Yaumul Ghadeer: The Justice We Were Offered, The Justice We Lost

Ali (as) through the lens of George Jordaq’s “The Voice of Human Justice”

By Dr. Sabiu Adamu, FPCPharm

In a few days the Islamic calendar will reach 18th Zul Hajj. For many, it is Yaumul Ghadeer — the day Prophet Muhammad (S) paused a caravan of over 100,000 pilgrims at Ghadir Khum, raised the hand of Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as), and said: “For whoever I am his master, Ali (as) is his master.” History tells us what followed. Political calculations, tribal loyalties, and fear of change pushed that moment to the margins. But George Jordaq, a Lebanese Christian poet who spent years studying Imam Ali (as), invites us to look past the politics and ask a more painful question: What did humanity lose when it set Imam Ali (as) aside?

Jordaq answered that question in his seven-volume work Ali: The Voice of Human Justice. He did not write as a sectarian defender. He wrote as a man stunned by a personality that seemed impossible: a ruler who could have everything, yet chose to live with nothing. Through Jordaq’s eyes, Ali (as) emerges not as a figure locked in 7th century Arabia, but as a model of leadership the modern world still lacks.

The first quality Jordaq draws is justice without exceptions. Ali (as)’s justice did not bend for family, tribe, or political cost. As Caliph, he sent a sharp rebuke to his own governor for dining with the rich while the poor were kept out. When his brother Aqeel asked for extra money from the public treasury, Ali (as) held a piece of hot iron near his hand and told him that if he could not bear that small fire, he should not ask Ali (as) to bear the fire of God’s wrath. For Jordaq, this was Ali (as)’s core teaching: justice is either complete, or it is not justice at all.

The second quality is economic justice. In a letter to his governor Malik al-Ashtar, Ali (as) outlined principles that sound strikingly modern. He ordered that the needs of the poor be set aside from the treasury first, that farmers be treated as the foundation of society, and that hoarding food during famine be treated as a crime. Ali (as) himself enforced this by going into the markets of Kufa and forcing merchants to sell grain at fair prices. While he ruled an empire, he ate bread with salt and wore a shirt patched many times, saying he did it so the poor would not feel ashamed to sit with him. Jordaq calls this religion as dynamite, not opium. It does not tell the worker to accept hunger. It tells the ruler that wealth is a trust and that wages must be paid before sweat dries.

The third quality is humility combined with power. Ali (as) governed from Egypt to Persia, yet he slept on the floor of a mosque and mended his own sandals. Other rulers of his time built palaces and filled their courts with ceremony. Ali (as) refused to build a house. Jordaq argues that this was not performance. It was policy. A leader who lives like the poorest citizen cannot easily design a system that crushes them.

The fourth quality is focused leadership. Every decision Ali (as) made was measured against one standard: does it bring justice closer? Before a major battle, his advisors urged him to use money from the treasury to buy the loyalty of wavering tribes. He refused, saying he would rather lose with justice than win with bribery. He lost the battle, but Jordaq insists that the loss revealed his greatness. For Ali (as), leadership was not about holding power at all costs. It was about keeping power aligned with principle.

When Ali (as) was set aside after Ghadir, the loss was not only personal. The Ummah and the wider world lost a model. Justice became negotiable. Leaders began to be judged by their ability to maintain empires rather than by their commitment to fairness. The public treasury slowly turned from a trust for the people into property of the ruling family. The image of a leader patching his own clothes faded and was replaced by majesty, guards, and palaces. Politics shifted from the pursuit of principle to the management of interests. Religion, which Ali (as) used to challenge injustice, was often reduced to blessing whoever held the throne.

The result is visible today. Muslim lands possess vast resources, yet poverty remains widespread. Farmers, whom Ali (as) called the foundation of society, are still neglected. Corruption is explained away as political necessity. Leaders measure success by motorcades and marble, not by proximity to the poorest citizen. Jordaq, writing in the 1960s, saw this clearly in Lebanon. It is even clearer now across the globe.

Yaumul Ghadeer, then, is not only a day of remembrance. It is a question. Do we still want the model that was presented at Ghadir? Do we want leaders who fear God more than they love power? Do we want an economy that budgets for orphans before it builds palaces? Do we want justice that does not pause for tribe or wealth?

George Jordaq, a Christian, closed his book with a sentence that Muslims should carry forward: “I did not find in the dictionary of mankind a word more beautiful than Ali (as). Because when you say Ali (as), you mean justice.” Ali (as) was denied the position for political reasons, but his model cannot be denied by politics. It remains, in his letters and in his life, a blueprint for human dignity.

This Ghadir, the task is not only to recall what happened at a desert pond fourteen centuries ago. The task is to revive what was offered there. The world did not just lose Ali (as). The world lost justice. And justice, like Ali (as), is worth bringing back?

LEADERSHIP IN ISLAM AND THE QUESTION OF SUCCESSION: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF IMAM ALI IBN ABI TALIB

By Professor Abdullahi Danladi

As the celebrations of Eid al-Adha gradually come to an end, the attention of many Muslims, particularly those who reflect deeply on the historical and spiritual foundations of their faith, turns toward another momentous event in Islamic history—an event whose significance extends far beyond a mere historical occurrence and touches the very question of leadership, authority, and the future direction of the Muslim Ummah. This is the event of Ghadir Khumm, where the issue of leadership after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) was publicly addressed before a vast gathering of Muslims returning from the Farewell Pilgrimage.

The event of Ghadir remains one of the most discussed, debated, and consequential episodes in Islamic history. Its implications have shaped theological discourse, political thought, and Muslim identity for centuries. However, before delving into the details of Ghadir itself, it is important to first examine the personality around whom the event revolves: Ali ibn Abi Talib. Any serious discussion of Ghadir must begin with a careful and objective assessment of the man whom the Prophet presented before the Muslim community on that historic day.

