Abdullah Ibn Saba’: Between Myth And Reality

Abu Dharr

There is another shabby chapter pertaining to the time period ‘Uthman was in office. It has been overworked and overplayed by latter day historians to such an extent that some would say it is central to understanding the dilemma of ‘Uthman and the destabilization of Islamic governance with all the divisiveness and divisions that followed and continue up until this very day.

This chapter has to do with a person named ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ who is referred to by some as Ibn al-Sawda’ (the black lady’s son). Some chroniclers identify him as a Yahudi hailing from San‘a’, Yemen whose mother was Abyssinian (East African) and became a muslim during ‘Uthman’s time in power.

This person, we are told, began traveling from one region to the other spending most of his time instigating public opinion against ‘Uthman. He spread rumors and propaganda in a way that disturbed and spoiled public opinion in matters pertaining to religious faith, practice, experience and governance.

It is said that he traveled to al-Basrah, and when he arrived there, the governor ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir forced him out. Then Ibn Saba’ went to al-Sham (the Levant) where he met Abu Dharr. Ibn Saba’ took issue with Mu‘awiyah about whether public wealth belongs to Allah (swt) or to the muslim population. It is alleged that Ibn Saba’ had an effect on Abu Dharr who also took issue with Mu‘awiyah.

Then Ibn Saba’ met ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit and approached him with the same rhetoric that he expressed to Abu Dharr. Thus did Mu‘awiyah expel Ibn Saba’ from al-Sham. Then Ibn Saba’ travelled to Egypt where he found a receptive audience for his claims and “conspiracy theory.”

Now let us get a better understanding of the assertions reportedly pedaled by Ibn Saba’. First, he claimed that Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is more deserving of a second coming than Prophet ‘Isa ibn Maryam (ﷺ). And to corroborate his assertion he quotes the ayah: Verily, He who has mandated this Qur’an upon you [O Muhammad] will certainly bring you back to where you [rightfully] belong (Makkah, and eventually the hereafter). [al-Qasas, 85]

Ibn Saba’ also asserted that for every Prophet there is a wasiy (administrator, executor, regent), and that the wasiy (substitute/proxy) for Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. ‘Ali is the last wasiy in the same sense that Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is the last Prophet.

Some canvassers trace all the dissimilarities and disagreements among the muslims during ‘Uthman’s rule to Ibn Saba’. Some would even go as far as to say that Ibn Saba’ was so conniving and conspiring that he set up “secret societies” that worked together to reach a common objective of undermining Islamic governance. These “secret societies” and conclaves kept on chipping away at the legitimacy of Islamic governance until the day when “all hell broke loose” and ‘Uthman was assassinated.

It appears that there is quite a bit of embellishment in some of our history books about the extent and ability of Ibn Saba’, if ever there was such a person. The first observation is that Ibn Saba’ is not mentioned in the reliable Islamic reference books that focus on the conflicting issues that erupted during the reign of ‘Uthman.

The historian Ibn Sa‘d does not mention Ibn Saba’ when he chronicled the events leading to and surrounding the assassination of ‘Uthman. The historian al-Baladhuri does not mention Ibn Saba’ in his book Ansab al-Ashraf, which is one of the most important if not the most important and detailed historical account of that time period. Ibn Saba’, though, is mentioned in the chronicle of al-Tabari but on the authority of Saif ibn ‘Umar who turns out to be suspicious and dubious.

We can’t say for sure whether an Ibn Saba’ was a threat to ‘Uthman or not; if Ibn Saba’ was a threat it was petty and inconsequential. The early muslim public during the reign of ‘Uthman was not as small-minded and mean-spirited as to fall for the outrageous shenanigans attributed to a recent and inexperienced Yahudi convert to Islam as Ibn Saba’.

Ibn Saba’s record tells us that he began to agitate against the legitimacy of Islamic leadership all over the Islamic domain since the first day he became a muslim! We don’t find in our history books either ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amir nor Mu‘awiyah communicating with ‘Uthman about what to do with such a “troublemaker” as they did with others.

‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh, the governor of Egypt is not documented to have treated or punished Ibn Saba’ the way he treated his two opposition figures Muhammad ibn Abi Hudheifah and Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr knowing that Ibn Saba’ appears to be much more confrontational and offensive against ‘Uthman and the legitimacy of Islamic governance in al-Madinah.

If Ibn Saba’ is the conspiratorial figure that some make him out to be, then why didn’t Ibn Abi Sarh write to ‘Uthman to permit him to “bring down the power of the state” on Ibn Saba’ the way he wrote to ‘Uthman to permit him to “bring down the power of the state” on the two Muhammads and ‘Ammar ibn Yasir? These governors appointed by ‘Uthman were keen on sniffing out any opposition figure but when it comes to Ibn Saba’ they are strikingly absent in doing so!

One of the most eye popping claims in these pages of history about Ibn Saba’ is that he was the one who coached and inculcated into Abu Dharr the belief that wealth belongs to Allah (swt) and not to muslims. Further, that Abu Dharr learned from Ibn Saba’ how to take issue with tyrannical rulers, the superrich… that these types who hoard and monopolize gold and silver will have their foreheads, backs and bodies burned and branded with hot irons.

