Preparation for Jihad and the Position of Muslims Regarding the Entry of Disbelievers
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: Many know the issue in it.
The Shaykh: Every transmission of weeping. Every day we are in. Are you from inside?
The questioner: I mean, if hypothetically, may Allah forbid, a war were to break out, what is the position
The Shaykh: of the war on the right and left. Yes.
The questioner: between, for example, Iraq and the power of the West, or I mean.
The Shaykh: Yes, what will come out of your hand? Are not you and I with you, what will come out of your hand?
The questioner: The intention is not what will come out of my hand, but I mean.
The Shaykh: My intention is not you, my intention is.
The questioner: What comes out of my hand, if this is a jihad, if there is an Islamic jihad, the default is that a person responds to the call of jihad.
The Shaykh: Yes, did you carry a weapon at your time?
The questioner: No, but you train, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh: If so, with what do you want to fight? With a knife and stones, in the style of the Intifada, or how?
The questioner: No, the default is to prepare for them from strength, the default.
The Shaykh: The preparation, did you find it? Not yet, so how do you want to do jihad? And this is like what I said, if there is a jihad and you see there is a jihad? No, so the question is not applicable.
The questioner: If the default is to stay away, I.
The Shaykh: Or why do we say we did not reach you, you are the correct one.
The questioner: I prove, I mean.
The Shaykh: No, but I said you want detail, what detail? It does not need a case of detail.
The questioner: No, I thought there was some detail or something. Okay, the entry of disbelieving forces or non-Muslims into the sacred lands, Makkah and Madinah, does this not necessitate preparation from the Muslims?
The Shaykh: Your question is understood in its error.
The questioner: I wish you would first correct the question so that we learn from you, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh: Any visualization of the question and then he asked.
The questioner: The entry of disbelieving forces or disbelievers into the sacred lands, Makkah and Madinah, does this not necessitate from the Muslims action or resistance or
The Shaykh: Why did they enter despite the Muslims?
The questioner: No, they entered by the will of the ruler, but this does not represent the Muslims.
The Shaykh: So the correctness of your question is the entry of the disbelievers, not the entry of the disbelievers,
The questioner: Yes, the entry of the disbelievers
The Shaykh: Yes, they do not come.
The questioner: So the default is that there is no such thing with these parties.
The Shaykh: The default is that if they want to enter, it is obligatory upon us to prevent them, so how is it permissible for us to let them in?
The questioner: But the method of entry was not with the approval of the Muslims, but it was through the ruler. I heard that Shaykh Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymeen refused to sign such an approval. I do not know if this was a rumor.
The Shaykh: So, who are the ones who let the disbelievers in?
The questioner: The ruler himself, I mean, not. Yes.
The Shaykh: Is the ruler a disbeliever or a Muslim?
The questioner: A Muslim, but I do not know if they have.
The Shaykh: Him alone, or is there with him like his story.
The questioner: There is not, what is the intention of this sentence?
The Shaykh: I mean, he is alone, the nation is alone, there are no assistants under him for good and for evil, and so on.
The questioner: Definitely there are, yes, there are definitely.
The Shaykh: Okay, are these Muslims or disbelievers?
The questioner: Yes, Muslims.
The Shaykh: So what is the meaning of this confused cycle? That it is not the Muslims, the Muslims who let the disbelievers in, not the disbelievers,
The questioner: Yes, because it is a fitnah (trial, discord or temptation).
The Shaykh: But of course, the Muslims, like our story, have no solution or binding in their hands. And those like our story there have no solution or binding in their hands. Who has the solution and binding in their hand? The rulers. Are the rulers Muslims or disbelievers? Muslims. So our previous statement returns that the Muslims are the ones who let the disbelievers in. It returns, you want to distinguish, distinguish, and others will come and distinguish more, so you will say no, the general Muslims did not let them in, only these rulers. Others will say no, and many Muslims give this entry. And they justify it and say this is necessary so that Iraq does not take over this country. Do you know if there is such a thing or not? Yes, yes. Okay, what does it benefit us to enter into these details? It does not benefit us anything.
