A religious community which receives a political leader courteously may be accused of approving his conduct, especially when his government oppresses the very people whom the community seeks to defend. For some critics, the welcome is sufficient to establish that faith has been compromised.
Palestinians whose children have been killed, whose homes have been destroyed and whose access to food and medical care has been obstructed are owed protection and justice. Muslims are bound to oppose such injustices and this obligation includes addressing those in power about their responsibility for these injustices. The Quran and sunnah also govern how this admonition is to be given.
The Prophetic example and the Islamic scholarly tradition support the Jamaat’s practice of addressing political leaders courteously while requiring justice from them. The religious value of such courtesy becomes clear when we consider how the Holy Prophet (sa) himself received people whose conduct he disapproved of and how Muslim scholars understood the purpose of his gentleness towards them.
Courtesy versus religious compromise
An incident related by Hazrat Aishah (ra) is particularly instructive here because she herself asked how a warm reception could be reconciled with disapproval of the person received. A man sought permission to visit the Holy Prophet (sa). Before the man entered, the Holy Prophet (sa) described him as an evil member of his tribe and instructed that he be admitted. Yet when the visitor came in, the Holy Prophet (sa) spoke gently to him. Hazrat Aishah (ra), having heard both the earlier criticism and the subsequent conversation, asked the Holy Prophet (sa) why he had treated the man so gently. The Holy Prophet (sa) explained that among the worst people are those whom others avoid because they fear their offensive behaviour.1 Another narration describes how the Prophet (sa) received the visitor with a cheerful face and dealt cordially with him.2 His earlier criticism had made clear what he thought of the man. Nevertheless, the Holy Prophet (sa) chose to receive him warmly, explaining to Hazrat Aishah (ra) that a person’s offensive character could itself be a reason for taking care in how one dealt with him.
The Hadith scholar Muhammad b. Isma‘il al-Bukhari (d. 256/870) included this narration in Sahih al-Bukhari under the heading “Courteous dealings with people”, Bab al-mudarah ma‘a n-nas.3 In his commentary on this very chapter, the Shafi‘i Hadith scholar Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d. 852/1449) quotes the earlier Maliki commentator Ibn Battal (d. 449/1057), who describes gentle speech and the avoidance of harshness as characteristics of believers that help bring people together.4 Ibn Battal then distinguishes this conduct from religious compromise.
“Some have supposed that mudarah is the same as mudahanah, but they are mistaken, for mudarah is recommended whereas mudahanah is forbidden.”5
The two terms therefore describe forms of conduct that may resemble each other in their outward gentleness but differ in their religious character. Mudarah is considerate treatment through which a legitimate good is sought. Mudahanah is the flattery or accommodation through which a person compromises his faith to please another.
Ibn Battal describes mudarah as treating a wrongdoer gently while seeking to restrain his wrongdoing. The wrongdoer is corrected through considerate words and conduct, particularly where there is a need to win him over. Mudahanah, by contrast, involves displaying approval of his wrongdoing without objecting to it.6 Speaking gently to a wrongdoer in order to correct him is therefore a way of fulfilling the duty of admonition in accordance with the Prophet’s (sa) example. Since the Holy Prophet (sa) himself combined a warm reception with disapproval of the visitor’s conduct, gentleness towards a wrongdoer cannot in itself be condemned as flattery.
The Maliki Hadith commentator Abu al-‘Abbas al-Qurtubi (d. 656/1258) deals with the same incident in Al-Mufhim, his commentary on Sahih Muslim. He explains that mudarah consists in giving something worldly for a religious or worldly good, whereas forbidden mudahanah sacrifices faith for worldly advantage. In the encounter described by Hazrat Aishah (ra), the Holy Prophet (sa) gave the visitor his pleasant company, gentle conversation and cheerful countenance, all of which he could give without conceding anything in faith. Al-Qurtubi expressly observes that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not praise the man.7 Ibn Hajar likewise points out that the Holy Prophet (sa) did not describe the visitor as virtuous or righteous.8 His consideration for the visitor involved no false representation of the visitor’s character.
The Hanbali scholar Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751/1350) illustrates the difference by comparing the person practising mudarah to a physician treating a painful wound. The physician handles the sufferer gently while attending to the wound, whereas the flatterer encourages him to conceal it and leave it alone, allowing the disease to spread.9 Gentleness serves the physician’s work because treatment is what he intends to accomplish. A pleasant manner which abandons the treatment altogether would have quite another character. The adviser is likewise responsible for the truthfulness and wisdom of his advice, though he cannot compel another person to heed it.
In a narration recorded by the Hadith compiler Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Shayba (d. 235/849), the Holy Prophet (sa) describes mudarah, considerate treatment of people, as “the foremost exercise of reason after faith in Allah”.10 Choosing how to approach someone so that he might accept what is right is itself an exercise of religious judgement.
The gentleness commended in these narrations must be understood alongside the Holy Quran’s prohibition of giving up religious principles in order to please another person. The Prophet’s (sa) opponents wished him to give up part of what he taught in return for concessions of their own.11 In Surah al-Qalam, Allah describes their wish in the words, “They wish that thou shouldst be pliant so that they may also be pliant.”12 What they sought was a change in his teaching, whereas mudarah concerns the manner in which that teaching is conveyed. Since the Holy Quran also forbids cooperation in sin and transgression,13consideration for another person cannot extend to helping him commit injustice.
Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505/1111), the Shafi‘i jurist and theologian, distinguishes in Ihya’ ‘ulum ad-din between approaching an unjust ruler and receiving him as a visitor. Although he generally counsels avoiding the ruler’s court, he permits approaching him to seek the removal of an injustice suffered by oneself or another Muslim, provided one speaks truthfully, refrains from praising the ruler and does not withhold advice which he expects the ruler to accept.14
When the ruler visits the scholar, al-Ghazali deems it permissible to stand to receive him in public out of respect for his office among the people he governs. He nevertheless prefers withholding this honour where doing so would cause neither disorder among the people nor harm to the scholar.15
Once the encounter takes place, al-Ghazali requires the scholar to give counsel where he expects it to be useful. If the ruler does not know that something is forbidden, the scholar must explain it to him. If he already knows, the adviser should warn him against persisting in his wrongdoing or explain how he can achieve his purpose without committing injustice.16This last form of advice is especially relevant to a ruler who regards his own policies as necessary for the welfare of his people, since the adviser can show him why that welfare must be pursued through means which religion permits.
Surah Hud further forbids believers to incline towards those who do wrong.17 In explaining this prohibition, the Maliki exegete Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Qurtubi (d. 671/1273) includes reliance upon wrongdoers, approval of their conduct and affectionate companionship.18 A scholar who excuses a ruler’s injustice to retain his support allows his own interests to prevent him from fulfilling his religious duty. The Holy Prophet (sa), however, made the visitor’s character known and then treated him considerately. His pleasant reception involved no defence of the man’s wrongdoing.
Addressing a ruler by his official title likewise need not express approval of his character. The Holy Prophet (sa) addressed the Roman emperor Heraclius as the great man of the Romans in a letter inviting him to Islam,19 wording which Ibn Hajar explains as intended to win him over.20 Acknowledging Heraclius’s rank did not amount to approving his beliefs, since the letter invited him to change them. An adviser can therefore acknowledge a ruler’s office while calling upon him to fulfil the duties which come with it.
Gentle speech, clear admonition and resistance
The command to Prophet Moses (as) and Prophet Aaron (as) to approach Pharaoh shows why the gravity of a ruler’s wrongdoing need not make gentle speech inappropriate. Allah sent them to the very ruler who had persecuted their people, with the following instruction:
“Go, both of you, to Pharaoh, for he has transgressed [all] bounds. But speak to him a gentle speech that he might possibly heed or fear.”21
Critics of this comparison reply that Moses (as) and Aaron (as) were also required to tell Pharaoh plainly what he must do. They were indeed to demand that he release the Children of Israel and cease afflicting them22 and to warn him of punishment for rejecting God’s guidance.23 Yet Allah commanded gentleness in delivering that very message, so that Pharaoh might heed it. His transgression was the reason for approaching him and the gravity of that transgression did not prevent gentle speech from serving the effort to end it.
Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi (d. 606/1210), the Shafi‘i theologian and Quran commentator, explains that tyrants may become more arrogant when admonished harshly, whereas the purpose of the mission is to obtain benefit rather than increase harm.24 He even considers the demand to release the Israelites as an explanation of what the gentle speech entailed.25 Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333/944), the Hanafi theologian, similarly explains that gentle speech is more likely to take root in the heart, particularly with kings and leaders.26
Moses (as) was required to demand the release of the Children of Israel because he had been sent to secure their release. An adviser must similarly explain what justice requires in the circumstances he addresses, but nothing in this command makes a particular form of words obligatory in every encounter with an unjust ruler. Showing a ruler why his own claim to authority obliges him to govern justly also confronts his wrongdoing, especially where he has used that claim to excuse it.
Choosing how to admonish also requires considering what the admonition is likely to bring about. The Maliki jurist Abu Ishaq ash-Shatibi (d. 790/1388) explains in Al-Muwafaqat that the jurist must consider ma’alat al-af‘al, the consequences of actions, before deciding whether an act should be undertaken. An act intended to secure a good may, in particular circumstances, produce harm which equals or exceeds that good.27 Among his scriptural examples is the Holy Quran’s prohibition of reviling other people’s objects of worship lest they retaliate by reviling Allah.28 A Muslim’s rejection of idolatry therefore does not make every way of expressing it permissible. Ibn al-Qayyim likewise judges efforts to correct wrongdoing by their consequences, expressly prohibiting a method which replaces one wrong with a greater one.29
Prophet Moses (as) also spoke severely to Pharaoh, warning him of his ruin after Pharaoh accused him of being deceived.30 The Holy Quran presents gentle admonition and a stern warning within the same prophetic mission. Its command to dispute with the People of the Book in the best manner similarly makes an exception concerning wrongdoers.31 Al-Maturidi gives as one explanation that further debate should be abandoned with people who refuse to accept an argument even when its truth has been established.32 He is discussing withdrawal from an exchange in which an opponent refuses to engage honestly. Treating the exception as a prohibition of gentleness towards every wrongdoer would conflict with the Prophet’s (sa) own teaching.