This stands out to be one of the most outrageous allegations. Abu Dharr who had been a committed Muslim since the early years of the Prophet’s mission in Makkah was in no need of a neophyte ex-Yahudi who had recently become a muslim to teach him about the rights that poor people have over affluent people, and that severe punishment awaits those who control and cartelize wealth rather than spending it for the cause of Allah (swt) and as outlined by Allah (SWT) in His Qur’an.

Abu Dharr was not as ignorant as to have such a person teach him that legitimate war proceeds, the zakat money, the relevant dues and levies paid into the treasury by citizens of the Islamic ummah is money that belongs to and should be circulating among the people and inhabitants of the ummah. These ABCs of Islam were well known to Abu Dharr who needed no tutor like an Ibn Saba’ to give him a grounding in. As a reminder, Abu Dharr preceded all of the Ansar and many of the Muhajirin in becoming a committed muslim.

He was a very close companion of our dear Prophet (ﷺ) for decades before this so called Ibn Saba’ popped up on the pages of some reporters. Abu Dharr had memorized the Qur’an and behaved Qur’anically. He was one of those who recounted and related the statements of the Prophet (ﷺ).

Abu Dharr was a confidant of the Prophet (ﷺ) and the two successors to him (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) as they managed the Islamic treasury. Abu Dharr was aware and sensitive to what is halal and what is haram; just like his colleagues the companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) were.

Those who claim that Abu Dharr was influenced and guided by an Ibn Saba’ are fooling themselves and degrading Abu Dharr while uplifting and dignifying Ibn Saba’, an ex-Yahudi turned amateur muslim and raising his status incorrectly and erroneously.

The following ayahs were understood and cherished by Abu Dharr for many years before this ostensible Ibn Saba’ showed up:

O you who are firmly committed [to Allah]! Behold, many of the rabbis and reverends do indeed wrongfully devour people’s wealth and [by doing so] divert [others] away from the path leading to Allah. And for those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend them for the sake of Allah give them [ironically] the clear news of grievous suffering [in the life to come]: on the Day when that [hoarded wealth] shall be heated in the fire of Hell and their foreheads and their sides and their backs branded therewith, [those religious sinners shall be told,] “These are the treasures you have amassed for yourselves! Taste, then, [the evil consequences of] your hoarded treasures!” [al-Tawbah, 34-35]

Abdullah ibn Saba’Islamic history

The Echo Of Salahuddin: Iranian Strategy And The Crusaders

Muslim Mahmood

In the contemporary geopolitical landscape of West Asia (aka the Middle East), history is not merely a record of the past but a living, breathing blueprint for the present. This sentiment is at the core of a provocative discourse currently circulating within intellectual and religious circles, most notably articulated by Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, a medical doctor who served in the Nigerian army, and later became a leading religious scholar. His father was also a well-known religious scholar in Northern Nigeria.

By drawing a direct line from the 12th-century military triumphs of Salahuddin Ayubi to the modern-day maneuvers of Iran and its allies in the Axis of Resistance, a new narrative is being forged—one that rebrands current conflicts as a continuation of the Crusades and positions asymmetric strategy as the ultimate equalizer against western hegemony.

The central thesis of this analysis rests on a powerful historical metaphor: the Battle of Hattin. In 1187, Salahuddin Ayubi secured a decisive victory over the Crusader states by strategically denying them access to the water of Lake Tiberias. Thirsty and exhausted, the Crusader army was decimated.

Today, observers suggest that a similar strategy of attrition and resource denial is being employed by Iran against the United States and zionist Israel. This “dry-up” strategy is not necessarily about water per se, but about the strategic exhaustion of an adversary’s political will, economic resources, and regional alliances.

At the heart of this contemporary struggle is the figure of the indicted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu, whose role is often viewed through a prism of historical recurrence. In certain circles, the Israeli prime minister is not merely a contemporary politician but a figure whose actions are compared to the most violent leaders of European history, including references that invoke the memory of Hitler.

This comparison serves to frame the current conflict in Gaza and the broader Levant—encompassing Syria, Jordan, and Palestine—as an existential battle of survival rather than a mere border dispute. The message being broadcast to the Muslim world is one of psychological resilience: “Do not weaken and do not grieve.”

This scriptural exhortation is used to counter the perceived technological and military superiority of the American-Israeli axis, suggesting that moral and spiritual high ground will ultimately translate into geopolitical dominance.

The role of the United States is framed as the modern “Crusader” force, an external power providing the “wall” behind which zionist Israel operates. However, the analysis takes a sharp, investigative turn when examining the internal dynamics of the Muslim world. There is a palpable sense of frustration regarding the hypocrisy, or nifaq, of various Arabian regimes.

The reliance of states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the American security umbrella is presented as a fundamental betrayal of the Palestinian cause. The discourse suggests a “gatekeeper” syndrome, where these despotic rulers believe there is “no door but the American door,” effectively ceding their sovereignty to a foreign entity in exchange for being allowed to stay in power.

In contrast to this subservience, the Iranian strategy is presented as a model of defiance that mirrors Salahuddin’s independence. But perhaps the most surprising element of this discourse is the call for a “Common Word” (Kalimatun Sawa) between the two leading Schools of Thought in Islam.

