بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
On September 2, 1898, the armies of the disbelieving British colonialist, led by Kitchener, entered Omdurman, the capital of the Mahdist State, thus placing Sudan under the influence of the disbelieving colonizer, a situation that persists to this day. Since then, Sudan has been languishing in the embrace of Western colonialism. To perpetuate this situation and continue reaping its benefits, Britain undertook political, intellectual, and cultural actions aimed at separating Sudan from Egypt, then weakening it and targeting its unity, this giant rich in its civilization and resources. They began by shaping life in Sudan based on Western civilization and removing Islam from people's lives, which is the most important pillar of the country’s unity. And how could it not, given that it was Britain that destroyed the Muslim Khilafah 105 years ago, on the 28th of Rajab, 1342 AH (March 3, 1924 CE)? Indeed, it was Britain itself that preempted the destruction of the Khilafah with the Sykes-Picot Agreement, signed with its ally France on May 16, 1916 CE. This agreement operated like a scalpel on the body of the Muslim world, dismantling its unity through vassal colonies based on narrow nationalist or ethnic lines, which were then called states. Each state was given its own borders, flag, and national day, thus enshrining division and fragmentation.
British colonialist policy directly targeted the unity of Sudan, focusing its efforts on establishing the mechanisms by which it shaped the minds of generations from an early age. On November 8, 1902, Gordon College (now the University of Khartoum) was inaugurated, producing generations of political figures and senior officials steeped in the culture of the colonialist. These individuals, once seated in positions of power, not only governed the country in the interests of colonial Britain, but also implemented its first schemes aimed at undermining national unity. They did this by declaring, from within Parliament, the separation of Sudan from Egypt on December 19, 1955! This did not quench the thirst of the disbelieving colonialist. Instead, it unleashed further destruction. To prepare South Sudan for secession, Britain enacted in 1922 what became known as the Closed Districts Policy. This policy prohibited Muslims from entering South Sudan from the north without permits, allowed the entry of major Christian missionary groups into the south, banned the use of Arabic, and imposed English for education and administration, thus creating a complete divide between North and South Sudan. Not only that, but as it prepared to withdraw its forces from Sudan, and in order to maintain its colonialization of it by changing the form of colonialism, it sparked the civil war in Sudan with the mutiny of the Equatorial Corps on August 18, 1955.
From the moment Britain set foot on Sudanese soil, it pursued a dangerous policy targeting the country’s unity, comprised of two points:
The first was the manipulation of tribalism as an entity, distorting its legitimate role as a social unit for mutual understanding and transforming it into a political force aspiring to rule, and even to tear the country apart.
The second point was the policy of land grants, whereby land, pastures, thickets, and forests were given to the largest tribe in the region and designated as the land of so-and-so, named after the tribe, while other tribal groups were ignored and treated as nonexistent. This was undoubtedly one of the main causes of the ongoing tribal conflicts, especially with the annual friction between farmers and herders. Thus, the Sudanese people were conditioned to perpetual conflict, weakening and ultimately fragmenting the country.
The nation-state made by the British colonialists in Sudan was, and remains, incapable of functioning except under the tutelage of the disbelieving West. Therefore, it was susceptible to the machinations and political visions of the disbelieving West. Under the banner of self-determination, Sudan was separated from Egypt, and then South Sudan was separated from the North. Under the banner of federalism, the regions of Sudan were prepared for secession, and racist, regional, and tribal sentiments rose to tear apart what remained of Sudan.
America shaped the post-World War II world. It was the victor, untouched by the devastation of the military machine that had ravaged the globe for six years. Thus, America emerged from its isolation to reap the fruits of its victory, promoting the idea of peoples’ right to self-determination. Its aim was to expel European colonialism from its colonies and replace it. However, European colonialism, particularly British colonialism, had prepared for this moment. It began handing power to the political circles and parties it had cultivated for this very day, along with all state institutions staffed by its agents. In this way, the British colonies remained resistant to American influence, leading America to resort to military coups to remove British influence. This idea was brought from its backyard, South America, and its influence was extended to Egypt in 1952 through the so-called Free Officers’ coups. Later, it was extended to Sudan with the coup led by Jaafar Nimeiri on May 25, 1969. Since then, Sudan has become an arena for international conflict. Nimeiri sought to eliminate British influence and transfer the guardianship of the Sudanese nation-state from Britain to the United States. Thus, Sudan became, and remains, a battleground for international conflict between the British and American colonialist powers.
Nimeiri proceeded to eliminate British influence, delivering crushing blows to political circles linked to the British and removing them from the equation of governing the country. He pursued their forces, which had attempted to solidify into a physical force on Aba Island, and struck them with the help of the Egyptian air force. He continued to thwart attempts by British loyalists to return to power in Sudan, such as the attempt by the National Front forces, trained in Libya, to seize the capital, Khartoum, on July 2, 1976, among other attempts. Meanwhile, America continued to consolidate its influence in Sudan, installing the Egyptian government and its institutions as its proxy in the country.
