Question:

There have been international and regional stances and political statements about the nuclear deal with Iran since its signing by Iran and the "5+1" group on 24/11/2013. These positions and statements show confusion and conflict in their perspectives... Iran considers what happened a victory and that it gained international recognition of its right to enrich uranium, and America denies that the deal provides for the recognition of Iran's right to enrichment, and says that the deal makes the Jewish entity more secure, and that it will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state, and the Jewish entity considers the it a bad deal and a historic mistake... What I have found, and perhaps what others have found, confusing in order to know the reality of this deal... and the question is: What is the reality of this deal and the positions that accompanied it? And does this deal have a connection with Iran's role in the region, such as the events going on in Syria for example? And what is the cause of this frantic effort that Obama exerted and exerts to ratify the deal and defend it, to the extent that I heard one of the politicians say, "It is as if Obama is concerned with the deal more than Iran"? May Allah (swt) reward you.

Answer:

We will present in the beginning the reality of what happened with the deal according to what was published by various media sources:

1. Iran's Commitments in the Deal:

A. Iran agreed to cease the enrichment of uranium exceeding 5%, and disassemble the technological connections necessary for enrichment exceeding this percentage, and committed to reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium from 20% to less than 5%, or to convert it to a state that is not fit for any other enrichment operation... and it committed to stopping any advancement in increasing its stockpile of uranium from 3.5%, where the quantity at the end of the six months mentioned in the deal would not be more than the quantity at the beginning, and to convert any increase in quantity that is enriched to more than 3.5% to oxide.

B. Iran committed to cease any advancement in its enrichment capabilities by not installing any additional centrifuges of any kind, and not installing or using any next generation centrifuges for enriching uranium, and disabling half of the centrifuges installed in Natanz and three fourths of the centrifuges installed in Fordow so that they cannot be used for the enrichment of uranium. Likewise Iran committed to limit the production of centrifuges to the necessary devices to replace damaged machines, so Iran would be unable to store additional centrifuges in the six months.

C. Iran committed to not operate the reactor in Arak and cease progress on the track to plutonium extraction, and to not assemble any additional components on it, and not transport any fuel or heavy waters to it. The deal also provided for the prevention of extraction of any plutonium from spent fuel, and to provide necessary design information for a long time about the reactor at Arak, which provides detailed sensitive information about the reactor that was not previously available.

D. Providing more opportunities for the inspectors to enter the reactor at Arak and providing certain key data that is required according to the additional protocol of the Iranian safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and likewise Iran committed to provide daily access to the Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors to enter the reactor at Natanz and the reactor at Fordow, and it will allow the inspectors to review what was filmed by the cameras to ensure complete supervision of enrichment in these two locations... Iran also committed to provide access to the International Atomic Energy Agency to check collection facilities of the centrifuges, and to enter the production and storage facilities of the centrifuges, and enter the uranium mines and processing plants.

E. Iran committed to forming a committee with the 5+1 states and with the International Atomic Energy Agency to supervise the deal's execution and address any problems that may arise, and the committee will also work to facilitate the resolution of previous and current concerns pertaining to Iran's nuclear program, including the likely military dimension of the Iranian program and Iran's activities at Barshin.

2. Iran's Gains under the Agreement:

A. Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif announced that his country will suspend the enrichment of uranium to 20% for six months, while continuing with other components of the enrichment program. The minister signaled that the great powers agreed to not implement additional sanctions in the six months, while suspending some of the punitive measures with regards to the oil embargo, in addition to the sanctions against the Iranian petrochemical industry, car production, insurance and trading of precious metals.

B. A document distributed by the White House about the interim deal indicates that there will be an easement of sanctions on Iran in exchange for suspension of some aspects of its nuclear program, according to Reuters on 24/11/2013, and the document indicated the possibility of Iran acquiring revenue of up to 1.5 billion dollars from trade in gold and precious metals and the suspension of some sanctions on the Iranian car industry and Iran's petrochemical exports. It will also allow Iranian oil purchases at the present dramatically low levels, and it will allow for the transfer of 4.2 billion dollars from these sales in installments if Iran carried out its commitments. The White House assured that the deal will ease sanctions on Iran in the amount of 7 billion dollars in the form of trade.

