Explanation of the Hadith on Seeking Help from a Polytheist.

The questioner : First, I love you for the sake of Allah, O Shaykh. As you know, the honorable...The Shaykh : The aggression of Iraq against the State of Kuwait is not permissible, but some of the Islamic groups present here and in other countries supported that aggression, or supported being with Iraq against America, and they did not clarify their objective regarding its occupation of Kuwait?

The Shaykh : How? How?

The questioner : They did not clarify the objective of the occupation of Kuwait; they did not make clear their goal: is the occupation of Kuwait permissible or not permissible? They did not clarify this. Rather, most of their sermons and slogans were simply against America, meaning, "We are with them against America." They claimed this on the pretext that, although the ruler of Iraq is a Ba'athist, or has some characteristics that contradict Islam, their argument was that perhaps Allah will guide the ruler of Iraq one day or one night. Even though Iraq, or the ruler of Iraq, did much harm to many Muslims, especially the State of Kuwait, including killing and shedding blood, particularly those with beards, and he ordered the shaving of beards. And Allah the Exalted said: And they also cited, from the discussions?

The Shaykh : Excuse me, the verse is their argument?

The questioner : No, it is my argument.

The Shaykh : Or are you saying? Ah.

The questioner : Yes, it is my argument.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner, and they also cited that, meaning, hadiths and reports have established that, in reality, these are reports supporting Iraq against America, and that a war will occur, and that Iraq will defeat America. They brought hadiths; Allah knows their authenticity. What is your opinion, O honorable...The Shaykh : Meaning, among the scholars of Saudi Arabia who issued fatwas and permitted some of them, except whom Allah has mercy, the entry of America into the Saudi state? What is your opinion?

The Shaykh : Your question, and you were present at the lecture we delivered when we first sat in this place, so it is not befitting to repeat the speech in answer to the question, because my opinion was clear when we said that Saddam's aggression against Kuwait is not permissible, and that it is the cause of this blind, deaf, weeping fitnah that Muslims are living today. And among the effects of this overwhelming aggression is that Saudi Arabia will fall into a violation without precedent in the entire history of Islam, which is to seek help from disbelievers who are definitively among the most ardent enemies of Islam and Muslims. You heard all of this, so it was befitting for you to specify your question?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Therefore, I tell you, you must specify your question. What is it?

The questioner : I made a mistake.

The Shaykh : Specify your question?

The questioner : How do we respond to the one who said that Allah may guide the ruler of Iraq in an instant or in the blink of an eye, and the hadiths that...?

