Have there been links between Hamas, which currently controls the Gaza enclave, and the Islamic State's Sinai province? The topic has understandably attracted considerable controversy, as the existence of such links would bolster the narratives of the Israeli and Egyptian governments. Supporters of Israel would also seize on such a point.
However, the fact that a data point bolsters the narrative of a particular side does not render it invalid. This should be borne in mind regarding a set of documents that have recently emerged featuring a commentary on correspondences between the Islamic State Sinai affiliate and Hamas. I was asked about the matter of the authenticity of these documents as their existence has been eagerly publicized by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), though MEMRI has not disclosed the documents in full to the wider public.
Personally, I much prefer for there to be open access to these documents. Having reviewed them myself, I can say that they are authentic. Indeed, they were publicized by one of the 'extremist' channels I have previously mentioned in my overview article on the competing trends in Islamic State online debate circles. As MEMRI notes, that channel goes by the name of 'al-Nadhir al-Uryan.' In fact, everything published by that channel is authentic, as one Tunisian who has been involved in the Islamic State and is mentioned in one of the files it leaked affirmed to me.
As noted, these documents are a commentary on the correspondences and do not contain the texts of those correspondences. I did ask the channel that leaked these documents whether it had access to the correspondences themselves: regrettably it does not have them, but only this commentary.
So what is this commentary? We learn that it is by an individual called Abu Maram al-Jaza'iri. A brief biography of him has been provided by the channel itself (see screenshot below).
As his name suggests, Abu Maram is of Algerian origin. He studied religion in Algeria and also in the Hejaz region of Saudi Arabia for some time before returning to Algeria. By this account, he was well versed in the religion as taught by Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of the Wahhabi trend. He eventually migrated to Syria and joined the Islamic State, serving for a short time as a member of the Maktab al-Buhuth wa al-Dirasat. He then transferred between unnamed 'Shari'i positions' (i.e. positions in religious matters) before serving on the 'manhaj committee' (i.e. a body dealing with the ideological direction of the Islamic State).
As I have noted previously, there were some long-standing ideological controversies within the organization. Matters became most controversial following the issuing of the May 2017 statement "That those who perished might perish on evidence." This was the statement that declared takfir of the idolaters to be among the open principles of the religion, but it was subsequently retracted. After its retraction, members of the manhaj committee were imprisoned for months, but then released. Afrer this, Abu Maram fled from the Islamic State as he faced pressure from the 'new committee' (presumably also to deal with the ideological direction of the Islamic State).
Abu Maram is the author of multiple works. In this commentary, he criticizes the Islamic State's Sinai affiliate for the nature of its correspondences with Hamas, which is officially considered by the Islamic State to be an apostate movement that has abandoned Islam. According to Abu Maram, whoever was entrusted with contacting Hamas on behalf of the Sinai affiliate addressed Hamas as though it was a movement of fellow Muslims, and addressed Hamas in friendly terms, when in fact it ought to have been affirmed to Hamas by the Sinai affiliate that it considered Hamas to be an apostate movement in its dealings with it.
As it happens, the author precedes his specific criticisms of the Hamas-Islamic State Sinai relationship with an extended discussion in two parts. First, in what circumstances, if at all, can one seek the help of original disbelievers against disbelievers? Second, in what circumstances, if at all, can one seek the help of apostates against disbelievers? The first concept is one that is discussed more in Islamic scholarly literature, and the author notes jurist disputes on the matter, but he concludes as follows: in general, one should not seek the help of the disbelievers against disbelievers in terms of manpower help, though there may be certain circumstances of necessity that justify it. Seeking help from the original disbelievers in the form of borrowing weapons, however, has a clearer precedent in the Prophet's life. Similarly, one may hire out a trusted disbeliever to perform a specific task if there is no one from the people of Islam to do it, as the Prophet and his companion Abu Bakr once relied on a pagan guide.
The question of seeking the help of apostates against disbelievers is a more problematic issue. In general, according to Abu Maram, the scholarly literature did not really discuss the topic of seeking the help of apostates in fighting as historically apostate sects tended to be small groups within the abode of Islam. Since apostates should either return to Islam or be killed, it was generally not presumed that they would be a force one might have to seek aid from to fight other disbelievers. In addition, it should be noted that in the thinking of the Islamic State and many jihadis, fighting the apostates has precedence over fighting original disbelievers, as apostasy is deemed to be a worse kind of disbelief (kufr) than original disbelief.
