What is your opinion on the argumentation of some scholars regarding the issue of seeking assistance from disbelievers, using the hadith: “You will make a safe treaty with the Romans, and you and they will fight an enemy behind you…”

Al-Halabi : There is a hadith that some scholars cited as evidence in the issue under discussion, which is what they mentioned: that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

The Shaykh : Be patient with it... Yes.
Al-Halabi : Some scholars cited a hadith as evidence in this issue we are currently discussing, which they reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and it is His saying: They said: Imam Ahmad and Abu Dawud narrated it with a sound chain. So what is the extent of the correctness of their claim, and what is the correct meaning of this hadith?

The Shaykh : First, citing this hadith as evidence for what we were just discussing, which is the strong condemnation of seeking assistance from disbelievers, is unrelated to this topic at all. Because making a treaty between Muslims and some disbelievers is one thing, and seeking assistance from disbelievers is another. This is the first point. If disbelievers fight alongside Muslims against a common enemy, this does not mean that the Muslims sought their help; rather, this occurred due to the existing treaty between the Muslims and those disbelievers. This is what I want to say first. And the answer in brief: making a treaty with disbelievers, and then disbelievers joining Muslims in fighting a common enemy, is one thing; and Muslims asking their disbeliever enemy to fight another enemy is another thing. This is the first point. Second, this hadith I recited earlier is a part of a hadith, and the hadith has a continuation. In reality, if we look at the continuation of the hadith, the hadith becomes an argument against them, and it ceases to be an argument for them, more completely than the previous explanation, because we said there is no necessary connection between Muslims making a treaty with some disbelievers and these disbelievers joining Muslims in fighting their common enemy. But what you will hear as the complete hadith confirms that the hadith is an argument against the permissibility of seeking assistance, even though the hadith does not mention seeking assistance, it indicates the bad outcome of Muslims joining with some disbelievers who are not enemies of the Muslims but have made a treaty with them. Nevertheless, the outcome will be to the detriment of the Muslims. And now we extract the hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud with the full wording, and it is also in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad with a sound chain: How is it permissible to cite this hadith to justify what Saudi Arabia is doing now?! This hadith first reports a hidden matter: Is there a treaty now between Muslims and the Americans? Where is the treaty? And I heard, and perhaps some of you share in hearing, that this wicked Bush said: “It is not permissible now.” The meaning of his words is that it is not permissible to exploit the issue of Palestine, i.e., to negotiate. He said negotiating in the issue of Palestine in order to solve the existing problem. Did you hear this or not?
Al-Halabi : It is not permissible to link issues.

The Shaykh : If there is a treaty between Muslims and disbelievers, the treaty must be for the benefit of the Muslims, and not leaving things as they are, but rather explicitly stating that this relationship is a second issue, even though the issue of Palestine is an Islamic issue, while this here is a purely Crusader issue. Will the Americans win for Kuwait? Will they win for the Saudis? They are liars; it is for their own benefit. So the point of the hadith says: Now there are no interests with the Romans. Now there is a Syrian expression that says: “I scratch your back, you scratch mine.” Mutual interests: Saudi Arabia wants to protect its money, its lands, its oil, and the Americans also want to protect these American interests in Saudi Arabia in general, and its oil in particular. So if there is no treaty between Muslims and the Romans, this is the first point. So the hadith has no relation to reality at all. Second, we said earlier that making a treaty and fighting a common enemy is one thing, and seeking assistance from disbelievers is another. And remember the previous detail: seeking assistance from the largest country on earth. I mentioned, perhaps our brothers remember this, that I mentioned that some scholars who went to the permissibility of seeking assistance from disbelievers—and this, unfortunately, exists in the Hanbali school by which the Saudis rule, except for rare cases—but thank Allah, this school was vigilant and set a condition and a requirement. If the Saudi government had adhered to it, it would not have fallen into this sin and the greatest transgression. What did the Hanbali school and the Shafi'i school say? They said it is permissible to seek assistance from disbelievers to fight disbeliever polytheists, on the condition that the Muslims have dominance over those being assisted. I seek refuge in Allah, where are we and where is this condition? The disbelievers have dominance, and the proof is that this disbeliever will return his disbelief to the lands of Islam. Why did not Saudi Arabia say this is not permissible in our religion? Why was the British cross raised next to the Saudi flag of “There is no god but Allah”? Because there is no dominance of Muslims over disbelievers. In summary: This hadith contains a great news that the outcome of joining with disbelievers is not seeking their assistance; joining with disbelievers in fighting a common enemy will be a cause of fitnah, and this will happen. The Christian says the cross is what defeated the Muslim. Islamic jealousy takes him, and he kills him, so the disbelievers avenge their killed one, and the battle occurs between Muslims and the Romans who had recently made a treaty with Muslims. Then it is known that if Muslims make a truce with disbelievers or make a treaty with them, there is no objection to this, but they must be vigilant, they must be wise, and not betray them. So the seeking assistance that some schools mentioned, they conditioned it that the dominance be for the one seeking assistance, not for those being assisted. And therefore, what has happened now is not only against the Sunnah, but against the schools, and not only against the four schools, but against forty and four hundred, because no one approves of this situation which cannot be described except by a person given a tongue. So the point, if the summary of the answer regarding the hadith: First, it has no relation to seeking assistance. Second, the fighting occurred with the Christians or the Romans, who are Christians, to fight a common enemy for Muslims and for the Romans whom Muslims made a treaty with. Nevertheless, what was the outcome? The outcome was that the disbelievers betrayed the Muslims, and the great battle occurred, and the meaning of the great battle is a very huge war. So I feel that forcing this hadith into the current topic indicates that the group does not have clear evidence to justify this painful reality, so they resort to such weak arguments that have no connection at all to the event.