C. A number of the delegates in the Geneva talks said that agreement includes the reduction of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for limited easing of the sanctions on Tehran worth seven billion dollars in the form of trade.

3. Iran considered this a success, as its Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini said, praising the deal: "We must thank the nuclear negotiating team on this achievement, and this success is due to Allah's divine guidance and prayers and support of the people" (Iranian Fars News Agency, 25/11/2013). Rohani said in an interview with Iranian Television aired last night (26/11/2013) that the right to enrichment that is part of Iran's nuclear rights will continue. And he added, "Enrichment is continuing today, and will continue tomorrow, and will never stop, this is a red line." And in the same interview, the Iranian president expressed optimism at the reaching of a full agreement on his country's nuclear program. In this context he said that the road is long, and that walking it will be made possible by the support of the people. The Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif said the night before last (25/11/2013) in a television interview that his country is continuing to enrich uranium, adding that Tehran will speak to the Americans about that.

4. So is this really a success? The one who studies the terms of this agreement sees that Iran put forth great concessions in its nuclear program, and agreed to the cessation of enrichment that the West wanted, and reducing the 20% enriched to less than 5%, and converting it to a completely transformed state. And it committed to not enrich more than 5%, and to not continue its activities in the reactor that produces heavy water, and committed to not produce plutonium, which is necessary to produce nuclear weapons. And it committed to not install new centrifuges, and open its doors to inspectors daily, and film all actions taken to keep the nuclear facilities under international control... so how is this considered a success? The Iranian officials considering this a success and great victory is only to cover the reality of their concessions and attachment to America and to silence any voice from their people that may object them and to create the conditions for open relations with America. Iran's concession contradicts what it claims it has of sovereignty, and respect for its independence, so how does it allow for this and make itself under constant supervision and daily inspection, just as in Saddam's Iraq before the American occupation when he places his facilities under supervision and daily inspection to search for weapons of mass destruction? With this Iran prevented the development of its nuclear strength, especially as it sees the Jewish state developing its strength continually, conventionally or unconventionally... Anyone with vision understands that this is not a success, for a state to return to enriching at a level of 3.5% - 5% after it had reached 20%, and work on certain arrangements to disable the effectiveness of what was previously enriched to 20%, this is not success in any case, but is an issue engineered by America in the corridors of politics with Iran to bring the American-Iranian relationship out of secrecy and out to the open so that it can play its role in the region without the restrictions of sanctions... many people have begun to realize that Iran is loyal to America, and it was especially confirmed after the events in Syria. Indeed that was from the beginning of the proclamation of the republic, but the cooperation between them was happening in covertly in all issues and especially pertaining to Iraq and Afghanistan as the former officials in Iran admitted. And the present Foreign Minister Javad Zarif was a diplomatic representative in America for the Iranian Republic in 2001 and requested from his government then to cooperate with America in its conquest of Afghanistan, and some Iranians accused him then of being an American agent. Now Iran wants to pursue a public approach to dealing with America to take part in implementing America's projects openly, and so it will have a regional role supported by America. America supported its role in Syria of supporting Bashar al-Assad's regime until it found a replacement to maintain the composition of the regime that follows America.

