blessings upon the Prophet…” It is a deliberately provocative title to discuss common ground between Islam and communism. He then describes his participation in an event hosted by the leadership of the Communist Party in Syria, where he gave a speech including the statement, “I am not here to preach a red Islam, nor do I claim that our communist comrades have become devout and started organizing pilgrimage groups. But I insist that what unites us is far greater than what our enemies believe. And without hesitation, I say: prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and zakat are conditions for entering Paradise. However, they are not conditions for entering the homeland. The homeland belongs to all its children. Let us work together to build the earth and leave the matter of judgment to Allah.”
Mohammed Habash [1] has written several books promoting humanist thought, which he refers to as “the humanist doctrine.” He has also published many of these ideas in articles in Arab newspapers, on numerous programs aired on Arab satellite channels and radio stations, as well as on his Facebook page. Among his books are: “The Humanist Doctrine in Islam,” “Islam Without Violence,” “The Democratic Prophet,” “A Prophet for Humanity,” “We Share More Than We Think,” “Islam Without Wars,” “Corporal Punishments and Human Dignity,” “Neighbors on One Planet,” and many others. In nearly all of these works, he repeats the same humanist ideas.
From the titles of his books and a close examination of his statements, it becomes evident that Mohammed Habash’s works are saturated with Western humanist ideas, as summarized by Stephen Law. He claims that the commonalities between religions are greater than their differences and rejects the concept of the “Saved Sect”—the belief that after the mission of Muhammad (saw), no one enters Paradise except those who believe in and follow him. According to Habash, all good people regardless of which religion they follow, even if they are atheists are among the people of Paradise.
In his book “The Humanist Doctrine in Islam” (2021), he writes, “I am convinced that Allah does not wrong even by the weight of a mustard seed, whether it is a Muslim or a non-Muslim, and if it is a good deed, He multiplies it and grants a great reward from His bounty.”
He strongly criticizes what he calls the “culture of hatred widespread among Muslims.” In his view, a Muslim should not hate or dislike a disbeliever merely for their disbelief. He rejects the concepts of loving and hating for the sake of Allah, insisting that love and hatred should not, from a humanist standpoint, be based on one’s belief or creed. Rather, disapproval or dislike should be due to one’s actions and behaviors.
He also opposes the Islamic concept of al-wala’ wa-l-bara’ (loyalty to believers and disavowal of disbelievers). He harshly condemns preachers who focus on this concept or include the idea of disavowing disbelievers and showing loyalty to believers in their sermons, lectures, or writings.
In “The Humanist Doctrine in Islam”, he states, “The idea of the human family and the brotherhood of the children of Adam must be manifested by promoting human fraternity, reducing wars, and spreading peace.”
He expresses this idea through various phrases, such as, “All of humanity are the dependents of God and one family under Him.”
In his framework, human brotherhood takes precedence over the brotherhood of faith, and over the principle of al-wala’ wa-l-bara’.
Like Western humanists, Mohammed Habash places strong emphasis on elevating the value of the human being to a central, even supreme position in existence to the extent that prophethood itself, in his view, exists for the sake of the human being. He frequently states that “the human is God’s main project on this planet.”
In his book “The Humanist Doctrine in Islam,” he writes, “There has never been a religious or political movement in history that did not speak of the human being as the essence and ultimate goal. Thus, the humanist doctrine is an intellectual and social trend that can be traced across all human societies, and it can clearly be found in all sacred texts. It is a perspective that views the human being as both the center and the goal, and considers the achievement of human happiness as the measure of true religiosity and political direction. Therefore, speaking of the human being as the center and goal is a given.”
He also says, “I used to call for faith… but today I call for the human being.” “The goal is not religion, but the human being.”
In his book “Neighbors on One Planet,” he asks, “When will we be able to decode the dialogue between those who believe in God in the heavens and those who believe in the human on earth?”
He frequently uses expressions such as “faith in God and in the human being” or “we believe in the human.”
For humanists, the human being is the essence of existence and more important than religion or Shariah. In fact, according to this view, Shariah can be altered to conform to the human being’s happiness and well-being, as defined by Western notions of happiness and welfare.
In his book “Women Between Shariah and Life,” Mohammed Habash argues that Islamic Shariah rulings contain clear and harsh discrimination against women, such as those concerning guardianship, testimony, and the prohibition of travel without a mahram (male guardian). He believes such rulings place women under oppressive male guardianship. He also claims that the current marriage and divorce system, as prescribed by personal status laws, shows a blatant imbalance in gender equality and women’s rights, and calls for bold ijtihad (independent reasoning) to restore women’s rights and human dignity.
He criticizes the imposition of the hijab on women. Notably, when discussing hijab, he does not distinguish between hijab, jilbab, and niqab. He writes, “The jurists unanimously agreed that the hijab is a noble Islamic etiquette.”
He then poses the question, “Is the command to wear the hijab an obligation or a recommendation?”
And he answers, “We choose to consider it a recommendation!”
He concludes, “In summary: we should leave the matter of hijab to the woman. It is her choice, her freedom, and her responsibility. We should explain to her the religious facts and let her know that religion is ease, not hardship; mercy, not punishment. My message is that we should respect both the veiled and the unveiled, and we should call respectfully for modesty and chastity without extravagance, and we must make religion more accommodating for people.”
Humanism rejects the punishments prescribed in Islam particularly the hudud (fixed penalties) on the grounds that they are harsh, inhumane, and incompatible with free rational choice, innate human nature, the higher values of religion, and human rights. In his book “The Humanist Doctrine in Islam,” Mohammed Habash writes, “Perhaps the most problematic aspect in presenting the humanist doctrine in Islam is the issue of the harsh hudud punishments, which involve torturing the body, such as execution, crucifixion, stoning, and amputation. These are extremely severe penalties that cannot be understood within a humanist framework because they are not intended to reform the offender, but rather to destroy them entirely or partially. They are typically justified on the basis that the destruction of one individual leads to the reform of society, thus achieving a humanist outcome in the end, even if the immediate result appears to be torture and cruelty.”
Since abolishing the hudud contradicts clear and established Islamic Shariah rulings, Habash attempts to support his call for their abolition by claiming that such a move was made by prominent early figures like Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) and Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, and that this is the view of some of the greatest ulema in Islamic history.
Habash states, “Many people think that the call to change the hudud—from flogging, stoning, amputation, and crucifixion to rehabilitative punishments—is a concern of Westernized secular movements… and religious leaders still view such a call as disbelief in what Allah has revealed… In my new book ‘Justice, Not Revenge’, I documented fifteen clear positions from eight of the most prominent ulema in Islamic history, who explicitly called for the suspension of corporal hudud punishments and the transition to rehabilitative penalties.”
Humanists adopt secular democracy, and Mohammed Habash proudly identifies as a secularist who advocates for democracy even going so far as to describe the Prophet Muhammad (saw) as a “democrat.” He calls for freedom of expression, even when it includes rejection or criticism of Islam. According to humanists, democracy arises from the innate virtues and values of human nature. Since they claim that human nature is naturally inclined toward monotheism (tawḥid), they consider democracy to be part of the true religion.
Habash quotes his teacher, Jawdat Saʿid, as saying, “Democracy is a form of pure monotheism and an expression of the upright religion.”
Humanists argue that critics of religious belief must be cautious in the tone and manner of their critique, ensuring that it does not come across as mockery, or personal ridicule, of those who hold religious beliefs.
Humanism views individual morality as a purely rational matter that requires no religious justification. Human reason or science can independently determine what is moral, based on human experience across different peoples and cultures. Humanists acknowledge that people vary in their moral insight; some may possess broader moral knowledge, making them more trustworthy judges of right and wrong. Certain individuals might have important moral wisdom, and some of that wisdom may even be found in specific texts.
When Mohammed Habash wrote about morality in his article “On the Theology of Ethics… A New Vision,” his discussion focused entirely on the experiences of philosophers throughout different eras and regions, without citing any religious texts. He went further to claim the right to critique Islam and the Qur’an in the realm of ethics, because Islam treats morality as divine commands and prohibitions, with consequences of reward or punishment in the afterlife.
Habash argues that this focus on reward and punishment represents a regression in the concept of ethics, reducing it to a material transactional exchange. He views religious reward as driven by physical, instinctual desires such as sex, pleasure, wine, and intoxication and sees religious punishment as irrational cruelty. In his article, he writes, “We truly need a tour through moral philosophy as presented by the Enlightenment philosophers, and then we must reflect on the regression we brought upon ourselves when morality became a purely transactional system, conditioned by reward or punishment. Rewards took the form of bodily, instinctual desires sex, pleasure, wine, and drunkenness. As for punishment, it strayed far into a cruel realm, where skins are flayed, only for the angels of torment to replace them with new ones so the condemned can continue to suffer for eternity, forever and ever.”
Humanism rejects Jihad, particularly Jihad al-Talab (offensive Jihad), because humanism is a religion of nonviolence. From the humanist perspective, Jihad constitutes a form of violence especially Jihad al-Talab, which is associated with concepts they deem “inhuman,” such as Jizya (tax for non-Muslims under Muslim rule). They claim it directly contradicts what they describe as the core values of Islam: justice, mercy, and benevolence.
According to their argument, Jihad al-Talab is no longer applicable in the modern world, since freedom of religion exists globally, and Muslims can spread the message of Islam peacefully through wisdom and kind preaching, especially using modern technological tools. They argue that today’s reality renders offensive Jihad obsolete.
In the introduction to his book “Islam Without Violence,” Mohammed Habash writes, “Nonviolence is a magical word, with followers, prophets, and saints in every land. Yet here in the East, it is persecuted, treated as an idea that contradicts hudud (Islamic legal punishments) and Jihad. Islam is seen as following the logic of ‘an eye for an eye,’ and that ‘killing is the best deterrent for killing.’ Verses such as ‘In retribution, there is life, O people of understanding,’ and ‘Fight the disbelievers entirely as they fight you entirely,’ and ‘When you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks,’ and ‘Fight them until they submit’ these are invoked.”