The questioner: I mean, our Shaykh, the issue of their entry itself, regardless of its nature, but it is a mistake. So what is the position of the scholars or the callers to Islam regarding this? What is the default, how do they face this fitnah (trial, discord or temptation)?
The Shaykh: How did they face the Jews? May Allah guide you? Ha. Facing the Jews is easier or facing the Americans, the British, France, and Germany, is it also easier? There are proofs indicating that the Jews are the ones moving all this power. May Allah guide you, you deviated from the answer. No, I mean that the intention is that the same movement was for the soldier. Speak about the answer. Yes, if the answer is that facing the Jews alone is easier, lighter. Okay, what did we do? What was requested of us? Negligence. Ha, negligence. We were distracted. I mean, we did nothing.
So what are you asking now? If this simple entry did not come out of our hands to do something, what are you asking about the greatest entry and the greatest fitnah (trial, discord or temptation)? It is not just emotions like this, raging and uncontrolled, the Muslims do not know how they should have a rational position, as they say.
The correct position is purification and upbringing and far-sightedness, not when the Kuwaitis are outside, they want to prepare and resist. Laughing at the beard, what will come out of his hand to resist him.
Iran has a larger number of people than Iraq, and it was unable to stand firm against Iraq, the Kuwaitis, from the princes to the employees, except for those whom Allah wills, and they are few. They want to resist Iraq, but for what purpose? For the sake of restoring the defeated throne to you, so that you rule by what Allah has revealed. Unfortunately, it is a fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) that leaves the wise man perplexed.
What are you going to do? Keep to yourself, stay in your house, and weep over your sin, and save yourself[Al-Ma'idah 5:105]. Our Shaykh, some people use as evidence, meaning, if the Americans, for example, entered a war with Iraq along with the Saudi army, they would cite the verse, "O you who believe, if two groups among the believers fight..." Yes, that is correct. Is it permissible to fight these people? Shaykh, you have confused the issue. What are they using the verse as evidence for? Then you go back and say it is permissible to fight them.
The questioner : Is it permissible?
The Shaykh: Yes, first I said they use the verse as evidence for what? I did not say and you returned to ask if it is permissible to fight them. Why did you mention the verse? You mentioned the verse if the Saudi army with the Americans, yes, entered a battle with the Iraqis, yes. And the Iraqis, or Saddam specifically, say this is jihad. This is apparent now, of course, apparent to the people. And all the people are in an emotion, standing, and the crowds, of course, from all the Arab Islamic countries, of course, all the youth are ready, and all of it, and so on. Okay, is it permissible to fight these Americans with the Saudis, of course, in one row if they were. Who, if they were in this row? They were in one row, Americans and Saudis. Yes, who fought them? Of course, the Iraqis with some people. We want to enlist with them. Did we not talk about this issue today? I am not from anything today. Okay, other than today? I said, but these questions are always raised, our Shaykh, and your previous words were in detail, but they want it clearer. Did you not hear our answer when we told them to volunteer? Fifty thousand, then forty thousand, then eighty thousand. Yes, if these want to go, they go to fight with Iraq. Will they fight as a separate army from Iraq or under the banner of Iraq? Did you hear our answer to this? Yes. If they fight alone and the intention in it is in the path of Allah, this is permissible. Fighting, of course, the Americans alone, our Shaykh. Yes, but they do not have the ability to fight because they do not have a prepared, trained army. Yes. And therefore, by the necessity of reality, they need to join the Iraqi army. Yes. And the Iraqi army is the one who will train them, teach them, distribute them, give them fronts and areas, and so on. So we said that these Muslims, if the time of prayer came and they were in training, the Iraqi army does not allow them to pray during training. Now, people, we have now an obligation we call for, we want what? You are now in jihad. Here they are telling them there is jihad on Friday, do not pray Friday because you are in jihad. And here is better than Iraq by a lot. The matters now are all a matter of imagination in imagination in imagination. One cannot imagine jihad today with either of the two parties, because each one’s leader is a fighter violating the Shari'ah. Iraq wants, there is no problem, Saudi Arabia brought the disbelievers to its country, and the Muslims, if they want to fight it, Muslims with Muslims
The Shaykh: Every transmission of weeping. Every day we are in. Are you from inside?
