In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Dar Masalit Union

Media Secretariat

A Strong Statement: Musa Hilal Distorts History — The Masalit Are Not Newcomers to Sudan, but a People of a Sultanate, a Land, and a History

The Dar Masalit Union has followed the widely circulated video clip of Mr. Musa Hilal, in which he claimed that the Masalit people are among the tribes that migrated into Sudan and that their presence in Sudan was connected to wars and famines that affected the region in previous historical periods.

In response to these statements, the Dar Masalit Union states clearly and unequivocally:

What Musa Hilal said is not an interpretation of history. Rather, it is a distortion of history and a desperate attempt to reproduce a narrative that targets the existence of an entire people and denies documented historical facts that no political rhetoric can erase.

We do not respond to Musa Hilal with oral accounts or wishful thinking. Instead, we place before him and before the public the documented history and facts recorded in historical sources, documents, and academic studies.

First:

Before speaking about “newcomers,” tell the people: Where was the Dar Masalit Sultanate?

Documented history speaks of the Dar Masalit Sultanate as an established political entity in the border region between Darfur and Wadai. Historians have examined the history of the Sultanate independently. Among the most prominent academic studies in this field is the work of historian Lidwien Kapteijns on the history of the Masalit Sultanate between 1870 and 1930, drawing upon Sudanese, British, and French archives as well as field sources.

If the Masalit were, as Musa Hilal claims, “newcomers” to Sudan because of famine and war, then how did they establish a sultanate, a political entity, a territory, sultans, and a system of government before the modern borders between Sudan and Chad were drawn?

Did famine have sultans?

Did migration create a sultanate?

Did refugees establish a stable political entity and wage wars in defense of their land?

History tells an entirely different story.

Second:

The Masalit confronted France with arms in defense of their homeland.

In 1910, the Dar Masalit Sultanate confronted French colonial expansion advancing from the direction of Chad.

Historical sources record that Masalit forces fought two major battles against the French in 1910, at Kirinding and Daroti, inflicting heavy losses on French forces. In the Battle of Daroti, a French commander and several of his soldiers were killed.

Historical studies of the Masalit Sultanate also document that 1910 was a year of sustained fighting against the French army, which suffered significant losses. This resistance halted French expansion eastward and prevented Dar Masalit from being incorporated into Chad, which was then under French colonial rule.

Here we ask Musa Hilal a simple question:

If the Masalit were “newcomers,” as you claim, where did the land they defended come from?

Why did they fight French forces advancing from Chad in defense of Dar Masalit?

A newcomer may defend a place to which he has recently arrived, but the people of the land fight in defense of their homeland.

History has recorded who fought in defense of Dar Masalit.

Third:

The presence of the Masalit in Chad does not mean that they are “newcomers” to Sudan.

This is where Musa Hilal’s narrative deliberately confuses the historical record.

Before the establishment of the modern international border, the region that today constitutes Sudan and Chad formed a connected geographical and social space. Sultanates, communities, trade routes, and social and tribal relationships existed across what later became international borders.

Therefore, the presence of the Masalit on both sides of the present-day border does not mean that those on one side migrated from the other.

Rather, historical studies indicate that Dar Masalit was historically a frontier region between Darfur and Wadai and that it later became part of Sudan following colonial-era political and territorial arrangements.

Therefore, using modern borders to claim that the Masalit “came from Chad to Sudan” is a distortion of historical chronology and a reversal of the facts.

Fourth:

The year 1922 does not mean that the Masalit migrated to Sudan. This is a point we place clearly before the public.

Dar Masalit was formally incorporated into the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in 1922 following territorial arrangements between Britain and France.

This means that the political territory of Dar Masalit became part of modern Sudan at that time.

It does not, under any circumstances, mean that the Masalit people migrated from Chad to Sudan in 1922—or before that—because of famine.

There is an enormous difference between:

the date on which borders were drawn and a territory was incorporated into a modern state,

and:

the history of a people’s presence on their land.

Anyone who attempts to confuse these two issues either does not understand history or is deliberately attempting to misrepresent it.