A group of Jewish visitors wished death upon the Holy Prophet (sa), disguising their words as a greeting. When Hazrat Aishah (ra) answered them with a curse, he restrained her and reminded her that Allah loves gentleness in every matter. She asked whether he had heard what they had said and he explained that he had already answered them by returning their words upon them.33 He was fully aware of their hostility and had answered it, yet he still disapproved of the harsher response. If wrongdoing itself made gentleness impermissible, his instruction to Hazrat Aishah (ra) would be inexplicable. The wrongdoer’s conduct requires correction, while the way in which that correction is given remains subject to Prophetic guidance. The hadith commending a word of justice before an oppressive ruler likewise directs the believer to convey justice to the ruler himself.34
In his chapter on admonishing rulers, al-Ghazali excludes attempts by individual subjects to compel a ruler through force because these stir disorder and produce greater harm. Even an accusation such as “O oppressor” is impermissible if it provokes a disturbance whose harm spreads to other people. Where the danger concerns only the speaker, however, al-Ghazali regards such speech as permissible and even recommended, praising those who risked their lives to speak the truth.35 The adviser’s willingness to suffer himself does not entitle him to expose others to the harm which his manner of speaking would bring upon them.
The Holy Prophet (sa) later fought those who persecuted the Muslims and critics argue that Israel’s continued oppression of Palestinians likewise calls for resistance rather than further gentle words. The Holy Quran permits fighting in defence of those who have been wronged and driven from their homes and speaks of protecting monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques,36 while also prohibiting transgression in warfare.37 Those who possess the authority and means to protect the oppressed may have duties which advice alone cannot fulfil. A religious community without those authorities and powers still has responsibilities of teaching, counsel and assistance. The military duties of a government do not release the community from those responsibilities or require it to cease addressing the people whose conduct needs to change.
The Prophet’s (sa) dealings with Quraysh also show that armed conflict did not bring courteous negotiation to an end. At Hudaibiyyah, after years of persecution and warfare, he accepted the removal of his Prophetic title from the written treaty and the postponement of the Muslims’ entry into Mecca, while expressly affirming that he remained Allah’s Messenger even though Quraysh denied it.38 He could accommodate their objection to the document’s wording without accepting their denial of his prophethood. The distinction between concessions in the means of dealing with an opponent and concessions in faith therefore continued to govern his conduct after the commands concerning warfare.
The fact that Israeli leaders have continued to oppress Palestinians despite the Jamaat’s appeals has also been used to argue that further counsel is pointless. The Holy Quran recounts how some among the Children of Israel continued admonishing those who violated the Sabbath. When others asked why they persisted with people whom Allah would punish, they answered that they owed this duty to their Lord and that the offenders might yet fear Him.39They still had a duty to perform even when others had lost hope of their admonition succeeding.
Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Khalifatul Masih V (aa), the current head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, has explained why he continues to work for peace despite the refusal of political leaders to heed his warnings. In his address of 16 May 2026, he acknowledged that his letters to the Israeli Prime Minister and other world leaders, urging justice and warning of the danger of war, had gone unheeded.40 He nevertheless maintained the duty to work for peace and called upon states to unite in proportionate action against aggression.41
Public admonition and the duty of justice
When a ruler appeals to the security of his people or the sanctity of the land to justify his policies, a Muslim adviser can show him why these claims do not release him from his duties towards the land’s inhabitants.
The Jamaat teaches that the use of force to dominate weaker nations breeds further instability, whereas lasting peace requires the establishment of justice even towards someone regarded as an opponent or enemy.42 Those who claim to defend a sacred place must also obey the religious commandments concerning the people who live there.
The desire for security does not release a government from its duty to treat people justly and the sanctity of the land does not diminish the sanctity of human life. The Holy Quran expressly forbids allowing hostility towards a people to lead to injustice against them.43Those who consider the Palestinians their enemies must therefore recognise that this very enmity cannot justify denying them their rights.
God’s promises to Prophet Abraham (as) include blessings for both Prophet Ishmael (as) and Prophet Isaac (as),44 but descent from either prophet does not by itself make a person righteous.45 Those who appeal to the Torah for their connection to the land must also consider the duties it teaches towards its inhabitants. Leviticus requires the stranger living among the Israelites to be treated like a native and loved as oneself.46 Belonging to another people therefore gives no permission to mistreat him. This command provides a particularly forceful answer to the denial of Palestinian rights, since a scripture which requires such treatment even for someone who has come from elsewhere cannot justify oppressing people in their own homeland. Deuteronomy likewise forbids dishonest weights and measures,47 expressly connecting just dealing with the prolongation of life in the land.48 Psalm 37 teaches that the wicked will be cut off while the righteous inherit it.49 The claim to a divine gift consequently brings with it a duty to obey the God who gives it.
The Quran states, “My covenant does not embrace the transgressors.”50 These words follow God’s appointment of Prophet Abraham (as) as a leader and Abraham’s (as) request that his descendants should share in that leadership. The answer denies that descent entitles a wrongdoer to share in the covenant. In his commentary, the exegete al-Qurtubi discusses the requirement of justice in political leadership, which scholars derived from this verse.51 A ruler appealing to Abrahamic inheritance must therefore reckon with the exclusion of wrongdoers from the covenant. Rule over the Holy Land is consequently a divine test, with the blessing of remaining and ruling there dependent upon justice.52 First Chronicles likewise relates that David (as) was prevented from building the Temple because of the blood he had shed.53 Even David’s (as) wish to build a house of worship did not exempt him from God’s judgement concerning that bloodshed.