He concludes from this that Jihad al-Talab is a form of violence that has no justification.
And as you, dear reader, can observe from the quote above, Habash subtly undermines divine Islamic Shariah rulings, Qur’anic verses, and Prophetic hadiths by portraying them as contrary to modern humanist ethics.
It is worth noting that the religion of Humanism contradicts Darwinism. Darwinism is based on the concept of the struggle for survival, which is an inseparable part of its theory, where the fittest or strongest survives. It considers human beings to be just like other living creatures, and assumes that conflict between human groups of different racial origins is inevitable, so that the groups with superior traits can dominate. Therefore, conflict and violence are central components of Darwinism, which stands in direct opposition to the principles of Humanism.
In conclusion, what has been presented outlines the core principles of Humanism. Upon examining them, it becomes clear that Humanism constitutes a religion that seeks to replace all others, particularly Islam. It openly admits to excluding religions, which means it is, by nature, a doctrine of disbelief (kufr). It equates the true religion with abrogated and distorted ones, places belief and atheism on the same level, and rejects divine revelation as a source of authority in life. It denies Islamic laws that are firmly established by conclusive evidence in both transmission and meaning.
The real danger lies in the promotion of partial humanist thoughts that often deceive ordinary Muslims, who may not realize that such thoughts are part of a larger ideological system rooted in Humanism. The way to confront this is by refuting these partial ideas and reaffirming the centrality of Islam which is what Humanism seeks to undermine.
Finally, it must be stated that Humanism can never be practically applied as a cohesive social system, it remains a misguided individual phenomenon, often carrying contradictory ideas even outside the framework of Humanism itself. While humanists preach love, and claim to harbor no malice toward anyone, their slips of the tongue often reveal what lies hidden in their hearts. True love cannot exist without hating its opposite and this becomes clear in the way they speak about Muslims who reject humanist ideology and hold firmly to the Shariah as it was revealed by Allah (swt).
This all shows that Humanism is nothing more than a purely satanic illusion. It can never manifest in collective reality. Instead, it is a gateway to kufr (disbelief), disguised with attractive and embellished rhetoric, deceiving only those who “take the devils as allies instead of Allah and think that they are rightly guided.”
As Allah (swt) says,
[وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَا لِكُلِّ نَبِيٍّ عَدُوًّا شَيَاطِينَ الإنْسِ وَالْجِنِّ يُوحِي بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ زُخْرُفَ الْقَوْلِ غُرُورًا وَلَوْ شَاءَ رَبُّكَ مَا فَعَلُوهُ فَذَرْهُمْ وَمَا يَفْتَرُونَ]
“And so We have made for every Prophet enemies, devilish humans and jinn, whispering to one another with elegant words of deception. Had it been your Lord’s Will, they would not have done such a thing. So leave them and their deceit.” [TMQ Surah Al-An’am 6:112].
Footnote:
[1] In 2010, Habash was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Craiova, one of the oldest and most prestigious universities in Romania. This honorary degree is granted only once every two years. The university awarded this honor to Dr. Mohammed Habash in recognition of his research and efforts in interfaith dialogue—particularly his book “The Biography of Prophet Muhammad”. The university translated the book into Romanian and designated it as required reading for students in its theology faculties.
-
Introduction to the book: The Objectives of Imam Al-Shatibi
The following is a translated article from Arabic that appeared in al-Waie Magazine.
The book “The Objectives of Imam Al-Shatibi” has recently been published, authored by Professor Mahmoud Abdel Hadi Faour. Al-Waei Magazine offers its readers an introduction to this book, which it finds to be a serious, profound, and disciplined research into the principles of jurisprudence. In it, the author endeavored to investigate and delve into the truth of this idea or theory of Imam Al-Shatibi, while remaining analytical and objective to the utmost degree.
This valuable book clearly demonstrates and thoroughness of its documentation and investigation. The author does not attribute to al-Shatibi any opinion, intended meaning, principle, or explanation of a text important to his methodology, unless he links this to texts by al-Shatibi that conclusively prove the truth of his purpose and intent. Indeed, the reader interested in this matter will sense the great effort expended in dividing and arranging the chapters and topics of this book, such that the previous one paves the way for the subsequent one, and the subsequent one builds on the previous one, in a coherent, convincing, and useful intellectual style. This enables the reader to understand and comprehend the reasons and circumstances for the emergence and development of the concept of the objectives of Islamic law, and then to understand and comprehend the concept of the objectives of Islamic law according to Imam al-Shatibi (may Allah have mercy on him).
One of the most important and precise things the author did after explaining and clarifying this idea was to present and explain the most important rules and principles considered in Al-Shatibi’s methodology, such as: the origin of the consequences of actions, the rules of public interest (al masalih al mursalah), juristic preference (al istihsan), blocking the means (sadd al jarai’ey), the rules of the original (asl) and the predominant (ghalib), and removing harm (dwarar). The author presented all of this in an explanatory and applied manner for Al-Shatibi’s methodology in establishing the rules and principles, and in understanding the Shari’a. This is the most important objective of Al-Shatibi in writing his book (Al-Muwafaqat), and in clarifying the new aspects of his methodology in the principles of jurisprudence.
In numerous places throughout his book, the author demonstrates the significant difference, indeed the contradiction, between the true nature of al-Shatibi’s methodology and the claims or visions advocated by many in our time for the development of jurisprudence, or even the principles of jurisprudence, by invoking al-Shatibi and his methodology. This was one of the author’s motivations for delving into this thorny subject and clarifying the true nature of the concept of objectives according to Imam al-Shatibi, as he states in his introduction:
The researcher looked into (Al-Muwafaqat) and studied it from beginning to end, and from end to beginning. It contains depth, and its author is intentional, and it needs to be looked at and re-looked at, so be it. The researcher focused on it and looked at it carefully. The result was that Al-Shatibi is slandered by one group, and is not understood by another. The result is that Al-Shatibi is innocent of what is attributed to him regarding interests and objectives. The researcher continued studying Al-Shatibi through (Al-I’tisam), and found that those who use him as a screen to hide behind are innovators in his view. Al-Muwafaqat does not agree with them, and Al-Shatibi warns against them and attacks them and their approach. From here arose the motivations for researching this topic, which are, in brief:
1- Religion is a duty and a trust in the neck of everyone who understands it. The researcher saw it as his duty to clarify that the objectives of Sharia do not contradict Sharia, nor do they invalidate its rulings. If the objectives are objectives of Sharia, then they are a branch of it, and Sharia is the origin, and it is not right for the branch to refer to the origin in invalidation. It is necessary to confront every thought or proposal that calls for wasting Sharia or transgressing its boundaries, especially if it is done in the name of Islam.
2- Since some people have clung to Al-Shatibi and his Muwafaqat, and attributed to him what he does not say, but rather what he has always warned against, it was necessary to clarify the truth of this matter, and that there is no way to cling to Al-Shatibi or his Muwafaqat for those who want to change or alter the rulings of the Sharia under the pretext of its objectives, whether with good intentions and purpose, or with bad intentions.
3- Since there has been much talk about Al-Shatibi and his idea of the objectives or his theory of them, and about his innovation in how to understand the Sharia, and research has been presented in this regard and around it, in books, on the pages of magazines and newspapers, and on satellite TV screens, and the researcher finds that they are all far from Al-Shatibi and his idea or his method or his innovation, he feels that he must clarify what he sees as correct in this matter. (From the author’s introduction).
If what is widely circulated among researchers is true, that the book (Al-Muwafaqat), in which Al-Shatibi included his idea of the objectives and his method of ijtihad, is a difficult book, indeed very difficult. Al-Shatibi himself pointed to this and advised that his book should only be studied by those who are well-versed in the sciences of Sharia, otherwise the blessing contained in it will turn against them. If this is the case, then the author, after briefly explaining the emergence and development of the science of the principles of jurisprudence, then the emergence of the idea of the objectives of Sharia, and the discussions and debates of the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence – before Al-Shatibi – then he simplified it and presented it in a documented and easy-to-understand manner for anyone interested and seeking to understand the objectives.
There are many noteworthy points in the book, including, for example, the author’s emphasis on al-Shatibi’s understanding of the objectives, which confirms that contemporary discussions on this matter and their warnings about al-Shatibi’s methodology and innovations are far removed from al-Shatibi and his methodology. Al-Shatibi divided the objectives into two categories: the objectives of the Lawgiver and the objectives of the legally obligated. He divided the objectives of the legally obligated into four categories, of which the objectives of Islamic law are one. Meanwhile, contemporary scholars do not address or research anything other than the objectives of Islamic law. Furthermore, the content of their research, when they do discuss it, is mostly the objectives of the legally obligated, not the objectives of Islamic law.
Likewise, most contemporary discussions overlook what al-Shatibi considered the fourth type of objectives, which is the objective of the Lawgiver for the worship and obedience of His servants. In fact, the other three objectives were only discussed for the sake of achieving this objective, which is for people to worship their Creator: { And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me .} [Adh-Dhariyat: 56]. Likewise, one of the most precise things the author did was to verify the meaning of every word or term used by al-Shatibi that is important or influential in understanding his methodology or innovation. He clarified and documented al-Shatibi’s intent with terms such as: cause, effect, wisdom, reason, origin, partial, branch, meanings of rulings, original objectives, subsidiary objectives, and others. The author also highlighted the meaning that Al-Shatibi intended by induction, how to apply it, his requirement of certainty in the principles, how to benefit from this from induction, and how the induction method is one of the most important pillars of Al-Shatibi’s idea, which is something that contemporary advocates of renewal (tajdeed) completely ignore and neglect.