Who was Ali ibn Abi Talib? What qualities distinguished him from his contemporaries? What characteristics made him stand out among the companions of the Prophet? More importantly, what are the essential qualities of leadership, and to what extent did Ali embody them? These questions deserve thoughtful examination before any discussion of the declarations made at Ghadir Khumm.

It is therefore my intention in this article to explore the concept of leadership and to critically examine the personality, character, qualifications, and achievements of Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib through the lens of reason, history, ethics, and leadership studies. The specific dimensions of Ghadir Khumm and its theological implications will, God willing, be addressed in subsequent writings.

Leadership is one of the most consequential issues in human civilization. The rise and fall of nations, the success and failure of communities, and the preservation or corruption of noble ideals often depend upon the quality of those entrusted with authority. Throughout history, philosophers, political theorists, religious scholars, and sociologists have sought to identify the qualities that distinguish an exceptional leader from an ordinary administrator. Whether one studies the political philosophy of Plato, the ethical theories of Aristotle, the principles of Confucian governance, or modern theories of transformational leadership, certain characteristics consistently emerge as indispensable. These include intellectual excellence, moral integrity, courage, justice, vision, wisdom, selflessness, and an unwavering commitment to the welfare of the people.

In the Islamic tradition, leadership assumes an even greater significance because it is not merely a political function. The leader of the Muslim community is expected to preserve the teachings of revelation, safeguard justice, provide moral guidance, resolve disputes, defend the community, and ensure continuity with the mission of the Prophet. Consequently, the question of who was most qualified to lead the Muslim Ummah after the demise of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) cannot be reduced to a purely historical or political discussion. It must be examined through the combined lenses of reason, ethics, competence, character, and divine guidance.

When the life and personality of Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib are subjected to such an examination, a compelling case emerges for his unique suitability for leadership. Indeed, even before one turns to the Qur'an, the Sunnah, or the celebrated event of Ghadir Khumm, a rational assessment of leadership criteria points strongly toward Imam Ali as the most qualified individual to assume the leadership of the Muslim community after the Prophet.

The first and perhaps most important quality of leadership is knowledge. No civilization can thrive under ignorant leadership, and no religious community can preserve its identity under leaders who lack profound understanding of its foundational principles. In Islam, knowledge occupies an especially elevated position because the religion itself began with the command to read and learn. A leader entrusted with preserving the prophetic legacy must therefore possess unrivalled knowledge of revelation, law, ethics, theology, and human affairs.

Among all the companions of the Prophet, Imam Ali occupied a distinctive position in relation to knowledge. Unlike others who embraced Islam after years or decades of life in the pre-Islamic period, Ali was nurtured directly within the household of the Prophet. He grew up under the immediate guidance of Muhammad from childhood and witnessed the unfolding of revelation from its earliest stages. He was not merely a student of the Prophet; he was the closest intellectual product of the Prophet's educational mission. Historical records repeatedly demonstrate that companions and caliphs consulted him in matters of law, theology, governance, and jurisprudence. His intellectual legacy, preserved most notably in the remarkable collection known as Nahj al-Balagha, reveals a mind of extraordinary depth capable of addressing philosophy, ethics, spirituality, governance, economics, social justice, and human psychology with astonishing sophistication. It is difficult to identify another companion whose intellectual contributions exhibit such breadth and profundity.

Yet knowledge alone is insufficient for leadership. History contains many brilliant individuals who lacked the courage necessary to defend truth and justice. Effective leadership demands the willingness to confront danger, endure hardship, and make sacrifices for the principles one upholds. In this regard, Imam Ali's record is unparalleled. From the earliest days of Islam, he demonstrated a level of courage that became legendary even among his adversaries. On the night of the Hijrah, when assassins surrounded the Prophet's house with the intention of killing him, it was Ali who volunteered to sleep in the Prophet's bed, fully aware that death was a likely consequence. Such an act transcends ordinary bravery; it reflects complete devotion to a cause greater than oneself.

The same pattern is evident throughout the major battles of early Islam. At the Battle of Badr, the Battle of Uhud, the Battle of Khandaq, and the Battle of Khaybar, Ali repeatedly emerged as the decisive figure whose courage altered the course of events. Military historians often observe that leadership is tested most severely during moments of existential crisis. In such moments, Imam Ali consistently stood at the forefront while others hesitated. Courage was not merely one of his virtues; it was a defining characteristic of his personality.

Another indispensable quality of leadership is justice. A leader who possesses knowledge but lacks justice becomes a tyrant. A leader who possesses courage but lacks justice becomes a despot. The legitimacy of authority ultimately depends upon the ability to establish fairness and protect the rights of all members of society. Few personalities in history have become as synonymous with justice as Imam Ali. His governance was characterized by an uncompromising commitment to equality before the law. He refused to grant privileges based on tribal affiliation, wealth, race, or political loyalty. He insisted that public resources belonged to the people and not to those in power. Even when political expediency might have strengthened his position, he refused to compromise ethical principles. His famous instructions to Malik al-Ashtar remain among the most profound statements ever written on ethical governance and public administration. Modern scholars of political philosophy frequently note that many principles contained in this document anticipate concepts associated with contemporary theories of human rights, social justice, and responsible government.

Closely related to justice is moral integrity. Leadership requires public trust, and trust cannot exist without character. Throughout his life, Imam Ali displayed extraordinary honesty, humility, and self-discipline. Unlike rulers who viewed authority as a means of acquiring wealth or privilege, Ali regarded leadership as a burden of responsibility. Historical accounts consistently describe his simple lifestyle, modest clothing, and concern for the poor. He neither accumulated personal riches nor exploited public resources. Instead, he embodied the Qur'anic ideal of a servant-leader whose authority was exercised for the benefit of others rather than for personal advancement.