5. America was behind the deal that took place, and it secretly met with the authority in Iran months before the announcement of the deal on 24/11/2013. America had realized that Europe wanted to disrupt America's deal with Iran, and that is why it developed the agreement before informing the Europeans of it. The French newspaper Le Monde reported on 24/11/2013 of news that American and Iranian officials over a matter of months held several bilateral talks that played an important role in the initial agreement on the Iranian nuclear program that was reached from the night of Saturday to Sunday 24/11/2013, according to what was mentioned 24/11/2013 by the Associate Press Agency quoting US officials. The Associated Press indicated that the United States of America notified its allies, the other members of the 5+1 group and "Israel", of the secret meetings eight months after they were held, in the end of 9/2013 after Obama called Rohani... and the French newspaper clarified that the meetings took place in Oman... and the three officials in the American administration confirmed to the Associated Press that these secret negotiations are what set the guidelines of the deal that was reached on the night of Saturday on the Iranian nuclear program in Geneva.

6. Therefore Obama was noticeably concerned with this deal to the extent that he was standing on the lookout for any objection from Congress, and to assure the Jewish entity that this deal protects their security, and he was in a hurry for it to be reached, and all this is clear from his statements:

The American President Obama stood defending the policy of publicly approaching Iran saying: "We cannot close the door on diplomacy and rule out peaceful solutions to the world's problems". And He said "If Iran seizes this opportunity and chooses to join the global community, then we can begin to chip away at the mistrust that's existed for many, many years between our two nations", (Al-Jazeera 26/11/2013)... and American President Obama spoke of the deal: "The first step that we have taken today marks the most significant and tangible progress that we have made with Iran since I took office... today's announcement is just a first step, it achieves a great deal." (World News (NBC News) online, 23/11/2013)... And Obama said while participating in an activity in San Francisco on 25/11/2013 that "huge challenges remain, but we cannot stand against the diplomatic option, and we cannot rule out diplomatic solutions to the problems that the world faces," And Obama added, "We cannot close the door on diplomacy. And we cannot rule out peaceful solutions to the world's problems," indicating that "Over the coming months, we're going to continue our diplomacy, with the goal of achieving a comprehensive solution that deals with the threat of Iran's nuclear program once and for all"... And Obama said on 24/11/2013 that the deal represents an important step towards a comprehensive solution to the issue of this program, and he said that he would close the way for Iran to build a nuclear bomb. And Obama warned that his country would stop easing the sanctions on Iran if it does not commit to the terms of the deal within the six months. Likewise Kerry stated that the deal will make it difficult for Iran to move towards building nuclear weapons. He said speaking of one of the most controversial issues in the nuclear crisis that has been going on for ten years, that the deal does not include any recognition of Iran's "right" to enrich uranium. And he added assuring the Jewish entity: "This deal will make the world safer and Israel and our partners in the region safer." (AFP 24/11/2013)

As a reaction the White House quickly moved to confront the influence of the members of Congress who are loyal to the Jewish lobby. The White House requested the support of heavy weights, Scowcroft and Brzezinski, to pressure Congress to stop such measures, so they requested - in a letter from them - for the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to support the deal with Iran because of American national interest. In their letter they said that the agreement: "...would advance the national security of the United States, Israel, and other partners in the region", and the letter also warned from imposing new sanctions on Iran: "More sanctions now as these unprecedented negotiations are just getting underway would reconfirm Iranians in their belief that the U.S. is not prepared to make any agreement with the current government of Iran," and the letter mentioned: "We call on all Americans and the U.S. Congress to stand firmly with the President in the difficult but historic negotiations with Iran." (Scowcroft, Brzezinski.... Strategic Culture Foundation online, 20/11/2013), and it is clear from all this that America acted as though this was its vital issue!

7. Europe's attempts to disturb the deal and then the agreement: America knew that Europe did not want the American-Iranian deal, because Europe knew that Iran is loyal to America, and an easing of sanctions on Iran meant that America would draw a role for Iran to undertake to serve the interests of America in the region that requires lifting restrictions on Iran so that it could move freely, and therefore France openly attempted to complicate the deal in the first round that was held on 15/10/2013 and Britain attempted behind the scenes, as always, but America was serious about signing it, so Europe was forced to agree.