Thus, the author guides his reader step by step, leading him to understand the meaning of the objectives as intended by al-Shatibi. He then explores how an objective is considered a legitimate objective, how it can be suspended or rejected, and how the levels of the objectives of the Shari’ah vary, with one being considered a necessity, another a need, and another an improvement. He also explains al-Shatibi’s method of arranging the objectives within a single level, such as preserving religion, life, reason, lineage, and wealth. The author explains that the Grand Imamate (the Caliphate), for example, is a necessity in the level of preserving religion, as is jihad, prayer, and all the other pillars. All of this is according to al-Shatibi.
One of the most important points to note in our introduction to this book is the author’s definition and explanation of what al-Shatibi meant by the terms “maslahah” (interest) and “mafsadah” (corruption). He explains how “maslahah” (interest) is a legitimate objective that a person obligated to obey a law may consider in legislation, and how it can be merely an objective of the person obligated to obey a law, depending on his own fortunes, inclinations, and whims. The book conclusively examines, investigates, and proves that “maslahah” (interest)—according to al-Shatibi—is what has been proven by Islamic law to be an objective of the Lawgiver, regardless of whether it conforms to the objectives of creation or not. Thus, there is no ambiguity in al-Shatibi’s approach, which states that the correct way is to say “Shari’ah is maslahah” (interest) and not “maslahah is Shari’ah” (interest), as many people imagine is the meaning intended by al-Shatibi. The author also explains the intended meaning of terms such as “considered” (al-mu’tabar), “mursal” (dismissed), and “mulghā” (abrogated), as well as the types of consideration in the phrase “considered maslahah” (interest) or “mursal” (dismissed). The author also clarifies the meaning of “middle ground” (wasat) and “wasatiyyah” (moderateness) according to al-Shatibi with definitive texts from al-Muwafaqat. He elaborates on how to determine the middle ground in any given issue, explaining that it is not something that falls between the extremes of excess and deficiency, or anything similar. Rather, excess and deficiency are identified after the middle ground is identified. As for how the middle ground is identified, the author cites al-Shatibi’s statement: «والتوسط يُعرفُ بالشرع» “Moderation is identified by the Shari’a.”
The book also highlights Al-Shatibi’s position on some fatwas or the rules adopted by some muftis: such as facilitation due to hardship, alleged necessities or needs, and the permissibility of choosing between schools of thought or fatwas. He rejects all of them, and Al-Shatibi even attacks them strongly.
The book also highlights Al-Shatibi’s position on custom or traditions, as he calls them, and the extent of their consideration in Sharia, and the statement that rulings change with the change of customs, interests, time, or place, and the issue of the absence of some rulings in Sharia, or what some claim about the existence of a vacuum in Sharia. The author explains Al-Shatibi’s position on all of this and other things, in interesting and useful research, and documents that with texts by Al-Shatibi, including his saying: Among the characteristics of Sharia are “generality and consistency; therefore, the Sharia rulings apply to the actions of those obligated in general, even if their specific individuals characteristics are endless. No action is imposed, nor movement, nor stillness is claimed except that Sharia governs it individually and in combination, which is the meaning of its being general.” Among its characteristics, as Al-Shatibi says, is also: “Establishment without disappearance; Therefore, after its completion, you will not find in it any abrogation or specification of its generality, nor any restriction of its absoluteness, nor any lifting of any of its rulings, neither according to the generality of those obligated, nor according to the particularity of some of them, nor according to any situation. Rather, whatever has been proven as a cause is always a cause and cannot be lifted. Whatever was a condition is always a condition, whatever was obligatory is always obligatory, or recommended is recommended. And so are all rulings; they do not cease or change. Even if it were assumed that the obligation would continue indefinitely, its rulings would be likewise. Among the sayings of al-Shatibi that the author also cites: “Because the Shari’ah is intended to be eternal even if it were assumed that the world would continue indefinitely, and the obligation is thus, there is no need for anything more in the Shari’ah.”
In the book there is a study under the title: (لا يجوز مخالفة الأحكام بحجة المقاصد) (It is not permissible to contradict the rulings under the pretext of objectives), which is a condition according to Al-Shatibi in order to consider the objectives and to validate the application of the method. In fact, the objective is not considered a legal objective if it contradicts the rulings, which is what Al-Shatibi refers to a lot in his book (Al-Muwafaqat), and it is some of what Al-Shatibi means by his saying that it is necessary to apply the generalities and the particulars together, and it is one of the principles according to Al-Shatibi that the author explained to us clearly, and he showed that it is a condition for Al-Shatibi’s method in the principles of jurisprudence.
In this book, the author traces many of the opinions, understandings and meanings held by many contemporary researchers and writers on the principles of jurisprudence, including those who edited the book Al-Muwafaqat, which they mistakenly attribute to Al-Shatibi. He demonstrates their error and sometimes their contradiction with Al-Shatibi. He relies on analysis, connection and reasoning based on Al-Shatibi’s texts and their applications, using an intellectual and objective approach. He also rejects what some have claimed about contradictions in Al-Shatibi’s texts, explaining that this is a delusion on their part and due to their lack of understanding of some of those issues, as well as Al-Shatibi’s meaning by some important terms in his methodology, such as “maslahah” (interest), “mafasadah” (corruption), and the “maslahah” (interest) understood in common parlance, etc.
The author concluded his book with the tenth chapter, which he divided into three sections. In the first, he summarized the concept of objectives according to Al-Shatibi, presenting its pillars, meaning, and Al-Shatibi’s approach to understanding the Sharia according to it. In the second and third sections, he discussed it in a manner of usooli discussion. He discussed the issue of induction (istinbaat) as a method versus deduction, and Al-Shatibi’s purpose of semantic continuous transmission (tawatur ma’nawi) in his method versus semantic continuous transmission in the terminology of Hadith. He also discussed Al-Shatibi’s position on fundamentals and the necessity for them to be definitive, as well as his position on individual reports (ahad) and conjectural indications. He also discussed the principle of rationalization (ta’leel), which is the rationalization of Allah’s actions and rulings, according to Al-Shatibi and some of his predecessors who held this view. He also discussed, in a deep and precise intellectual style, the issue of (objectives and causes), and the difference between objective and cause, removing the confusion and obfuscation that results from mixing them up.
At the end of the book, the author praised Al-Shatibi as a scholar and an enlightened mujtahid, despite his disagreement with him in some of the new things he presented as a new approach to the principles of jurisprudence, and that was in some of the pillars of his approach. Speaking about the love he developed for Al-Shatibi while accompanying him on the journey of (Al-Muwafaqat), he said: “This is because the researcher developed a love for a man who combined genius and faith, knowledge and morals, ambition and piety. His mind rose, and his soul, filled with fear and hope, led him to rise with it. He coveted the coveting of the devout and working people, and his soul rose, and his mind, filled with thought and wisdom, led him to rise with it. So he became ascetic like the grateful worshippers, and the refined mind met the sublime soul in the person of a believer, so the encounter gave birth to the love of God, and faith bore fruit with its sweetness, and the traveler was steadfast on His path. When the seeker saw the traveler’s stumbling and the roughness of the paths, mercy and compassion were added to the love and affection, as he saw the great scholar and the enlightened visionary, the end of the path turning him away from the path, and blinding him to the subtle results of the truths. So he wished that he were his student and companion, who would guide him with two eyes, and suffice him what distracts him from seeing, or turns him away from perception, for the great, great, and pious are rare, and pass by far apart, and there is no infallibility after the Prophet (may God bless him and his family and grant them peace), so that they should be helped in obeying God and served in serving God’s command, is from righteousness and obedience, and that one should strive to correct them with politeness, and enlighten them with wisdom, and to obey them and draw near to them with sincerity for God. And piety is a great deed, as great as their deeds, and as beneficial as their production, and it is a rarer opportunity than theirs. Indeed, their error and slip are a loss for those with them and those around them, even if they are rewarded.
I can say that the book (The Objectives of Imam Al-Shatibi) by Professor Mahmoud Abdel Hadi Faour is the first book that dealt with the subject of the objectives of Imam Al-Shatibi, and which was able to explain and simplify the book (Al-Muwafaqat).
The book is 576 pages long.
Originally published on the June 2006 edition
-
Q&A: The Drone Attacks and the Developments in the War in Sudan
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمAnswer to Question
The Drone Attacks and the Developments in the War in Sudan
(Translated)Question:
Recent days have witnessed a remarkable development in the war. Drones attacked Port Sudan, the administrative capital, for six consecutive days, striking the civilian airport, an airbase, and fuel depots, causing a nationwide fuel crisis. Drones also attacked the city of Kassala on the Eritrean border to the east, as well as other cities. All of this prompted army forces moving toward El Fasher to withdraw and focus on protecting eastern Sudan, as the BBC reported on 10/5/2025. Does this mean that the attack on eastern Sudan is aimed at removing the army from Darfur, leaving it exclusively under the control of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)? Are these events a prelude to the Jeddah Platform (negotiation conference)? Or are there other objectives? Thank you.
Answer:
To uncover the motives behind the drone attacks on vital targets in eastern Sudan, we clarify the following:
First: The developments that preceded the powerful attacks on eastern Sudan, especially on Port Sudan:
1- The Sudanese army achieved major successes by expelling the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)from the important central cities of Khartoum, Bahri, and Omdurman. This major victory boosted the morale of the Sudanese army, which began preparing to pursue the Rapid Support Forces in Darfur. This increased the army’s morale to pursue the RSF which is considered normal after these successes. This trend forces leaders to adapt to the new reality under popular pressure and pressure from low-ranking army officers, i.e., those who are not familiar with external dynamics:
“The Chairman of the Sudanese Sovereignty Council, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, affirmed on Thursday the army’s determination to liberate the country from “mercenaries and agents and eliminate the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).” (Anadolu Agency, 13/3/2025). This statement was intended to adapt to the new reality, and given the significant impact this reality has had on the people and within the army, army sectors have begun to clash with the RSF in some areas of Darfur. Army forces have valiantly defended their positions. The city of El Fasher is the only one of the five Darfur capitals that remains under army control. The Sudanese army began to rush towards Darfur.