The case of Sinai and Gaza is an interesting one though. In Sinai, the Islamic State is primarily fighting the Egyptian armed forces, which are of course deemed to be apostates. Israel (Jews- original disbelievers) provides some assistance to the Egyptian armed forces in their campaign against the Islamic State's Sinai affiliate. Meanwhile, Hamas, deemed an apostate movement, is governing an enclave generally isolated from Sinai on account of the blockade imposed on it by Egypt.
Theoretically, a justification can be worked out for the Islamic State's Sinai affiliate to seek Hamas' help despite Hamas being deemed an apostate movement. The Egyptian armed forces constitute a far more powerful enemy, whereas Hamas is not located in the Sinai but is governing an enclave isolated from the Sinai affiliate's main area of operations. It is not possible for the Sinai affiliate to take on Hamas at the present time, being preoccupied with its fight against the Egyptian armed forces, and one could argue that both groups have shared enemies in light of Egypt's blockade against Gaza and its cooperation with Israel, which is also blockading Gaza. In these circumstances, it could be permissible to seek e.g. weapons aid from Hamas on grounds of necessity and interest outweighing the act of corruption in seeking the help of apostates. As such, a limited conciliation could be struck.
Abu Maram's point though is that he does not think the Sinai affiliate has actually taken this line of thinking into account, but instead deals with Hamas as though it was a fellow Muslim movement. Also, in Abu Maram's view, it is Hamas that needs the Sinai affiliate far more than the Sinai affiliate needs Hamas. I would add though that it seems that Abu Maram may not have considered the possibility that in addressing Hamas in brotherly/friendly terms, the Sinai affiliate may have simply been doing that on deceptive grounds to encourage it to cooperate and provide aid. It is unlikely though that Abu Maram would approve of such deceit.
I present the documents in full below with my translation. Any parenthetical insertions by me are in square brackets. I have also added a note at the end regarding a notable MEMRI translation error (which, contrary to what some critics might presume, is not a deliberate distortion but simply an error).
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Commentary on the Correspondences of the Brothers in Sinai and Apostate Hamas
Praise be to God the Lord of the Worlds, and prayers and peace be upon the sayyid of the Prophets and the Imam of those sent, and on his family, companions and the followers. As for what follows: through reviewing the file of correspondences between some of the brothers in Sinai and the apostate Hamas movement, it became clear that the relationship between the two sides comes under the issue of seeking help in the apostates, like coordinating with them in entering and exiting of weapons, and seeking help in them through material support in wealth and arms and transferring the wounded to them and other things besides those. And it is to be noticed that the brothers had engaged extensively on the matter, whether in words or deeds, so they fell into many prohibited things warning against which will follow.
And before we begin discussing the correspondences, we will embark on a general interpretation on issues of seeking help in the disbelievers and apostates, and we note that we will discuss seeking help in the disbelievers against the disbelievers as the reality of Sinai, for there is no overlap between it and the issue of seeking help in the disbelievers against the Muslims.
Section One: Seeking help in the Original Disbelievers
The Ahl al-'Ilm (may God have mercy on them) disagreed on the ruling on seeking help in them as per two pronouncements:
First pronouncement: a group of the 'ulama took the view of forbidding seeking help in the disbelievers against the disbelievers in war, and it is the madhhab of the Malikis and they make as an exception to that that the disbelievers should be in services to the Muslims and the like, in which they do not go out from lowly degradation and humiliation. And it is a narration on the authority of Imam Ahmad, and Imam al-Shafi'i deemed it makruh in old times. And Ibn Hazim, Ibn al-Mundhar and al-Jawz Zajani adopted this view.
And it is the choice of the Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya, and al-Shawkani and others from the Ahl al-'Ilm (see: al-Mudawwana 1/400; al-Nawadir wa al-Ziyadat 3/35, and al-Mughanni 10/447).
Second pronouncement: adopted by the Hanafis and Shafi'is, and it is a narration on the authority of Imam Malik and a narration also on the authority of Imam Ahmad. They asserted the permissibility of seeking help in the disbelievers against the disbelievers on conditions and they are: that there is a need for them, that they are under the authority, predominance and conquest of the Muslims, there is safety from the danger of them, and the disbeliever in whom help is sought should think well towards the Muslims, and the outcome of the ruling after the predominance and victory should be for Islam and its people, and the Muslims should have a force that can repel the evil of their betrayal if they were to betray (see: al-Nawadir wa al-Ziyadat 3/35, al-Taj wa al-Iklil 4/545, al-Hawi al-Kabir 14/279, Jawahir al-Uqud 1/385, Mukhtasir Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama 3/428).