Fifth:

Dar Masalit was not an empty geographical space waiting for someone to arrive.

Before international borders took the form we recognize today, the region was inhabited by local communities and had its own authorities, political entities, and relationships with Darfur and Wadai.

Specialized historical studies of the Masalit Sultanate document the history of this political entity from the nineteenth century and examine its relations with neighboring powers, including Darfur, Wadai, the Mahdist movement, and the French and British colonial powers.

Musa Hilal should search for the history of Dar Masalit before searching for a narrative that serves his political rhetoric.

Sixth:

Who was protecting Dar Masalit when colonialism came knocking at its doors?

When French forces advanced eastward, the Masalit were not waiting for anyone to grant them land or identity.

They confronted the French forces with arms.

The battles of 1910 were part of genuine armed resistance against colonial expansion, documented in French, British, and Sudanese historical sources.

This is history that Musa Hilal—or anyone else—cannot erase with a video clip.

Seventh:

To Musa Hilal: Do Not Confuse History with the Rhetoric of War

The Dar Masalit Union categorically rejects attempts to use history to classify the Masalit people as “newcomers” or to cast doubt upon their roots and historical presence in western Sudan.

We say clearly to Musa Hilal:

The Masalit do not need your certification of their Sudanese identity.

No militia leader or political figure has the right to grant peoples certificates of belonging or to revoke their identity.

History is not written by Musa Hilal.

Ownership of land is not established by speeches.

Identity cannot be taken away through video recordings.

And historical facts do not disappear simply because the same narrative is repeated a thousand times.

Eighth:

The History We Know — and the History You Seek to Impose

There is a documented history that tells us:

Dar Masalit was a sultanate and an established political entity in the western part of what is now Sudan.

The Masalit have a documented political and social history predating modern international borders.

The Masalit militarily resisted French expansion in 1910.

Major battles were fought at Kirinding and Daroti against French forces.

Dar Masalit was formally incorporated into Sudan in 1922 under well-known political and territorial arrangements.

As for the narrative claiming that the Masalit people were merely “newcomers from Chad because of famines and wars,” it cannot explain the establishment of the Sultanate.

It cannot explain the existence of its political institutions.

It cannot explain its military resistance against French forces.

And it does not withstand scrutiny against specialized historical studies.

Ninth: We Will Not Allow the History of Our People to Be Distorted

The Dar Masalit Union calls upon historians, researchers, academics, and Sudanese media organizations to treat this issue as one concerning history, identity, and public discourse, rather than merely as a passing dispute on social media.

We also call upon Mr. Musa Hilal, if he is confident in his narrative, to present one documented historical source proving that the Masalit people migrated to Sudan as a result of famines and wars during the period he claims.

Let him place document against document, source against source, and history against history.

Making claims without sources will not transform those claims into facts.

Our Final Word

Musa Hilal:

Dar Masalit is not a blank page upon which you may write whatever you wish.

The Masalit are not newcomers who must prove their right to their own land.

This is a land with a history.

This is a people with a history.

This is a Sultanate recorded in historical documents.

These are battles recorded by history.

And these are borders shaped through international agreements and conflicts—not the result of a wave of displacement, as you attempt to portray them.

If you want to speak about history, then come to history.

If you want to speak about politics, then come to politics.

But if you seek to use politics to distort history, we will not accept it.

Guns tried to erase Dar Masalit, and they failed.

Wars tried to uproot the Masalit people, and they failed.

Today, attempts are being made to distort their history—and these attempts will also fail.

The Masalit people are not newcomers in their own homeland.

Dar Masalit is not a land without its people.

The history of the Masalit does not belong to Musa Hilal for him to rewrite according to his own narrative.

Anyone who wishes to discuss the history of the Masalit should first open the history books and historical documents—and then speak.

Long live Dar Masalit.

Long live the steadfast Masalit people.

And long live Sudan as a homeland for all its peoples and communities.

Media Secretariat
Saturday, August 8, 2026

About The Author