“The latest developments on the ground indicate the advance of massive army and joint force units from the northern city of Ad-Dabba to lift the siege on El Fasher, while other forces affiliated with the same factions rushed to Kordofan states and achieved significant victories on their way to the city from another axis.” (Al-Quds Al-Arabi, 19/4/2025). This trend, which the people are pushing for after Khartoum’s victories and has a strong resonance within the army, is not the American approach. Therefore, Al-Burhan tried to limit this trend. (Al-Burhan warned against the misinformation campaigns promoting the idea that the war targets specific ethnicities, stressing that “our war is against the person who bears arms against the state, not against any tribe,” considering that these rumors aim to “mobilize people and drag them into killing.” He explained that “the rebellion of a tribal leader does not mean the rebellion of the entire tribe,” (RT, 29/4/2025). It was as if he wanted to stop the army’s rush towards Darfur, given that some tribes there believe the army is against them, as if he was asking for a delay.
2- After the bitter defeats suffered by the RSF in the central region and the loss of their major positions in Khartoum, Bahri and Omdurman, as well as the loss of many of their fighters and field commanders, they were cloaked in defeat and weakness. They then headed towards their stronghold in Darfur, most of which they controlled, and laid siege to the city of El Fasher. This assembly of the Rapid Support Forces was in accordance with American directives towards Sudan. It is only natural, given the circumstances, that some of RSF would disperse and face difficulty in recruiting from loyal tribes, given that they were fighting losing battles against a strong opponent, the Sudanese army. This means that the morale of the RSF was low. Therefore, the army forces inside El Fasher were sufficient to repel their repeated attacks, meaning that their attack on El Fasher lacked momentum. Therefore, a major effort was necessary to restore morale to Hemedti’s forces and demonstrate their superiority and strength, and their ability to strike and threaten remote areas that were safe for the Sudanese army, such as eastern Sudan.
3- Despite their rulers’ allegiance to the British, the United Arab Emirates has continued to support America’s agent and commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), in the hope of gaining influence over him and his followers. This action is similar to what it is doing in Libya by supporting America’s agent, Haftar. Sudan has repeatedly expressed its disapproval with the UAE and accused it of providing significant military aid to the RSF. In response to these accusations, the UAE closed its embassy in Sudan and did not move it to Port Sudan, as other countries have done after the outbreak of war in Khartoum in April 2023. However, Sudan continued to maintain its embassy and consulate in the UAE. In light of this anger and its exacerbation, Sudan filed a lawsuit against the UAE with the International Court of Justice, accusing it of participating in the genocide carried out by the RSF in Sudan. However, the court rejected this Sudanese request:
“The court on Monday said it could not judge the case against the UAE, rejected Sudan’s request for emergency measures and ordered the case be removed from its docket.” (Reuters, 6/5/2025). Sudan then took another harsh action against the UAE, severing diplomatic relations with the UAE and withdrawing the Sudanese embassy and consulate. Then, events related to the UAE continued. “The Sudanese army announced on Sunday the destruction of an Emirati cargo plane carrying military supplies to the Rapid Support Forces… It stated that the plane was carrying military supplies, including suicide drones and strategic drones.” (Sudan Tribune, 4/5/2025).
Second: Motives for these developments and their consequences:
1- With the escalation of clashes in Khartoum since 2023, the Sovereignty Council was forced to temporarily relocate the capital to Port Sudan, considering it the safest area. Foreign diplomatic missions, international relief organizations, and many residents who fled the central region for safety relocated with the Sovereignty Council members, becoming refugees. This region represents Sudan’s lifeline during the war — as it houses the port that brings in goods from abroad and the country’s only operational international airport, with Khartoum’s airport still closed despite being under army control. As both a vital artery for survival and the seat of the interim government, the continuous drone strikes over several days came as a profound shock to both the Sudanese public and the military. These attacks show that the RSF are not a force that has been broken, as some have thought, but rather possess greater capabilities than they have previously demonstrated. They also demonstrate that the army should not be scattered in the deserts of Darfur, but rather should fortify and protect these vital facilities, such as the port, airport, and fuel depots. Moreover, the severe fires that broke out in the fuel depots suggest to the army that its logistical services, necessary for the war in Darfur, have been damaged, so it must take its time and repair them before rushing into Darfur.
2- The strikes on Port Sudan facilities, Kassala Airport, and Flamingo Naval base were carried out by heavy Chinese drones, according to analyses from several sources, including the BBC, dated 10/5/2025. One drone can carry 40 kg, while another can carry 200 kg of explosives and guided missiles. The RSF have never used such drones before. Similar drones have been spotted at Nyala Airport, which is controlled by the Rapid Support Forces. This is the same airport where the army said it destroyed the Emirati cargo plane.
3- The UAE was among the first countries in the region to acquire Chinese drones years ago. On 2/5/2019, Defense News reported that the UAE used these drones to support Khalifa Haftar in his attacks on Tripoli, Libya. Times Aerospace reported that the UAE used these Chinese drones to strike jihadist sites in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2014. This means that the UAE has been armed with various heavy types of Chinese drones for many years, and it is likely that they are behind these attacks in eastern Sudan, either directly from the sea or by supplying them to the RSF. They are outraged by Burhan government’s defamation of them in the International Court, the severing of relations with them, and the destruction of their cargo plane.
4- The focus of the strikes was on airports, the port, and the Flamingo naval base. Fires often broke out, taking days to control, indicating that oil depots were being targeted. The Sudanese Minister of Energy and Petroleum, Muhieddin Mohamed Naeem, revealed that five major oil storage depots were burned as a result of drone strikes on the first day of the campaign (Voice of Sudan, 6/5/2025). Due to the continued targeting of energy facilities, the same minister issued directives to shut down the pipeline carrying South Sudan’s oil due to the drone bombing of the oil pumping station east of Atbara (Al Jazeera Net, 11/5/2025).
5- The targeting focused on fuel, to deprive the Sudanese army of it, which would prevent it from launching major operations in Darfur, especially in the city of El Fasher. This is in addition to showing the government in a weak position, as it is unable to secure its headquarters, as well as secure fuel and electricity for all of Sudan’s needs. “The Sudanese Electricity Company announced that “the Sudanese electricity station was damaged as a result of being targeted by drones and the power outage.”” (Anadolu Agency, 8/5/2025)
6- 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. The BBC reported on 10/5/2025, that the army forces moving towards El Fasher were forced by the attack on eastern Sudan to return and focus on protecting eastern Sudan.
Third: Conclusion of these Events
1- It is likely that, after these heavy strikes, the Sudanese army has begun to fear the new capabilities of the Rapid Support Forces and is losing access to the fuel needed to operate its vehicles in the war it planned for El Fasher and Darfur in general. This is in addition to the need to fortify eastern Sudan for fear of further waves of attacks, thereby reducing the army’s pressure on Darfur and its preoccupation with the eastern front.
2- Regarding the RSF, its forces will gain momentum and be in a better morale to achieve results in El Fasher, all with support from the UAE and the provision of heavy Chinese drones.
3- It is expected that the attacks on El Fasher will intensify and that the army sectors that were on their way to support El Fasher will retreat, and that the Sovereignty Council will take time to repair this devastation in eastern Sudan. It is unlikely that the Jeddah negotiations will start again before the RSF take control of El Fasher, or have weight in it, which is important in Darfur. Then America will create a balance of power and control between the two Sudanese forces (the army and the Rapid Support Forces), so that if the Jeddah negotiations are resumed, the RSF will have thrown off the cloak of defeat and will stand confident in their strength and the stability of their control and have established a de facto government in Darfur, that is, creating the appropriate conditions for the division to mature and become a reality that must be accepted
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!
In conclusion, we call upon you in the same manner as we called upon you in our previous response dated 19/12/2023:
O our People in the Sudan of the Great Islam… The Sudan of Dongola Mosque, the first mosque built by the first Muslims in Sudan… The Sudan of the great Islamic conquest during the era of Caliph Othman, may Allah be pleased with him, where he ordered the governor of Egypt to bring the light of Islam to Sudan, so he sent the soldiers of Islam led by Abdullah Ibn Abi Al-Sarh, and the opening took place in the year 31 AH. And so, Islam spread rapidly, with Allah’s favour, until it filled all of Sudan: from its north to its south and from its east to its west… Then it continued during the era of the Muslim caliphs.
O our people in Sudan, who fought against the British from 1896 until mid-World War I in 1916, when the pious and strong hero, Ali bin Dinar, the Wali (governor) of Darfur, was martyred. That scholar and fighter was credited with repairing the Miqat of Medina and the people of Ash-Sham, Dhu al-Hulaifah, and constructing wells for watering pilgrims, which are still named after him today, Abyar Ali.
O our people in Sudan, we call upon you to rectify the situation before regret sets in, for there is no time for regret. Take control of the two warring parties and support them firmly on the right path. Support Hizb ut Tahrir in establishing the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Khilafah), for in it lies the glory of Islam and Muslims and the humiliation of kufr (disbelief) and disbelievers. And the pleasure of Allah is greater.
[إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَذِكْرَى لِمَنْ كَانَ لَهُ قَلْبٌ أَوْ أَلْقَى السَّمْعَ وَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ]
“Surely in this is a reminder for whoever has a ˹mindful˺ heart and lends an attentive ear” [Qaf: 37]
23 Dhul Qi’dah 1446 AH
21 May 2025 CE -
The Mystery of Life and Death
The following is a translated article from Arabic that appeared in al-Waie Magazine.