And on the story of the disagreement, al-Wazir Ibn Hubaira said: "And they have disagreed: can help be sought in the idolaters to fight the people of war or cooperate against their enemy? Malik and Ahmad said: their help is not to be sought and they are not to cooperate absolutely, and Malek made as an exception: unless they should be in services to the Muslims, it is permitted. And Abu Hanifa said: help can be sought in them and they can cooperate absolutely, and that is when the rule of Islam is the one predominating over them, and if the rule of idolatry is the predominant one, it is disliked. And al-Shafi'i said: it is permitted on two conditions: that the Muslims should have scarcity and the idolaters abundance, and that it should be known from the idolaters that they think well of Islam and are inclined it. So if help is sought in them, a gift is given to them and a share is not given to them. But Ahmad said in one of his two narrations: a share is given to them. And al-Shafi'i said: if they are hired out, they are to be given from wealth that has no specific owner. And he said in another place: and they are to be given a gift from spoils. Al-Wazir said: And I consider that to be like jizya [tax payment to Muslims made by dhimmis: non-Muslims with a dhimma pact with the Muslims] and kharaj [land tax]" (al-Ifsah an Ma'ani al-Sahah part 2 p. 286).
And this is not the place to display the lines of evidence of the two sides and discuss them as the issue is one of jurisprudence in which the view of the jurists has differed and it is that in which disagreement occurs as you see. Sheikh Abd al-Latif bin Abd al-Rahman bin Hassan (may God have mercy on them) said: "As for an issue: seeking help in them, it is an issue of disagreement. And the correct path on which the verifiers are on: that is forbidden absolutely, and their proof is the hadith of A'isha and it is muttafiq alayhi, and the hadith of Abd al-Rahman bin Habib, and it is an authentic hadith that is marfu'. Seek them out, you will find them both in what you have from the texts. And the one who asserts the permissibility has cited as proof the mursal of al-Zahari, and you have known what is in the marasil, if they have conflicted with a book or Sunna"- (al-Rasa'il wa al-Masa'il al-Najadiya 3/67).
He also said: "The doubt to which the one who has asserted the permissibility of seeking help has clung is what some of the jurists mentioned about the permissibility of seeking help in the idolater n necessity and it is a weak, refuted assertion based on mursal traces that the Qur'anic texts and the authentic clear Prophetic hadiths reject"- (al-Rasa'il wa al-Masa'il al-Najadiya 3/164).
And on consideration and review, we find that the lines of evidence of the ones who forbid are to be considered stronger from the angle of being established, and clearer in meaning, and more repeated to confirm the ruling, and clearer in its justification, and firmer in the issue itself. Therefore, they must be the principle that one relies on, then after that one should consider some of the incidental forms in which its contrary appears, and then there is adoption of the path of the grouping or deeming more probable in order to attain success among them.
Thus, the principle in the ruling on seeking help in the idolaters against the idolaters in fighting is prohibition in adherence to the correct clear lines of evidence that affirm that, and exempted from the prohibition is a case of necessity or strong need, so seeking help in them is permitted with that, provided that there is adherence to the conditions that the jurists who permitted seeking help stipulated and were previously mentioned.
And seeking help in the disbelievers encompasses many forms, among them seeking help in men or arms or wealth, and perhaps the preceding disagreement of the jurists pertains to the form of seeking help in men in fighting: i.e. persons of the disbelievers in combat. As for seeking harms and equipment in the form of borrowing and the like, there has not occurred a big disagreement on that because of the coming of the authentic text about that, for it has been established in the Sunna what shows the permissibility of that, and coming upon it are the rulings of business dealing with the harbi disbelievers, and evidence for that is what Ibn Abd al-Birr mentioned: "And it has been narrated that when Abu Sufyan's group reached the Messenger of God (SAWS) to go out to himon the Day of Ahad, he set out and sent a message to the Banu Nadhir (and they were Jews). SAWS said to them: 'Either you fight with us, or you lend us weapons.' Abu Omar said: this pronouncement is likely to be on account of necessity that called him to that"- al-Tamhid 12/37, and likewise SAWS' borrowing of shields from Safwan bin Umayya on the Day of Hunain.
Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (may God have mercy on him) said: "The Imam has the right to borrow the weapons of the idolaters and their provisions to fight his enemy, as the Messenger of God (SAWS) borrowed the shields of Safwan, and he was at that time an idolater"- (Zada al-Mu'ad 3/420).
Al-Qurtubi said about the hadith of Safwan: "And in it also is the permissibility of borrowing weapons, and the permissibility of making use of what is borrowed if there is the likeness from what is lent to him on the one in question. And it is permitted for the Imam to borrow wealth on need for that and his returning it to its owner. And the hadith of Safwan is a principle in this regard"- (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 8/99).
And from that on the authority of A'isha (may God be pleased with her): she said: "And the Prophet (SAWS) and Abu Bakr hired a man from the Bani al-Dil as an expert guide, even as he was on the religion of the disbelievers of Quraish, for they trusted him and gave him their two riding camels, and they took a pledge from him to bring them to the Cave of Thaur after three nights.
So he brought them their riding camels on the morning of the third day, and the two set out and there set out with them Aamer bin Fuhaira and the Dili guide so he took them below Mecca and it is the sea path"- narrated by al-Bukhari and he titled it with his words: "Section on hiring the idolaters on necessity or if there is no people of Islam, and the Prophet (SAWS) made use of the Jews of Khaybar." So he confined that to necessity, or if there is no one from the people of Islam to undertake this work.
Ibn Battal said: "Al-Mulhab said: and in it from jurisprudence is trusting in the people of idolatry over secrecy and wealth if fulfilment and chivalry are known from them, as the Prophet (SAWS) trusted this idolatrous guide, and he was of the enemy disbelievers seeking him, but he knew chivalry and fulfilment from him, so he trusted him over his secret in going out from Mecca, and over the two she camels he gave to him to bring them with them after three days into the Cave of Thaur"- (Sharh Ibn Battal 11/401).
Section Two: Apostate Disbelievers
As for the apostate disbelievers, the preceding disagreement about original disbelievers does not apply to them, and I have not come upon any assertion of permissibility- in what I have reviewed- and that is because seeking help in them requires corrupt presumptions: among them affirming them on what they are upon from disbelief, and the apostate's disbelief is not to be affirmed, on account of the words of the Prophet (SAWS): 'Whoso changes his religion, kill him.' And among them that seeking help in the disbeliever means by necessity securing him [granting him aman] for the state of seeking help in him, and security [aman]- as is well-known- makes blood and wealth sacrosanct, and the apostate is not allowed to be secured and he cannot stand in his place if it arises, because his hadd punishment is killing in particular and security nullifies that.
And perhaps the jurists did not touch upon the issue of seeking help in the apostates in fighting because the state and authority belonged to the Muslims.
And in general the sects and groups of apostasy were confined within the Islamic State, surrounded by its armies and besieged by its soldiers, so there was no need to seek help in the likes of them, and they did not have the force and supremacy as is the state of many of the governments of apostasy today.
And the jurists did not touch on dealing with the apostates in many aspects, like accompanying them, contact with them and dealing with them, because from the outset it was established in their view that an apostate is not to live among Muslims, and his apostasy is not to be affirmed in the abode of Islam, so either Islam or killing. Therefore, the jurists did not suppose a form of dealing with people against whom God's ruling has been that they should not live in their state in the abode of the Muslims from the outset, unlike the people of the dhimma and the pact from the original disbelievers, and from another angle we say that the apostate disbelievers' kufr is cruder and stronger than the original disbeliever, and the principle is to fight them and separate from them, and not to have a conciliation or truce with them as per the assertion of the consensus of the 'ulama and the reason for that is because seeking help, concluding a truce, and accepting jizya entail affirming the kufr and the apostate's kufr is not to be affirmed as has preceded.
Al-Mawardi said: "And jizya is not to be accepted from the apostate, and they are not to have a truce concluded with them, because accepting jizya and concluding a truce are two matters for affirming kufr, and the apostate's kufr is not to be affirmed"- (al-Hawi al-Kabir 13/357).
Imam Ibn al-Hajj said about the apostates: "They are not to have a truce concluded with them on establishment in their land, and they are not to be conciliated on wealth, by which they are affirmed in their apostasy"- (al-Madkhal 3/3).
And some of the Ahl al-'Ilm from the Hanafis permitted concluding a pact or conciliation with the apostates, and classified it in the place of necessity, if they are isolated in a land in which they have power and stamina as is the case of Hamas in Gaza.