Traditionally, the perceived Sunni-Shi‘i divide has been a tool for regional destabilization. However, the current narrative, echoing the spirit of Jam‘iyat al-Azhar, suggests a radical rapprochement. The argument is that just as Salahuddin had to unify a fractured Muslim world before reclaiming Al-Quds (Jerusalem), modern resistance requires a bridging of the gap between Sunni and Shi‘i thinking.

By focusing on a shared adversary—the “Crusader” alliance—sectarian differences are framed as secondary to the liberation of Masjid Al-Aqsa.

This call for unity is not just theological; it is deeply political. It recognizes that Iran’s influence in the region, particularly its ability to challenge American hegemony, provides a template for what an independent Islamic foreign policy could look like. The strategy involves creating a landscape where the “Crusaders” find themselves in a desert of their own making—isolated from the local population, drained by perpetual low-intensity conflict, and ultimately forced to retreat.

The investigative lens must also focus on the psychological warfare at play. The discourse emphasizes that the current state of affairs, where Israel and its western backers appear invincible, is a fleeting “illusion” of power.

By citing religious texts that promise superiority to the faithful, the narrative seeks to dismantle the “defeatist” mindset that has characterized much of the Arab world’s response to western intervention. The comparison to Hitler is particularly potent here. It serves as a reminder that even the most formidable and aggressive powers can face total collapse when they overextend or violate fundamental humanitarian norms.

Furthermore, the involvement of regional players like Syria and Jordan is seen as pivotal. The geography of the resistance is expanding, and the rhetoric suggests that the “encirclement” of the zionist entity is a modern adaptation of Salahuddin’s tactical maneuvers. The goal is to make the cost of occupation and intervention so high that the “Crusader” presence becomes unsustainable.

However, the report must also acknowledge the inherent tensions in this worldview. While the appeal to Salahuddin’s legacy provides a sense of historical dignity and purpose, the alignment with Iranian strategy creates a complex dilemma for many Sunni-majority states. The “Common Word” remains a difficult goal in a region scarred by decades of sectarian proxy wars in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. Yet, the argument presented by figures like Sheikh Ahmad Gumi is that the urgency of the Palestinian crisis and the escalating threat of Netanyahu’s policies are forcing a realignment that was previously unthinkable.

In conclusion, the narrative of “The Echo of Salahuddin” serves as a powerful mobilization tool. It recontextualizes modern geopolitics as a spiritual and historical crusade, where Iran takes the mantle of the strategic liberator. It challenges the status quo of the Persian Gulf monarchies and demands a unified Islamic front. Whether or not this “dry-up” strategy will lead to a modern-day Battle of Hattin remains to be seen, but the rhetoric itself is already shifting the tectonic plates of political thought in the region.

The message is clear: the era of uncontested western dominance is being challenged by a strategy that prizes patience, religious conviction, and historical memory over the raw power of modern weaponry. The “Crusaders” of the 21st century may find that, like their predecessors, they are fighting an enemy that knows how to turn the very terrain—and the history of that terrain—against them.

Islamic Republic of IranArab countries

Dr. Kalim Siddiqui Was Right: Iran’s Victory Proves It

Kevin Barrett

Two-and-a-half decades ago, when I was earning an Islamic Studies related doctorate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, everyone understood that a global Islamic revival was underway. Various Muslim intellectuals were credited (or blamed) including Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, and Abul A‘la Maududi.

Today, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that another less-well-known figure should have been high on that list. When I was completing my doctorate I barely heard the name Dr. Kalim Siddiqui. Were I of conspiratorial bent, I might suspect that the power structure behind the western academy did not want me to hear about him.

April 18 marked the 30-year anniversary of Dr. Kalim Siddiqui’s death. As we contemplate the momentous implications of Islamic Iran’s ongoing triumph over the zionist-occupied US empire, we ought to pause to reflect on just how farsighted Dr. Siddiqui was in urging all Muslims to support the Islamic Revolution in its efforts to dislodge centuries of tyrannical western occupation of Muslim-majority lands.

Many Muslim revivalist thinkers and organizations have misunderstood the significance of Iran’s Islamic revolution. Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HUT), the leading organization aiming to unite Muslims under a caliphate, approached Imam Khomeini in 1979 to ask him to declare himself Caliph and political leader of all the world’s Muslims. Islamic Iran’s first Supreme Leader respectfully declined, saying that the time for a Caliph was not yet ripe. HUT, apparently smarting from the rejection, turned against the Islamic Republic and towards Sunni sectarianism. But events have shown that Imam Khomeini’s project of building a modern nation-state under Islamic guidance was practical, productive, and promising, whereas HUT’s hyperperfectionism, utopianism, destructive criticism, and sectarianism has produced very limited results.

The Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan, an even more influential Sunni-dominated organization, has for the most part been less hostile to Islamic Iran. But it has lacked the imagination to consider Iran’s wilayat al-faqih system as a possible rough model or template for Sunni countries: Why couldn’t they too produce first-rate scholars capable of playing a major political role? And why couldn’t an international body of Islamic scholars play a supranational role in uniting Muslim nations? Unfortunately, rather than viewing Islamic Iran as “a good start, let’s build on it,” the Ikhwan spent many years distancing itself from the world’s only state that is making an honest attempt at Islamic governance.