A Muslim who publicly explains why hostility towards Palestinians cannot justify injustice against them and why descent from Prophet Abraham (as) confers no exemption from God’s commandments is challenging the reasons offered for denying Palestinians their rights. The adviser is asking those in power to fulfil their obligations towards the Palestinians and teaching the wider audience why those rights must be respected. The Holy Prophet’s (sa) own practice also establishes that naming the offender is not a condition of every public rebuke.
When an official appointed to collect zakat returned with property which he claimed had been given to him personally, the Holy Prophet (sa) addressed the congregation about his conduct. Without naming the official, he asked whether the man would have received these gifts had he remained in his parents’ home.54 By asking this, the Holy Prophet (sa) made clear to those present that the man had received the gifts because of his official position and was not entitled to claim them for himself.
In addressing Israel’s rulers, a Muslim who explains that possession of the Holy Land gives them no right to oppress its inhabitants is requiring them to change policies which violate Palestinian rights.
Those listening to a political leader at a religious gathering can compare his assurances of peace with the duties which religious teaching places upon him.
Jewish listeners who claim a right to the land through the Torah can be asked to recognise what that same scripture requires of them towards its other inhabitants. Arab listeners can hear their rights defended through principles which their neighbours profess to accept. Even if a ruler refuses to change his conduct, those who hear such an address are given religious reasons for rejecting oppression and requiring justice from their government.
Divine promise and responsibility for the land
The Holy Quran foretells the return of the Children of Israel to the Holy Land. Muslims must take account of this promise in seeking to defend their interests, while those who receive what God has promised remain bound by His commandments.55 The prophecy occurs in the Holy Quran’s account of the Children of Israel after the destruction of Pharaoh.
“And after him We said to the children of Israel, ‘Dwell ye in the land; and when [the time of] the promise of the latter days comes, We shall bring you together [out of various peoples].’”56
The Children of Israel are first told to dwell in the land and then promised that they will be brought together when the promise of the Latter Days is fulfilled. The land remains the subject of both parts of the verse. The gathering concerns the people whose earlier settlement, wrongdoing and dispossession the chapter has described. Earlier in the same chapter, the expression wa‘d al-akhirah refers to the second of two occasions of punishment for their corruption in the land.57 In that passage, al-akhirah plainly concerns an event in their national history. Understanding the promised gathering as their return to the land therefore follows the subject of the passage and the chapter’s own use of the expression.
The Egyptian Quran commentator Muhammad Mutawalli ash-Sha‘rawi (d. 1998) likewise explains the gathering as the coming together of Jews from different countries in Palestine.58The Shafi‘i commentator al-Baghawi (d. 516/1122) had earlier transmitted an interpretation which connects this gathering with the foretold return of Jesus (as).59 These explanations show why the word al-akhirah cannot be treated as referring necessarily to the Day of Judgement. The prophecy of Jesus’ (as) return has already been fulfilled in the advent of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), the Promised Messiah and the gathering of the dispersed Children of Israel in the Holy Land during his age fulfils the promise contained in this verse.60
The Five Volume Commentary, based on the exegesis of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II (ra), Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, identifies the land as Canaan and explains why the two Israelite calamities also warn Muslims about their own future.61 The Holy Quran compares the missions of Moses (as) and the Holy Prophet (sa),62 and a narration in Sahih al-Bukhari warns that Muslims would follow the course of earlier communities.63 Muslims who repeat their predecessors’ religious and moral failures expose themselves to comparable consequences. The commentary relates the first Muslim calamity to the Crusades and the fall of Baghdad and the second to the Latter Days, when Jews would again be gathered in the Holy Land.64
In May 1948, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II (ra) explained that the Jewish return had been foretold, yet described the calamity as deeply painful for Muslims and urged them to unite in defending their interests.65 He called upon Muslims in Pakistan to offer part of their property so that their government could help obtain the material means needed for the defence of Palestine.66 He then explained that the prophecy foretold renewed Jewish settlement, while enduring rule belonged to the righteous. Through reform, sacrifice, unity and prayer, Muslims were to shorten the period of their loss.67 Recognising divine decree therefore required them to remedy the disunity and failures which had deprived them of the ability to protect the Holy Land. Muslims must consider whether a further war will help them recover what they have lost or bring another defeat. Continuing a course which brings further defeat does not become a service to the Palestinians merely because it is undertaken in their name.
Muslim failure and continuing obligations
Some readers may still find it objectionable to discuss Muslim failure before an adversary. After the Muslims’ losses at Uhud, however, the Holy Quran directed the believers to examine their own conduct as a cause of what had befallen them.68 These admonitions remain part of the revelation which Muslims proclaim publicly, although an enemy might welcome their criticism of believers. Muslims are required to recognise and remedy their failures because other people suffer from the weakness those failures produce. An adversary’s presence does not remove that responsibility.
