What is the position of a student of knowledge regarding the conflicting fatwas in the Gulf fitnah?

The questioner : The truth is that a fatwa is like 'Abdullah al-Maqtul; do not be the slave of the killer. I mean, may Allah know best, the vision of the truth of the Ummah or the methodology they work in. Everything is for the Ummah. The Ummah now needs tawhid (the oneness of Allah)?

The Shaykh : This hadith has no relation to what happened. This hadith has no relation to the problem that occurred. So tell me what you have. What is your question?

The questioner : My question is that the assistance of Saudi Arabia by foreign forces came, and news arrived that there was a Yemeni movement on the Saudi border. If you say, for example, that one who sees the impermissibility of seeking the aid of these mushrikin (those who associate partners with Allah), then by whom do Muslims seek aid to repel this Ba'athist aggression that halted the da'wah (calling others to Islam) in Kuwait?

The Shaykh : Allah is sufficient for me. Allah is sufficient for me.

The questioner : And it halted all good deeds and scattered the sons and families...?

The Shaykh : Leave the emotional language.

The questioner : Okay, fine.

The Shaykh : Leave the emotional language.

The questioner : By whom do they seek aid in such a time? And you know the weakness of the capabilities of even the Muslim armies, and perhaps treachery may come from them. And as I told you, confirmed information arrived that there was a movement from the direction of Yemen, but the Saudi Guard confronted them. These are fitnahs (trials, discord or temptation). We ask Allah the Exalted to deliver the Muslims from the evil of... all of them, and that it be nothing but good for the Islamic Ummah as a whole?

The Shaykh : My brother, you are afflicted, and the Muslims are afflicted, but this does not solve the problem. We must know the ruling of Allah Mighty and Majestic in what the Muslims have been afflicted with. So now, are you asking or complaining? You must be asking.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So what is your question?

The questioner : My question is, if you, may your excellence be honored, see the impermissibility of seeking the aid of mushrikin (those who associate partners with Allah)?

The Shaykh : First, this is not an opinion, you know that. This is a text from the Infallible Prophet, is it not?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, so why do you say "you see"?

The questioner : Because there are those who see the opposite of this!

The Shaykh : Say "the opposite is an opinion." But when I tell you, your Prophet said to you: , do not tell me "you see." I am narrating to you and to those like you who were deceived by the propaganda that they see seeking aid, and you presented a justification for such seeking aid. But I felt that you entered a topic that has absolutely no relation to the question. And this shows you that you are telling me "you see such and such." I do not see this. This is not an opinion. This is stated in the most authentic books after the Book of Allah and after Sahih al-Bukhari, which is Sahih Muslim. Is this my opinion?!

The questioner : But this is a Shaykh's fatwa!

The Shaykh : No problem, I am just asking you: Is this my opinion?

The questioner : You quoted the text!

The Shaykh : I ask you, may Allah guide you, do not make me repeat the question three times so that you do not tell me "yes, this is your opinion" or "it is not an opinion." You know what the meaning of "opinion" is? If I tell you "establish the prayer," do you tell me "this is your opinion"?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : What is this?

The questioner : This is a text.

The Shaykh : Okay, and I tell you, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said such and such. Is this an opinion?

The questioner : No, it is a text.

The Shaykh : Why did you not say that from the beginning? May Allah reward you and forgive you.

The questioner : Perhaps I erred in the wording. I meant this fatwa, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : No problem. I am saying, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . We adopt this and we testify to Allah with it. Okay, what is your question now? We have not yet reached the question. We are correcting, we are removing the obstacles from the path. What is the question?

The questioner : My question now is that some of the scholars of the Muslims have issued a fatwa permitting the seeking of aid from mushrikin (those who associate partners with Allah) to repel this Ba'athist enemy from the Ummah, and some scholars issue a fatwa prohibiting the seeking of aid from these mushrikin.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : So what is it that the young Muslim is obligated to act upon? Does he take the fatwa of the people of his region, or the town he lives in, and act upon it and find peace of heart with that? Or does he look at the contrary? And may Allah reward you with good?

The Shaykh : Allah the Exalted said: . The dispute occurred as you described, or not? Say yes.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, so what does the verse say: . The tree is between the scholars as you mentioned now. So I told you, and you may be a scholar, do not rush me. And you may be a student of knowledge, do not rush me. And you may be from the general Muslims. So you are now, at least, [following] the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): . And you know the reason for the saying, is it not?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, so you have known the saying of one of the two disputing parties. What is the argument of the other party that contradicts this evidence which the first party argues with? As far as you know, what is the argument?