And the Muslims have feared their harm, or if they do not have power to fight them and open up a front with them, and the people of verification have stipulated that necessities make permissible the things that are prohibited"- (Dorar al-Hukkam 1/404, al-Ashbah wa al-Nadha'ir by al-Subaki 1/45, and al-Furuq by al-Qurafi 4/146).
Imam al-Kasani said: "And it is permitted to have conciliation with the apostates if they gain predominance over one of the abodes of Islam, and there is fear of them, and there is no safety from the danger of them, for what is in it from the interest of repelling the evil for the time being, and the hope they will return to Islam and repent, and wealth is not to be taken from them on the basis of that, because that is in the meaning of jizya, and it is not permitted to take jizya from the apostates, for if anything is taken from them, it is not to be restored, because it is not sacrosanct wealth. Don't you see that their wealth is permitted to be seized like the wealth of the people of war?" (Bada'I al-Sana'i- 7/109).
This is so and it may permit seeking help in them in some cases like the case of the situation of Sinai and Gaza in the case of necessity as it permitted concluding a truce with them in the case of necessity because the reason of prohibition on conciliation and seeking help is one, and that is because the apostates are in an abode separate from the abode of Islam, and between them is a shared enemy and shared interest in the open, especially in this time in which the one who supports has become few, and those who languish have grown numerous, and that is on the basis of conditions: that the brothers are safe from their treachery, or being on alert such that if there were to arise treachery from them, it should not exceed its place, and that the interest should predominate over the evil corruption, and it should end when the interest ends.
And in this situation it is not supposed that the apostate of them is among the backs of the Muslims so his apostasy is affirmed, and the apostates have been isolated in an abode from the Muslims and the people of Tawheed have no power to fight them as they are preoccupied with the repelling the aggressor enemy from them, so if they were to seek help in them by which they might repel the local enemy from the angle of necessity out of fear of their gaining supremacy over the Muslims and uprooting the force of the monotheists, that would be legitimate and appended to the preceding about the fact that the Prophet (SAWS) sought help in arms from Safwan Ibn Umayya and the like as came in the preceding context about the lines of evidence of the permissibility of seeking help in what is besides men.
As for the issue of support with money and financing operations, this requires reviewing the truth about the money taken from them, and whether it is on the side of support, and if so, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate support? And the review is in its political aspects and what it entails as there is no support from the apostates that is unconditional, and the place for its review belongs to the Imam- may God protect them. Otherwise, it is in violation of it.
Al-Sarkhasi said: "And if the apostates demand to put in place a dhimma for the Muslims, they are not to do so with them, because the dhimma is accepted from the one whom it is permitted to enslave, and because the apostates are like the idolaters of the Arabs, for those people are delinquents against the kinship of the Messenger of God (SAWS), and these people against his religion, and just as the dhimma is not accepted from the idolaters of the Arabs in accordance with SAWS' words: "Two religions are not to come together in the Arabian Peninsula." So that is not accepted from the apostates.
And if they demand conciliation for a time to review their affairs, that is fine, if that is best for the Muslims, and the Muslims do not have power over them, because when they have apostates, suspicion has entered upon them, and that disappears if they review their matter, and we have made clear that the apostate, if he demands a delay, it is to be granted, but there is not to be an excess beyond three days for the Muslims to be able to kill him, and here the Muslims have no power over them so it is fine that they can grant them respite as they have demanded of period in order to preserve the force of themselves and as they are unable to resist them, and if they can endure them and war is better for them than conciliation, they are to wage war on them, because fighting with them is an obligation until they convert to Islam. God Almighty has said: "You fight them or they convert to Islam."
And it is not permitted to delay the establishment of the obligation if one can establish it, so if they conciliate with them, the Imam is not to take kharaj from them in the conciliation, because that at the time resembles the dhimma pact. And we have made clear that the dhimma is not to be accepted from them and likewise kharaj is not to be taken from them on the basis of conciliation unlike the people of war, but if money is taken from them it is permitted, because sacrosanctity disappears from their wealth. Do you not see that if the Muslims were to gain supremacy over them, their wealth would be war spoils? And likewise if they take anything from their wealth they possess that by any means they take from them"- (al-Masut part 10 p. 117).
And it is apparent in the correspondences that the one entrusted with corresponding with them did not declare takfir on them and affirm to them their apostasy, let alone contracting with them a conciliation on the basis of not taking kharaj on the basis of it.