The Americans inherited the British plan to dismember Sudan, indeed their plan to dismember all Muslim lands. They questioned the validity of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and proposed the idea of “Blood borders” as an alternative to the Sykes-Picot borders. On 1 June 2006, retired United States Army lieutenant colonel, Ralph Peters, published an article, accompanied by a new map of the Middle East, in the U.S. Army's monthly military magazine, Armed Forces Journal. Titled “Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look,” his article argued that the United States had missed a valuable opportunity by failing to partition Iraq after the fall of the previous regime. He claimed that, for example, a Kurdish state could have been declared, a demand shared by all Kurds, and that Kurds from Iran, Syria, and Turkey could have been united within it.
The lieutenant colonel explained his view that the European powers that colonialized the region divided it and “the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.” He added, regarding his proposed map, “this hypothetical redrawing of boundaries reflects ethnic affinities and religious communalism — in some cases, both.” He asserted that, “Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible. For now. But given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge.... If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own.”
This article is a translation of the ideas of the far-right thinker Bernard Lewis, the “executioner of the Middle East,” who advocated that it is necessary to redivide Arab and Muslim countries into tribal and sectarian components, without any consideration for their feelings or being influenced by their emotions and reactions. He went on to say that this partition plan is based on fueling ethnic and sectarian conflicts, and then imposing division and separation by force, since destabilizing one country will dramatically destabilize its neighbors. He infamously stated in his book, “The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror” that “Americans were willing to use both force and intrigue to install or restore their puppet rulers in Middle Eastern countries.”
Following the secession of South Sudan in 2011, al-Bashir stated in January 2012, “America was behind the division of Sudan to achieve its interests in oil and to weaken the country.” Thus, America was the one that destroyed the unity of Sudan by separating its south.
By April 2019, Al-Bashir’s government had lost its role and exhausted its usefulness to the Americans. It had separated South Sudan, ignited the conflict in Darfur, and, through the Doha Agreement of 2011, granted Darfur broad autonomy, effectively paving the way for its secession. It also adopted a federal system, enshrining it as a firmly established gain, thus threatening the unity of the state. Therefore, America overthrew Al-Bashir’s government, believing it could reproduce the familiar scenario of replacing the disfavored ruler while preserving the system's structure and loyalty. However, the British proxies in Sudan had emerged from the ashes and prepared for the American scenario. They mobilized millions around the presidential palace and proceeded to undermine American influence through political maneuvering.
Nevertheless, the American proxies bowed to the pressure and reluctantly accepted the constitutional document, only to turn against it on October 25, 2021. However, the American proxies proved incapable of governing the country, and the British influence began to take hold. The “Framework Agreement” is once again tightening its grip on American influence in Sudan, prompting the US to launch this war to demonize British agents and remove them from the equation of governing the country, and to implement a policy of “blood borders” by carving up Darfur and destroying the unity of the rest of Sudan’s regions.
To this end, it is proceeding with implementing the Libyan scenario in Sudan, aiming to solidify the partition of Darfur in accordance with the plan of the US Institute of Peace. This institute held a workshop in Nairobi in April 2024, with the participation of political and civil forces opposed to the war. The workshop concluded that the existence of two governments in Sudan would reduce the intensity of the fighting and open avenues to the negotiating table! (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, August 4, 2025). Therefore, it pushed both sides of the war to implement this recommendation.
O people of Sudan: America, which separated South Sudan, is now returning to carve up Darfur and tear apart what remains of your country. If you deal with this issue in the same way you dealt with the issue of South Sudan, then their plan to tear Sudan apart into five states, drawing its borders with your blood and the blood of your children, is inevitable, and that is a clear loss in this world and the hereafter.
In conclusion:
It is truly regrettable that our country has become an arena for international power struggles between America and Britain; they trade in the blood and honor of our people, and they are enemies of one creed, desiring no good for Muslims anywhere and at any time. Allah (swt) said,
[يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لَا تَتَّخِذُواْ بِطَانَةٗ مِّن دُونِكُمۡ لَا يَأۡلُونَكُمۡ خَبَالٗا وَدُّواْ مَا عَنِتُّمۡ قَدۡ بَدَتِ ٱلۡبَغۡضَآءُ مِنۡ أَفۡوَٰهِهِمۡ وَمَا تُخۡفِي صُدُورُهُمۡ أَكۡبَرُۚ قَدۡ بَيَّنَّا لَكُمُ ٱلۡأٓيَٰتِۖ إِن كُنتُمۡ تَعۡقِلُونَ]
“O you who have believed, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves, believers, for they will not spare you any ruin. They wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason.” [TMQ Surah Aali Imran: 118].
The disbelieving colonialists are unconcerned by the killing of Muslims, nor are they troubled by the violation of their honor. We have reached this state after the Khilafah (Caliphate) was destroyed and life based on Islam was lost. We will not rise again except by making the Khilafah our ultimate goal, for which we are willing to sacrifice our lives and souls; working tirelessly day and night, and mobilizing all the efforts of those with power and influence with utmost energy and speed.