The questioner: I mean, if hypothetically, may Allah forbid, a war were to break out, what is the position
The Shaykh: of the war on the right and left. Yes.
The questioner: between, for example, Iraq and the power of the West, or I mean.
The Shaykh: Yes, what will come out of your hand? Are not you and I with you, what will come out of your hand?
The questioner: The intention is not what will come out of my hand, but I mean.
The Shaykh: My intention is not you, my intention is.
The questioner: What comes out of my hand, if this is a jihad, if there is an Islamic jihad, the default is that a person responds to the call of jihad.
The Shaykh: Yes, did you carry a weapon at your time?
The questioner: No, but you train, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh: If so, with what do you want to fight? With a knife and stones, in the style of the Intifada, or how?
The questioner: No, the default is to prepare for them from strength, the default.
The Shaykh: The preparation, did you find it? Not yet, so how do you want to do jihad? And this is like what I said, if there is a jihad and you see there is a jihad? No, so the question is not applicable.
The questioner: If the default is to stay away, I.
The Shaykh: Or why do we say we did not reach you, you are the correct one.
The questioner: I prove, I mean.
The Shaykh: No, but I said you want detail, what detail? It does not need a case of detail.
The questioner: No, I thought there was some detail or something. Okay, the entry of disbelieving forces or non-Muslims into the sacred lands, Makkah and Madinah, does this not necessitate preparation from the Muslims?
The Shaykh: Your question is understood in its error.
The questioner: I wish you would first correct the question so that we learn from you, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh: Any visualization of the question and then he asked.
The questioner: The entry of disbelieving forces or disbelievers into the sacred lands, Makkah and Madinah, does this not necessitate from the Muslims action or resistance or
The Shaykh: Why did they enter despite the Muslims?
The questioner: No, they entered by the will of the ruler, but this does not represent the Muslims.
The Shaykh: So the correctness of your question is the entry of the disbelievers, not the entry of the disbelievers,
The questioner: Yes, the entry of the disbelievers
The Shaykh: Yes, they do not come.
The questioner: So the default is that there is no such thing with these parties.
The Shaykh: The default is that if they want to enter, it is obligatory upon us to prevent them, so how is it permissible for us to let them in?
The questioner: But the method of entry was not with the approval of the Muslims, but it was through the ruler. I heard that Shaykh Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymeen refused to sign such an approval. I do not know if this was a rumor.
The Shaykh: So, who are the ones who let the disbelievers in?
The questioner: The ruler himself, I mean, not. Yes.
The Shaykh: Is the ruler a disbeliever or a Muslim?
The questioner: A Muslim, but I do not know if they have.
The Shaykh: Him alone, or is there with him like his story.
The questioner: There is not, what is the intention of this sentence?
The Shaykh: I mean, he is alone, the nation is alone, there are no assistants under him for good and for evil, and so on.
The questioner: Definitely there are, yes, there are definitely.
The Shaykh: Okay, are these Muslims or disbelievers?
The questioner: Yes, Muslims.
The Shaykh: So what is the meaning of this confused cycle? That it is not the Muslims, the Muslims who let the disbelievers in, not the disbelievers,
The questioner: Yes, because it is a fitnah (trial, discord or temptation).
The Shaykh: But of course, the Muslims, like our story, have no solution or binding in their hands. And those like our story there have no solution or binding in their hands. Who has the solution and binding in their hand? The rulers. Are the rulers Muslims or disbelievers? Muslims. So our previous statement returns that the Muslims are the ones who let the disbelievers in. It returns, you want to distinguish, distinguish, and others will come and distinguish more, so you will say no, the general Muslims did not let them in, only these rulers. Others will say no, and many Muslims give this entry. And they justify it and say this is necessary so that Iraq does not take over this country. Do you know if there is such a thing or not? Yes, yes. Okay, what does it benefit us to enter into these details? It does not benefit us anything.