Section Three: Commentary on the Correspondences of Hamas
In the beginning we say that the kufr of the Hamas government is open, and not hidden to the likes of the brothers in Sinai, but rather they are the people most aware of their state by virtue of being neighbours, and I have spoken about the issues of apostasy into which Hamas has fallen in the Book 'Traitors of the Muslims', so there is not like them the one who is to be excused by ignorance of state
And after precise review of the correspondences between the one entrusted by the brothers in Sinai and the al-Qassam Battalions (the military wing of the apostate Hamas government), it became apparent that the one entrusted to contact them does not disavow them or declare takfir on them, but rather he is friendly and conciliatory towards them, and he is not in a state of ikrah or compulsion, but rather he is in a place of tamkin [enablement] and a land of jihad. Indeed the apostate Hamas is more in need of relations and keener than the brothers for them because their disappearance is to be considered the encirclement of the siege against it. And that [i.e. the lack of takfir and friendly approach] becomes plainly clear from his granting of the salam greeting and describing them as dear and distinguished brothers, and describing their work with acceptance and prayer for them that God should not keep the reward from them, and describing those of them who are killed as martyrs.
And there is the assertion that in cooperation should be good for the Ummah and the like. Indeed, when the discussion turned to the rumours spread that the brothers in Sinai declare takfir on Hamas, the spokesman from the side of the brothers in Sinai condemned the talk of some of the leaders in Hamas- 'their claims'- that the brothers declare takfir on them and he characterized it as an attempt to disturb the purity of the relations between them, then the side of Hamas responded to them that it had not reached their ears that the brothers declare takfir on them and that it was distorted talk in order to drive a wedge and foil the relations established on religion and ethics!!
Abdullah and al-Husseinl, the two sons of Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab said: "Man cannot be Muslim except when he knows Tawheed, and professes it and acts in accordance with it, believes the Messenger of God (SAWS) in what he informed about, obeys him in what he forbade and commanded, and believes in him and what he brought. So the one who says: I am not hostile to the idolaters, or is hostile to them and does not declare takfir on them, or says: I am not opposed to the people of there is no deity but God even if they do kufr and idolatry and are hostile to the religion of God, or says: I am not opposed to the shrines of saints. This person is not a Muslim, but rather he is one of those about whom God said: "And they say: we believe in some and disbelieve in others. And they wish to adopt a way in between." And God- Exalted and Almighty is He- has made obligatory hostility to the idolaters, and separating from them and declaring takfir on them. For He said: "You will not find a people who believe in God and the Last Day being friendly with the one who opposes God and His Messenger, even if they are their fathers or sons or brothers or their clan." And the Almighty has said: "Oh you who have believed, do not take My enemy and your enemy as allies and be friendly towards them as they have disbelieved in what has come to you from truth"- and God knows best"- (Majmu'at al-Rasa'il 1/73).
And in conclusion we assert the necessity of subjecting the brothers who contact the apostate Hamas and whoso is behind them from the amirs to the judiciary: whoso of them is alive.* And we assert the necessity of notifying the amir brothers about the truth of the relationship between them and the apostate Hamas and the means of dealing with them as previously affirmed, while making clear to them their kufr and affirming their apostasy and disavowing them as the Almighty has said:
"For you has been a good example in Ibrahim and those with him, when they said to their people: we disavow you and what you worship besides God. We have disavowed you and there have appeared between us and you enmity and hatred forever until you believe in God alone. Except Ibrahim's words to his father: I will certainly ask for forgiveness for you. But I have not anything from God for you: our Lord, upon You have we relied, to You have we returned, and to You is the destination."
And God knows best and the last of our calls is praise be to God the Lord of the Worlds and God's blessings be upon our sayyid Muhammad (SAWS), his family, companions and the followers.
Written by Abu Maram al-Jaza'iri
May God forgive him.
*- It will be observed that my translation of this sentence differs substantially from that of MEMRI, which says that Abu Maram al-Jaza'iri is concluding by asserting the need to kill any Hamas members who fall into the hands of the Sinai affiliate. This MEMRI interpretation cannot be correct though. Nowhere in the documents is there discussion of the matter of Hamas members 'falling into the hands' of Islamic State Sinai province. The meaning here rather must be that any Sinai affiliate members who are alive and still in touch with Hamas (as well as the amirs behind those members in contact) must be subjected to judicial proceedings. Such a reading better fits the subsequent sentence, which says that the amirs in general need to be made aware of the truth of the relationship between those contacting Hamas (the first 'them' in that sentence) and the apostate movement and the correct means of dealing with this group.