Thus, the Europeans were unable to disrupt the agreement, after they realized that America already laid its foundations... therefore they agreed, and it seems that they wished to exploit it internationally, especially that the agreement limits Iran's nuclear activities towards building nuclear weapons by forbidding it from enriching uranium more than 3.5% - 5%, and what was enriched to 20% will be eliminated, and the nuclear reactors will be under daily supervision and inspection. Based on that the British Foreign Minister William Hague praised the deal on his twitter site on 24/11/2013 saying that the deal is an: "Important and encouraging first stage agreement with Iran. [The] nuclear program won't move forward for six months and parts rolled back." The French President  Francois Hollande said "the interim agreement represents an important step in the right direction. The agreement respects the demands expressed by France in terms of uranium stockpiles and enrichment, a freeze on new facilities and international monitoring." (AFP 24/11/2013)

The French President Francois Hollande described the deal as: "An Important step in the right direction towards the normalisation of relations between the West and Iran." (APB 24/11/2013)

8. What is left is the position of the Jewish entity: The position of the Jewish entity that considers this as a bad deal is not a new or a strange one. This state, the occupier of Palestine, has drawn for itself since its inception a policy that resists any emerging influential material power in the region, not just a nuclear power but any developed traditional power and not against a big state like Iran only, but even against small states. It objects the arming of Jordan, despite that it considers Jordan as a "strategic partner" and yet it objects its arming!

The Lebanese news published citing from the Arabic Wiki leaks based on the document on 13/3/2006, that contained the statement of the Ambassador Richard Jones about the demands of the Jewish state from America in February 2006 regarding disarming the countries of the region, and with regards to Jordan it mentions: "...The Hebrew State views Jordan as a "strategic partner"...Despite that and taking into consideration the geographic similarities and the potential strategic changes, Israel cannot afford a reduction in the qualitative difference between the Israeli Defence Army and the Jordanian Army. Also, Israel cannot risk that Jordan becomes armed with Sam missiles or any other missiles systems that covers its air space totally." [End of quote]

These are the policies of the Jewish State towards the big and small countries of the region, not just this but in its negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, that aspires to establish its state, if it will materialise, that it must be a demilitarised state.

This is why the Jewish state is not satisfied with Iran becoming a peaceful nuclear state and does not  become a military nuclear state, but instead it wants to uproot the nuclear capability in any case, peaceful or not, and in Iran and all the countries of the region. It has a past example, when it attacked the nuclear facilities of Iraq at the time of Saddam with a green light from America. It was preparing more than once to attack the nuclear facilities in Iran, but America was preventing it. We saw how the Jewish state "danced" with joy when the tyrant of Ash-Sham accepted to destroy the chemical weapons.

The Jewish state knows that it has no internal power except:  ((إِلَّا بِحَبْلٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَحَبْلٍ مِنَ النَّاسِ...)) "Except by a rope (covenant) from Allah and a rope from the people" [Al-Imran: 112]

As for the rope of Allah, it has cut it many eras ago. But the rope of the people has been extended to it since its creation by Britain and being nourished by France and embraced by America, this is why it attaches itself to America and its policies. Therefore it is expected that it will exert every effort through the Jewish Lobby in America to influence it during the coming 6 months to make the final solution with Iran contains more sanctions than what is currently agreed upon in the temporary solution.

But in all cases, America puts its benefit as a priority over that of the Jewish entity, in fact it is America that determines the security of the Jewish State, it is not the Jewish entity that imposes its security upon America; especially now that Obama is in his last electoral term, and so the influence of the Jewish Lobby on him will be considerably less.

Despite this, the Jewish State views its survival is due to the American aid it gets. America is the one that prevents the countries of the region from possessing nuclear weapons; it allows the Jewish state to manufacture nuclear weapons. The deal contained reassuring points to the Jewish state; The Israeli Minister of Intelligence Affairs, Yuval Steinitz said in an interview to the Hebrew broadcasting network 2 in the same morning:" That the large nations insisted in the last hours that preceded the announcement of the deal to add alteration to the deal document according to the Israeli wishes".