Life is a short journey that ends with the inevitable death of every creature
1- Man, by nature, fears death and is wary of its occurrence. He even flees from it, trying to escape its power. The countless facts of life confirm this human nature, and many of the noble verses in the Book of Allah, the Most High, say:
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ خَرَجُواْ مِن دِيَارِهِمْ وَهُمْ أُلُوفٌ حَذَرَ الْمَوْتِ فَقَالَ لَهُمُ اللّهُ مُوتُواْ ثُمَّ أَحْيَاهُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لَذُو فَضْلٍ عَلَى النَّاسِ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لاَ يَشْكُرُونَ
” Have you not considered those who left their homes, thousands in number, for fear of death? And Allah said to them, “Die.” Then He gave them life. Indeed, Allah is full of bounty to mankind, but most of the people are not grateful. ”
(Al-Baqarah: 243)And the Almighty says:
وَجَاءتْ سَكْرَةُ الْمَوْتِ بِالْحَقِّ ذَلِكَ مَا كُنتَ مِنْهُ تَحِيدُ
{ And the stupor of death will come in truth. That is what you were avoiding. } [Qaf: 19]
And the Almighty says:
قُلْ إِنَّ الْمَوْتَ الَّذِي تَفِرُّونَ مِنْهُ فَإِنَّهُ مُلَاقِيكُمْ
{ Say, “Indeed, the death from which you flee will surely meet you. “} [Al-Jumu’ah: 8]
And the Almighty says:
قُل لَّن يَنفَعَكُمُ الْفِرَارُ إِن فَرَرْتُم مِّنَ الْمَوْتِ أَوِ الْقَتْلِ
{ Say, “Flight will not benefit you if you flee from death or killing.” } [Al-Ahzab: 16]
2- Just as these verses have shown that man tries to escape from death, they have also shown that there is no benefit in escaping from death and no way to escape from it, as { God Almighty says: {Then God said to them, “Die ,” } { And the stupor of death will come in truth,} { Indeed, the death from which you flee will surely meet you ,} { Say, “Flight will not benefit you if you flee from death or killing.” } [Al-Ahzab: 16], And the Almighty says: { Every soul shall have the taste of death } [ Surah Al-Anbiya: 35 ], And the Almighty says: (Until, when death comes to one of you, Our messengers take him, and they do not fail [in their duties]) [Al-An`am: 61]
Indeed, Allah Almighty challenges them to protect themselves from death if it comes to them, as He Almighty says: ( Say, “Then avert death from yourselves, if you should be truthful.” ) [Al Imran: 168]. Even if they tried to protect themselves from death or to escape from it when their time came, they would not be able to escape it, as in the words of Allah Almighty: { Wherever you may be, death will overtake you, even if you were in fortified towers } [An-Nisa’: 78]. And as the son of Noah tried to do, but he did not succeed in protecting himself, as Allah Almighty said about him: { He said, “I will seek refuge on a mountain that will protect me from the water.” He said, “There is no protector today from the decree of God except for him upon whom He has mercy.” And a wave came between them, and he was among the drowned .} [Hud: 43]
3- If death is inevitable, and every soul will inevitably taste its bitterness, as the Holy Quran guides us and as is clear as the sun to anyone with eyes, then who will make people taste the bitterness of death, and who will make it the end of every creature? The Holy Quran answers this question conclusively by saying that Allah Almighty alone is the One who has decreed death for every creature and has obliged them to drink its cup and submit to His authority, as we have explained in the verses we cited above.
4- Even if some deny that there is a Creator who created them, and that it is He who gives them life and causes them to die, they cannot deny that there are two processes of life and death taking place before their eyes, in millions of newly living beings of humans, animals, and plants, and in millions of dead people. However, they attribute this to time and eternity, denying, of course, that there is another life after this worldly life. These people are called materialists. The Holy Qur’an records their falsehood, as Allah the Almighty says: { And they say, “There is not but our worldly life. We die and live, and nothing destroys us except time.” And they have no knowledge of that They are only assuming. } [Al-Jathiyah: 24]
5- Allah Almighty did not only decree death for every creature, but He also set for every creature, and indeed for every nation, an undoubted term, which no one has the power to exceed by increasing or decreasing it. The verses of the Qur’an clearly establish this. Allah Almighty says: “ No soul can die except by Allah’s permission at a decreed time. ” [Al Imran: 145], and He says: “ Then He keeps the one for whom He has decreed death and sends the other back for a specified term .” [Az-Zumar: 42] And He says: { And Allah will not delay a soul when its term has come. And Allah is Acquainted with what you do. } [Al-Munafiqun: 11] And He says: { And for every nation is a term appointed; so when their term comes, not an hour can they delay it, nor can they advance it .} [Al-A’raf: 34] He says: “ And if God were to punish people for their wrongdoing, He would not leave on the earth a single creature, but He delays them for a specified term. And when their term comes, they cannot delay it an hour, nor can they advance it. ” (An-Nahl: 61) Allah Almighty said: “ He said, ‘O my people, indeed I am to you a clear warner, that you worship God and fear Him and obey me . He will forgive you some of your sins and delay you for a specified term. Indeed, the term of God, when it comes, cannot be delayed, if you only knew. ’” (Noah 2-4) Allah the Almighty said: { Have they not seen that Allah, who created the heavens and the earth, is able to create the likes of them and has appointed for them a term about which there is no doubt? But the wrongdoers refused except disbelief. } [Al-Isra: 99] Allah the Almighty said: { Then We produced after them other generations. No nation can outstrip its term, nor can they delay it. } [Al-Mu’minun: 42-43]
6- If some people have the illusion that anyone other than Allah is able to impose death on a soul whose time has not yet come, then the Qur’an has come to invalidate and refute this illusion. The people of Ibraahim, peace be upon him, plotted to kill him in order to avenge their idols that he had destroyed. They lit a fire for him and threw him into it, but Allah Almighty saved him from their plot and treachery. Allah Almighty said: “ They said, ‘Burn him and support your gods, if you are going to do something.’ We said, ‘O fire, be coolness and safety upon Abraham.’ And they intended a plan against him, but We made them the greatest losers. And We saved him and Lot to the land which We had blessed for the worlds .” (Al-Anbiya’: 68-71)
When Yunus, peace be upon him, left his people in anger and came to a ship that was taking him far away from his people, the waves played with it and its passengers suggested throwing some of them into the sea in the hope that the others would be saved from drowning. Yunus, peace be upon him, was thrown into the water and the whale picked him up, not to be a grave for him, but rather a lifeboat that carried him to the shore of safety and security with shade and food. The Holy Quran mentions this great event: ( And indeed, Jonah was among the messengers. When he fled to the laden ship, and drew lots, he was among the losers. Then the fish swallowed him, while he was blameworthy. And had he not been among those who glorify Allah, he would have remained within its belly until the Day of Resurrection . Then We cast him upon the shore while he was sick. And We caused to grow over him a gourd vine. ) [As-Saffat: 139-146].
Among the plots mentioned in the Holy Quran is what the polytheists of Mecca did when they conspired in Dar al-Nadwa against the life of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). They finally resolved to kill him. Little did they, and all the people, realize that if all creation gathered together to harm someone with something Allah had not decreed for him, they would not be able to do so. And if they unanimously agreed to put an end to the life of a person whose time had not yet come, they would not be able to do so. Therefore, Allah the Almighty saved His Prophet from their plot and protected and preserved him and his companion Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) until they arrived among the people of support in Medina, honored and victorious. God Almighty says: ( And when those who disbelieved plotted against you to imprison you or kill you or expel you. And they planned, and Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners. ) [Al-Anfal: 30] . And the Almighty says: { If you do not aid him – Allah already aided him when those who disbelieved had expelled him, the second of two, when they were in the cave and he said to his companion, “Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us.” So Allah sent down His tranquility upon him and supported him with soldiers you did not see and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the word of Allah – that is the highest. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise. } [At-Tawbah: 40]
-
Death does not occur except with the end of Ajal (life-term)
The following is a translation from Arabic.
Many people think that though death is the same, the causes of death are numerous. So death could be because of detrimental disease, such as the plague. It could also be due to stab by a knife, or a gunshot or burning by fire of beheading or heart attack or others. In their view, all of these are direct causes that lead to death, ie death occurs because of them. That is why it became common on their mouth the phrase, “The causes are many but the death is the same.”
The truth is that death is the same and its cause (sabab) is also the same, which is the end of ajal (life-term), and nothing else. As regards to these matters, which take place and due to them death occurs, they are cases in which death occurs and are not causes of death.
This is because the cause (sabab) produces the effect (musabbab) definitely; and that the effect (musabbab) can’t result save from its cause (sabab) alone. This is different to the case (halah), it is a specific circumstance within certain surrounding conditions in which death usually takes place. However, death could fail to happen. Thus, the case might exist but the death does not occur; and the death might occur while the case did not happen.
The one who examines many of the things in which death occurs, and the one who examines the death itself, finds that these matters might take place but the death does not occur. Death might also occur while these cases did not take place. As an example, a person might be fatally stabbed by a knife, and the doctors agree unanimously that it is fatal, but the stabbed person did not die, rather he healed and recovered. Death could also occur without an apparent cause, such as when the heart of somebody stopped suddenly and he died immediately without all the doctors being able to discover a reason for this heart attack after the painstaking examination.The incidents about this are many and are known by the doctors. The hospitals have witnessed thousands of these incidents; where a cause that usually leads certainly to death occurs, then the person does not die; and death occurs suddenly without the appearance of any cause that lead to it.
Therefore, all the doctors say that the so and so sick man has no hope (of life) according to the instructions of medicine, but he might recover, and this is beyond our knowledge. They also say that so and so person is beyond the danger (on his life), and he is healthy, and he passed the point of danger, then he suddenly suffers a relapse and dies. All of this is tangible reality sensed by the people and doctors; and it clearly indicates that these matters from which death occurs are not causes for death. For it they were causes they would not fail (in bringing death) and death would have not occurred, by other than them. The fact that they failed (to cause death) even once, and that death occurred by other than them, even once, definitely indicates that they are not causes; they are rather cases. The true cause of death that produces the effect is other than them and not them.
This actual cause could not be discovered by the mind, for it does not fall under sensation. So it is necessary that Allah (swt) tells us about it; and that it is proved by an evidence that is definite in proof and definite in meaning. Allah (swt) has informed us, in many ayaat that it is the ajal (end of life-term); and that Allah (swt) is the One Who causes death. Thus death occurs because of the ajal and the one who causes death is Allah (swt).