The questioner : I mentioned in a fatwa of some scholars that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sought the aid of Jubayr ibn 'Adi or Ma'tam ibn 'Adi, so he took from this a text proving the permissibility that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sought the aid of non-Muslims!
To the questioner: No problem, we do not need to explain this evidence. You found it, meaning it is permissible to rely on it and oppose it with ?

The questioner : I am not in the position of issuing fatwas, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : I am not in the position of issuing fatwas?

The Shaykh : You did not answer me. I am asking you about what is in your heart. Are you reassured by this seeking of aid that those who issued the fatwa mentioned, that this is valid to argue with it for this painful reality of the entry of the disbelievers, the enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and the supporters of the Jews in the tyranny over Palestine? This seeking of aid is like that, until you and those like you from the general Muslims are convinced that this is a fatwa, and its evidence is this evidence which supports this seeking of aid that they did. And this hadith that you mentioned does not negate this seeking of aid. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says: . And they are seeking aid from the mushrikin (those who associate partners with Allah) and from the great power on the face of the earth today, and even from other countries. Then you mentioned in your emotional language just now that the Ba'athist Iraq, what is the Ba'ath, etc., correct? But how did you ignore that the Ba'ath entered with the Americans into the lands of those who fled from the Ba'ath by seeking the aid of the disbelievers? Do you know this reality or not? I think you did not notice it.

The questioner : It is not clear to me.

The Shaykh : Do you not know that the Syrian army is there?

The questioner : Yes?

The Shaykh : Ah, okay. They fled from the Ba'ath and brought the Ba'ath. All of this, all of this is a deception of the eyes of the people. That if we had not sought the aid of these disbelievers, Saddam and the Ba'ath would have done so and so, etc. Then they offered the Saudi lands as a free meal to the Ba'ath and disbelief. It is one religion, there is no difference between Ba'ath and Ba'ath at all. So all of this is from the category of throwing dust in the eyes. This is one thing. The second thing, this behavior, unfortunately, if not for the emotions that play with the minds of the Muslims, no Muslim on the face of the earth would have accepted what happened today of the entry of the Americans, welcoming them and returning them in the lands of Islam with the festivals of disbelief and misguidance. This did not happen if the Muslims were using their minds. Now, does Islam distinguish between Islamic land and another land? Say no. Because this is a self-evident truth like the sun in the fourth hour of the day, correct?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, why did Saudi Arabia not seek the aid of the Americans in solving the Afghan problem? Why? Because it is not the land of Saudi Arabia, correct!

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : You did not answer me?

The questioner: Correct.

The Shaykh : I am asking you. Say "no," do not say "yes." Your conviction. I do not impose an opinion on a person ever. Why did they not seek aid? Because it is not the land of Saudi Arabia. Then I say, and it is stranger, why did Saudi Arabia not seek the aid of the Americans to expel the Jews from the lands of Islam and the Muslims and al-Aqsa Mosque? And our nerves have been numbed from how much we hear, what is the third of the two Sacred Mosques in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere? Why did Saudi Arabia not seek aid to expel the Jews from Palestine? Because the Americans are in Palestine, not others, correct? Or not! Or do you have doubt? It seems a little.

The questioner : No, I have no doubt.

The Shaykh : ... Let it be a word that has that heat in it.

The questioner : Our question is, truly, is it a great fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : It is not merely a great trial; the great trial would be truly great if the Americans had attacked with their planes, tanks, and all their weapons, and occupied Saudi Arabia by force. That would undoubtedly be a great trial. But the greatest trial is that we ignore the painful reality. We are compared to the ostrich, which they say is so foolish that, despite its size being like a camel’s, when it sees the hunter, it puts its head in the sand and thinks that since it does not see the hunter, the hunter does not see it. These Americans have entered with their various, innumerable schemes and plots. They have entered Saudi Arabia. It is enough for us to say, “There is no power nor might except with Allah.” We have no ability to repel this massive army of naval and aerial giants, and so on. But to say that this is permissible and necessary, and that “necessities permit the prohibited,” and to set up and utilize all the known types of media, and to exploit the best of the scholars to issue fatwas from them, whether out of necessity or choice—this is what we know. Between them and their Lord, this is an obligatory and necessary matter. When did this necessity occur? When Iraq decided to occupy Kuwait, and the Saudis feared that their territory would also be occupied. What about Afghanistan? That is not Islamic territory. Why did this heat not appear except on this occasion? Therefore, all these movements are not Islamic. I am satisfied to say that if it were not for this hadith , I would say these actions are not Islamic, because Islam does not distinguish. When we give lectures to the Muslim masses, we boast that Islam does not recognize regionalism, does not recognize municipal boundaries, does not recognize tribalism, and so on. If a Muslim land is attacked in the far north or the far south, all Muslims must rush to defend it. This statement is written in the pages of the books, but today it has no place in grammar, as the grammarians say, absolutely, because Islamic lands have become small states today, and each of these states acts contrary to the ruling of the Shari'ah. We do not interfere in internal affairs; this is not Islam. And now, how does Islam allow the Americans to raise the cross in the land of tawhid (the oneness of Allah)? How is it allowed? How do women walk in the streets clothed yet naked? And finally... how?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... Bush’s celebration, their Christmas celebration in Saudi Arabia.

