He spoke about the trial befalling the Muslims today in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other countries, as well as about seeking the aid of disbelievers.

The Shaykh : ... Once we understand that, we then enter into the core of this fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) that has befallen the Arab Islamic world in particular, and the Islamic world in general. We will find that among the effects of this fitnah is that people who have absolutely no knowledge of the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) speak about it. They say about so-and-so that he is a disbeliever, or about so-and-so that he is a mujahid (one engaged in struggle in the path of Allah), or that so-and-so was right and so-and-so was wrong. It is not permissible for these people to issue an opinion, and in this state, they have contradicted the previous verse . They also contradict the saying of Allah, Mighty and Majestic: . The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the people of knowledge to answer when asked and not to conceal the knowledge they were given, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . People today are either scholars or non-scholars; there is no middle state between these two groups. Our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, has clarified the path for both groups in His saying, the Exalted: . So, it is upon the people of knowledge to provide clarification, and it is upon those other than them to ask for clarification. When the Islamic community, with its scholars and non-scholars, moves within these boundaries, their lives will be straight; and if they deviate, their lives will be in turmoil, as is the reality of Muslims today. It is obligatory for every Muslim individual to look at himself: if he sees in himself the qualification for knowledge and is asked, he must answer. If he knows from himself that he is not among the people of knowledge, he should beware of speaking about what he has no knowledge of. He should remain silent and ask the people of knowledge, as you heard in the previous verse. Before this introduction, I speak about the fitnah befalling Muslims in general, as we mentioned. I say: This fitnah concerns two types of people: the first are the rulers, and the second are the ruled. The first are the heads of Islamic states, and the second are the Muslim peoples. Then we return to the first section, which is the rulers. We say: These are two groups regarding the current fitnah. All of them bear a legal responsibility; none of them is safe from it, unless we assume that he repented to Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and turned back to Him. But in this case, the effects of this repentance must appear practically, not just verbally. Some of these rulers showed their aggression, legally speaking, against a neighboring state and invaded it, as it is said, on a moonless night. This is a ruling that contradicts the Shari'ah clearly and does not accept debate from the people of knowledge. As for the general people, we have said what must be said about them: It is not permissible for them to speak because they have no knowledge. Our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, says in the clear text of His Book: . We have absolutely no doubt that the ruling controlling Iraq rebelled against the ruling controlling Kuwait. So, if there had been a ruler who applied the Islamic Shari'ah in every calamity or incident, or if he had the ability to apply the legal rulings one hundred percent—even though, unfortunately, this is rare and does not exist today—I say that even if such a ruling existed, it would be, unfortunately, unable to apply the previous verse . This is because you all know, if Allah wills, that before this calamity descended, the Arab states held many meetings and numerous conferences. The masses of Muslims and their peoples knew nothing of the disputes taking place in those conferences, or as they say today, what is happening behind the scenes. The general public knew nothing of it, but they observed that there were many or severe disputes. Therefore, those meetings and conferences were held. This means that their meetings and conferences did not benefit these states. The result of this, that is, the absence of a ruler who rules by what Allah has revealed, at least in this issue, or a ruler who rules by what Allah has revealed in this issue but cannot enforce it, is that enforcement requires a power stronger than the power of the rebel. For Allah, Mighty and Majestic, says, as you heard: . We know, by the reality of things—and this is something that makes us happy and, on the other hand, sad—that the Saudi state was the state designated to enforce this legal ruling. This is because it is known that among the Arab states, and even the other non-Arab Islamic states, it is the one that applies the legal rulings. Although there is some consideration regarding the application of some details, in any case, the matter is as was said in the past and present: "Pity you, some evil is less than some." The one who rules by Islam fifty percent is better than the one who rules by Islam twenty percent, and so on. This makes us happy in that this state applies the legal rulings better than the others. But it makes us sad that the other Islamic states not only do not follow their own path, but they hardly rule by what Allah has revealed at all. Instead, they rule by laws, some of which may be English, some French, and so on. Therefore, when Allah, Mighty and Majestic, says: , it was supposed that the Saudi state, given its superiority over the other Arab states in applying the legal rulings, was the one designated to enforce this legal ruling. But, unfortunately, it cannot enforce this legal ruling. Why? First, because it does not apply the legal rulings one hundred percent. Second, even if it wanted to apply this legal ruling, like many other rulings it applies, praise be to Allah, the enforcement of this ruling requires that the state enforcing it be the strongest state among