“We avoid a clash with ‘Israel’—as it serves no interest of ours—and are working toward a security agreement with ‘Israel’ involving a group of nations. Should this security agreement succeed, it would pave the way for a comprehensive peace, without relinquishing Syria's rightful claim to the occupied Golan.”

With these words, Ahmad Al-Sharaa—Syria’s leader for the transitional period—began discussing the future nature of the conflict with the Jewish entity.

Key points within the political context of the statement:

Avoiding military escalation: Al-Sharaa emphasized that Damascus sees no benefit in engaging in any current military clash or confrontation with the Jewish entity, preferring instead to address border issues and tensions through political and diplomatic channels.

International sponsorship and support: He explained that Syria seeks to involve influential regional and international powers in these arrangements to ensure a balanced and sustainable security agreement.

Adherence to nationalistic principles: He stressed that the proposed security understandings—if successful—could serve as a gateway to a comprehensive peace process, yet without compromising Syrian sovereignty or infringing upon Syria’s inalienable right to the occupied Golan Heights, in accordance with international legitimacy resolutions.

The slide toward compromise under the banner of nationalism carries implications obvious to any rational person; responsibility for this is upon everyone—without exception—capable of speaking out against it.

Repeated concessions and the rush toward rapprochement and normalization have occurred frequently—time and again—driven by reasons that defy comprehension and motives devoid of any Shariah sanction. To begin with, engaging in the projects of the narrow nation-state—with its confined nationalistic borders—was one of the initial steps that paved the way for accepting the sale of sanctities and rushing toward reconciliation with the Jews. This fragmenting nationalist ideology is the primary driver behind stripping the Ummah of its sources of strength, thereby clearing the path for the abandonment of fundamental principles and for normalization with murderous occupiers.

It is no longer a secret that the Ummah’s current plight stems from a lack of awareness regarding the conspiracies hatched by our enemies, as well as the absence of an aware political leadership capable of preventing the squandering of sanctities and shielding the Ummah from subservience and capitulation.

The Ummah possesses all the requisites of power—including vast resources and capabilities—and exists to defend its sanctities, not to squander them or engage in appeasement. It is evident today that this power requires a political leadership to chart its course and define the correct objective for achieving its ultimate goal. Yet, no matter how abundant the resources may be, they are of no avail if those controlling and directing them do so to serve the Ummah’s enemies—driven by their own inner weakness and a willingness to sacrifice everything merely to cling to a precarious seat of power destined to vanish before long.

Nor must we forget that the history of the Jews is replete with treachery and the violation of covenants and treaties. A reading of history, informed by awareness and insight, confirms an indisputable fact: the defining characteristic of the Jews’ history—both with Muslims and, prior to that, with the Prophets of Allah (as)—is treachery and betrayal. Even during the first Islamic state established by the Messenger of Allah (saw)—when Al-Madinah welcomed them and the Prophet (saw) concluded the Charter of Al-Madinah, guaranteeing their rights and safety—their innate tendency to break covenants soon prevailed. From the treachery of Banu Qaynuqa and their violation of the sanctity of Muslims, to the plot by Banu Nadir to assassinate the Prophet (saw), and culminating in the grave betrayal by Banu Qurayza during the Battle of the Trench—when they sided with the mushrikeen against the Muslims—treachery has always been their hallmark. Nor did it stop there; history records their treachery against the Prophets and Messengers of Allah (as)—through killing, denial, and the distortion of words from their proper contexts, just as the Creator—Glory be to Him—described them.

Therefore, the conflict with them is inevitable; it is an existential struggle, not merely a dispute over borders. The history we have recounted is clearly reflected today in the Blessed Land, particularly in the Gaza Strip.

The entity of those who have incurred Allah’s wrath, the Jews, proves daily that it respects neither ties of kinship nor covenants regarding believers. The blood spilled every day, the dismembered bodies of women and children, the forced displacement, and the systematic destruction of all the essentials of life—all serve as living testimonies to the brutal nature of this usurping entity. Events in Gaza have demonstrated the criminal nature of this entity, just as Operation Al-Aqsa Flood proved that it is possible to uproot this occupying Jewish entity from our land.

Faced with these facts, how can any rational person pin their hopes on “security agreements” or “comprehensive peace” with an entity founded upon the shedding of blood?

Betting on reconciliation with the occupier is a gamble on a mirage; it represents a denial of—and a departure from—fundamental Shariah rulings. The Shariah and political dangers inherent in the rush toward normalization are immense. Calling for peace or a truce with these people—under the pretext of political realism or the desire to avoid confrontation—poses a grave danger and constitutes an evil on all levels:

1. The Shariah Danger: It is impermissible to surrender Muslim lands and sanctities or to legitimize the occupiers’ presence on even a single inch of them. Occupied land does not become the property of the occupier simply through the passage of time. Any peace agreement involving concessions or the recognition of the legitimacy of murderous criminals is absolutely null and void; it violates definitive Shariah rulings that obligate waging Jihad against the occupier and repelling the aggressor from the lands of Islam.

2. The Political Danger: Contemporary historical experience has proven that chasing the mirage of peace with the Jews yields nothing but further subservience and humiliation. The occupier attaches no value to understandings or agreements except insofar as they secure open-ended security for him. Accepting his terms—under the guise of security agreements—merely paves the way for him to tighten the grip of control through which he seeks to dominate the entire region, especially after Gaza shattered his aura of invincibility.

The Shariah obligation today requires preventing any deviation. This Ummah’s affairs can only be set right by a sincere political leadership that upholds the great Islamic project and leads the Ummah by the Deen. Therefore, be as Allah (swt) intended you to be: sincere servants of His, seeking His pleasure, acting upon His commands, refraining from what He (swt) has forbidden, and fearing no blame from anyone when it comes to Allah (swt).

Allah (swt) says,

[يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اسْتَجِيبُوا لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَحُولُ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَأَنَّهُ إِلَيْهِ تُحْشَرُونَ]

“O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life. And know that Allah intervenes between a man and his heart and that to Him you will be gathered” [TMQ Surah Al-Anfal: 24].

* Member of the Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Wilayah Syria