Muslim scholars who witnessed military defeat also called upon their communities to examine the failures which had left them unable to defend themselves. During the early Crusades, the Shafi‘i scholar ‘Ali b. Tahir as-Sulami (d. 500/1106) described the decline of Muslim power through religious neglect and political division and called for reform.69 The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) similarly connected Mongol domination with corruption among Muslims,70 while ar-Razi explains God’s setting some wrongdoers over others as a consequence of their wrongdoing.71 This is commonly called taslit, whereby God allows an enemy or oppressive power to gain ascendancy.
Ibn al-Qayyim connects enemy ascendancy with disobedience in Zad al-ma‘ad, while explaining that God commands the believers to set their affairs right, heal their wounds and return to confronting their enemy.72 The lesson of defeat is that Muslims must remedy the failures which have weakened them so that they can fulfil their obligations, including their duty to oppose the enemy’s oppression.
Victory does not establish that God loves the victor. The exegete al-Qurtubi makes this distinction in his commentary on the Holy Quran’s account of the changes between victory and defeat, where he also discusses believers attaining martyrdom through their trials.73Explaining defeat through the failures of a government or community does not establish the guilt of a child who dies in the resulting calamity. The Hadith scholar Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 261/875) records the question of whether a people can be destroyed while righteous people remain among them. The Holy Prophet (sa) answers that this can happen when evil becomes widespread,74 and the Shafi‘i commentator an-Nawawi (d. 676/1277) explains that general calamities can encompass the righteous.75 Those who suffer together do not necessarily bear the same responsibility for what brought about their suffering.
Power and ancestry give Israel’s rulers no exemption from God’s judgement and Muslims must accept that their own communities are bound by the same standard. The Holy Quran requires justice even when testimony goes against ourselves.76 Muslim disunity explains why aggression succeeds, while responsibility for aggression remains with the aggressor and its victims retain their rights to protection and assistance. In July 2014, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih V (aa) criticised Muslim disunity and condemned Israel’s killing of Palestinians who lacked the strength to defend themselves against its forces.77 Such self-criticism serves Palestinians by calling Muslims to remedy the failures which have prevented them from giving the protection and assistance they owe.
The Jamaat’s consistent approach
The Jamaat’s record shows that recognising Muslim failures has long accompanied efforts to protect Muslim interests. In a letter of 9 November 1914, written after Ottoman entry into the First World War, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II (ra) warned of the danger facing Turkey and the Muslim world.78 In May 1947, he argued for helping Muslims obtain their political rights even while acknowledging that Ahmadis might themselves suffer persecution at their hands.79Their duty to assist other Muslims did not depend upon an assurance that those Muslims would reciprocate their goodwill.
In November 1947, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II (ra) criticised the great powers’ support for the partition of Palestine and urged Muslims to develop the strength to stand on their own feet.80At the United Nations, Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan (ra), an Ahmadi serving as Pakistan’s representative, argued against partition and the injustice of imposing it upon the Arab population.81 The practical proposals of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih II (ra) in May 1948 continued this effort to defend Muslim rights after the establishment of Israel.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih V (aa) addressed Ahmadis’ responsibilities towards Palestine on 5 June 2021, when a Palestinian Ahmadi asked how to remain faithful to the Palestinian cause. He instructed Ahmadis to oppose injustice through lawful means and to use their access to authorities and government representatives for that purpose.82 Contact with officials was thus a means through which they were to serve the Palestinian cause.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih V (aa) has also addressed the Israeli leadership directly. In February 2012, he warned Benjamin Netanyahu against governance by force and oppression of the weak.83 His letters to Netanyahu and Benjamin Gantz in June 2020 renewed the appeal to justice and warned of the consequences of national arrogance and wrongdoing.84 These letters combined a courteous form of address with direct warnings to those responsible for government.
The Jamaat’s statements concerning the conflict since October 2023 have also made clear which conduct it condemns. Its statement of 10 October called for the protection of civilians and communication to end the conflict.85 In his sermon of 13 October, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih V (aa) condemned the Hamas attack and the disproportionate Israeli response, rejecting any difference in the value of Israeli and Palestinian children’s lives.86 He subsequently condemned deprivation of necessities and the complicity of powerful countries.87 In December, he urged Ahmadis to write to their local MPs and ask them to help end the oppression of the Palestinians. He also called for prayers for the Palestinians, describing those who had been killed as martyrs.88 In August 2025, he said of the attacks on Palestinians, “They are massacring them openly.”89 His March 2026 sermon again condemned injustice and Western interference while urging Muslim unity.90
Humanity First has funded medical clinics in Gaza,91 and Hazrat Khalifatul Masih V (aa) has encouraged assistance through organisations able to reach those in need.92 Enforcing a settlement or directing an army requires powers which the Jamaat does not possess.
Humanity First’s local teams work with other humanitarian organisations to assist Palestinians displaced from their homes.93 The suffering has also reached members of the Jamaat. One was Muhannad Mu’ayyad Abu ‘Awwad, a twenty-year-old Ahmadi and Humanity First volunteer in Gaza who was killed in a drone strike after going to look for food for his family.94 The Jamaat’s local representatives must consider how their dealings with officials can help the families enduring these conditions and make their suffering known. Those judging the representatives’ conduct from elsewhere must also consider what their proposed approach would mean for the people who depend upon this assistance. Applying ash-Shatibi’s principle of considering consequences requires knowledge of the people affected and of the circumstances in which assistance and admonition can be effective.