the Arab Islamic states. But, unfortunately, we did not find this strength in this state, which is better than the other Arab states in its adherence to enforcing the legal rulings, because it is weak in its material power relative to the rebel state. The rebel state, as the appearances of those conferences and meetings indicate, did not benefit from the first command ordered in the previous verse , which is to attempt reconciliation when possible. Then the other command in the verse comes : Who fights this rebel group? The one stronger than them. This stronger party, unfortunately, did not exist, not only in this state which we said was supposed to be the enforcer of this ruling, or of this second command in the noble verse after the first command, which is attempting reconciliation, did not benefit. The greatest proof of this is that this rebellion, which could not be removed by the first and best method, which is reconciliation, nor by the other method, which is fighting or combat, as we mentioned, unfortunately resulted in something that no Muslim would have imagined would happen. In the path of what? In the path of avoiding another aggression and rebellion that might occur from this rebel state against the other state neighboring the state against which the rebellion was directed, namely the Saudi state. What resulted from that? Seeking aid not only from Arab states, and it is known, as we mentioned earlier, that they do not rule by the Islamic Shari'ah, but among them is a state that declares that it does not adopt Islam as a religion, but adopts Ba'athism as its religion and methodology, namely the Syrian state. So, the legitimate Saudi state sought aid from these states, including the Syrian state, which is a known Ba'athist state, known for always speaking about imperialism, the Americans, and the Jews, and so on. And yet, finally, it joined the American and British armies, which the Saudi state also sought aid from. Why? Out of fear that it would suffer what befell its neighbor, as the Syrian proverb says: "I do not know if this is known in this land: 'If your neighbor's head is shaved, wet yours.'" So, the Saudi state feared that it would suffer what Kuwait suffered from the Iraqi state. How was the problem solved and the fear of a new aggression against it removed? It sought aid from the disbelievers. Is this seeking aid permissible in Islam? Knowing that students of knowledge, let alone the people of knowledge and those prominent in the academic field, all know that there is a legal rule that the jurists did not establish, at least some of them. The legal rules, unfortunately, although they are principled rules, often differ from one school of jurisprudence to another. The principles they refer to in applying the branches may differ from one school to another. The rule that, as I said earlier, even students of knowledge know is not a rule established by some scholars of principles, but a rule established by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), who is described rightly in the saying of Allah, the Exalted: . That is Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), who stated and established that rule and principle, namely his saying (peace and blessings be upon him and his family): . We do not seek aid from a polytheist. This is a rule established by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and made a continuing law until the Day of Resurrection. In another wording, and this first wording was narrated by Imam Muslim in his Sahih, and in another wording narrated by Abu 'Abd al-Hakim in his book known as al-Mustadrak, with the wording: . So, this is a rule that it is not permissible for a Muslim state, if it rules by what Allah has revealed. But if it has stripped itself and disbelieved in what was revealed, then there is no sin after disbelief. The Saudi state is not like that, because in many, if not most, of its rulings, it issues from the Book of its Lord and the Sunnah of its Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). But here, it has deviated from this rule established by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), as we explained. Once we know this fact, here are two clear contradictions from two Muslim states: the rebel state, by its rebellion against its neighbor, and the other, by seeking aid from the enemies of the entire Islamic community, namely the Americans, the British, and other Crusader states, which are known to you. And it is amazing that the mentioned seeking aid is from some states whose position toward Muslims is known to be against them and supporting the position of the Jews in their occupation of Palestine, whether the British first and then the Americans. All of these are those who conspired to support the dominance of the Jews over Palestine against all Muslims. If it were possible to contradict this Prophetic rule , if it were possible to contradict this Prophetic rule by seeking aid from some polytheists, it would have been with polytheists whose black history in siding with the Zionist occupiers against Muslims was not known. It might have been possible with some reservation, because contradicting the Prophetic rule is not permissible except in a special circumstance that only those in authority, who gather the princes and scholars, can grasp. But I say a word that perhaps has not preceded in all my speech on this issue: If it is permissible to seek aid from these Crusader disbelievers and bring them into the Islamic lands, which are considered a refuge for all other Islamic lands, if it is permissible to seek aid from these polytheists and bring them into the lands of Muslims, then what is the place where it is not permissible to seek aid from polytheists? If seeking aid from polytheists has reached, by the necessity we sometimes hear from some of them, who claimed to permit bringing disbelievers into the lands of Islam, then this means nullifying the Prophetic rule, because I do not imagine another seeking aid from disbelievers that could be more dangerous than this seeking aid.