One notable exception was when Egypt’s president Mohamed Morsi, an Ikhwani leader, visited Tehran in 2012 and tried to normalize relations. That brave and honorable move may have been the single biggest factor that led the zionists and their puppet strongman Abdel Fattah el-Sissi to overthrow and later torture and murder Egypt’s last legitimate leader—a crime that illustrated why Muslims need to seize power via revolution, as Iranians did, rather than attempt to work through hopelessly corrupted “democratic” institutions.

Fortunately, the Ikhwan seems to have at least partially course-corrected during the past year. In June 2025, Saleh Abdel Haq, the Brotherhood’s acting Supreme Guide, sent a letter to then-Supreme Leader Seyyed Ali Khamenei offering the Islamic Republic of Iran “full support” in light of ongoing zionist-American aggression. Then in March 2026, as the biggest-ever zio-American war on Iran erupted, the Ikhwan called for global Islamic unity and pledged full and unconditional support for Islamic Iran. After Iran emerges victorious, insha’Allah, the Ikhwan and other unity-seeking Muslims will have every reason to recognize that Iran is their most important ally.

Islamic Iran’s victorious existential struggle against the world’s most powerful empire has surprised western observers and their bootlicking “Muslim” satraps. But it would not have surprised Dr. Kalim Siddiqui. He understood the immense potential of Iran’s Islamic revolution as a success story that could inspire further empowerment of Muslims. He saw that Islamic Iran was, despite various minor missteps and speed-bumps, traveling on the right path.

He accurately assessed that Islamic Iran was striking a reasonable balance between rigor and pragmatism, between Islamic Guardianship and democratic-republican popular participation, between Islamically-inspired universalism and the various particularisms of Shia-majority, Persian-nationalism-influenced Iran.

Though he argued for Islamic rigor and universalism, he also recognized that state-building is an immensely complex project that often requires decision makers to choose the less-bad option when there is no perfect one. And since the success of Islamic Iran was so critically important to the entire Muslim Ummah, Dr. Siddiqui understood, all Muslims must overlook relatively minor areas of disagreement and work and pray for the Islamic Republic’s success.

Dr. Siddiqui’s claim that Islamic Iran is central to the hopes and aspirations of the Ummah has been proven correct by the shocking events of the past few years. When the zionists began massacring the women and children of Gaza in October 2023, while simultaneously announcing that they planned to demolish the Masjid Al-Aqsa and establish “Greater Israel” on all the land between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers, the only people who stood up against these genocidal criminals were Islamic Iran and its regional allies.

While the governments of the Arab countries directly targeted for invasion and ethnic cleansing by “Greater Israel” stood by and let the genocide happen, and Al-Qaeda and Daesh joined forces with the zionists, Islamic Iran—whose lands are not even part of “Greater Israel”—stood up to defend Masjid al-Aqsa and the people of Palestine, Lebanon, and the entire region.

Dr. Siddiqui saw all this coming. He understood that establishing an Islamic government in a large, powerful state like Iran was the only effective way to build a viable counter-force against the zionist west’s war on Islam. While he would have been dismayed by the craven, bootlicking submission, and the treasonous betrayal of Palestine and Masjid al-Aqsa, evinced today by the despicable “leaders” of almost every Muslim majority country, he would not have been surprised.

Dr. Siddiqui correctly anticipated that Muslims who break free of western colonial control and establish genuine independence would be capable of developing effective doctrines, strategies, and weapons of self-defense. Unfortunately he did not live long enough to see Iran develop and deploy its amazing rockets, cruise missiles, and drones.

But his optimistic take on the Islamic Republic’s future and its leading role in the liberation of the Muslim Ummah foresaw, in a general way, the course of Iran’s march towards victory over the Great and Little Satans—a march whose culmination will bring liberation not just to Iranians, Palestinians, and Lebanese people, but to the whole Ummah and even oppressed non-Muslim peoples, including Latin Americans.

Dr. Siddiqui, in “The Islamic Revolution: achievements, obstacles and goals” (1980) observed that a key goal of the Revolution was to arrive at the moment when “the (Islamically-governed) social order acquires the confidence and the ability to deal with the external world on its own terms.” Since the global conquest and colonization by Europeans that began 500 years ago and reached its apex in the mid-20th century, Muslim-majority nations’ leaders have felt forced to deal with the external world on outsiders’ terms—primarily the terms of the colonial powers.

Specifically, they have felt compelled to call on one or more of those powers for protection against others. From Nasser’s attempts to call on Soviet help against the zionist-dominated Americans, to the Afghan Mujahideen’s attempts to call on the Americans and their Saudi proxies for help against the Soviets (and other Central Asian peoples’ reliance on the CIA for help against the Russians) all Muslim-majority nations except Islamic Iran and its AnsarAllah ally in Yemen have acquiesced to being pawns in the game of non-Muslim empires.

Islamic Iran, as Dr. Siddiqui predicted, refused to play that game. Insisting on genuine sovereignty, Iran has built up its indigenous industrial, technological, and military capabilities without help from outsiders—while maintaining a religiously-ordained prohibition against weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Rather than buying “advanced” western weapons, Iran reverse-engineers them and builds its own, which are often improvements on the originals.

