What is your opinion regarding those who rely on the opinion of some jurists that it is permissible to seek the assistance of disbelievers?

Abu Layla : Some people claim and say that there are opinions from jurists regarding the permissibility of seeking the assistance of disbelievers. Is this correct? Are there opinions from jurists on this matter?

The Shaykh: These conditions render the matter of seeking assistance that has occurred as mere scattered dust. I have traced this hadith; its wording is: meaning the Jews. is a denounced hadith, a denounced narration. Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi cited it in *Mushkil al-Athar* to the end of it with his chain. When it reached the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that Abu Sufyan had gathered to come out against him on the day of Uhud, he went to the Jews who were at al-Nadhir and found a group of them at their dwelling. They welcomed him, and he said to them, and he mentioned: to the end of it. I said, and this is a weak chain, and I spoke in detail to clarify the weakness of the hadith. I said, this is a weak chain, to the end of it. And Ibn Hisham mentioned in *al-Sirah* from Muhammad ibn Ishaq from al-Zuhri that the Ansar on the day of Uhud said to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): "Shall we not, O Messenger of Allah, seek assistance from our allies among the Jews?" He said: This is the opposite of that; this is weak in chain like that. But what did I say? And Ibn Kathir mentioned the like of it in *al-Bidaya* in such-and-such a part, page such-and-such, and before him Ibn al-Qayyim in *Zad al-Ma'ad*, and it agrees with the hadith of Aisha in *al-Sahih*: or , and it is traced in *al-Sahihah* 1101 as mentioned recently. So I say, if the weakness of the hadith of the title and what is in it regarding his (peace and blessings be upon him) offering to the Jews to fight with him becomes clear to you, then there is no need at that time to reconcile it with the authentic hadith of Aisha, as al-Tahawi did when he said: "Because the Jews whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) invited to fight Abu Sufyan with him are not from the polytheists about whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the previous narrations that he does not seek assistance from them. Those are worshippers of idols, and these are the People of the Book, whose difference from the worshippers of idols we have mentioned in the chapter that preceded this." I said, he is referring to some rulings that the People of the Book were given exclusively, unlike the polytheists, such as the permissibility of their slaughtered food and marrying their women, and other things, some of which are a matter of consideration. And he based on that his statement on page such-and-such: "So every shirk (associating partners with Allah) is kufr (disbelief), and not every kufr is shirk." So I say: Even if we hypothetically accept his statement, there is no need for the mentioned ta'wil (figurative interpretation) for two reasons. The first is that ta'wil is a branch of explicitness, as is known, and as long as the hadith is not authentic as we have clarified, there is no justification for interpreting the authentic hadith because of it, as is apparent and not hidden from anyone, if Allah wills. And the second is how can it be said that the Jews and Christians are not from the polytheists, while Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said in Surat al-Tawbah after the verse: So whoever makes a rival for Allah, how can he not be from the polytheists? This is a strange slip from an imam like al-Tahawi. And this does not contradict that they have those rulings in which no one other than the People of the Book among the polytheists shares with them, for they all share in other rulings, as is not hidden from those of understanding. And the researcher jurist whom Allah has saved from taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) in the Book and the Sunnah may not lack what confirms what preceded and invalidates al-Tahawi's previous statement. What did al-Tahawi say? "And not every kufr is shirk." From that is that dialogue between the believer and the disbeliever who boasted of his wealth and his two gardens, as Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said in Surat al-Kahf: So this is kufr that did not involve shirk in al-Tahawi's opinion, but the context refutes it. Follow me in his saying, the Exalted: So consider how he described his companion the disbeliever with kufr, then he purified himself from it, expressing it by its synonym, which is shirk, and he said: And this shirk is what the disbeliever described himself with in what follows. Follow his saying, the Exalted, after he mentioned what his companion the believer admonished him with: So I said: This statement of his, with the preceding story, is very explicit that his shirk is merely his doubt in the Hereafter, and this is kufr and not shirk in al-Tahawi's opinion, so it is false, its falsity being apparent. And what confirms that from the Sunnah is his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: Narrated by the two Shaykhs and others from Ibn Abbas, and traced in *al-Sahihah* with number such-and-such. The intended meaning is the Jews and Christians, as other hadiths indicate, among them his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: Narrated by Muslim and others. And al-Tahawi claimed that Ibn Uyaynah made a mistake, saying: "Because he used to narrate from his memory, so it is possible that he placed the polytheists in place of the Jews and Christians, and he did not have the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) to distinguish between that." So he said, may Allah forgive him, for he knows that the narration of a trustworthy memorizer like Ibn Uyaynah from his memory is not a defect but a point of pride for him, and that blaming a trustworthy person merely on the basis of possibility is not the practice of fair scholars. But it is sectarian bias; we ask Allah for safety. And according to al-Tahawi's madhhab (school of jurisprudence), Allah can forgive kufr, for his saying, the Exalted: And with this verse, Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) argued against Abu Hanifa, who is al-Tahawi's followed authority in the claimed distinction, and he said after it: "So if there were here a kufr that is not shirk, it would be forgiven for whom Allah wills, unlike shirk, and no Muslim says this." Then he followed that with other strong proofs, then he said: "So it is established that every kufr is shirk and every shirk is kufr, and that they are two legal terms that Allah the Exalted placed on one meaning." And if not for the fear of lengthening, I would have quoted all his words for their excellence and rarity, so let whoever wants more knowledge and fiqh refer to it. And the summary is that the hadith is weak in chain and denounced in text, and that seeking assistance from the People of the Book in jihad against the disbelievers is included in his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: In it, before this, is a hadith. And on this occasion, I must speak in light of the previous speech about this great fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) that struck the Muslims due to the baghy (armed rebellion against legitimate authority) of Iraq against Kuwait and its annexation to it in the middle of the month of Muharram of this year 1411, which is the seeking of assistance by the Saudi state from the American and British states and other disbelieving states, fearing that what struck its neighbor Kuwait would strike it, so it would defend it. And in my opinion, this seeking of assistance did not occur after consulting the people of knowledge in it, at least like Shaykh Ibn Baz and other eminent ones, acting on his saying, the Exalted: Because this seeking of assistance is not permissible according to all the previous opinions on the ruling of seeking assistance from disbelievers. As for the stronger position, which is the absolute prohibition, it is clear. And as for the other opinion, it is because they conditioned that Islam be the dominant force, and that the disbeliever be of good opinion of the Muslims, and that there be with the imam a group of Muslims who are independent in implementing the rulings of the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) on those they sought assistance from. And if we know what preceded of clarification, we must look into this great fitnah that descended upon the Muslims due to the aggression of Iraq, to the end of it. The point is that those who permitted seeking assistance said it with the condition that the one seeking assistance be the dominant one.
Abu Layla : These are the previous ones, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Yes, and now there is no [dominance]. Either they return and argue with the hadith or they argue with the opinions of the scholars. The opinions of the scholars are two: an opinion that does not permit seeking the assistance of polytheists absolutely, based on this hadith, and an opinion that distinguishes, saying it is permissible to seek assistance with the condition that the Muslims seeking assistance be the dominant party. This is what we said here; we detailed the statement and we said in some words to those seeking fatwas that if the Americans occupied Khaybar, who would confront them?
Abu Layla : And no one.

The Shaykh : And no one.