The significance of these qualities becomes even more apparent when Imam Ali is compared with other distinguished companions of the Prophet. It is important to emphasize that acknowledging Ali's superiority in all respects does not mean denying the good of other companions.

However, the issue under consideration is not whether some individuals possessed virtues. Rather, the question is whether any of them combined the full spectrum of leadership qualities to the same degree as Imam Ali. When examined objectively, Ali appears unique in possessing the highest levels of intellectual authority, military courage, moral integrity, spiritual excellence, familial proximity to the Prophet, and lifelong immersion in the prophetic mission. Other companions may have been good in particular areas, but Ali appears exceptional in the comprehensiveness of his qualifications.

From a purely rational standpoint, succession to a prophetic mission should logically favor the individual who possesses the deepest understanding of that mission, the closest relationship with its founder, the most distinguished record of sacrifice in its defense, and the strongest moral and intellectual credentials. In every professional sphere, continuity is normally entrusted to the most qualified individual. Universities appoint their most accomplished scholars to lead academic institutions. Military organizations promote their most experienced commanders. Scientific communities recognize those with the greatest expertise. It would therefore seem reasonable that the community established by Prophet Muhammad should be guided after his departure by the individual who most completely embodied his teachings and values.

This rational argument becomes even more compelling when considered alongside the religious evidence. Numerous Qur'anic passages and prophetic traditions have been interpreted by Muslim scholars as affirming the unique status of Imam Ali. Among these are the Verse of Wilayah (5:55), the Verse of Purification (33:33), and the event of Mubahalah (3:61). Most significantly, the declaration made by the Prophet at Ghadir Khumm occupies a central place in Islamic discussions of succession. For Shia Muslims, this event constituted a clear and explicit designation of Ali as the Prophet's successor. Sunni scholars generally interpret the event differently, viewing it as an affirmation of Ali's spiritual rank and virtue rather than a formal appointment to political leadership. Nevertheless, both perspectives acknowledge the exceptional status conferred upon Ali by the Prophet.

Ultimately, the question of succession after the Prophet remains one of the most debated subjects in Islamic history. Yet regardless of theological differences, a rigorous examination of leadership principles reveals why Imam Ali occupies such a central position in Muslim thought. His unparalleled knowledge, unmatched courage, unwavering commitment to justice, extraordinary moral integrity, profound spirituality, and intimate association with the Prophet combine to create a profile that is difficult to equal. From the perspective of leadership theory, ethical philosophy, historical analysis, and religious scholarship, Imam Ali emerges not merely as one qualified candidate among many, but as a uniquely distinguished figure whose credentials for leadership were exceptional by any reasonable standard.

For this reason, many Muslims throughout history have concluded that both reason and revelation converge upon the same conclusion: that Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib represented the most complete embodiment of the prophetic legacy and was therefore the individual most suited to guide the Muslim Ummah after the return of the Messenger of Allah to his Lord. His life remains a timeless model of principled leadership, reminding humanity that true authority is not founded upon power, wealth, or political calculation, but upon knowledge, justice, sacrifice, and unwavering devotion to truth.

The CIA’s Secret Weapon: Wahhabism

By: Daniel Haqiqatjou

Tucker Carlson has released an explosive documentary about 9/11.

The description of the documentary’s Episode 1, which is titled “The CIA’s Secret Mission Gone Wrong,” says:

“A former FBI agent who was embedded in the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, Mark Rossini, claims the CIA was fully aware that the 9/11 hijackers were in the United States planning an attack. Rather than inform the FBI, the CIA tried to recruit two of the hijackers for a “false-flag” operation, which quickly spiraled out of control. The failed mission raises urgent questions about government secrecy, intelligence failures, and what really happened before 9/11.”

The CIA involvement in 9/11 and orchestrating a “false flag” has become so undeniable that even mainstream media figures like Tucker Carlson are reporting on it.

One of the critical pieces of this story is the involvement of Middle Eastern intelligence agencies from Israel and Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Wahhabism.

Wahhabism and the CIA

Since the late 1970s, the CIA has created Wahhabi groups to conduct military operations on its behalf.

This has been done through US ally Saudi Arabia, which recruits and indoctrinates group members.

The key figure linking the CIA and Saudi Arabia is Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud.

Bandar was Saudi ambassador to the US between 1983 to 2005, and then served as head of the Saudi intelligence agency (Ri’āsat Al-Istikhbārāt Al-‘Āmah) from 2012-2014.

Nicknamed “Bandar Bush”, he was notorious for being a close personal friend of US president George W. Bush, who launched the “Global War on Terrorism” after the 9/11 attacks.

RELATED: 9/11 Changed the World – and Muslims – Forever

In the 1970s and 1980s, the CIA used Wahhabi groups (including AlQaeda) to weaken Soviet Russia during the war in Afghanistan.

In the 1990s, the CIA used Wahhabi groups (including AlQaeda) to weaken Russia and its allies during wars in the Balkans.

Beginning in the 2010s, the CIA used Wahhabi groups (including AlQaeda, ISIS, and Nusra) to weaken Russia and Iran during the war in Syria.

Now, Tucker Carlson’s 9/11 documentary provides extensive evidence that the CIA actually recruited the AlQaeda hijackers and helped them obtain visas to enter the US.

The subsequent 9/11 attack has provided justification for US military and Israeli campaigns throughout the Middle East over the last two decades. These attacks have targeted Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Palestine, and Iran.