Why courteous engagement is warranted
A political leader can use a public reception to present himself favourably, particularly when publicity omits the admonition which accompanies it. The Jamaat’s representatives can use the same encounter to explain publicly what the ruler owes to those whom his government has wronged, so that his listeners can judge his assurances of peace by the conduct religion requires of him. Declining such an encounter would also mean giving up the opportunity to address the ruler and his audience together. The possibility that he might obtain favourable publicity must be considered alongside the benefit of requiring justice from him in public.
A reserved reception can express disapproval more visibly. The Holy Prophet (sa) nevertheless chose a cheerful reception for the visitor whose character he had criticised, giving a positive example of the consideration through which an adviser can seek another person’s attention and goodwill without compromising his faith. The hosts also have a duty to teach those assembled, and confining all counsel to a private meeting would prevent the audience from hearing what religion requires of the ruler.
A direct reference to Gaza in welcoming a political leader can draw attention to Palestinian suffering. Requiring the welcome itself to contain a particular accusation would add a condition which the Prophetic examples and the juristic discussions do not impose.
A Muslim can support a peaceful protest95 or a lawful boycott96 because he believes it serves justice, as the guidance of Hazrat Khalifatul Masih V (aa) on these forms of action recognises. Many actions warranted by Islam may coincide with those favoured by secular political movements. Agreement on an action does not give those movements authority to determine Islamic obligations and their preferred expression of solidarity cannot become a compulsory measure of another Muslim’s faith. Our principles come from the Holy Quran and the blessed sunnah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa), which require us to defend Palestinian rights and also govern the means through which we discharge that duty.
Courteous engagement is therefore the appropriate Islamic course where it enables the Jamaat to admonish those in power and teach the people listening why oppression is forbidden. By speaking considerately, the adviser seeks to persuade the ruler to change the conduct which religion condemns, without changing the principles he is there to teach. In mudahanah, an adviser gives up his religious duty to please another person. The considerate treatment through which he seeks to fulfil that duty is mudarah.
1. Muhammad b. Isma‘il al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, ed. Muhammad Zuhayr b. Nasir an-Nasir, 1st ed. (Beirut: Dar Tawq an-Najah, 1422 AH), Vol. 8, p. 17, Kitab al-adab, Hadith 6054.
2. Ibid., p. 13, Kitab al-adab, Hadith 6032.
3. Ibid., p. 31, Kitab al-adab, Bab al-mudarah ma‘a an-nas, Hadith 6131.
4. Ahmad b. ‘Ali Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari bi-sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, ed. Muhibb ad-Din al-Khatib, numbering by Muhammad Fu’ad ‘Abd al-Baqi, 1st ed. (Cairo: al-Maktaba as-Salafiyya, 1380–1390 AH), Vol. 10, p. 528, Bab al-mudarah ma‘a an-nas.
6. Ibid., pp. 528–529.
7. Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Umar al-Qurtubi, Al-Mufhim li-ma ashkala min talkhis kitab Muslim, ed. Muhyi ad-Din Dib Mistu, Ahmad Muhammad as-Sayyid, Yusuf ‘Ali Budaywi and Mahmud Ibrahim Bazzal, 1st ed. (Damascus and Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir and Dar al-Kalim at-Tayyib, 1996), Vol. 6, pp. 572–573.
8. Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, Vol. 13, p. 171.
9. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ar-Ruh, ed. Muhammad Ajmal Ayyub al-Islahi, hadith references by Kamal b. Muhammad Qalmi, 3rd ed. (Riyadh: Dar ‘Ata’at al-‘Ilm and Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2019), Vol. 2, pp. 652–653.
10. Abu Bakr ‘Abd Allah b. Muhammad Ibn Abi Shayba, Al-Musannaf, ed. Kamal Yusuf al-Hut, 1st ed. (Riyadh: Maktabat ar-Rushd, 1989), Vol. 5, p. 221, Hadith 25428.
11. Fakhr ad-Din Muhammad b. ‘Umar ar-Razi, Mafatih al-ghayb, 3rd ed. (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1420 AH), Vol. 30, p. 603, commentary on Surah al-Qalam, Ch. 68: V. 10, first discussion.
12. Surah al-Qalam, Ch. 68: V. 10.
13. Surah al-Ma’idah, Ch. 5: V. 3.
14. Abu Hamid Muhammad b. Muhammad al-Ghazali, Ihya’ ‘ulum ad-din (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifa, n.d.), Vol. 2, pp. 142–145, Kitab al-halal wa al-haram, chapter 6.
17. Surah Hud, Ch. 11: V. 114.
18. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami‘ li-ahkam al-Quran, ed. Ahmad al-Barduni and Ibrahim Atfayyish, 2nd ed. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, 1964), Vol. 9, p. 108, commentary on Surah Hud, Ch. 11: V. 114.
19. Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, pp. 8–10, especially p. 9, Kitab bad’ al-wahy, Hadith 7.
20. Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, Vol. 1, p. 38.
21. Surah Ta Ha, Ch. 20: V. 44–45.
22. Surah Ta Ha, Ch. 20: V. 48.
23. Surah Ta Ha, Ch. 20: V. 49.
24. Ar-Razi, Mafatih al-ghayb, Vol. 22, pp. 52–53, commentary on Surah Ta Ha, Ch. 20: V. 45, first and second questions.
25. Ibid., p. 52, first question.
26. Abu Mansur Muhammad b. Muhammad al-Maturidi, Ta’wilat Ahl as-Sunna, ed. Majdi Basallum, 1st ed. (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 2005), Vol. 7, p. 282.
