He spoke about those who permit seeking the assistance of polytheists.

The Shaykh : So, despite the fact that some of our brothers who were enthusiastic about this unfortunate reality—which I am certain was an individual obligation imposed on the Saudis and, in particular, on their scholars, and their opinion was not sought in it at all—nevertheless, many or few, I do not know what to say, because what reaches us is the least of the little, were enthusiastic and wrote articles, and some wrote theses, on the permissibility of seeking the assistance of disbelievers. They cited incidents as evidence. First, these incidents they cited as evidence are weaker in indicating their intended point than these general evidences regarding this particular issue, because those evidences are, in reality, particulars. So from this perspective, their argument is weaker than their argument in the issue of grasping, do you understand how?

The questioner : How?

The Shaykh : I was absent from this, that is it. We said just now that they cite general evidences in the issue of grasping in the second standing. In the issue of the permissibility of seeking the assistance of disbelievers, they cite specific evidences, meaning specific incidents that do not have generality and comprehensiveness, clear?

The questioner : Is that clear?

The Shaykh : So, from this perspective, it is weaker than their evidences in that particular issue, in that form. This is first. Second, with these particulars, some of which have no relation whatsoever to seeking the assistance of disbelievers in seeking their help in fighting other disbelievers, such as their citing, for example, the evidence of the guide the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) took with Abu Bakr to Madinah. What is this? What relation does this have to seeking the assistance of disbelievers to fight disbelievers? And so on. I do not want to go into the details; they are merely particular evidences that do not contain a general text like this text which they contradicted in those particulars. This is a general text. They opposed it with particulars. Let us look away now, because we do not want to investigate or renew the investigation of something that has passed and ended, and we still find the ominous effects of that painful and unfortunate reality. We agree with them, for the sake of argument, on the permissibility of seeking the assistance of disbelievers, but is this assistance without any limits whatsoever? Or does it have limits, restrictions, and conditions? They took it as absolute. So what is the evidence for its absoluteness? Nothing other than those particular evidences. For example, he sought the assistance of the armor of Safwan ibn Umayyah; this is a particular. He sought the assistance of whom? We reminded you of what?
Al-Halabi : Khuzaa'ah.

The Shaykh : Khuzaa'ah, and so on. Even though he did not seek their assistance; they had an alliance or something similar to that in terms of treaties and agreements. So now, those who said in their articles and wrote in their theses have contradicted all the Muslims, because they made an absolute statement regarding the permissibility of seeking the assistance of disbelievers. And I think I said in some of my recordings and lectures, and perhaps Abu 'Abdullah, Abu al-Harith, andAbu Layla : they will remind me that I said this or did not record it. I said, "There is no one left for them to seek assistance from except the Jews."

The questioner : I said it, yes.