John Brennan facilitated the US vias for the hijackers. At the time he was CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia. He was later promoted to head of the CIA, a position he held from 2013-2017.

Brennan’s predecessor was David Petraeus, who was head of the CIA from 2011-2012. Earlier he had served as a general commanding US miliary forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the “Global War on Terrorism.”

Petraeus is famous for creating the Timber Sycamore program in Syria, which armed Wahhabi groups like al-Nusra. Petraeus revealed this week in New York that he has an open friendship with Abu Muhammad al-Jolani (Goylani), who has recently taken power in Syria, and pivoted the country towards closer relations with Israel.

It is important to understand that the Wahhabi movement has been transformed into a tool of the CIA.

RELATED: Pillar of Wahhabism: Hating Other Muslims

Wahhabism teaches hatred of all non-Wahhabi Muslims, who Wahhabis consider extreme deviants or disbelievers. Wahhabism also teaches that the primary duty of Muslims is to serve the government of Saudi Arabia, whose head is considered to be head of the global Muslim community and can never be criticized no matter what he does. This situation gives the CIA control over the Wahhabi movements. For whenever the CIA needs Wahhabi groups to do something, they simply ask the Saudi government to issue a command.

Between the 1970s and 1990s, the CIA has primarily used Wahhabi groups to destroy Russia and Soviet power. This was part of the Cold War.

However, since 9/11, the CIA has primarily used Wahhabi groups to advance the interests of Israel in keeping with the Yinon Plan by weakening and destroying Israel’s Muslim neighbors.

Since 9/11, Wahhabi activities have been directed towards attacking Islamist movements (like Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas) as well as Shia movements (e.g., Hezbollah, Iran, Houthis) as these are seen as the greatest dangers to permanent Israeli hegemony over the Middle East.

Both online and offline, Wahhabis operate as the CIA’s private army to advance the geopolitical interests of the US and Israel. They are not allies of Muslims or sincere servants of the Islamic religion. They are the opposite.

Gaza Cannot Be Erased in Palestine

by Dr Ranjan Solomon

The destruction of Gaza is no longer merely a war. It is the systematic dismantling of a people, their history, and their right to exist on their own land. Every hospital bombed, every school flattened, every starving child trapped beneath rubble exposes a brutal truth: this is not about “security.” It is about domination, occupation, and control.

Israel’s actions in Gaza have crossed every moral and legal boundary recognised by humanity. Entire neighbourhoods have been erased from the map. Civilians are denied food, medicine, water, and electricity. Aid convoys are obstructed while desperate families are forced to survive in conditions unfit for human life. The language of “self-defence” has become a shield behind which collective punishment is inflicted upon more than two million Palestinians.

According to humanitarian agencies and UN estimates, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, the overwhelming majority of them civilians, including thousands of women and children. More than 70 percent of homes, schools, roads, and civilian infrastructure have reportedly been damaged or destroyed, while hundreds of thousands face famine-like conditions due to blockade and bombardment. Generations are being traumatised in real time. These are not accidental outcomes of war; they reflect the deliberate scale of devastation inflicted upon an already besieged population.

The humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza has few parallels in recent history. Doctors are performing surgeries without anaesthesia. Families queue for hours for a piece of bread or a bucket of unsafe water. Children who survive bombings are growing up orphaned, displaced, and psychologically scarred. Journalists, aid workers, and medical personnel — people protected under international law — have themselves become targets of attack. What is being destroyed is not only infrastructure, but the social and moral fabric necessary for human survival.

But Gaza is not Israel’s land to seize.

The Palestinians are not foreigners in Gaza. They are its people — rooted in its soil through generations of memory, labour, culture, and resistance. No amount of military power can erase that truth. Occupation does not create legitimacy. Violence does not create ownership.

What is unfolding today is inseparable from a larger political and economic project. Gaza occupies a strategically critical coastline along the Mediterranean Sea. Control over Gaza means influence over maritime access, trade routes, offshore gas reserves, and regional power balances. Analysts and rights advocates have repeatedly warned that behind the rhetoric of “eliminating Hamas” lies a deeper ambition: depopulating Gaza, fragmenting Palestinian society, and tightening Israeli control over land and resources.

This is colonial logic in its modern form.

Throughout history, powerful nations have justified conquest by portraying the occupied population as expendable, backward, or dangerous. Palestinians are now enduring that same machinery of dehumanisation. Their suffering is sanitised into military language while their dead are reduced to statistics. Yet behind every statistic is a human being: a child crushed under concrete, a mother searching for bread, a father carrying the body of his daughter through smoke and dust.

The world cannot pretend ignorance anymore.

International law is unambiguous. Collective punishment is illegal. Forced displacement is illegal. The targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure violates the Geneva Conventions. The International Court of Justice itself has warned of plausible genocidal acts. Yet the killings continue because powerful governments continue to arm, finance, and diplomatically shield Israel from accountability.

This complicity stains the conscience of the international community.

Particularly disturbing is the silence — and in some cases active support — from governments that claim to uphold democracy and human rights. Strategic alliances, arms deals, and geopolitical calculations have been placed above human life. Palestinians are effectively being told that their lives matter less than military partnerships and economic interests.

India’s position has also caused deep anguish among many who once viewed the country as a historic supporter of anti-colonial struggles and Palestinian self-determination. The growing military, diplomatic, and economic closeness between India and Israel, even amidst mounting civilian deaths in Gaza, represents a painful departure from the moral foundations of non-alignment and international solidarity that India once proudly championed.

But history teaches us something important: occupations and systems of apartheid eventually collapse under the weight of injustice. The struggle of the Palestinian people is not simply about territory. It is about dignity, identity, memory, and the universal human right to live free from occupation and siege.