27. Abu Ishaq Ibrahim b. Musa ash-Shatibi, Al-Muwafaqat, ed. Abu ‘Ubayda Mashhur b. Hasan Al Salman, 1st ed. (Al-Khobar: Dar Ibn ‘Affan, 1997), Vol. 5, pp. 177–181, Kitab al-ijtihad, tenth question.
28. Surah al-An‘am, Ch. 6: V. 109.
29. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, A‘lam al-muwaqqi‘in ‘an Rabb al-‘alamin, ed. Muhammad ‘Uzayr Shams, 2nd ed. (Riyadh: Dar ‘Ata’at al-‘Ilm and Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2019), Vol. 3, pp. 430–432.
30. Surah Bani Isra’il, Ch. 17: V. 102–103.
31. Surah al-‘Ankabut, Ch. 29: V. 47.
32. Al-Maturidi, Ta’wilat Ahl as-Sunna, Vol. 8, pp. 233–234.
33. Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p. 57, Kitab al-isti’dhan, Bab kayfa yuraddu ‘ala ahl adh-dhimma as-salam, Hadith 6256.
34. Abu Dawud Sulayman b. al-Ash‘ath as-Sijistani, Sunan Abi Dawud, ed. Muhammad Muhyi ad-Din ‘Abd al-Hamid (Sidon and Beirut: al-Maktaba al-‘Asriyya, n.d.), Vol. 4, p. 124, Kitab al-malahim, Bab al-amr wa an-nahy, Hadith 4344.
35. Al-Ghazali, Ihya’ ‘ulum ad-din, Vol. 2, p. 343, Kitab al-amr bi al-ma‘ruf wa an-nahy ‘an al-munkar, chapter 4.
36. Surah al-Hajj, Ch. 22: V. 40–41.
37. Surah al-Baqarah, Ch. 2: V. 191–194.
38. Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, pp. 193–198, Kitab ash-shurut, Hadith 2731–2732.
39. Surah al-A‘raf, Ch. 7: V. 165. Muhammad b. Jarir at-Tabari, Jami‘ al-bayan ‘an ta’wil ay al-Quran, ed. ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abd al-Muhsin at-Turki, 1st ed. (Cairo: Dar Hajr, 2001), Vol. 10, p. 511, commentary on this verse.
40. Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aa), address of 16 May 2026, “The Collapse of Justice and the Search for Peace”, The Review of Religions, 22 May 2026.
41. Ibid.
42. Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aa), “The Collapse of Justice and the Search for Peace”, The Review of Religions, 22 May 2026.
43. Surah al-Ma’idah, Ch. 5: V. 9.
44. The Holy Bible, King James Version, Clarion Reference Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), Genesis 17:19–21.
45. Surah al-Baqarah, Ch. 2: V. 125.
46. The Holy Bible, King James Version, Exodus 22:21–24, Exodus 23:9 and Leviticus 19:34.
47. Ibid., Deuteronomy 25:13–15.
49. Ibid., Psalm 37:27–29.
50. Surah al-Baqarah, Ch. 2: V. 125.
51. Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami‘ li-ahkam al-Quran, Vol. 2, pp. 107–109, on Surah al-Baqarah, Ch. 2: V. 125, especially discussion 21, pp. 108–109.
52. Psalm 37:27–29, King James Version.
53. 1 Chronicles 22:7–10, especially verse 8, King James Version.
54. Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, pp. 70–71, Kitab al-ahkam, Bab hadaya al-‘ummal, Hadith 7174.
55. Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (ra), ‘Al-Kufru millatun wahida’, in Anwar-ul-Ulum (Rabwah: Fazl-e-Umar Foundation, n.d.), Vol. 19, pp. 571–574, originally published in Al Fazl, 31 May 1948.
56. Surah Bani Isra’il, Ch. 17: V. 105.
57. Surah Bani Isra’il, Ch. 17: V. 5–9.
58. Muhammad Mutawalli ash-Sha‘rawi, Tafsir ash-Sha‘rawi, also known as Al-Khawatir(Cairo: Matabi‘ Akhbar al-Yawm, 1997), Vol. 14, pp. 8788–8789, commentary on Surah Bani Isra’il, Ch. 17: V. 105.
59. Abu Muhammad al-Husayn b. Mas‘ud al-Baghawi, Ma‘alim at-tanzil fi tafsir al-Quran, ed. Muhammad ‘Abd Allah an-Nimr, ‘Uthman Jum‘a Damiriyya and Sulayman Muslim al-Harsh, 4th ed. (Riyadh: Dar Tayba, 1997), Vol. 5, p. 135.
60. The Holy Quran with English Translation and Commentary, based on the commentary of Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (ra) (Farnham: Islam International Publications, 2018), Vol. 3, pp. 1823–1825, commentary no. 2033.
62. Surah al-Muzzammil, Ch. 73: V. 16.
63. Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 169, Kitab ahadith al-anbiya’, Hadith 3456.