As of late March 2026, Iran has demonstrated the ability to control the critically important Strait of Hormuz, the most important global choke point, despite the best efforts of the world’s biggest navy, and to maintain escalation dominance over the biggest military power the world has ever seen. That is quite an achievement, and Dr. Siddiqui is in the forefront of the small number of thinkers who saw it coming.

Though genuine sovereignty has come at a cost—up to a million Iranians may have died in the 1980s imposed war against western-backed Saddam Hussein, and tens of thousands have been killed by US-supported terrorists since then—Iran has emerged with sufficient power and independence to defeat the US empire and (soon) the Genocidal Zionist Entity. The defeat of the Twin Satans will make it possible for Muslims of the region and the world to follow Iran’s path of asserting genuine independence under sovereign Islamic governance.

The defeat of the zio-American empire will also free the Islamic world to unite. As long as the US and its vassals dominated the world, any Muslim leaders who defied their divide-and-conquer strategy by seeking unity faced insurmountable obstacles. The empire would use bribery and subordination, assassination, terrorism, regime-change campaigns, and if necessary all-out war to depose any Muslim leader who sought to do his Islamic duty of seeking the reunification of the Ummah or even regions thereof.

The architects of the short-lived United Arab Republic, the eccentric but heroic visionary Muammar Qaddafi, and of course thousands of oppressed and martyred activists have been stymied by the Epstein Empire and its minions, who fear a world in which a unified Islamic nation of two billion people would accrue sufficient power to end Global Zionism and its usury fiat banking system.

Many of the most insightful western thinkers, including anthropologist Ernst Gellner, have understood, as Dr. Siddiqui did, that there are only two contenders for the position of globally dominant interpretive framework: the western secular outlook with its competing rationalist and anti-rationalist (postmodern) versions; and Islam, a unifying and encompassing outlook based on eternal sacred truths that teaches tolerance and protection for all divinely-revealed religions.

All other outlooks and schools—Chinese Confucianist “communism,” the various Christianities, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and so on—are particularist, not universal, and hold little promise of becoming the basis of an international, multicultural, multi-confessional global civilization. Only Islam has the potential to overthrow the usury banking cartel and reinject (divinely revealed) morality into the international system.

The zio-American empire of usury is collapsing, both because it is wildly overextended and behaving irrationally, and because Russia, China, and Iran have accumulated enough state power to defeat it on the relevant battlefields. By divine providence, and the genius and hard work of the Islamic Resistance and its citadel, Islamic Iran, one of the three great powers that will defeat the US empire happens to be ruled by people who strive to be guided by God’s final revelation.

So Islamic Iran will be, and fully deserves to be, a cornerstone and inspiration of the free, uniting Islamic Ummah that will emerge in a post-zio-American world. And the western-based thinker who most clear-sightedly saw how these events would likely unfold, and how Muslims ought to help them unfold, was the remarkably prescient Dr. Kalim Saddiqui.

Islamic Republic of IranDr. Kalim Siddiqui

The US-Zionist-Arabian-Inflicted Suffering On Muslims

Waseem Shehzad

That Muslims are subjected to genocide is no longer in doubt. It has been going on for decades. It took a more virulent form after the false flag operation of 911 although Muslims were being targeted well before that.

Certain defining moments can be identified. The success of the Islamic revolution in Iran in February 1979 immediately led to a massive propaganda campaign. Newspapers carried hysterical headlines against the Islamic Republic.

The Internet was not in vogue at the time. The few television networks that existed were equally hostile, especially in the US.

The west’s favourite puppet in West Asia, the Shah, had been overthrown. Until then, Iran was a base for CIA and Mossad operations. The Islamic revolution demolished those pillars of disruption. It did more.

It opted out of the western-crafted world order imposed since the Second World War. This was a dangerous development and Iran had to be brought under control, or destroyed.

In addition to the propaganda campaign, a vicious war was unleashed against Iran in September 1980 through Iraq, then led by the despot, Saddam Husain. The entire world supported Saddam’s criminal attack. Iran stood all alone. The people of Iran made immense sacrifices to defend the revolution.

When Saddam failed in his assigned task to destroy the Islamic revolution, then the same west that had backed him with all kinds of weapons including chemical weapons, was attacked and overthrown.

The west indulges in much talk about human rights, but it is applied selectively. When Saddam’s regime resorted to using chemical weapons against Iran—supplied by the west— for five years (1984-1988), the UN refused to name the perpetrator—Iraq—because the victims were Iranians.

The UN established a special commission at the specific complaint of Iran. Each year, commission members visited Iran and Iraq. They saw that the victims were all Iranians. Yet, not once from 1984 to 1988 did the commission name Iraq as the guilty party. It merely condemned the use of chemical weapons.

It was only after the western-backed Iraqi-imposed war ended in August 1988 and Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Halabja that the west suddenly discovered he was committing a war crime.

This, too, was deliberate. Saddam had to be punished for failing to destroy the Islamic Republic. He was then lured into a trap to invade Kuwait (August 1990). Thereafter, a vicious war was unleashed against his regime—twice—to get rid of him and the stock of weapons that were left unused against Iran.