No state has the right to annihilate a population in pursuit of power. The world must move beyond empty statements of concern. There must be immediate and enforceable sanctions against Israel for violations of international law. Arms transfers must stop. Independent investigations into war crimes must proceed without political interference. Humanitarian aid must flow freely and safely. Above all, the Palestinian people must be recognised not as obstacles to regional strategy, but as a nation entitled to freedom, justice, and self-determination.

Gaza is not real estate. It is not a military prize. It is not a bargaining chip for regional dominance.

It is the homeland of a people who refuse to disappear.

And if the world continues to watch silently while Gaza is starved, bombed, and buried beneath rubble, then history will remember not only the brutality of the occupier — but also the cowardice of those governments, corporations, and leaders who enabled a genocide in full public view and still dared to call themselves civilised.

The bloodshed in Gaza is no longer only Israel’s crime; it has become the moral collapse of the international community itself. Every government that continues to arm, finance, justify, or remain silent in the face of mass civilian slaughter has forfeited the right to speak the language of human rights, democracy, or international law. The ruins of Gaza now stand as a monument not only to Israeli brutality, but to global hypocrisy on an unforgivable scale. History will not merely ask who dropped the bombs. It will ask who supplied them, who defended them, who profited from them, and who watched an entire people being erased while issuing empty statements of “concern.” The shame of Gaza will haunt this generation of world leaders long after the smoke clears and the mass graves are counted.

Ranjan Solomon has worked in social justice movements since he was 19 years of age. After an accumulated period of 58 years working with oppressed and marginalized groups locally, nationally, and internationally, he has now turned author-researcher and freelance writer focussed on questions of global and local justice struggles. Ranjan Solomon is particularly tied in close solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom from Israeli occupation, and the cruel apartheid system since 1987. Ranjan Solomon can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com

CELEBRATING EID AL-ADHA IN PALESTINE: BETWEEN SACRIFICE, PAIN, AND RESISTANCE

By Professor Abdullahi Danladi

Eid al-Adha is universally known as the festival of sacrifice, devotion, and submission to the will of Allah. It commemorates the willingness of Prophet Ibrahim to sacrifice his beloved son, Prophet Ismail, in obedience to divine command. Across the Muslim world, the occasion is marked with joy, prayers, feasting, charity, and family gatherings. However, in Palestine, Eid al-Adha carries meanings far deeper and more painful than ordinary celebration. There, sacrifice is not merely remembered symbolically through the slaughtering of animals; it is lived daily through blood, tears, loss, resistance, and survival.

For many Palestinians, especially in Gaza and the occupied territories, Eid arrives not with peace and comfort, but with the sound of drones, bombings, military checkpoints, destroyed homes, and mourning families. Children who should be laughing in new clothes often stand beside the rubble of demolished houses or visit the graves of parents and siblings killed in conflict. Mothers prepare meals while carrying the heavy pain of missing loved ones. Fathers struggle not only to provide sacrificial animals but sometimes even basic bread and medicine for their families.

Yet, remarkably, Palestine continues to celebrate Eid. This persistence itself is a profound declaration of faith and resistance. Palestinians refuse to allow occupation and suffering to kill their spiritual identity or extinguish their hope. Even amid devastation, they gather for Eid prayers in mosques, open grounds, and sometimes among ruins. The Takbir of Eid echoes not only as an act of worship but as a cry of resilience and unwavering belief in divine justice.

The philosophy of sacrifice embedded in Eid al-Adha resonates deeply with the Palestinian experience. Prophet Ibrahim was tested with the most beloved thing to him, and throughout history, sacrifice has remained central to the struggle for truth and justice. Palestinians, for decades, have sacrificed lives, homes, safety, and comfort in their quest for freedom, dignity, and homeland. Their suffering has transformed Eid from a seasonal celebration into a lived reality of sacrifice.

One of the most heartbreaking scenes during Eid in Palestine is witnessing children attempting to celebrate amid destruction. Many humanitarian reports and images over the years have shown children playing around shattered buildings, smiling despite hunger and trauma, and sharing whatever little they possess with others. This extraordinary resilience reminds the world that human dignity cannot easily be destroyed by military power or political oppression.

The situation in Gaza particularly presents one of the darkest humanitarian realities in modern history. Blockades, shortages of food and medical supplies, damaged infrastructure, and repeated military confrontations have severely affected ordinary life. During Eid, many families cannot afford sacrificial animals, festive meals, or clothing. Nevertheless, communities still strive to preserve the essence of Eid through solidarity, charity, communal support, and prayer.

The celebration of Eid in Palestine also exposes the moral contradictions of the modern world. While global leaders frequently speak about human rights, democracy, and international law, Palestinians continue to endure occupation, displacement, and violence with little meaningful protection. Thus, Eid in Palestine becomes not only a religious occasion but also a moral reminder to humanity about injustice, silence, and selective sympathy.

Despite everything, Palestinians continue to exhibit extraordinary spiritual strength. Their attachment to Al-Quds, their endurance under siege, and their refusal to surrender demonstrate a form of faith that transcends material hardship. In many ways, their Eid resembles the spirit of Karbala, where sacrifice was embraced in the struggle against oppression and falsehood. Their resilience reflects the Quranic teaching that hardship does not last forever and that patience in the path of truth carries immense spiritual value.

The global Muslim community must therefore see Eid in Palestine not merely as distant news but as a shared moral and spiritual concern. Eid al-Adha teaches empathy, sacrifice, and solidarity. It calls Muslims not only to slaughter animals but also to stand with the oppressed, support humanitarian causes, raise awareness, pray sincerely for justice, and refuse indifference toward suffering humanity.