64. The Holy Quran with English Translation and Commentary, Vol. 3, pp. 1823–1825, commentary no. 2033.
65. Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (ra), ‘Al-Kufru millatun wahida’, in Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 19, pp. 571–572.
68. Surah Al ‘Imran, Ch. 3: V. 166.
69. ‘Ali b. Tahir as-Sulami, Kitab al-Jihad, fols. 174b, 177a-b and 181a, excerpts in Niall Christie, ‘Motivating Listeners in the Kitab al-Jihad of ‘Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami (d. 1106)’, in Crusades, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar and Jonathan S. C. Riley-Smith with Jonathan Phillips (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), Vol. 6, pp. 1–14, especially pp. 1, 4 and 7–8.
70. Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Halim Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu‘ al-fatawa, collected and arranged by ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Qasim, assisted by Muhammad b. ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. Qasim (Medina: King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Quran, 2004), Vol. 13, pp. 179–180.
71. Ar-Razi, Mafatih al-ghayb, Vol. 13, p. 150, commentary on Surah al-An‘am, Ch. 6: V. 130, second discussion.
72. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Zad al-ma‘ad fi hady khayr al-‘ibad, ed. Nabil b. Nassar as-Sindi, 3rd ed. (Riyadh: Dar ‘Ata’at al-‘Ilm and Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2019), Vol. 3, pp. 7–9, especially p. 8.
73. Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami‘ li-ahkam al-Quran, Vol. 4, pp. 218–219, on Surah Al ‘Imran, Ch. 3: V. 141.
74. Muslim b. al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim, ed. Muhammad Fu’ad ‘Abd al-Baqi (Cairo: Matba‘at ‘Isa al-Babi al-Halabi wa-Shuraka’uh, 1955), Vol. 4, p. 2207, Kitab al-fitan wa ashrat as-sa‘a, Hadith 2880, first narration.
75. Abu Zakariyya Yahya b. Sharaf an-Nawawi, Al-Minhaj sharh Sahih Muslim b. al-Hajjaj, 2nd ed. (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1392 AH), Vol. 18, pp. 3–4.
76. Surah an-Nisa’, Ch. 4: V. 136.
77. Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aa), Friday sermon of 25 July 2014, reported in “World Muslim Leader Prays for Innocent Victims of Israel-Palestine Conflict”, Press & Media Office, 26 July 2014.
78. Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (ra), ‘Jamaat Ahmadiyya’, letter of 9 November 1914, in Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 2, pp. 147–152, especially pp. 147 and 152.
79. Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (ra), ‘Hamara farz hai keh ham mazlum qaum ki madad karen chahe woh hamen maren ya dukh pahunchaen’, address of 16 May 1947, in Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 18, pp. 575–588, especially pp. 575–576 and 582.
80. Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (ra), ‘Taqsim-e-Falastin ke muta‘alliq Rus aur United States ke ittihad ka raz’, in Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 19, pp. 304–310, Al Fazleditorials of November 1947.
81. United Nations General Assembly, Official Records, Second Session, Plenary Meetings(New York: United Nations, 1947), Vol. 2, pp. 1366–1395, 126th plenary meeting, A/PV.126, 28 November 1947, speech of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan.
82. “Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Holds Historic Meeting with Ahmadi Muslims from ‘Land of the Prophets’”, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community UK, 7 June 2021, report of the meeting of 5 June 2021.
83. Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aa), letter to Benjamin Netanyahu, 26 February 2012, in “Letters Sent to World Leaders”, The Review of Religions, 2012.
84. Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aa), letters to Benjamin Netanyahu, 2 June 2020 and Benjamin Gantz, 19 June 2020, in “Letters Sent to World Leaders by Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community During Covid-19 Pandemic (2020)”, The Review of Religions, 8 December 2020.
85. “Statement of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community on Recent Escalations in the Israeli and Palestinian Conflict”, Press & Media Office, 10 October 2023.
86. Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aa), Friday sermon of 13 October 2023, reported in “Global Muslim Leader Calls for De-Escalation of Palestine-Israel War”, Press & Media Office, 13 October 2023.
87. “Global Muslim Leader Warns World War Is Looming as World Leaders Complicit in the Injustice of Israel-Palestine War”, Press & Media Office, 28 October 2023.
88. Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aa), Friday sermon, 8 December 2023.
89. Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aa), Friday sermon, 29 August 2025.
90. Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aa), Friday sermon, 6 March 2026. “Global Muslim Leader Denounces Western Interference in Muslim Nations, Urges Islamic Countries to Unite Peacefully and Rely on God for Protection, Not Western Powers”, Press & Media Office, 6 March 2026.
91. Humanity First USA, “Palestine”, accessed 22 September 2026.
92. “Strengthen your connection with Allah: Students from MKA Germany meet Huzoor”, Al Hakam, 23 April 2024, meeting of 20 April 2024.
93. Humanity First UK, “Palestine”, accessed 25 September 2026.
94. Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aa), Friday sermon of 13 December 2024, The Review of Religions, 13 December 2024.
95. “Strengthen your connection with Allah: Students from MKA Germany meet Huzoor”, Al Hakam, 23 April 2024, meeting of 20 April 2024.
96. “Create homes where every child feels equally valued: New Ahmadis from Belgium gather in Islamabad for a mulaqat”, Al Hakam, 15 February 2024, meeting of 11 February 2024.