"We came to say, the Quran is our constitution, we are committed to God and his holy book. God willing, should they try to carry out their crime against the Quran, God will tear their state apart and they will become God's lesson to anyone who tries to desecrate the holy book"

A declaration of political theology, the statement fuses governance, identity, and resistance under a single sacred banner. Calling the Quran “our constitution” elevates scripture from a source of moral guidance to the supreme legal and political framework, rejecting secular or pluralistic bases of authority. This move frames legitimacy as deriving from divine revelation rather than popular sovereignty or international norms, defining a community whose citizenship is ultimately measured by fidelity to God’s law.

The collective “we” asserts cohesion and discipline, signaling a unified front bound by piety and duty. The invocation “God willing” places all action within divine providence, tempering human agency with a claim that outcomes are decided by a higher will. By casting opponents as perpetrators of a “crime against the Quran,” the statement reframes political conflict as sacrilege, shifting the terrain from negotiable interests to inviolable sacred values. Such sacralization hardens moral boundaries, turning compromise into potential betrayal.

The threat is couched as prophecy rather than a direct call to violence: “God will tear their state apart.” This rhetoric serves several functions, deterrence through warning, consolation through assurances of inevitable justice, and mobilization by imbuing struggle with transcendent meaning. It is also a message to a broader audience: those who desecrate the holy book will become an exemplar of divine retribution, a “lesson” for all would-be offenders.

Politically, the language authorizes a program where religious doctrine is the measure of law and policy, situating resistance within a cosmic narrative of right and wrong. It builds solidarity and resolve among supporters by promising that the moral order will correct worldly injustice. Yet it also risks intensifying conflict by absolutizing claims, reducing space for pragmatic engagement, and legitimizing hostility as sacred duty. The statement thus operates as both creed and strategy, asserting sovereignty under God and casting the adversary as violator of the sacred order.