At this critical moment in history, Muslims across the world must rise beyond emotional speeches and symbolic condemnations. The suffering of Palestinians demands sincere unity, humanitarian support, political courage, intellectual advocacy, and unwavering moral responsibility. Wealthy Muslim nations, scholars, leaders, organizations, and ordinary believers all have a duty before Allah and history to support the oppressed people of Palestine through lawful and meaningful means. Silence in the face of oppression weakens the moral conscience of the Ummah, while sincere action strengthens the bonds of brotherhood commanded by Islam.

As we celebrate Eid al-Adha, we raise our hands in prayer:

“O Allah, grant victory, freedom, and peace to the oppressed people of Palestine. Protect their children, women, elderly, and innocent civilians from violence and destruction. Heal the wounded, feed the hungry, shelter the displaced, and have mercy upon the martyrs. O Allah, strengthen the hearts of the Palestinians with patience, courage, and unwavering faith. Unite the Muslim Ummah upon truth, justice, and compassion. Remove fear, division, and weakness from the hearts of Muslims, and guide them to stand sincerely with their suffering brothers and sisters in Palestine. O Allah, liberate Al-Quds from oppression and allow the call to prayer, peace, and dignity to flourish once again in the blessed land. Indeed, You are the Most Powerful, the Most Just, and the Best of Helpers.”

Celebrating Eid al-Adha in Palestine is ultimately a lesson to the world. It teaches that true faith is not measured by comfort but by steadfastness under hardship. It teaches that dignity can survive even under occupation, and that hope can still rise from ruins. Above all, it reminds humanity that sacrifice is meaningful only when it is connected to justice, compassion, and resistance against oppression.

As Muslims across the globe celebrate Eid with joy, they should also remember Palestine in their prayers, charity, consciousness, and conscience. For while many celebrate sacrifice symbolically, Palestinians continue to live the reality of sacrifice every single day.

Israeli-US aggression won’t go unanswered -Iranian Ambassador

Iranian Ambassador in Colombo Dr. Alireza Delkhosh says the Islamic Republic of Iran remains fully prepared to face US-Israeli aggression.

In an interview with The Island at the Iranian Embassy, in Colombo, Dr. Delkhosh emphasised that in case of a fresh outbreak of hostilities, the aggressors, as well as those who provided bases for unprovoked military campaign ,should be prepared to face the consequences.

Excerpts of the interview:

The Island: Did Iran anticipate Israel-US launching unprovoked attacks in the midst of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and US in Geneva, mediated by Oman?

Ambassador: Iran’s wall of mistrust towards the US is rooted in decades of hostile policies and, specifically, Washington’s dark record of broken promises. We always welcomed diplomacy in good faith and serious intent, entering diplomatic channels accordingly; yet, we have repeatedly witnessed the US chose the path of betraying diplomacy in the midst of negotiations.

We do not build our foreign policy on optimism toward the US, as we fundamentally do not view the current US administration as a trustworthy party. The recurrence of provocative patterns and coordination with the Zionist regime’s actions during sensitive negotiations indicate a systematic approach to discredit diplomacy.

From our perspective;

“Any coercive or military action taken alongside mediation efforts serves as further evidence of Washington’s lack of sincere will for diplomacy and its attempt to exert pressure under the guise of dialogue—an approach that will not go unanswered.”

The Island: Do you think the latest war and regional developments, such as the UAE pulling out of OPEC, should be examined, taking into consideration the Oct0ber 7, 2023, Hamas attack on southern Israel.

Ambassador: Allow me to rephrase your question: Is there a link between the attacks carried out by the US and Israel against Iran and the Zionist regime’s warmongering policies? My answer is a definitive “yes”.

Any serious analysis of the current regional dynamics must be placed within the broader historical and structural context of the Palestinian question and the continuation of occupation and blockade. Iran has consistently maintained that the developments of October 7, 2023, did not emerge in a vacuum, but are rooted in decades of unresolved injustice, the denial of legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, and the absence of a credible political horizon.

From this perspective, the subsequent escalation in the region reflects a chain of reactions shaped by long-standing structural tensions, rather than isolated incidents. Iran has repeatedly emphasised that sustainable stability can only be achieved through ending occupation, addressing the root causes of the crisis, and upholding the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

Thus, it is important not to reduce complex geopolitical developments to a single starting point. Energy market decisions, alliance shifts, and military escalations are influenced by a broader set of strategic, economic, and political factors.

The Island: What is the status of talks mediated by Pakistan?

Ambassador: A high-ranking Iranian delegation attended an intense day of negotiations, with American negotiators, in Pakistan, on 12th of April, to permanently end a US-Israeli aggression against the country. Iran agreed to participate in the negotiations after US authorities indicated they had accepted Iran’s general conditions as a baseline for peace deal discussions. However, during 20 hours’ intense talks, the US changed its position.

The main sticking point in the talks was the US reluctance to agree to Iran’s legitimate rights to have a peaceful nuclear programme, which Iran has insisted on for years and just before entering the talks, based on the UNSC resolution and the relevant laws.

Iran’s foreign policy is firmly grounded in the principles of dignity, mutual respect, and rejection of coercion or imposed negotiations. Within this framework, Iran has consistently stated that it remains open to indirect diplomatic engagement through mediators, including regional partners, such as Pakistan, provided that diplomacy is conducted in a balanced and credible environment. At the same time, Iran has repeatedly emphasised that the effectiveness of any negotiating track is directly undermined by the US coercive measures, unilateral sanctions, and pressure-based policies.

