Is it correct to say, out of good opinion of Shaykh Ibn Baz, that he issued the ruling he did (in the issue of seeking the aid of disbelievers) to block the door to fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), or based on evidence?

The Shaykh : I say: Praise be to Allah. We first argued the argument of Islam, and we argued about thirty arguments in seeking nearness to Allah. We performed 'Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage) for as long as Allah willed. Perhaps, perhaps I do not know if I am able, but if the doors of Hajj (the major pilgrimage) and 'Umrah were opened to me, I would be able, with the strength I have left, to repeat them. If they prevent me from Hajj and 'Umrah, I say with the language of the situation, not with the language of speech: You are a drunkard and I am a fool. Did you get the answer?

The questioner : Yes. But I have an appendix, and I hope you will answer it. Is it correct to say, out of good opinion of Shaykh Ibn Baz, that he issued the ruling he did to block the door to fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), or based on evidence that stood before him and he was convinced by it, especially since he is known for knowledge and piety, and we do not declare him pure from the scrutiny of Allah?

The Shaykh : It is not possible for us to say, regarding Shaykh [Name] and his like, of whom we bear witness first to their beneficial knowledge and second to their righteous deeds, except that one of two things must be the case. However, I see that there must be valid evidence that justifies this painful reality and the permission for the Crusaders, with all their various races and their large numbers, to enter the lands of Islam. I do not say this is done at the lowest price, but rather without any price at all, or rather at a price that is paid to them instead of by them. There cannot be any evidence for this. We have heard, in what we have read and in what has been reported to us, of the evidence they rely upon and depend on. I am astonished that this should come from some of these scholars. It is my strong suspicion that it is imposed upon them or attached to them, for they do not profess it to Allah. In truth, the student of knowledge who has been granted a share of the jurisprudence to which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) referred in the well-known hadith: cannot make such an argument. For example, some bring evidence for this sorrowful reality that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sought the help of a knowledgeable guide when he migrated from Makkah to Madinah to show the Messenger and his companion the roads that would mislead the polytheists from them. Is this evidence? The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sought the help of a polytheist to show him the way. And by analogy, all the other evidence is the same. The common factor in their being invalid as evidence is what I am about to state: The specific incidents cited by those who justify bringing the disbelieving Crusaders to the lands of Saudi Arabia are all particulars that revolve around the strong Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) seeking the help of a weak polytheist relative to him. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was stronger in material power, let alone in the power of faith, which is absent in the disbelievers whom the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sought help from in those specific incidents. But the situation now is entirely different. Seeking the help of the Americans alone is a case of the weak seeking the help of the strong, whereas what occurred in those particulars was a case of the strong seeking the help of the weak. Seeking the help of the weak by the strong involves a benefit that is not outweighed by harm, let alone by harms that are worse than that benefit. But seeking the help of the strong by the weak is all harm and has no benefit whatsoever. How vast is the difference between the case being compared and the case it is compared to! The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) borrowed armor from Safwan ibn Umayyah. This is seeking the help of a polytheist. Glory be to Allah! The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was the head of state, and with him were the lions of mankind, the heroes of the entire world, who supported him and sacrificed their most precious things for him. Yet he borrowed armor from a disbelieving polytheist and feared, because of his weakness and his belief in the power of the one from whom he was borrowing, that he might take it by force against his will. And so he said: "By force, O Messenger of Allah, or as a loan to be repaid?" He said: If the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) borrowed armor from this weak polytheist who had no power and no might, how can it be compared to the weak Saudi state seeking the help of the strong American state? And how, when Britain and France and others are with them? Then, just a few days ago, a questioner called me on the phone. It is strange that the questioner was a woman, a woman who imitates men, defending this seeking of help from the disbelievers. She said, "Is the Saudi state capable of confronting Iraq? The population of the Saudi state is so many millions, and Iraq is so many millions." I answered her with a long response, and the summary of it now is that I said to her: "Do you think it is possible that among these Americans, among the American soldiers, there are Jews? What do you think?" She answered with a political response, which gave me the impression that she might be from intelligence. She said, "It is possible." I said to her, "Only possible? Are there absolutely no Jews in the American army?" She said, "It is possible." We proceeded with this possibility. If these Jews reached Khaybar and longed for their homeland from which they were expelled against their will in the time of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, and they resisted and deployed their soldiers, planes, and tanks, etc., would the Saudi state be able to expel them against their will? Her answer was also political, but extremely weak. She said, "There is no provision in the agreement between the Saudi state and the American state that allows them to exceed the areas agreed upon for their deployment." I said to her, "Glory be to Allah! Do these disbelievers and polytheists have any covenant or protection? We all know that they have broken the agreements made because of the Jews' seizure and the Jews' oppression of our Muslim brothers in Palestine, and the Americans' standing with the Jews for all these years. We have not considered these events in Palestine so that we would no longer trust their covenants and their treaties. And among the curiosities is that I said to her, 'Where are you speaking from?' She said, 'From Jordan.' I said, 'I understand that you are answering me with political answers.' She said, 'Why?' I said, 'Jordan has Amman and so many other places you know. This is obfuscation. And I know that the direct answer is what satisfies the questioner so that he does not have to repeat the question in another way. You have now answered me with a vague answer. In Jordan, I am forced to ask: in which part of Jordan?' She said, 'I do not speak the language of politicians. In which part of Jordan are you speaking from?' She said, 'From the capital.' I said, 'You are still speaking in politics. The capital also has eastern, western, northern, and southern parts, such-and-such mountain and such-and-such mountain, etc. From which of them are you speaking?' Because she suspected that I was asking, as part of what she had asked me, 'What is your opinion on Saddam's aggression against Kuwait?' I said, 'There is no doubt that this is armed rebellion against legitimate authority,' and I brought her the verse and placed it under the reality of the situation. Unfortunately, the Saudis, in whom we had hoped and who we thought could realize the saying of Allah the Exalted: but, unfortunately, the Saudi state was not up to our high expectations, because if it wanted to apply this legal ruling, it would not be able to apply it, because it must be stronger than Iraq. And for some reason, it sought the help of the disbelievers. This is how we entered the topic. And she said that Saudi Arabia can stand firm, and therefore she justified the seeking of help. And that conversation took place. Among the things she raised as a complaint was that the Kuwaitis are now scattered and impoverished after that wealth, and so on. It was as if she was about to cry, and I felt that she was feigning. When she told me she was in Amman and I said to her, 'In which Amman are you, my sister? Perhaps we can find your location and contact you through my wife to help you, either materially or morally,' she said, 'No, I am, praise be to Allah, sufficient in the material aspect. Well, let it be in the moral aspect.' She did not give me her location and said, 'I am new here in Amman; I do not know the area.' Believe it or not, a person migrates and settles in a country and does not know the place where she has settled...

Another questioner : Are you Kuwaiti?

The Shaykh : Oh, you Kuwaiti and you Iraqi, the dialect is different to me, but she pretended to be wronged and that she was Kuwaiti, and so on. The point is that I answered with two responses that did not satisfy either side. And I said to some Saudis when they asked me, 'What is your opinion? What should our position be?' I said to them, 'By Allah, my situation is strange. If we speak against the Iraqis, they say, 'This is a Saudi.' And if we speak against the Saudis because they opposed the Shari'ah in the issue, they say, 'This is an Iraqi.' But we do not care about anything except to proclaim the truth, and our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) is the One who helps us and supports us. Have you finished the answer to your appendix?