Prior to the success of the Islamic revolution in Iran, Muslims had suffered repeated humiliations. In June 1967, the zionist war criminals defeated a number of Arab armies in what came to be called the ‘Six Day war’. Masjid al Aqsa was abandoned to the invading zionist forces without the Jordanian army putting up a fight.

This was followed, in December 1971, by the humiliating surrender of tens of thousands of Pakistani troops to the invading Indian army. Pakistan, then ruled by the military dictator General Yahya Khan, ordered the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Bengalis because they had won the October 1970 elections but the West Pakistani elite refused to hand over power.

These humiliating episodes in the life of Muslims were preceded by even earlier setbacks. The Ottoman Turks were defeated in the Balkans in 1878 and forced to retreat from there. Then in 1917, they also lost Greater Syria including Palestine to the invading British and French forces.

Arabian clan rulers were used to undermine the Turks. This paved the way for the implantation of the zionist monstrosity in the heartland of Islam.

Thus, when the Islamic revolution in Iran succeeded, it was the first flash of light in a sea of darkness. The west, however, was not prepared to let this happen without trying to undermine it.

In addition to the Iraqi-imposed war, for 47 years, Iran has been subjected to illegal sanctions. These have inflicted enormous suffering on ordinary Iranians. They are even prevented from importing medicines for critically ill patients.

Yet when Iran sanctioned oil by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, suddenly the entire world rose up in arms. It denounced the act as “illegal”.

Are the sanctions against Iran legal? What about its $120 billion assets that the US and its western allies have frozen for decades? Was the assassination of General Qassem Solaimani on January 3, 2020 as he arrived on a diplomatic mission in Baghdad legal? What about the US-zionist wars unleashed against Iran on June 13, 2025 and on February 28, 2026? Both attacks were launched while indirect negotiations were taking place between the US and Iran.

During the 40-day US-zionist onslaught on Iran, more than 3,000 people were killed. Another 25,000 were injured. Among those martyred were the Rahbar, Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei, several of his family members, many top commanders as well as other officials. And who can forget the heart-wrenching attack on the girls’ elementary school in Menab in which 168 young school girls were martyred?

Iran’s refineries, energy production facilities, bridges and buildings have been destroyed. The damage is estimated at more than $270 billion. The west that immediately screams “illegal” at the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is complicit in the multiple illegal acts committed against Iran.

The suffering of the Iranian people does not merit attention. For the west, there is clearly a hierarchy of humanity. Some lives are more important than others.

The western-practised hierachical nature of life can be gleaned from a recent episode at the United Nations. The Arabian potentates sponsored a resolution at the Security Council condemning Iran’s attacks on their territory. Bahrain is currently the rotating president of the Council.

The 15-member Council adopted on March 11 resolution 2817 (2026) by a vote of 13 in favour to none against, with two abstentions (China, Russia). Even Pakistan voted for the resolution totally ignoring the fact that the US and zionist Israel had launched an illegal and unprovoked war against Iran on February 28.

American military bases in Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were used to attack Iran. Tehran had warned that if these military bases are used to launch attacks, it will retaliate. Does Iran not have the right to defend itself? The aggression was launched amid negotiations between the US and Iran to resolve the nuclear issue.

Iran has been falsely accused of seeking nuclear weapons. The indicted war criminal, Benjamin Mileikowsky (aka Netanyahu) first raised this bogey in 1996. Each time he opens his mouth, he alleges that Iran is “only six months” away from acquiring a bomb.

That the zionist entity has 200 to 400 nuclear bombs is overlooked. The US has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and it is the only country in the world to have used them, not once but twice.

So while western regimes including the zionist entity can have nuclear weapons, Muslims cannot have them. Who makes this decision and on what basis?

Islamic Republic of IranUnited StatesZionist Israel

Committed Muslims Vs Ritualistic Muslims

Zafar Bangash

Circumstances, not entirely of their making, have forced the nearly two billion Muslims in the world to make some critical choices. There are those that have compromised with taghuti powers for expediency. This is based on the mistaken assumption that they will be spared the wrath of the tyrants and war criminals if they keep their heads low and their mouths shut.

There are other Muslims that have chosen to stand up for justice and fairness. This is what Islam teaches. The latter group of Muslims is a minority but their steadfastness has resulted in profound changes globally.

The western-crafted order, imposed by the victors of the Second World War to protect their ill-gotten gains, has been shaken to its foundations. A new, more just global order is in the process of emerging. Islamic Iran is the principal driver of this change.

Let us consider some specific examples to better understand this phenomenon. Currently Islamic Iran and the Hizbullah in Lebanon are being targeted directly by the forces of evil represented by the US and zionist Israel.

Three other theaters in what is referred to as the Axis of Resistance are also under pressure. These are the Islamic resistance in Gaza, the Ansarallah in Yemen and the militia forces in Iraq.

Targeting the Axis of Resistance are not only the evil duo—the US and Israel—but their European allies and the Arabian potentates as well. Looked at purely from a materialistic perspective—quantity of weapons and bombs—the Axis of Resistance should have been defeated a long time ago.