Sustainable diplomacy necessitates a complete decoupling from pressure tactics; it must be grounded in genuine reciprocity and respect for national rights and interests. Guided by this principled approach, Iran continues to engage in mediation efforts, in good faith, while resolutely safeguarding its sovereign rights and rejecting any framework that resembles ‘dictation under pressure’.”

The Island: The UN has pathetically failed to intervene in the current West Asia conflict. Both Israel and the US simply ignored the UN and the world body seems irrelevant. As a seasoned diplomat what is your opinion on the UN? What is wrong with the global body”

Ambassador: Iran views the UN as an important multilateral institution established to safeguard international peace and security; however, its effectiveness has increasingly been constrained by the selective application of its Charter and the politicisation of decision-making, particularly within the Security Council.

Currently, the international community is witnessing highly dangerous interpretations of ‘peace,’ ‘rights,’ and ‘aggression’ by the US and the Israeli regime. In their lexicon, if they attack a country, it is labelled a ‘peace operation’ or ‘legitimate defence’; yet, if a nation defends itself, it is branded as ‘warmongering.’

“When the innocent people of Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Iraq are stripped of their fundamental human and humanitarian rights and endure profound suffering due to attacks, genocides, and inhumane sanctions, it is as if—in the prevailing international discourse—’human rights’ are not being violated at all.”

The world witnessed, on many occasions, that when certain permanent members are directly involved, or aligned with one side of a conflict, the UN’s ability to act impartially is significantly weakened.

From this perspective, the current situation does not reflect irrelevance of the United Nations itself, but rather highlights the structural imbalance in the international order, where enforcement mechanisms are often subject to geopolitical considerations. Iran has, therefore, consistently called for fundamental reform of global governance structures, including democratisation of the Security Council and strengthening of multilateralism, based on justice, equality, and respect for sovereignty.

The Islamic Republic of Iran supports a United Nations that truly represents the rights of nations and establishes justice. The current state of global affairs reflects the failure of certain powers to adhere to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

While emphasising the necessity of effective multilateralism to guarantee international peace and security, the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to an international order, based on international law and the principles of the UN Charter.

In conclusion, I must state that: “Unilateralism negates the essential and fundamental principles of the United Nations. Unilateralism is an invitation to injustice, confrontation, and war.”

The Island: In spite of sustained US pressure, its NATO allies declined to join military action against Iran or commit forces to Hormuz Strait. The British and French positions caused an unprecedented rift between them and the US. Do you think NATO countries’ split position on Iran war caused irreparable damage to the largest military organisation in the world?

Ambassador: Differences among NATO members on the use of force in external theatres are not unprecedented. Divergent approaches to specific regional conflicts can place strain on political unity and strategic messaging within this alliance. Whether such differences translate into long-term structural damage depends on how effectively members manage internal consultation and reaffirm shared principles.

Let’s not forget that NATO is fundamentally a military alliance shaped by the strategic priorities of the United States, and differences among its members often reflect not a principled divergence, but rather varying degrees of alignment with Washington’s regional policies.

What is presented as “internal consultation” within NATO is frequently constrained by asymmetric influence, where key decisions on the use of force are effectively driven by the US agenda.

In this context, disagreements among NATO members on external military actions are seen in Tehran less as an institutional safeguard and more as evidence of the alliance’s limited strategic autonomy, particularly in relation to West Asia. Therefore, these divergences do not merely represent tactical differences, but highlight a deeper structural issue: the growing questioning of interventionist policies and the sustainability of military blocs in addressing complex regional crises.

The Island: When did you first hear about the unprovoked US attack on Iran frigate off Galle? (The date and time, please). Who told you about the unfortunate incident? What was your first reaction?

Ambassador: What was particularly concerning was that the IRIS Dena was understood to be undertaking a routine passage in the region, returning from an official visit to India, and was not engaged in any combat or hostile activity. Any incident involving a naval vessel, under such circumstances, is naturally a matter of serious concern and a war crime, especially when it raises questions about maritime safety and the protection of unarmed or non-combat assets.

My immediate priority, upon receiving credible confirmation about this attack, would have been the safety of personnel and the prevention of any escalation. From the first moments of receiving this information, I have been in direct talks and consultations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and other relevant government authorities, while ensuring that no conclusions are drawn until all facts are verified.

The Island: Did you visit the Iranian vessel and sailors now at Trincomalee?

Ambassador: At this stage, I would like to state that the primary responsibility of the mission has been to maintain continuous contact with the relevant Sri Lankan authorities and ensure the safety, welfare, and proper handling of Iranian personnel and assets involved. In this regard, we have been in close and ongoing coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and other competent government institutions to follow up on all necessary arrangements.

Our focus has been on ensuring that all matters are addressed through official diplomatic channels in accordance with international maritime and humanitarian procedures. The well-being of our personnel and the proper management of the situation remain our highest priority.

The Island: Ambassador, you presented your credentials to the then President Ranil Wickremesinghe in late October, 2023. What were the previous diplomatic stations you served before taking over the Colombo mission?

Ambassador: Prior to my mission in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, I served in various diplomatic capacities in Turkey, Sweden, and Uzbekistan.”

The Island:Would you mind stating Iranian red lines about issues that Iran would never give up such as the right to use nuclear power for civilian purposes and control over Hormuz Strait?

Ambassador: Iran’s foreign policy is based on the principles of sovereignty, deterrence, and the rejection of coercion and unilateral pressure, while simultaneously affirming its commitments under international law. In this framework, we have consistently emphasised that the Islamic Republic will never relinquish its inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment for civilian purposes, such as energy production, medical applications, and scientific development. As we continually maintained, this right is fully consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

At the same time, Iran regards the security and management of the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic national responsibility, given that it lies within Iran’s sovereign waters and is one of the world’s most sensitive maritime corridors. Our officials have repeatedly stated that the security of the Persian Gulf and Hormuz must be maintained by regional states themselves, without external militarisation or domination.