There are many verses that mentioned this. Allah (swt) says:
“No soul can ever die except by Allah’s leave and at a term appointed.” [TMQ Al-Imran:145]
“Allah receives (men’s) souls at the time of their death.” [TMQ Az-Zumar: 42]
“My Lord is He Who gives life and causes death.” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 258]
“And Allah gives life and causes death.” [TMQ Ali-’Imran:156] “Wherever you are death reaches you, even if you were in lofty towers.” [TMQ An-Nisaa’: 78]
“Say (to them): ‘The angel of death, who has charge concerning you, will take you to death.’” [TMQ As-Sajda: 11]
“Say (to them): ‘The death which you are fleeing from will surely meet you.” [TMQ Al-Jumu’a: 8]
“We mete out death among you.’” [TMQ Al-Waqi’a: 60]
“Lo! The term of Allah when it comes can’t be delayed.” [TMQ Nuh: 4]
“When their term comes, then they can’t put it off an hour, not hasten (it).” [TMQ Yunus: 49]
These and other verses are definite in proof that they are from Allah (swt), and definite in meaning that Allah is He Who causes death; and that cause of death is the end of life term (intihaa’ ul-’ajal), and not the case in which death occurred.Therefore, it is obligatory that the Muslim believes by mind and Shar’ that what he thinks of as causes to death are not causes, rather they are cases; and that the cause is other than them. It has been proved by Shar’ through the definite evidence that death is in the Hand of Allah, that Allah is He Who causes death and that the cause of death is intihaa’ ul-’ajal. Once the ajal came, it can’t be delayed or hastened; nor is there any person who can avert from death or to escape from it absolutely. Thus it will most certainly reach him.
As regards what man was ordered to avert and work to distance from himself, it is the cases from which death occurs. So, he must not submit himself to any of the cases from which death occurs usually. As for death, he should not be scared of, nor to flee from, because he can never save himself from it. This is because man does not die except after the end of his ajal, whether he died naturally, or by killing or burning or any other thing. So death is in the Hand of Allah (swt) and ajal is in the Hand of Allah (swt).
Extract from ‘Al-Fikr al-Islami (The Islamic Thought) by Sheikh Mohammad Mohammad Ismael Abduh, Egypt.
-
Q&A: India, Pakistan, and the Ceasefire
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answer to Question
India, Pakistan, and the Ceasefire
(Translated)Question:
Trump surprisingly announced yesterday, Saturday, in a post on his Truth Social platform, that “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire, “praising both countries for using common sense and great intelligence.” (Al Jazeera, 11/5/2025). Tensions had escalated between India and Pakistan following the attack on tourists in the Baisaran Valley in the Pahalgam area of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir on 22/4/2025, which killed 25 Indians and one Nepalese. On 23/4/2025, India announced the suspension of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty as part of a series of punitive measures against Pakistan. In response, Pakistan announced the suspension of the 1972 Shimla Agreement, which governs bilateral relations. On May 7th, India announced the implementation of a military operation called “Operation Sindhur”… then Pakistan responded… and now, as Trump announced that his mediation succeeded in achieving a ceasefire… what is the truth behind this tension and conflict? What exactly is the Indus Waters Treaty that India has temporarily suspended? Did America have a hand in starting the attack as well as stopping it?
Answer:
To clarify the answer to these questions, it is necessary to review the following facts:
1- The Bharatiya Janata Party, which came to power in India under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee from 1998 to 2004, and then returned to power under Narendra Modi in 2014 after 10 years of rule by the pro-British Congress Party, is a pro-American party as part of its Eurasian strategy, i.e., to confront and encircle China. It is clear that urgent American interests in the Far East were behind the Hindu supremacist Modi’s victory in 2014, and it continues to support him. Narendra Modi has always served American interests, whether in the annexation of Kashmir in 2019, or in the border clashes he engaged in with China in 2014, 2017, and 2020, or in Afghanistan, or in the failure of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.
2- After Modi came to power in India in 2014, the US effectively used India to increase pressure on China, encircle it, prevent it from controlling the surrounding regions, and confine it within its own territory. This is especially true since the US has declared economic war on China, with Trump imposing heavy tariffs on Chinese goods. Through these additional tariffs, Trump aims to weaken the Chinese economy. News has spread that major technology companies, such as iPhone, intend to move their factories to India as a result of the significant increase in tariffs. “Apple revealed that it plans to move the assembly of all iPhones sold in the United States to India, according to the Financial Times.” (Euro News, 26/4/2025). Thus, as part of its strategy to confront China, the US seeks to strengthen India’s position as an economic and military power in the region.
3- This required, on the one hand, supporting India through military and economic means, and, on the other hand, resolving India’s problems with Pakistan, both of whose regimes were loyal to and agents of America, so that India could focus on the Chinese side.
As for the first aspect, America supported India and its army by all means, such as transferring American nuclear technology to India. The issue of confronting China was strongly present during Trump’s meeting with the Indian Prime Minister in Washington: “The two leaders also discussed strengthening the Quad security alliance in the Asia-Pacific region, which also includes Japan and Australia. India is scheduled to host the leaders of this group later this year, which is seen as a counterweight to China’s growing military activity.” (Reuters, 14/2/2025).
The second aspect was the most prominent of these problems:
a- Pakistani forces on the border restrict the movement of Indian forces towards the Chinese front. Therefore, the United States pushed Pakistan to transfer its forces from the Indian border to the tribal areas of Waziristan to fight the Pakistani Taliban, to Balochistan to fight the Balochistan Liberation Army, and to the Afghan border. This is to allow India to move freely against China and move its armies to the Chinese border instead of deploying them on the Pakistani border. The United States then began demanding that Pakistan make concessions to India in order to facilitate India’s withdrawal from the confrontation with Pakistan and place it in a confrontation with China. For this purpose, as we mentioned earlier, Pakistan transferred many of its military divisions from the border with India and employed them in internal fighting within Pakistan against jihadist groups… and began clashing with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
b- The conflict over Kashmir, which India annexed by its decision on 5/8/2019
We said in the Answer to a Question, 18/8/2019
(…Shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration focused on India. A large proportion of US actions were directed at bridging the military gap between India and China, according to US programs … from these measures is America’s nuclear agreement with India.
America saw that tensions over Kashmir between India and Pakistan affect the weakening of the confrontation of the Indian Subcontinent against China … To overcome these tensions, the United States began the process of normalization between India and Pakistan, and the goal of normalization was to neutralize the Indian and Pakistani forces from fighting each other because of Kashmir, and to direct efforts toward cooperation with the United States eventually to restrict the rise of China. America believed that the annexation of Kashmir to India and America’s pressure on the regime in Pakistan to prevent it from acting militarily and shifting the subject to dialogue will kill the issue and prevent military conflict between them, just as Abbas’s authority in Palestine and the Arab countries around them not taking military action against the Jewish entity that is occupying and claiming what it wants of Palestine! Thus, Modi began with the plan to annex Jammu and Kashmir and change the population’s demography there, and then followed the decision taken by Modi on 5/8/2019 to repeal Article 370 of their Constitution on Kashmir…)
America thought that the annexation would make Muslims forget about Kashmir and that India and Pakistan would be free of problems between them, given that the two regimes are currently following the American line. America forgot, or pretended to forget, along with India, that Kashmir is in the hearts of Muslims and will return, Allah willing.
c- The problem of water sharing with Pakistan. India wanted to review the existing Indus Waters Treaty. India has long sought to review the Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 with World Bank mediation following nine years of negotiations, citing rapid population growth as a reason. Pakistan, however, rejects any renegotiation. Citing unnamed informed sources, “India Today” reported that: “India had halted the flow of water from the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab River to Pakistan. The newspaper indicated that India also plans to cut off the flow of water from the Kishanganga Dam on the Jhelum River.” (Anadolu Agency, 5/5/2025). Given India’s unilateral suspension of the treaty and its persistent demands for a review over the years, the Modi government’s decision to suspend the treaty after the Pahalgam attack can be interpreted as an attempt to pressure Pakistan and force it to accept the review demand. (“In recent years, the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sought to renegotiate the treaty, and the two countries have attempted to settle some of their disputes at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague over the size of the water storage area at the Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower plants.” (Arabi21, 27/4/2025)).
It is worth noting that the Indus Waters Agreement (ISA) is a water allocation treaty between India and Pakistan. It was prepared and negotiated under the sponsership of the World Bank. The signing ceremony of this important agreement took place in Karachi on 19/9/1960. Pakistan was granted the rights to use the waters of three rivers in the western part of the Indus Basin (the Jhelum, the Chenab, and the Indus River itself), while India retained full control over the waters of the three eastern rivers (the Sutlej, the Beas, and the Ravi).
c- The jihadist movements in Kashmir were causing concern for India, so America wanted to provoke a fight there as a pretext for an Indian attack on the roots of those movements in Kashmir and to try to involve the Pakistani regime in the attack on those movements in Pakistan. This took place in two stages:
First: Fabricating an attack in Kashmir, attributing it to those movements, using it as a justification for a major military operation against the centers of those movements in Pakistan, as it claims… and against the roots of those movements in Kashmir and against the Muslims there, to kill or displace them under the pretext of their support for those movements, just as the Jews do in Gaza with their massacres of its people under the pretext of supporting the resistance. Then, embarrass the Pakistani regime by not supporting Kashmir because the attack was initiated by those movements!
Thus, India began, by ordering America to carry out this fabricated attack in Kashmir. The evidence for this is:
– The attack targeting tourists in the Baisaran Valley in the Pahalgam area of Indian-administered Kashmir on 22/4/2025, which India claims was carried out by a Pakistani-backed militant group, while Pakistan denies this. This attack occurred in Kashmir on 22/4/2025, while US Vice President J.D. Vance was in New Delhi. (US Vice President J.D. Vance arrived in India today, Monday, at the beginning of a four-day visit during which he will hold talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. (Bahrain News Agency, 21/4/2025.) India took all of its initial measures against Pakistan, including suspending the Indus Treaty, while this American official was in New Delhi. This demonstrates America’s coordination with India, and it is absolutely not acceptable to assume that all of this is a mere coincidence.
