Do you think that the hadiths regarding the Jews and Christians, and their fighting and invasion, have come to pass like the hadith: (You will make a treaty with the Romans)?

The questioner : The brothers were researching the hadiths of the fitan (trials), so the question being raised now, in light of the current conditions, is: some of the hadiths, or many of the hadiths, have begun to show their signs, meaning reality is confirming them, such as the hadith: and such as the approaching battle with the Jews and the beginning of the Jews' gathering in Palestine. So, in light of the hadiths in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) gave glad tidings that the battle will ultimately be with the Jews, meaning, in your understanding of the fiqh (jurisprudence) of the hadith, what do you see?

The Shaykh : In any case, they say about us in Sham (Syria) on an occasion like this: "It has come upon her feet," meaning, the hadith of the fitan. May Allah have sent you this, a good occasion to enter into this question. First, my brother, the hadiths you referred to contain absolutely nothing of what you think, because it is one of the most famous hadiths that has been raised on this occasion: Is that not so?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes. So the hadith says: To whom is the address directed?

The questioner: The Muslims.

The Shaykh : So, have the Muslims now made a treaty with the Romans?! It is a very strange matter. Distinguished scholars get entangled in interpreting hadiths contrary to their explicit meaning. Now, unfortunately—Allah is the Greatest, it is very, very annoying—one of the effects of the current fitnah is not the fighting between two Muslim peoples, but rather the disturbance of the thoughts of Muslim scholars in various parts of the earth because of this fitnah. And this is the example now before you: When the question was directed to you, you did not tire me, may Allah reward you with good, like this man. I said to him: "The Muslims, okay. So, have the Muslims made a treaty with the Romans?" The answer, I hope, is also that there is no treaty between the Muslims and the disbelievers. Then, even if there were a treaty between the Muslims and the disbelievers, what are the conditions of this treaty? Is it permissible in Islam for the Muslims to make a treaty with the enemies of the religion while they persist in occupying Muslim lands and humiliating them? If a treaty has taken place, it is an impermissible treaty. But we say: fundamentally, there is no treaty today as a reality between the Muslims and the disbelievers. Rather, there is in reality something very, very serious, which is the opposite of the treaty that used to take place between the Muslims and the disbelievers. And the truth is, while I was looking for that hadith in the last part of the first volume of the printed history of Ibn Asakir, I could not control myself; I cried. The reason: you see the pride of the Muslims with the Romans, who were many times their number. Allah gave them victory, and they imposed the conditions. If you read the conditions now, you would say: conditions that America imposes on the Muslims. For example: the disbelievers must pay such and such every year, and if a Muslim enters their land, they must host him, meaning accommodate him and open the doors of their houses to him for at least three days, and so on. Now, Saudi Arabia is the one that pays the maintenance of the fighters for the Muslims and the enemies of the religion. So I do not know how it can be said that the hadith is being applied now and there is no reconciliation between the Muslims and the Romans. This address, as is very clear, is an address to all the Muslims, and such an address is not conceivable unless there is a university (university/community) that gathers the Muslims, not states—I do not know how many states they count today, thirty or forty Muslim states—and every state has its policy and connections with foreign states that differ from the connections of other states with other foreign states, and so on. We must understand from this hadith: You, O Muslims, should have an entity, you should have a state. This state takes charge of making a treaty with the Romans, and this is a religious ruling, undertaken by the Muslims for their religious and Islamic benefit.
Now, as you see, the peoples are like the poor woman. I asked—the men are lost today, let alone the women—in the midst of this fitnah, some people are with these and some are with those, and the truth is not with these nor with those. So this is a hadith that we do not need to complete or finish speaking about, because as they say: "The written is clear from its title." The first word: invalidates the claim that this hadith has a connection to the current reality. So I say there is no need to delve into the hadith in which one of the disbelieving Crusaders says: "The Cross has prevailed." Okay, so jealousy takes hold of a Muslim and he kills this Crusader, and then the incident occurs between the Muslims and the Crusaders. Do you think that this incident occurs with the Saudi people? Unfortunately, no offense, the one who was unable to stand against the Ba'ath ruling, which does not represent the Iraqi people but represents itself, just as the Syrian people are not represented by the Ba'ath ruling at all. The Saudi government was unable to stand against this Ba'ath ruler, so they sought help from the disbelievers and allowed them into the homes, then they gave the matter to the disbelievers. And this was officially announced on the radio stations, and you must have heard it. So, what these so-called "allies" do or act upon is enough humiliation for the Muslims who joined these disbelievers, that they are included in the name "allies." And you, I think, know his saying (peace be upon him): There is no alliance in Islam, so how can there be an alliance with the disbelievers, the enemies of Islam?! The important thing is that they were unable to stand against the disbelieving Ba'ath Party, so they sought help not from one disbeliever but from all the disbelievers, and at their head are the most disbelieving of the disbelievers and the most hostile of the enemies of the Muslims, who are the British and the Americans, who are the root of the calamity that befell the Palestinian lands. Then we hear Bush, this wicked one, declare openly: there is no connection between solving the Palestinian issue and the Gulf. A declaration of complete disbelief. And the Muslims who have accepted for themselves to be allies of the disbelievers are still involved with them in the fitnah.