The questioner : The prayer of thanksgiving.

The Shaykh : No, that was before.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : As for now, it is Christmas here. The important thing is, may Allah bless you. The issue is very serious, but mercy upon you, some evil is less than some. When the enemy occupies your land and you believe that this occupation is against your will, you try as much as you can with the means available to expel it one day. But if you believe that this is your protector, you will say to him, “Welcome, and may Allah reward you with good.” Is it not enough for you to know this great misguidance? They declare that they sought help from Islamic countries. And what are the “friendly” countries? Which are the friendly countries they sought help from? America and Britain. Well, are these friends of the Muslims? They are the cause of the calamity that befell Palestine. O people, fear Allah, open your eyes, do not close your minds. This is the calamity of the age. Islamic history does not know such an incident at all. We do not seek help from a single polytheist, let alone from the great powers who pay millions of dollars in the way of occupying land with blood and money, and so on. So a palatable morsel was presented to them, and you will know how we warn. Will it actually come out as broadcast by the Americans? If Kuwait returns to its people? And we hope that will be soon. And Iraq will exit Kuwait, but Iraq will exit in exchange for a price paid to it, and this is necessary. In any case, it will exit Kuwait, whether entirely, partially, or in part. This is for history; let us leave it. But the Americans will not exit Saudi Arabia, unfortunately. And yet we justify this and say it is permissible. What is the evidence? Seeking help from a polytheist who points out the road? Allahu Akbar. What harm is there in seeking help from a foolish disbeliever from whom no harm is feared? But seeking help from disbelievers, and the strongest state on earth, who have stripped our sacred lands under the pretext that we cannot win with our own hands, as you said, “I am sorry, I am sorry, I said that Saddam is someone the Saudis cannot stand against.” And I say, “I am sorry, yes, but it is not like that,” as it was said:
“O Sa'd, you are wrapped in your cloak, / It is not like this, O Sa'd, that you drive the camels.”
We are now resuming the matter. What is the ruling of the Shari'ah if Iraq wanted to invade Saudi Arabia? Is it obligatory for the Saudis to employ all means of strength, jihad, and fighting to prevent Saddam from occupying the country? And should the Saudis seek help from Islamic countries, from those who respond and those who do not? This is a second matter. Or do they directly seek help from disbelievers? Where is ? They did not do any of this at all. Then, did Saudi Arabia prepare for such a black day? It has sat for these long years, blessed by Allah with wealth that boggles people’s minds. As time passes, we hear that they gave the Russian state, which was the most hostile enemy of the Muslims, so many billions, and so on. Did they prepare for such a day? No. Now they boast that they are the most advanced state among Arab states, or they call them “developing states,” or what do they call them again?

The questioner : The Third World.

The Shaykh : The Third World. So it is the most advanced state among these states in terms of the economic and social aspects, and in the religious aspect, and in the readiness for jihad in the path of Allah, at least to repel the enemy’s aggression. Not the jihad that we used to condition on having a Caliph for the Muslims, pledged to by them. So if the Muslims fall short in performing the duty of defending their lands and their honor, does this justify them in seeking help from disbelievers? In that, there is corruption of their lands and their honor as well. And the protests presented by some women there, that they do not want blind, sightless muftis, and so on—this is the first rain of the downpour, and then it pours down, unfortunately.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar. All of this, if the Americans had not entered, the heads of the hypocrites would not have been raised. These are the ones living in Saudi Arabia.

The questioner : And we ask Allah...

Another questioner : So the ruling, meaning...

The Shaykh : It is only Bayt al-Maqdis (Al-Aqsa).

The questioner : May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : Only.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The questioner : And beware, and you, may Allah reward you with good.