The Indian government’s haste to blame Pakistan for the attack on April 22nd just minutes after it occurred and before any investigation or research had begun. This, despite Pakistan’s demand for an international investigation, and the Indian media which was quick to point the finger at the TRF, a wing of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), despite the group’s denial of responsibility. All point to a “staged” operation. “The TRF claimed responsibility for the attack on social media, but later disavowed it, citing hacking as a pretext.” (24.net, 30/4/2025)
Then the second phase began, as India launched a missile attack on Pakistan on the evening of 6/5/2025. It did not limit itself to the Pakistani part of Kashmir, as usual, but also struck targets in the Punjab province. Pakistan did not respond by striking targets inside India, but rather limited itself to border clashes and the downing of Indian aircraft on the border. India tried to mitigate the impact of the attack on Pakistan, saying that it did not attack Pakistani army targets and only attacked “terrorists” (Al-Araby TV, 7/5/2025). Clashes continued to escalate between the two sides (violent clashes broke out along the Line of Control in Kashmir between Indian and Pakistani forces, and explosions were heard along the Line of Control in Kashmir amid reports of deaths, according to Indian media (Al-Arabiya, 9/5/2025). It admitted that 3 of its aircraft had been shot down, and announced the deaths of 7 civilians in Kashmir, which it controls, as a result of Pakistani attacks. While Pakistan stated that it shot down 5 Indian aircraft, including three French Rafale aircraft, as well as 25 drones manufactured by the Jewish entity, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said: (“We could have shot down 10 Indian fighter jets in response to the Indian attack on Pakistani positions, but army commanders exercised restraint and shot down 5 aircraft.” (Asharq News, 7/5/2025”). Pakistani army spokesman Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry announced that the army bombed 26 military installations and dozens of drones flew over major Indian cities, including the capital, New Delhi. (Sky News, 10/5/2025). It appears that Pakistan was capable of launching a large-scale attack, engaging in a confrontation with India, and defeating it. But it is linked to America, which does not allow it to carry out such a confrontation and inflict a crushing defeat on India, leading to the fall of its agent Modi. Although America was able to pressure its agent regime in Pakistan to be satisfied with a limited response to the Indian aggression, what appeared from this limited response indicates the heroism of the Muslim soldiers in Pakistan and the strength of their motivation to fight. Despite the collusion of the regime in Pakistan with America and the restrictions on the movement of the army,yet this Muslim army inflicted significant losses on the polytheist enemy, as we mentioned earlier. All of this prompted America to end the battle plan as it started it, and resort to stopping the aggression as it started it and change the battle plan to political and negotiation malice between the two regimes loyal to it, India and Pakistan. Thus achieving for India what it could not achieve for it through the military aggression.
4- Therefore, four days after the start of the Indian attack, on 10/5/2025, a ceasefire was announced under US orders. US President Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on 10/5/2025, “After a long night of talks led by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a comprehensive and immediate ceasefire. I congratulate both countries for using common sense and high intelligence. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on the X platform on 10/5/2025, “The governments of India and Pakistan have agreed to an immediate ceasefire and to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.” He added that he and Vice President J.D. Vance worked with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Pakistani Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir, and Indian and Pakistani National Security Advisors Ajit Doval and Asim Malik over the past two days to reach an agreement. In other words, America failed to appreciate the heroism of the Pakistani army, despite its leadership’s loyalty for it, and feared that Modi would continue the fighting and lose his power instead of fulfilling America’s demands in confronting China! Therefore, it ordered a halt to the war and resorted to political malice to achieve its goals through negotiations between two regimes loyal to it!
5- In conclusion, Hizb ut Tahrir warns Muslims in general and the people of Pakistan in particular that the political malice and negotiations taking place with the enemies of Islam and Muslims, especially the Hindu polytheists in India and the Jews in Palestine, these negotiations do not produce any good, especially if the kaffir colonialist America is the one running them, as is happening now. They are fighting Allah and His Messenger in every time and place. The Messenger of Allah (saw) informed us of fighting them and achieving victory over them, and in that is the great reward. Muslim narrated in his Sahih on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Prophet (saw) said: «لَتُقَاتِلُنَّ الْيَهُودَ فَلَتَقْتُلُنَّهُمْ…» “You will fight the Jews and kill them…” Ahmad and An-Nasa’i narrated on the authority of Thawban, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (saw), who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«عِصَابَتَانِ مِنْ أُمَّتِي أَحْرَزَهُمَا اللهُ مِنَ النَّارِ؛ عِصَابَةٌ تَغْزُو الْهِنْدَ، وَعِصَابَةٌ تَكُونُ مَعَ عِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلَام»
“There are two groups of my Ummah whom Allah will free from the Fire: The group that invades India, and the group that will be with ‘Isa bin Maryam, peace be upon him.”
So, fighting the Jews in Palestine and killing them, and invading India and the victory of Islam in them will inevitably happen, Allah willing. This is the saying of the Truthful, the Trusted One (saw). However, Allah (swt) has decreed that victory will not descend upon us from the sky, and His angels will carry it to us while we are sitting. Rather, we need to work, exert effort, and strive, and seek truthfulness and sincerity in what we do. This is how we should be. Then, Allah’s victory will come, without a doubt, by His permission, glory be to Him.
We are optimistic about the people of Pakistan, for it is a strong Islamic country, and the roots of Islam are deep in it, and the feelings of Islam are surging in it. Its army loves jihad in the way of Allah, and the aspirations of the Muslims there to establish the Khilafah are rising. It will not be long, Allah willing, before victory is achieved for the pioneer who does not lie to his people, and His saying (saw) will be fulfilled by establishing the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Caliphate) after this oppressive rule that we live in. Ahmad narrated in his Musnad on the authority of Hudhayfah who said: The Messenger of Allah said:
«..ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكاً جَبْرِيَّةً فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ. ثُمَّ سَكَتَ»
“Then there will be oppressive rule and it will be as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills to remove it, then there will be a Khilafah (Caliphate) on the method of Prophethood. Then he remained silent.” And on that day the believers will rejoice.
[وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللهِ 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]
17 Dhul Qi’dah 1446 AH
15/5/2025 CE -
Q&A: The Deep State
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answer to Question
The Deep State
(Translated)Question:
The term “deep state” has become widely used among politicians and in the media. However, upon examining these statements, it becomes clear that they are different. Could you clarify the most likely meaning of this issue so that we can understand the political realities related to this term, and provide some examples for further clarification? I apologize if my request for these examples distracts you from the more important and valuable work you are doing. Thank you.
Answer:
Yes, there is a difference in what is published about the term “deep state.” Some interpret it to mean the influential classes outside of government, working secretly against the existing regime, as was the case in Turkey. Others interpret it as the controlling force within the regime; it rules the country whenever it wishes. If a problem arises, it pins it on someone else.
It leaves the ruling and brings in another party to blame for the problem, then returns to power again, as is happening in Britain. Others interpret it as a struggle between influential parties, as is currently happening under Trump in America. Others use it as a scapegoat for their governance shortcomings and failures, thus linking this to what they call the “deep state.” Others manipulate this term whenever they want to distract people with something, mentioning it in its own words or using other terms. Others interpret colonial states as the deep state in their colonies. To clarify the correct meaning of this issue, we will review the following points:
First: Some definitions of the deep state:
1- Webster’s Dictionary, one of the oldest dictionaries in the world, describes the deep state as: “an alleged secret network of especially nonelected government officials and sometimes private entities operating extralegally to influence and enact government policy”. This means that, beyond the laws and constitutions, there is a deeper power that controls the nation. This power has its own agenda and can undermine the decisions of the elected government.
2- Wikipedia states: “In Turkey, the deep state (Turkish: derin devlet) is a group of influential anti-democratic coalitions inside the Turkish political structure, composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services (domestic and foreign), the Turkish military, security agencies, the judiciary, and mafia…The political agenda of the deep state network purportedly involves an allegiance to nationalism, corporatism, and state interests. Violence and other means of pressure have historically been employed in a largely covert manner to manipulate political and economic elites, ensuring that specific interests are met within the seemingly democratic framework of the political landscape.”
3- By examining what these people mean by the term “deep state,” we find that it means the existence of a hidden force within or outside the state apparatus that controls the political system, i.e., imposes its policies, opinions, and orientations on legally elected politicians… This hidden force is an organized network of individuals that penetrates sensitive centers such as the military, security, and political forces, and operates independently of the elected government… Sometimes different terms are used to refer to this network… such as “deep state,” “parallel state,” “shadow state,” or “state within a state”.
4- There is another, different definition offered by a defeated politician in government or elections, using it as a pretext for his defeat in government or elections. In other words, it is a misleading concept, used to exonerate rulers when corruption, injustice, or treason are widespread in the country. It is a deception by the ruler, who places the blame on individuals in the shadows, whom he calls the “deep state,” then misleads the people about the fact that he is responsible and must be replaced.
5- There is also the claim that colonial powers are the deep state in their colonies, controlling the systems of their colonies, keeping some rulers and removing others.
Second: The Most Likely Definition:
1- By carefully examining these definitions and reflecting on their contents, the most likely definition is that the deep state in a country means an influential force, whether political, economic, or influential aristocratic families from within or outside the country. This force is not officially part of the government apparatus, but rather influences the state covertly or secretly. It exerts effective and influential pressure on the official government apparatus to implement its desires or change them.
2- As for the ruler’s misleading of the people to deflect the accusation of corruption from him and pin it on another entity he calls the “deep state,” i.e., a scapegoat for his poor governance and corruption, calling this deception the “deep state” is incorrect, as it is a deception perpetrated by the ruler, not by other entities against him.