This has not happened. Instead, the Axis of Resistance has inflicted massive blows on the aggressors and war criminals. Even in the tiny besieged enclave of Gaza, the zionist war criminals have not had it their way despite perpetrating a genocide of the civilian population.

On February 28, when the evil duo launched an unprovoked and illegal war on the Islamic Republic of Iran, it was assumed that Tehran will be forced to surrender in a matter of days. After all, if its top leadership, including the Rahbar, Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei, is eliminated, the system will collapse.

Such thinking is based on how secular systems work. The Islamic system of governance operates on radically different principles. It is not persona based. Its strength derives from the values it pursues.

Martyrdom plays a crucial role in this struggle. Committed Muslims are not afraid to die. The noble Qur’an highlights this phenomenon in the following words:

“Among the committed muslims are men who are true to their [life-and-death] pledge to Allah: some of them [in the course of honoring their pledge] have passed on and some of them still await without having wavered in the least” (The Ascendant Qur’an, Surat al-Ahzab, verse 23).

The concept of martyrdom is alien to the imperialists and zionists. They live for this dunya, a world of materialism and hedonistic pleasures. Death ends the pleasures of the flesh. They do not believe in the hereafter. That is why they are so terrified of dying.

Unfortunately, some Muslims have also adopted this attitude. Their commitment to Islam and its principles is quite superficial. They seek refuge in rituals hoping that this will secure for them a place in paradise.

With Muslims suffering so much oppression and persecution, some ask why Allah does not help the committed Muslims. Further, why Allah does not punish the oppressors and tyrants as He punished the taghuti powers during the times of earlier prophets? They may even cite the example of how the rebellious people at the time of Nuh (عليه السلام) were punished when a massive flood swept them. The Pharaoh’s army was drowned while Musa (عليه السلام) and his followers were saved by the parting of the sea.

Such questions are based on a lack of understanding of the Qur’an and the Prophetic Sunnah and Seerah. During his 23-year mission to establish Islam and the Islamic State, no miracles were performed. It was done through human effort, struggle and sacrifice.

This is what Muslims have to do today. They have to muster the courage and struggle for the sake of Allah upholding truth and justice. Only then will Allah’s help manifest itself.

The prophetic seerah offers many striking examples but one will suffice. The Prophet (ﷺ) did not sit in al-Masjid al-Nabawi praying for the destruction of the mushrikeen of Makkah. He went out to confront them in the Battle of Badr. Once he had mobilized whatever forces he could, then he prayed to Allah for help.

Divine intervention manifested itself in the form of angels helping the committed Muslims (Surat al-Anfal: verse 9). The lesson is clear: Muslims must first make the utmost effort against their enemies bent on perpetrating injustice and then pray to Allah for help.

Today, when hundreds of thousands of Muslims are being killed in Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen and Sudan, the answer is not more earnest prayers. Rather, Muslims must stand up and resist these forces of evil. This is what the people of Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen are doing.

True, Muslims outside these regions cannot be with their brothers and sisters physically but that does not mean they cannot help in other ways. The first is to raise their voices against injustice and oppression. Second, they can help the many tens of thousands of widows and orphans and help rebuild the destroyed homes, schools and hospitals.

Remaining aloof or detached is not an option for Muslims.

How Iran’s Valiant Resistance Has Changed The Dynamics of Power In West Asia

Kevin Barrett

The West Asia region is the birthplace and heartland of Islam. It is also the world’s biggest oil and gas producer.

These two facts, taken together, terrify the Epstein class oligarchs who rule the west. Though the world is transitioning to alternative energy, fossil fuel is still the key geostrategic commodity. If West Asian Muslims ever assert control over their own resources, they will gain immense leverage over global finance, and find themselves in a position to dethrone the usury banking cartel that currently rules much of the world.

That usury cartel is disproportionately Jewish. Its leading members are fervent zionists attached to the Greater Israel project, which aims to dominate West Asia and ultimately capture and ethnically cleanse all the land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers. West Asian Muslims, for their part, despise usury, which is expressly forbidden by Islam, and oppose the ongoing zionist genocide of the Holy Land and environs.

The eight decades following World War II have witnessed an epic clash between the indigenous mostly-Muslim population of West Asia and the invading zionists and imperialists who have plundered the region’s resources to fund their global empire. Until 2026, the zionist-imperialist invaders had the upper hand. They have extracted tens of trillions of dollars in energy wealth, using it to prop up the US dollar and fund the construction of the ring of military bases girdling the planet.

But on February 11, 2026, US President Donald Trump made a fateful decision. Goaded by his Epstein-files-owning master, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump ordered a joint US-Israeli attack on Iran. That attack was carried out on February 28, following a diplomatic ruse aimed at lulling Iran into a false sense of security.

Trump and Netanyahu expected Iran to surrender. They hoped that assassinating Supreme Leader Ayatullah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and other leaders would somehow lead to a “regime change,” propelling pro-US, pro-“Israel” leaders into power.