The Jewish State will try to influence America, so that it can add other conditions and sanctions. The Israeli Minister of Finance Yair Lapid said in an interview with the Army Broadcasting channel on Sunday morning, 24/11/2013: "Israel must co-ordinate with the United States and other world powers to reach a better final deal after 6 months." He added: "Despite this bad deal we need to work with the Americans and others so that the final deal guarantees the complete dismantling of the Iranian nuclear project"

What is clear from all this is that the Jewish state backed by America want a complete monopoly over the nuclear weapons in the region and to prevent any other country in the region from possessing and developing power and to stop these countries from any scientific theoretical capabilities to produce nuclear energy. What is painful is the fragility, no rather the treason of the countries that are established on the Muslim land that fears scientific research to produce peaceful nuclear energy let alone the nuclear weapons. At the time when the Jewish state produces nuclear weapons privately and publically and it objects to any of the countries of the region to do the same.

Therefore the statement of the Prime Minister of the Jewish State, Netanyahu that: "The Deal is a historical mistake and is a bad one that offered Iran what it wanted, by lifting part of the sanctions and keeping the main part of its nuclear programme." (AFB 24/11/2013)

This statement can be understood in the context of what we described earlier, of the desire of the Jewish state that there would be no existence of any great power in the region than itself and that it wants to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapon capability.

9. As for the reason why did America exert effort to hold this meeting with the knowledge of the fact that the Iranian nuclear issue for so many years has been in a give or take situation. So why now is Obama exerting an overheated effort to sign the Iranian nuclear deal to the extent that made him say: "what we did with Iran, is considered a tangible progress and is the most important one since I came to office"?

The answer to this question is that there have been new circumstances in the region since the last three years and what is new is the public opinion atmosphere that is spread in Syria for the Khilafah "Caliphate". It is a new phenomenon that was not witnessed in the Arab Spring revolutions which were sparked by self motivation, but with slogans closer to secularism or a mixture between it and what is called the American moderate Islam! This enabled America and the West to infiltrate the revolutions and to meddle with them. But with the movements established in Syria, they are dominated by the Islamic sentiments which in many cases were in harmony with the correct Islamic thoughts and concepts which proclaim "the Ummah demands the return of the Khilafah "Caliphate"". This rising Islamic atmosphere in Syria has deepened the crisis of the West in general and America specifically, because they realise the greatness and might of the Khilafah "Caliphate". In the presence of the Khilafah "Caliphate", others states have no significance, if they manage to survive and not perish.

There is another factor that adds to their predicament, and that is America is drowning in its crisis which has weakened its effect to directly influence and eradicate this growing Islamic atmosphere in Syria, this is why America is searching for traitor aides in the region who can act as its front line in order to confront this great Islamic atmosphere.

As for the America's internal crisis, in addition to the economic crisis which America still suffers from is that both Democratic and Republican parties are in disagreement with each other over the main issues; the local party politics replaced the National American benefit; it became more important than taking care of the people's affairs. Many observers noticed that the disputes between the main parties regarding raising of the debt-ceiling and Obama's health care project shows the deterioration of the American political system. Frank Fogel wrote for the Huffington Post: "The American political system has collapsed and the Congress lacks the public trust; the rate of those who have trust in it decreased to 10% according to the latest Gallop Centre poll. According to the commercial public opinion poll 85% of senior American businessmen believe that the main problems suffered America were caused by the funding campaigns of elections' system. 42% believe that the system is a complete failure" (Huffington Post, 26/7/2013)

As for the foreign American politics situation it is worse and more dangerous than the domestic one, despite the leading American domination over the world. Immanuel Wallerstein said commenting on the regression of America's influence in all parts of the world: "A large majority of people, if not all, feel the considerable regression of the United States power and position and influence. People in America accept this feeling grudgingly." (The Consequence of Regression of the United States: Al-Jazeera Channel, 2/11/2013)