However, Iran has consistently expressed concern over certain regional developments in which neighbouring territories have been utilised for the projection of external military power, including by the United States, which, in Tehran’s view, contributes to heightened tensions and undermines regional stability. From Iran’s perspective, such dynamics are among the key factors affecting and jeopardising the security environment of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Within this framework, Iran has emphasised that any threat to its sovereignty, territorial integrity, or strategic security interests would be met with firm and proportionate resistance, while at the same time reaffirming its commitment to freedom of navigation in accordance with international law.

Taken together, from a broader perspective: “The overarching framework of Iran’s foreign policy is built upon three primary pillars: countering diplomatic pressures, maintaining autonomy in strategic decision-making while safeguarding national interests and sovereignty, and emphasising the principle of reciprocity. This approach—rooted in the three guiding principles of ‘Dignity, Wisdom, and Expediency’—reflects Tehran’s explicit opposition to unilateralism and bullying in the global arena.”

The Island: Iran proved that it had the strength and the will power to face daunting military challenges and, in spite of civilian protests, influenced by economic hardships, the public stood by the leadership during the hour of crisis. What is Iran’s message to the world?

Ambassador: Iran is the heir to a great civilisation, spanning several millennia. Iran’s message to the world is that national resilience is ultimately rooted in the bond between the state and its nation, particularly, during times of external pressure and security challenges. Despite economic hardships, the Iranian people have demonstrated that in moments of national crisis, priorities converge around the defence of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national security.

From this perspective, the experience of recent years is a clear testimony that external pressure, military threats, or coercive policies do not weaken national cohesion; rather, they reinforce a shared sense of resistance and the bond between the leadership and segments of society around core national principles. It highlights that such domestic economic issues are addressed within the framework of national stability, not through external intervention.

There exists an inviolable principle: “Sustainable national cohesion is achieved only in the light of full sovereignty over internal affairs and the rejection of any intervention or the politicisation of domestic developments by foreign powers.”

The Island:Wishful Israel-US assessment for regime change, following the Supreme Leader’s assassination failed. Against the backdrop of US success in Venezuela, they seemed to have wrongly asserted the situation and Iranian military response. How do you see the next few weeks as the US and Israel maintain a fragile ceasefire, regardless of some isolated incidents?

Ambassador: The assumptions that external pressure, military action, or targeted scenarios, such as the assassination of its leadership, would lead to structural political change in Iran, have repeatedly proven to be a strategic miscalculation. “Iran’s security architecture is not modelled after classic Western patterns that could be brought down, through sanctions or threats; rather, it possesses its own unique design.

Iran’s strategic decision-making is rooted in institutional continuity, national sovereignty, and a well-established defence and command structure—one that cannot be disrupted by external pressures or short-term military developments.”

Regarding the current situation, the existing ceasefire environment looks to be fragile and highly sensitive. As repeatedly stressed by our officials and leadership, stability cannot be sustained through coercive measures, continued military pressure, or selective escalation. Therefore, any lasting calm depends on adherence to commitments, respect for sovereignty, and cessation of hostile actions.

In the coming weeks, the situation will remain volatile, yet manageable, and Iran will continue to maintain its readiness to respond to any potential adventurism.

Iran continues to emphasise that sustainable regional security cannot be built on failed assumptions of regime change or military superiority, but only through recognition of political realities and mutual respect under international law.

The Island: Finally, the senseless killing of over 150 schoolgirls and teachers at an Iranian school, at the onset of the latest conflict, horrified the world. However, the response of Western governments, and various human rights bodies, seemed inadequate. Some refrained from commenting on the incident. The situation in Lebanon, too, is deteriorating. Why do they act differently when the perpetrators happened to be the US or Israel?

Ambassador: I believe that the disparity in reactions reflects a long-standing flaw in the international system: the selective application of international law and humanitarian principles, based on political considerations rather than universal standards.

As you noted, when incidents involve the US or Israel, many international actors—including certain Western governments and institutions—tend to interpret events through the narratives of ‘security,’ ‘self-defence,’ or ‘strategic necessity.’ The brutal attack on the Minab girls’ school, which resulted in the slaughter of over 168 students and teachers, has pulled back the curtain on the double standards of those who claim to champion human rights. While the smallest incidents in other countries trigger immediate global outcries. We witness a response characterised by silence, projection, and brazen falsehoods regarding this blatant crime—as well as the horrific atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon. These tactics aim at nothing but distorting reality and whitewashing the perpetrators of these tragedies. This pattern has undermined the credibility of international law and the global human rights framework, as it ignores the principle of ‘sovereign equality’ and suggests that accountability is not applied equally to all members of the international community.

This is not merely a legal issue but an expression of a structural imbalance in the international order, where political alliances and strategic interests dictate the interpretation and enforcement of norms. Therefore, I maintain that: “The only way to restore trust in the international system is through the consistent and non-selective enforcement of international law, without exceptions or double standards, regardless of the identity of the parties involved.”

As a final word: “Ibn Khaldun 1332-1406, a famous philosopher and historian, believes that ‘politics is the product of geography.’ The essence of this hypothesis is that the temporary presence of extra-regional powers in West Asia and the Persian Gulf must not lead certain small coastal states of the Persian Gulf into a strategic miscalculation.

The time will come when outsiders are expelled from this region, leaving only the neighbours who are destined to coexist. Instead of focusing on Outsourced Security and legitimacy from distant powers, they must return to geographical realities. They ought to study history to recognise which nation has been the source of security and stability in the Persian Gulf for millennia.