Iranians had other ideas. Outraged by the dastardly murder of their leaders, and by the double-tap massacre of 168 girls and 26 female teachers at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ Elementary School in Minab, as well as other atrocities, the Iranian people rallied behind their Islamic Republic and its leadership. Immediately after the attack, Iran struck back, raining down missiles on Israel and US bases in the region. A few hours later, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared the Strait of Hormuz closed to all enemy countries—starting with the US, Israel, and the Gulf monarchies that had allowed their territory be used for the sneak attack on Iran.

The war raged at full-strength for six weeks, ebbed in the second half of April, and may well flare up again. Iran has pounded “Israel” as well as US bases in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, while the US has bombed civilian as well as military targets in Iran, killing thousands of civilians and injuring tens of thousands. (The Iranian Red Crescent estimates that the zio-Americans have damaged more than 100,000 civilian targets.)

Though the Americans and Israelis have successfully blown up schools, hospitals, places of worship, apartment blocks, and other civilian sites, along with critical infrastructure such as railways and bridges, they have been unable to significantly degrade Iran’s military capabilities. Iran stores its missiles, drones, and speedboats deep underground, often beneath mountains, where even the biggest US bombs cannot touch them. Meanwhile, despite Trump’s bombastic claims, western media has admitted that most of Iran’s military power remains intact, even as the US is exhausting its vastly more expensive arsenal.

Regional US military bases have been decimated. The New York Times, BBC, and other mainstream outlets have estimated that nearly half of the US fixed footprint in West Asia has been “structurally compromised” meaning effectively taken out of action by Iranian missiles and drones. According to one report, the 13 US bases closest to Iran are “all but uninhabitable,” and American military personnel have been forced to evacuate and work from hotel rooms. As its protector was being humiliated, “Israel” too suffered billions of dollars in damages. Iranian missiles have impacted buildings adjacent to nuclear facilities in Dimona, among other high-value targets, exposing the Iron Dome as an Iron Sieve.

The zionists and imperialists have effectively lost the war of attrition, as they are using up expensive and difficult-to-replace weapons much faster than Iran is going through its inventory of easier-to-replace drones and missiles. Crucially, Iran has demonstrated that its “nuclear option”—shutting the Strait of Hormuz, the global economy’s single most crucial artery—is not a bluff but a fait accompli. What’s more, Iran has every reason to maintain permanent control over the Strait and extract war reparations by charging a toll. The US and its deranged leader can rage and drool and tweet unhinged threats, but they cannot re-open the Strait.

Iran has escalation dominance: Whatever horrific level of damage the zio-Americans inflict on Iran, the Iranians can inflict that same level or greater on America’s vassals in the region. (The Gulf monarchies would become instantly uninhabitable without desalinization and air conditioning.) The upshot is that Iran has won the war, and all that remains is for the zionist-imperialist camp to face reality and admit it.

By emerging from the war with permanent control of the Strait of Hormuz—and insisting that the US withdraw from the region—Iran can radically reshape the balance of power in West Asia. Prior to the war, the US could pretend that it owned West Asia and its energy resources, using its military occupation of the Gulf monarchies to demand various forms of tribute while insisting that oil and gas be priced in dollars.

Now that American military power has met its Iranian match, a new power dynamic will emerge, as regional countries see the US-“Israeli” presence not as a guarantee of security, but as the region’s leading cause of instability, chaos, and bloodshed. New, multilateral security partnerships will emerge, led by regional countries, and presumably featuring China—the biggest consumer of West Asian energy—as a key player.

The new power dynamic in West Asia will ultimately dethrone the western usury banking cartel. As the Chinese model of banking as a public utility meets Islam’s prohibition of usury, with the former backed by manufacturing clout and the latter by immense energy resources, a new paradigm for global finance will emerge.

This epic shift in the balance of power will offer Muslims the opportunity to reform their societies and make them more genuinely Islamic. Independent, sovereign Muslim nations, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, cannot be bullied by western power into accepting un-Islamic political, economic, and cultural institutions and practices. As the other West Asian peoples gain their independence and sovereignty, thanks primarily to the courageous and steadfast resistance of the Iranian people and allied pro-Resistance forces, they too will have the opportunity to throw off western colonial influences and “be themselves.”

In the not-too-distant future, in sha’Allah, a peaceful, prosperous, genuinely sovereign West Asia will play a leading role in forging an enduring global order in which aspirations for justice and dignity, rather than bullying arrogance, will have the upper hand. When that day arrives, the people of the region, and the world, will owe a huge debt of gratitude to the courage and steadfastness of the citizens and supporters of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who could not be cowed by the most horrifically disgusting threats, nor by the revolting and repeated massacres of their leaders and citizens—and who saw through the Epstein class propaganda beamed endlessly at them and at the entire world. Islamic Iran and its supporters have taken heed of the Qur’anic verse: “O you who are firmly committed [to Allah’s here-and-now power presence], if any depraved person comes to you with [slanderous and propagandistic] information, you are ordered [by Us] to verify it lest you [falsely] accuse people because of erroneous information, and then afterward feel regretful for what you have done” (The Ascendant Qur’an, Surat al-Hujurat, verse 06). All the lies of the evildoers of the Epstein-class western media, and the bloodcurdling threats and bloodspilling atrocities of the western uniformed terrorists, could not convince them to do otherwise.

Axis of ResistanceIslamic Republic of Iran