Brzezinski said in his speech in the Council of Foreign Relations in Montreal in 2010: "The super powers of the world the old and the new face a new reality, despite their great military power now than in the past, its capability to impose its domination over the world is in its lowest level historically." Because of these crises that are wrapped around the neck of America, impeding the effectiveness of its direct impact; And because its agents, whether they are its creations from outside, or Bashar and his followers on the inside, were all unable throughout these three years to settle an active role in Syria, but instead the chants for Khilafah "Caliphate" stun their hearings, their eyes and their hearts. For all of that America wanted from Syria's neighboring countries in the region to be its front-line to stand in the face of the emergence of any new ruling system that adopts Khilafah "Caliphate" as a system for the state, life and society. The sight of America has found two of its followers to whom it can commission this task; Turkey and Iran. As for Turkey it does not have restrictions on its movements.  While Iran, where sanctions and their attachments constitute a restriction on it, limiting its influential activity internationally and regionally, and keep it in semi- isolation; its actions against the Khilafah "Caliphate" are stronger than that of Turkey. This is because Khilafah "Caliphate" is rejected in the culture of the rulers of Iran, which makes them active to combat it. While in the Turks' legacies there are long eras of Khilafah "Caliphate", which makes the system in Turkey fret and lash out when it fights the Khilafah "Caliphate".

Thus the new scheme requires the stimulation of the role of these two countries as mentioned. Hence, America has made this issue to be its issue that requires lifting of restrictions on Iran to facilitate its movement. This has made Obama to put all this overheating effort to lift the sanctions specifically for this purpose, i.e., to stand in the face of the Islamic movements in Syria to establish the Khilafah "Caliphate". It was not for lifting the restrictions on the activities of the Iranian nuclear weapons, rather the peaceful nuclear activity was restricted and limitations were placed that will reinstate Iran from enrichment ratio of 20% that it attained, to about 3.5%, in addition to the inspection and its stipulations. Accordingly, the relief was only to facilitate Iran's movement and encourage it to actively work in the face of Khilafah "Caliphate" in Syria, and not to be active in the nuclear field! Thus, Obama counted this nuclear deal as one of his greatest works during his tenure.  In the case that Obama can stir Turkey and Iran to stand up against the work for Khilafah "Caliphate" in Syria, whether it is by physical criminal work inside Syria, or the treacherous politics in Geneva and other than Geneva, so as to be able to find a replacement agent to take the place of the former agent and abort the work for Khilafah "Caliphate". In case Obama can do that, it would be one of the strongest works in his term, it is not surprising, then, that he says in his statement: "What we have done with Iran, is a significant progress, and the most important since I took office ..." That if he could, and perhaps, he thinks it is possible from the conduct of the two countries in following his plots. So they both hastened to meetings and visits, on the footsteps of their leader, Obama, who was also walking hastily to hold that agreement! So that, in only three days from the time the agreement was made, on 24/11/2013, all the former tension between Turkey and Iran has disappeared, and the Foreign Minister of Turkey visited Iran. The talks focused on cooperation between them in the Syria issue and on the Geneva Conference, and what hidden is much greater. Shall they cooperate in righteousness and piety, we would have wished them well-being, but should they cooperate to stand in the face of the establishment of the Khilafah "Caliphate" in Syria, to restore the secular rule of the unjust oppressor again after the pure blood that have been shed, and the great sacrifices that have been made, then we say that they deserve disgrace in this life, and Blaze in the Hereafter. Thus, Allah has ordered cooperation in righteousness and piety and not in sin and aggression:

((وَتَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ وَالتَّقْوَى وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ))

"And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty."] Al-Ma'ida: 2[

Would they realize it so that they are saved? For the sane person is the one who learns and be saved.

10. In conclusion, this is a reminder for whoever has a heart or who listens while he is present in mind:

A. We remind the rulers in Turkey and Iran that their loyalty to America and their stand in the face of the sincere workers who work to establish Khilafah "Caliphate" in Syria, will gain them disgrace in this world and the torment of the Hereafter, and however they work to appease the West in general and America in particular they will not satisfy them.