The questioner: I mean, our Shaykh, the issue of their entry itself, regardless of its nature, but it is a mistake. So what is the position of the scholars or the callers to Islam regarding this? What is the default, how do they face this fitnah (trial, discord or temptation)?
The Shaykh: How did they face the Jews? May Allah guide you? Ha. Facing the Jews is easier or facing the Americans, the British, France, and Germany, is it also easier? There are proofs indicating that the Jews are the ones moving all this power. May Allah guide you, you deviated from the answer. No, I mean that the intention is that the same movement was for the soldier. Speak about the answer. Yes, if the answer is that facing the Jews alone is easier, lighter. Okay, what did we do? What was requested of us? Negligence. Ha, negligence. We were distracted. I mean, we did nothing.
So what are you asking now? If this simple entry did not come out of our hands to do something, what are you asking about the greatest entry and the greatest fitnah (trial, discord or temptation)? It is not just emotions like this, raging and uncontrolled, the Muslims do not know how they should have a rational position, as they say.
The correct position is purification and upbringing and far-sightedness, not when the Kuwaitis are outside, they want to prepare and resist. Laughing at the beard, what will come out of his hand to resist him.
Iran has a larger number of people than Iraq, and it was unable to stand firm against Iraq, the Kuwaitis, from the princes to the employees, except for those whom Allah wills, and they are few. They want to resist Iraq, but for what purpose? For the sake of restoring the defeated throne to you, so that you rule by what Allah has revealed. Unfortunately, it is a fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) that leaves the wise man perplexed.
What are you going to do? Keep to yourself, stay in your house, and weep over your sin, and save yourself
O you who have believed, upon you is [responsibility for] yourselves. Those who have gone astray will not harm you when you have been guided
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا عَلَيْكُمْ أَنفُسَكُمْ لَا يَضُرُّكُم مَّن ضَلَّ إِذَا اهْتَدَيْتُمْThe questioner : Is it permissible?
The Shaykh: Yes, first I said they use the verse as evidence for what? I did not say and you returned to ask if it is permissible to fight them. Why did you mention the verse? You mentioned the verse if the Saudi army with the Americans, yes, entered a battle with the Iraqis, yes. And the Iraqis, or Saddam specifically, say this is jihad. This is apparent now, of course, apparent to the people. And all the people are in an emotion, standing, and the crowds, of course, from all the Arab Islamic countries, of course, all the youth are ready, and all of it, and so on. Okay, is it permissible to fight these Americans with the Saudis, of course, in one row if they were. Who, if they were in this row? They were in one row, Americans and Saudis. Yes, who fought them? Of course, the Iraqis with some people. We want to enlist with them. Did we not talk about this issue today? I am not from anything today. Okay, other than today? I said, but these questions are always raised, our Shaykh, and your previous words were in detail, but they want it clearer. Did you not hear our answer when we told them to volunteer? Fifty thousand, then forty thousand, then eighty thousand. Yes, if these want to go, they go to fight with Iraq. Will they fight as a separate army from Iraq or under the banner of Iraq? Did you hear our answer to this? Yes. If they fight alone and the intention in it is in the path of Allah, this is permissible. Fighting, of course, the Americans alone, our Shaykh. Yes, but they do not have the ability to fight because they do not have a prepared, trained army. Yes. And therefore, by the necessity of reality, they need to join the Iraqi army. Yes. And the Iraqi army is the one who will train them, teach them, distribute them, give them fronts and areas, and so on. So we said that these Muslims, if the time of prayer came and they were in training, the Iraqi army does not allow them to pray during training. Now, people, we have now an obligation we call for, we want what? You are now in jihad. Here they are telling them there is jihad on Friday, do not pray Friday because you are in jihad. And here is better than Iraq by a lot. The matters now are all a matter of imagination in imagination in imagination. One cannot imagine jihad today with either of the two parties, because each one’s leader is a fighter violating the Shari'ah. Iraq wants, there is no problem, Saudi Arabia brought the disbelievers to its country, and the Muslims, if they want to fight it, Muslims with Muslims
Source
سلسلة الهدى والنور، المجلس 978 — d3watuna.com (1:51)
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.