The Shaykh : This is, as they say, like a drowning man clinging to the threads of the moon. I say, "Perhaps he will be guided," but we always tell our brothers...The questioner : ...when they ask a question and include this word in the question, "perhaps." And I say, "Perhaps he will be guided," but this "perhaps" is met with another "perhaps": perhaps he will not be guided. We want the reality; we do not want to turn a blind eye to this reality. The example is struck of the ostrich, which is said to be "dumber than an ostrich." Why? Because it sees the enemy, the hunter, and puts its head in the sand so it does not see the hunter. So out of its foolishness, it says, "Since it does not see the hunter, the hunter therefore does not see it," even though the ostrich, what Allah willed, is one of the greatest birds, like the camel. Perhaps he will be guided, and perhaps he will not. Can a Muslim say of a person who is astray that it is impossible for him to be guided? It is impossible for him to be guided? But the opposite: does he not say it is possible that he will not be guided? So we must look at the reality. We do not deal with the reality with probabilities that revolve between "perhaps" and "perhaps," meaning, perhaps he will be guided and perhaps he will not. And as the common proverb says: "A bird in the hand is better than ten on the tree." Especially since you pointed to the deeds of Saddam. It is sufficient that he still adopts the leadership of the Ba'ath Socialist Party, which has no connection to Islam. Is this not a turning of a blind eye, like the ostrich, to his party and his deviation from Islam and what he did to Muslims, past and present? Then after that, we say, "Perhaps Allah will guide him." Yes, perhaps Allah will guide him, and perhaps He will not. How do we deal with him? Do we deal with him based on his reality, or based on the unknown reality of the unseen, which we cannot say will be good or that it will worsen upon worsening? This bad reality that Muslims have witnessed, past and present, since he became the head of this state, and finally when he aggressed against his neighbor Kuwait, is sufficient. So this is a matter of simplicity and heedlessness to leave the established reality unaddressed and to place probabilities that perhaps Allah the Exalted will guide him and perhaps He will not. How is the conduct with him? Then there is a verse that says: Is this a command? Are we to be with the disbelievers? Are we to be with the wicked? No. Our Lord says, "Be with the believers who are sincere." What is said about Saddam is what I said just now: Are we to be with the disbelievers, my brother? Perhaps they will be guided, right? And I never distinguish between the one who says, "Our Lord may guide Saddam," and the one who says, "Perhaps He will guide his opponent, Bush." There is no difference between them. Can a Muslim say, "It is impossible that Allah will guide Bush"? It is impossible? And I am with those who say it is impossible to say, "He will not be guided." How do we know? This is the unseen. If one looks at the history of some of the great Companions and what they were upon before their Islam, of the severe hostility toward Islam and the Prophet of Islam, like 'Umar ibn al-Khattab... If one looked at him at that time, fighting the Messenger of Allah and the believers in the Messenger of Allah with the most severe fighting, even his relatives fighting them, would it occur to the observer at that time that this is possible, that he will be guided? It would not occur. But if asked, "Is it possible that this person will be guided?" he could not say anything except that it is possible that he will be guided, but it is possible that he will not be guided. It does not become a fact until he is guided. So I say this is exactly like that: perhaps our Lord will guide Saddam, and perhaps our Lord will guide Bush, Saddam's enemy. But how do we treat these two men? On the basis that it is possible that He will guide them, or do we look at their reality? I say those who say about Saddam, "Perhaps," these people are either simpletons or charlatans; there is no third option, absolutely. Otherwise, what is the difference between a person who says, "Bush, my brother, is an enemy of Islam and Muslims, and he helps the Jews. Perhaps Allah will guide him and he will become a strength for Islam and Muslims. Anything is possible, and that is not difficult for Allah." But why do we live in fantasy? Why do we not deal with this reality? What is the position of Muslims toward Bush? A position of hostility or affection and friendship? Look now at the Islamic states and Islamic peoples; they see the marvels. These people say, as you reported, that Saddam stood against Bush, and this is a position that must be respected. Why? Because Bush is an enemy of Islam and Muslims. Before that, in two words, perhaps Allah will guide him. Strike this with that, and the result is zero on the left, as they say. So I say, and I return to what I said just now: We know of Saddam what we know of Bush. Saddam rules an Islamic Arab land, but he has not ruled it by Islam to this moment. So if we consider the probability, this probability is like that probability. Bush is the number one enemy of Islam today; he is against Muslims in all Islamic lands. This opposition was manifested by this game he performed, which caused discord among Muslims, states and individuals, as you see. So the matter remains to be solved by these simpletons or charlatans: Bush might become a friend of Islam. Perhaps this is how issues are dealt with by those who want to lead Muslims to victory.
"O Sa'd, you have watered the camels, and Sa'd is wrapped up. It is not thus, O Sa'd, that camels are watered."
So it is not permissible to turn a blind eye to the painful reality in the probability that this painful reality will change. Otherwise, let everything remain as it is. Say about all the rulers of Muslims, about the Muslims individually, that every one of them does not apply Islam in themselves. Do not do anything, do not call to Islam, because all those whom you call to Islam and command to apply Islam may apply Islam. Put your hands in cold water and the matter is over. This is a farce beyond a farce. I think there is no other question in what you have raised that you specify, and do not evade it as you did at first. Is there something else, and what is it?