Face of Truth: They Raise the Qur’ans on the Tips of Spears

Ibrahim Shaglawi

On the eve of its announcement accepting the truce proposed by the troubled International Quartet, the Rapid Support Forces militia continued its drone attacks on Omdurman, Atbara, and El-Obeid — a scene that exposes duplicity of conduct and the loss of credibility.

Its declaration of accepting the truce is nothing but a revival of the pages of history — the day Qur’ans were raised on the tips of spears at Siffin, not in pursuit of truth, but in escape from defeat. Today, the militia raises the same white flags — not out of a desire for peace, but as an attempt to buy time and reposition itself within Sudan’s conflict map, amid applause from international actors who still deal with the crisis through the logic of agendas rather than principles.

This announcement, along with its ensuing violations against civilians, must be treated as a political and tactical maneuver, not a moral transformation. The militia that committed atrocities in El-Fasher and El-Geneina — documented by UN and international reports as war crimes and crimes against humanity — cannot suddenly become a neutral humanitarian party.

Therefore, the acceptance of the truce is not an expression of commitment to peace but a tool for repositioning — to absorb international and regional anger that has intensified in the media, public opinion, regional and international capitals, and across social media platforms. The militia seeks to gain false legitimacy that grants it space to regroup its ranks along advanced frontlines — to pounce on civilians once again.

Hence, its acceptance of the truce reflects growing external international pressure, as well as battlefield losses and internal divisions. The entire scene is an attempt to avoid political isolation now advancing across all free platforms, after the militia has found itself facing global condemnation and mounting military and popular resistance.

Thus, its acceptance must be read as a plan to rearrange its cards amid a new balance of power. The militia operates according to the agenda of regional backers who revealed their disgraceful ambitions when they equated a militia that violates sanctities with the army that derives its legitimacy from law and the people.

The danger of this scene lies in the rebellion’s attempt to transform from an armed faction into a political actor ready for negotiation — by exploiting “truce” and “ceasefire” terms to deceive the world into believing in peaceful intent, while maintaining the war and its funding sources.

Any truce granted to the militia without clear guarantees preventing its return to the political and military scene represents a risk of cementing a new reality governed by force, not legitimacy — a reality that will not pass in the face of the people’s will and the institutions of the state.

Internationally, the scene reveals divergent priorities among regional and global powers: some view the truce as a means to polish their image as supporters of the militia or to gain a negotiating position to impose their will on the Sudanese; whereas the Sudanese public sees that peace cannot be built upon the barter of interests at the expense of human suffering.

Without implementing the Jeddah Agreement of May 11, 2023 — which calls for the withdrawal of the militia from cities, handover of sites, and the opening of transitional justice files — any talk of a truce is nothing but political deception that cannot be taken seriously.

Conversely, the Sudanese army remains the cornerstone of state unity, but it requires clear management of Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) processes, drawing on its previous experiences in peace agreements, in accordance with the Sudanese Armed Forces Act that safeguards the country’s sovereignty and security.

The challenge before the leadership today lies in balancing military firmness with political and diplomatic intelligence — ensuring that the truce is not exploited for enemy repositioning, nor that rejection leads to an uncalculated diplomatic confrontation.

Therefore, any acceptable truce must be tied to strict implementation conditions: including independent verification mechanisms, withdrawal and site handover, prosecution of perpetrators, and a clear commitment to prevent the militia’s return under any political or military guise.

Moreover, national coherence in discourse is required between the military and political leaderships — so that the security-humanitarian track is managed through a Sudanese field vision, while the political track is handled civilly through the African Union and Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue — without conflicting positions or double standards.

What is needed is not the mixing of roles but their complementarity: the army creates the security environment that allows dialogue, and the politicians produce a transitional vision that preserves the state. Only then can peace be achieved — peace that prevents foreign interference and transforms war into a national peace project for state-building.

If this balance is lost, peace will turn into an international deal that will not last. History has proven that peace imposed from outside does not endure, whereas peace born of free national will becomes a lasting social contract.

What the militia announced, according to #Face_of_Truth, is not a step toward peace but a tactical scene from the theater of illusion. True peace is a courageous national decision that begins with the implementation of agreements, achieving justice, and building institutions capable of protecting both citizen and state.

Slogans do not create safety, and Qur’ans raised on the tips of spears do not conceal the deceit of swords.

May you remain in goodness and wellness.

Sunday, November 9, 2025

Shglawi55@gmail.com