3- As for considering the colonial states as the deep state, this is also incorrect because the colonial states are the ones that control their colonies and are foreign to them, and they are not other forces from the people of the country that work in secret, hidden from the elected ruling forces, which are also from the people of the country.
Third: Examples of the deep state in some countries, for further clarification:
1- Turkey [Turkiye]
a- The origin of the term “deep state” originated in Turkey. At the end of the Ottoman State, officers belonging to the Committee of Union and Progress, who were influenced by Western ideas, staged a coup in 1909, overthrowing Caliph Abdul Hamid II and appointing his brother, Muhammad Reshad, as Caliph with authorities less than their own.
* This marked the beginning of the emergence of a class stronger than the Caliph, influencing his survival or downfall in a visible, rather than hidden, manner. However, they did not overthrow the Caliphate and Islamic rule. They were not, in reality, a state within a state, in the sense of a hidden, deep state. They were visible within the state, but they controlled the government.
b- After the First World War, Mustafa Kemal, who was loyal to the British, was able to seize power and then was able to destroy the Caliphate (Khilafah), abolish Shariah, and the implementation of its laws. He declared the Republic and built it on secular foundations. He carried out coups against Islamic rule, and even against manifestations of Islam, such as what is known as the “letter coup”, which was changing the letters of the Turkish language from Arabic to Latin. Or the “religious dress coup”, replacing it with Western dress, and so on. Thus, he established the army and security forces according to specific standards to protect the republic and secularism, and to prevent the return of Islam to power and the re-establishment of the Caliphate. The army became a force controlling the government, intervening whenever it saw a deviation from Kemalism, in addition to maintaining subordination to Britain. The tyranny of the Kemalist rule and British support prevented the emergence of a deep state against this rule.
c- When Erdogan came to power in Turkey with the momentum of the ballot box results, and with American political, financial and economic support, he was aware of the power of the army generals, the guardians of secularism, subservient to the British, and that they represented the backbone of the state and could, if they wished, stage a coup against him. Therefore, he promoted the values of democracy and freedom and besieged them with the power of popular legitimacy to prevent them from staging a coup against him. America was making the Turks salivate through its financial and economic veins. Erdogan was afraid of these soldiers and was unable to dismiss them due to their large numbers and their ability to control the backbone of the army over the years. However, he quickly created a new reality in Turkish life, the prominent title of which was “democracy” and economic success, and this constituted an obstacle to a coup.
* During this period, the description of the existence of a “deep state” in Turkey operating in secret from within the state apparatus, especially the army, resisting, opposing, and trying to thwart the directions of the elected Prime Minister Erdogan was an accurate description. These people were a network whose features were not apparent to those with a superficial view who believed that things were proceeding perfectly and that everyone was committed to the constitution and the law. This Turkish network, in addition to its nesting within the army, judiciary, and ministries, was connected to secular parties that were outside the state and represented the opposition, and was connected to the center in London. Its members met secretly, consulted, and discussed matters of Erdogan’s regime until they decided to carry out a coup in 2016, but it was unsuccessful. Erdogan then used this as justification; therefore, he uprooted them from the army, along with their followers from the judiciary and ministries, until the purge reached university professors. Thus, Erdogan succeeded in uprooting the deep state affiliated with the British within the Turkish army and was close to ending its existence. However, they still had followers, albeit weaker than before, who are trying to revive the description of the “deep state” facing the regime.
2- The United States
a- Government in America is divided into two actual levels. The first level appears to represent popular legitimacy, working to implement the will of the people who elected this president and these representatives. Thus, the state’s appearance is “democratic.” However, this legitimate level can only steer the country’s policies in accordance with the wishes of the second level, which is an internal, invisible, and unelected level. This means it is illegitimate according to the “democratic” system. This is what they call the “deep state.” The individuals at this level, i.e., the representatives of the deep state, hold sensitive positions within the state apparatus. The apparatus they control cannot act in accordance with the directives of the first level except through them, because their positions are sensitive. These individuals in America are either major capitalists or their representatives. Major capitalists in America are keen to ensure that senior officials in the state apparatus protect their interests, they maintain constant contact with these officials in order to advance their interests. For example, financial companies are keen to have followers among the employees of the tax departments, while arms companies are keen to have followers in the Pentagon and the military contracting departments in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pharmaceutical companies are keen to have followers in the Ministry of Health and government insurance departments. Thus, over a long period of time, large corporations have succeeded in effectively controlling the state in America through these employees in sensitive positions and through pressuring lobbies.
b- This is the reality of the political system in America. Accordingly, the major capitalists and large corporations are the origin and living root of the deep state in America. It is the hidden, latent force behind the state’s political orientations, and it is the force that motivates employees in sensitive positions to oppose the state’s orientations if they conflict with the interests of those corporations. In this description, it lies outside and within the state apparatus and is active in the financial, business, and industrial sectors, but its activity is evident within the state apparatus in America.
c- When Donald Trump came to power in 2016, he faced discontent among senior government officials and various agencies, especially security agencies. He sensed their rejection and opposition to his policies, which then developed into intense resistance from within the US state, almost a mutiny. There were many leaks of embarrassing information from security and intelligence agencies… Then, many lawsuits were filed against him, the most famous of which was Russian support for him in the elections. Investigations and impeachment attempts erupted in Congress, until the US Department of Justice became one of his most vocal enemies. The attack on him was not only from within the state, as pharmaceutical companies that had discovered a coronavirus vaccine refrained from announcing these discoveries until after Biden’s victory in the elections was announced at the end of 2020, i.e., to prevent Trump from benefiting electorally from these discoveries. Then, as a result of his suffering from this hidden, organized force working against him, the president cast doubt on the results of the elections and did not recognize them, considering them fraudulent and that the victory had been stolen from him. He added the state election commission to his list of enemies. “Either the deep state destroys America, or we destroy the deep state,” Trump said to a crowd of supporters in Texas after his ouster from the presidency in 2023. Examining this American reality during the first Trump administration and this description of a hidden force within America preventing the president-elect from changing course, we find that this description describes the true reality of the American system of government.
d- On 21/3/2023, Trump announced a 10-point plan in a video clip, saying: “I will shatter the Deep State, and restore government that is controlled by the People. (Congress; British Daily Mail, 21/3/2023)).
This is the reality of the American political system. Accordingly, the major capitalists and large corporations are the origin and living root of the deep state in America. It is the latent, hidden force behind the state’s political orientations, and it motivates employees in sensitive positions to oppose the state’s directions if they conflict with the interests of those corporations. In this description, it lies both outside and within the state apparatus and is active in the financial, business, and industrial sectors, but its activity is evident within the state apparatus in America.
3- Britain
As for Britain, it has a deep state. Its ruling system is represented by the Conservatives, Britain’s aristocratic families and wealthy elites. They are the true rulers of Britain. However, their declared policies sometimes lead the country to crises, meaning they sometimes harm the country’s interests. Therefore, the Conservative Party goes into hiatus, and the Labour Party governs the country. The Labour Party’s mission is to resolve crises and prevent harm to the country’s interests. Then it steps down. What we have witnessed recently—the resounding defeat of the Conservative Party and the sweeping victory of the Labour Party—is the work of the Conservatives. After Brexit, Britain is experiencing a severe economic crisis. Indeed, its exit from the European Union was the result of its miscalculations in the British referendum on Europe. Since the Conservatives were the ones who created and caused this crisis, the Labour Party is required today to solve it.
The deep state in Britain is the old and wealthy families. They have been always the rulers of Britain. If they step aside and bring in the Labour Party, it is to solve a crisis caused by the Conservatives. The “deep state” in Britain controls the government with ease and smoothness, meaning that Britain’s old and wealthy families are the source of the government and its guardians, whether they exercise it or have “hired” another party to exercise it. In order for that control to continue with that smoothness and ease, the “source of effective government” in Britain and its “living root” spreads values that reject change and elevate the status of antiquity and pride in the past. This is what is observed in Britain from the intense popular interest in the royal family, its news and stories, the birthdays of its princes and its way of life…!
In Conclusion:
* The deep state is an influential force within the existing government. It is a network of citizens of the country, both domestically and abroad, working secretly or covertly against the ruling class in that country to change or weaken it.
* However, if this network is not from the people of the country but rather a foreign power, such as a colonial state operating against it, or a hostile state, then such forces are not considered a deep state. Rather, their discussion falls under the category of colonialism, war, and aggression.
* Similarly, if this network is prepared by the ruling class to attribute to it the work against the state and its plans, in order to deflect blame from the ruler and shift the blame to a fictitious network of its own creation, with the aim of deceiving the people about the ruler’s corruption and incompetence, then such a network is not considered a deep state.
* The bottom line is that it is a network of the people of the country inside or outside the country working against the existing regime in that country to change or weaken it. In this sense, it only exists in countries that are governed by man-made laws, where it is possible for networks to exist inside or outside that differ in the type of rule they want, and conflict occurs between them regarding the type of man-made rule required.
* If the rule is based on legislation from the Lord of the Worlds, then Muslims, whether at home or abroad, cannot have a deep state working to replace the rule of Islam with different rules. This is unless the Muslims working at home or abroad are driven by an external colonial or aggressive force. In both cases, it is not a deep state, as we mentioned before.
Therefore, the observed changes or coups in some Muslim countries, as has happened or is happening in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, etc., cannot be described as a deep state, because colonialism is the one driving events in the agent countries that serve it.
**If there is a movement in Muslim countries that is ruled by man-made law, and this movement is working to replace the man-made rule in Muslim countries with the rule of Islam, the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Caliphate), then this movement is not called a deep state. Rather, it is a movement of Nusra (support) for Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw).
We ask Allah (swt) for help and success in re-establishing the Khilafah Rashida (Rightly-Guided Caliphate), so that Islam and Muslims may be victorious and disbelief and disbelievers may be humiliated:
[وَعَدَ اللهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ]
“Allah has promised those of you who believe and do good that He will certainly make them successors in the land, as He did with those before them” [An-Nur: 55].
6 Dhul Qi’dah 1446 AH
4/5/2025 CE