وَلَنْ تَرْضَى عَنْكَ الْيَهُودُ وَلَا النَّصَارَى حَتَّى تَتَّبِعَ مِلَّتَهُمْ قُلْ إِنَّ هُدَى اللَّهِ هُوَ الْهُدَى وَلَئِنِ اتَّبَعْتَ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ بَعْدَ الَّذِي جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ مَا لَكَ مِنَ اللَّهِ مِنْ وَلِيٍّ وَلَا نَصِيرٍ

"And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, 'Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the [only] guidance.' If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no protector or helper". [Al-Baqara: 120[

RasulAllah (saw) said as narrated by Ibn Ja'd in his Musnad by Aa'ishah:

«مَنْ أَرْضَى النَّاسَ بِسَخَطِ اللَّهِ، وَكَلَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَى النَّاسِ، وَمَنْ أَسْخَطَ النَّاسَ بِرَضَا اللَّهِ كَفَاهُ اللَّهُ النَّاسَ»

"Whosoever pleased the people angering Allah, Allah will give him up to the people, and whosoever angers the people to please Allah; Allah will suffice of any need of the people".

Without doubt you can see the fates of people who satisfied people by angering Allah, and the sane person learns from others.

B. We also remind the rulers of Turkey about the Khilafah "Caliphate", the obligation of their Lord, and the brilliant eras that swept across Turkey for several centuries, and they were its soldiers, the soldiers of Al-Fatih, Saleem, Al-Qanooni and Abdul Hamid. It behooves the rulers of Turkey today to be enthralled by those illuminating eras not to fail the Khilafah "Caliphate", and not to stand in its face in Al-Sham or any other place. If fail to support the workers for Khilafah "Caliphate", than at least you should not stand in their face. The best outcome is for the pious.

C. We also remind the rulers of Iran, even though they do not believe that the Khilafah "Caliphate" is the obligation of their Lord, and whose mind, when it is mentioned, conjures up an unjust Khaleefah here or there, we remind them that the Khilafah "Caliphate" which the workers work to establish it, is the Khilafah "Caliphate" on the method of the Prophethood. The Khilafah "Caliphate", which was Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali, may Allah be pleased with them, were its leaders and its soldiers. So if the rulers of Iran stand in its face, then they will violate the Seerah (biography) of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), who pledged Bayah (allegiance) to the three Khulafaa who preceded him, and was their assistant and was honest and sincere with them. So follow his Seerah, and do not ban the Khilafah "Caliphate" by standing at its face in Al-Sham or in any other place. If you fail to support the workers for Khilafah "Caliphate", then at least not stand in their face... The best outcome is for the pious.

D. As we started to remind the rulers of Turkey and Iran together, we conclude by reminding them together that Khilafah "Caliphate" is the promise of Allah, the Almighty:

((وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ ..))

"Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them..." ]An-Nur: 55[

It is also the tidings of the Messenger (saw) after this ruling, as directed by Ahmad and Tayaalisi from Huzaifa ibn al-Yaman who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

«...ثُمَّ تَكُونُ جَبْرِيَّةً، فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةٌ عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ»

".... Afterwards there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes then there will be a Khilafah "Caliphate" Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood".

It is going to be established, Allah willing, sooner or later. So whoever grants victory to it and supports it, will be with the ones upon whom Allah has bestowed favor, and whosoever, stood in the face of Allah, he will never harm Allah at all, but will be afflicted debasement in this world and a severe punishment in the Hereafter. All this will not delay the establishment of the Khilafah "Caliphate" and its return an hour or a few hours.

((إِنَّ اللَّهَ بَالِغُ أَمْرِهِ قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدْرًا))

"Indeed, Allah will accomplish His purpose. Allah has already set for everything a [decreed] extent." ] At-Talaq: 3[