He spoke about the Muslim states and peoples, and what their position is regarding this matter, and about the principle that “the means take the ruling of the ends.”

The Shaykh : We will stop here in our discussion regarding governments. What remains is the discussion concerning the peoples or the individuals of the Muslim peoples. However, before that, I want to draw your attention to something we must point out: Islam gives the means the ruling of the ends. So, whoever orders the killing of a believing soul without right, his ruling is the ruling of the one who directly committed the killing with his hand. There is an orderer of the killing of a Muslim man and one who is ordered to commit this killing, and this ordered one executed the killing. The orderer’s ruling is the ruling of this killer who directly committed the killing, because he ordered what Allah the Exalted has forbidden. I want from this example, and there are many, many examples, that the means which lead to forbidden ends are themselves forbidden. Just as the means which lead to prescribed ends are themselves prescribed means. This is contrary to the rule of the disbelieving, Crusader Europe, which says: "The end justifies the means," meaning the end that they see is in their benefit justifies for them the means, no matter if it leads to an end that is not prescribed. And with great regret, some Islamic parties adopt this disbelieving rule, "the end justifies the means," whether they know it or not, whether they are aware or not. I mean that they permit themselves to adopt from the means and causes what they know are not prescribed causes, but in their claim, they lead to a prescribed end. The means and causes, like the ends, must be prescribed and it is not permissible for them to be contrary to the Shari'ah. The purpose is that I remind you now that it was a result of that armed rebellion, and I hinted at this, but I remind you once again: it was a result of that armed rebellion that, had we assumed it did not occur, this great trial would not have occurred, which is bringing the disbelieving Crusaders into the lands of Islam. I do not say at the lowest price, but rather without a price, or rather at a price paid by those who sought the aid of these disbelievers. And this is one of the worst things that occurred in Islamic history, according to my knowledge. Here I mention an old Arabic proverb, but I do not want from it anything except the reminder of this proverb, and I do not want from it that we justify or legitimize this seeking of aid, for you have known that it is contrary to the explicit Prophetic rule, as we mentioned. This Arabic proverb says: "The wall said to the nail: Why did you split me? It said: Ask the one who drives me." I say, this is in the language of the Saudi state, but this is not an excuse for them. That is, I sought the aid of these disbelievers, and who, with regret, call them "friends" when they speak of how we sought the aid of the Arab Islamic states and the friends from other countries. How can these be friends when they are enemies of the Islamic Ummah, as we mentioned earlier? This is not an excuse for them. But the reality of the matter is: had the nail not split the wall, it would not have split. "The wall said to the nail: Why did you split me? It said: Ask the one who drives me." So there is no excuse at all, neither for the rebel nor for the one who seeks the aid of disbelievers in these two violations of the Shari'ah. Now I enter into what concerns the Muslim peoples and the individuals of Muslims, which is the second or third matter, if we divide the states into the rebel and the one seeking aid. These are two categories. What is the third category? What is the position? I do not say this question poses itself; it has posed itself repeatedly and repeatedly, and people speak of it in every council held these days. What is the position of Muslims as individuals, groups, and parties? I say: if the Arab states as a group cannot solve this problem and put an end to it, what can the parties, groups, and individuals do? They cannot do anything at all, because the individual is weaker than the group, and the group is weaker than the organized, compact party, and this entire group is much weaker, whether we speak of weakness from the scientific aspect or the material aspect, compared to these Arab states collectively. And all of these were unable to do anything, neither to prevent the rebel from his rebellion nor to stop the rebel from his land. So what do the Muslim individuals do today? Therefore, we remind the general Muslims of their obligatory duty in times of trial, and this trial, I personally do not know a parallel to it that has occurred in the Islamic world. And if the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) says in many authentic hadiths: In some of these hadiths: And in others: Or as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Meaning: Stick to your homes and do not intervene in such trials, because you are not able to reform, because the states that are stronger than you, as we mentioned, will not be able to reform, and you, O individuals of the peoples or groups or parties, will not be able to fight, and all the states will not be able to fight. If the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is truthful when he said: . This is the end of what I wanted to say on this occasion. But I also want to draw your attention to some phenomena we are touching now, which remind us of some paragraphs that came in some of those hadiths, including his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) that people in the time of trials have minds, but they are like dust; they think, or most of them think, that they are on something, but they are not on anything. And if this trial is of this magnitude and danger, and the Muslim does not stick to his home and his house, when will he stick to his house? We know that in the first history, a disagreement occurred between Muslims in which the disbelieving Crusader, whom the Muslims were ordered to fight and to call to one of three things: either Islam, or the jizyah, or they pay, or they fight, did not intervene in that disagreement that occurred in the first Islam, meaning between 'Ali and Mu'awiyah (may Allah be pleased with them both). The disbeliever did not intervene between the two parties, but he calculated their account and feared their might. And yet, many of the Companions withdrew from the two parties and did not join one of them. Why? Because blood would be spilled, and indeed, the blood of many Muslims was spilled between the two fighting parties. So some of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) withdrew from them, considering it a trial where a Muslim fights his Muslim brother in a matter containing doubt and subtlety. This is the Caliph of the Muslims, and he is 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, whom Mu'awiyah did not pledge allegiance to, and he was in Damascus, Syria. But he argues that he is demanding the killing of those who killed the Rightly Guided Caliph 'Uthman ibn 'Affan (may Allah be pleased with him). So each of the fighting parties has a point of view. And although we today, after being able to study Islamic history and this disagreement that occurred in the past, can now say with all frankness and all boldness that 'Ali was the one with the truth, and Mu'awiyah was a rebel, although he was a Muslim and although he was a Companion, how did we know this? And is it possible now to know this entrenched disagreement between the Arab states, which is much more subtle than that disagreement, where the truth became clear to us after studying the causes of the disagreement? And we knew that one of the Companions who distinguished himself and withdrew from both parties finally joined the army of 'Ali when he saw one of the prophecies of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), which is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): When 'Amir (may Allah be pleased with him) was killed, and he was in the army of 'Ali at that time, some of the Companions who had heard this hadith from the mouth of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), who previously was not with these or those, as I mentioned earlier because there was doubt there, so he did not want to fight Muslims just because this Muslim sees that those are in error. But when it became clear to him from the Infallible, whose testimony no falsehood comes before or behind, , he joined 'Ali. Can we, O individuals of Muslims today, say that we must be with these or with those, that we must be with these against those, or with those against these? Where is the evidence in this? Knowing that after we have explained to you that each of them is contrary to the Shari'ah, and the matter is not as it was in the time of 'Ali, where the truth was with 'Ali and Mu'awiyah was the rebel. Nevertheless, with the clear, great difference between that trial and this trial, the great difference is that there, the trial was between two Muslim parties, whereas now, the trial is first between two Muslim parties, plus that with one of the parties are disbelieving, disbelieving, Crusader states, and they supported the Jews against the Muslims. So the problem here is greater and greater. Therefore, the Muslim in these critical circumstances can only hold fast to his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), and indeed, bite it with his teeth: This is the last of what is possible for me to mention on this occasion, and I know for certain that there are many questions and difficulties, but I want, if there is anything of that, that it be noted.The questioner : And what I mentioned earlier regarding the distinction between scholars and others: that one of them should not issue a ruling based on his own opinion or independent legal reasoning when he is not among the people of knowledge and independent legal reasoning. Yes.