The Shaykh : Did we say this?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : I think that no Muslim with even a particle of intellect would say that it is permissible to seek the aid of the Jews. But did they seek the aid of the Jews? They did not seek the aid of the Jews... and they sought the aid of people worse than the Jews. By Allah, I said, and I think that this is a calamity for which the Muslim world has no parallel. We know that the Muslim world is living in great and very great calamities. But these calamities are of two types. One type is calamities that Muslims acknowledge and try to find a way out of, and another type, to use the Syrian expression, is "yabridghunha." "Bardaghah" is the grease for the smooth, making it shiny; it is deception. And this is known to us, the people of tawhid (the oneness of Allah), that they call istighathah (calling for aid) to other than Allah tawassul (seeking nearness to Allah through a means), and tawassul to other than Allah is drawing near to Allah, and so on. The meaning is that these calamities will not change as long as the mentality is that these are acts of drawing near to Allah and that there is no contradiction with the Shari'ah. And likewise, for example, selling at two prices: the cash price is lower and the deferred price is higher, and they say it is halal. Look, this is also among the evidence: Allah is the Greatest. They are arguing with general texts on which the Muslims have never acted at all. You will not find in the first, second, or third centuries a Muslim who exploits the need of the poor and lends to him, saying, "Go buy your need, and I will pay you the price, but I want a murabahah (a cost-plus sale)." They call it by a name other than its name. Is the earth inhabited? Yes, it is inhabited, but it has been freed, isn't it? Praise be to Allah. The point is that they said and wrote on the permissibility of seeking the aid of disbelievers without limits; they did not place any restrictions on it, even though the Hanbali school of jurisprudence to which they belong restricted seeking aid with a very important condition that indicates their jurisprudence and that they were not influenced by the atmospheres that influence us today, where we change our creed between mid-morning and evening. They said it is permissible to seek the aid of disbelievers on the condition that the dominance be for the Muslims. Allah is the Greatest. That the dominance be for the Muslims. Is the dominance for the Muslims who sought the aid of disbelievers? Or is the dominance for the disbelievers? And I also think, I said, and remind me, for I forget a lot, what guarantees us that there are Jews in the American army, and that these Jews, if they smell the scent of the land of Khaybar, will long for it and occupy it? Who is able to expel them? The Muslim army that sought the aid of the stronger disbeliever? It cannot. So the matter comes back to a miracle from Allah the Exalted, which is the only thing that can save the Saudi land from the colonization that has no parallel in the entire history of Western colonization of the Muslim lands, because the colonizers who colonized the Muslim lands did not enter them except by force against the Muslims. In Syria, the French army did not enter as invaders, and you have all heard of the Battle of Maysalun. And this land, the English did not enter it likewise, and the Jews did not enter Palestine except likewise. So now we are handing over our land, which is supposed to be the heartland of Islam, as a mouthful to them? For what? These are our friends. Until now, we hear on the radio that these disbelievers are our friends. How are these disbelievers our friends when they are the ones who feed the Jews and support the Jews and prevent the implementation of the decisions made by the United Nations or the Security Council, preventing them for the benefit of the Jews? And we come and call them our friends. I wish I knew where the lectures are? Where are the words that were broadcast before this fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) regarding the taking of disbelievers as If this seeking of aid in this wide and very wide circle is not taking disbelievers as allies, then I wish I knew what taking disbelievers as allies is? This is nullifying the Shari'ah texts with what? With very partial evidence that occurred from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), but the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), in any particular case where he sought aid, he was the superior and those who were sought for aid were the inferior. So how can he argue? And our brother al-Rabi', may Allah guide us and guide him, goes and writes a thesis and says what? It is permissible to seek the aid of disbelievers in fighting what? The atheists. This is also another calamity, one that I fear most. What does the person want to say? What is the difference between the Iraqi Ba'ath Party and the Syrian Ba'ath Party? We wrote a thesis on fighting the Iraqi Muslims, and I say it frankly, despite their shortcomings and their flaws, but in any case, they are Muslims and not Ba'athists. Rather, the Ba'ath is the ruler, like the Syrian people, of whom I am one. Am I a Ba'athist? Are the thousands, or rather millions, of Syrians Ba'athists? No, by Allah. But the rulers, these are Ba'athists. So what is the difference between permitting the seeking of aid from the Americans and the British, who are the fiercest enemies of the Muslims, and in those who sought their aid is the Syrian Ba'ath Party!! Well, what is the difference between the Syrian Ba'ath Party and the Iraqi Ba'ath Party? In reality, there is no seeking of aid by the Saudis from the Saudis, nor from America, but rather it was imposed on them by force. And if we assume that the Saudis said, "Come in, Bush, save us from the Ba'ath Party," Bush imposed that the Egyptian army and the Syrian army must be there, so that we show the Muslim world that this is not an American aggression; these are Arab armies fighting with the American and British armies. So how can he write a thesis that will be recorded, God willing, for many years on the permissibility of seeking the aid of the Americans and the British to fight the Iraqi army, which does not represent the disbelieving Ba'ath Party like the Syrian army? Rather, the Syrian army represents the Ba'ath Party more than the Iraqi army, because the Syrian army is composed of Alawites and Ismailis, whereas the Iraqi army, without a doubt, has many Ba'athists, but as a people, Sunni or Shia, it is contradictory. The point is to justify this reality. So we ask that the veil be lifted from the Ummah (the Muslim community), and there is no one who can lift it except Allah. Did you hear something new?

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good. It is the same old thing. Our Shaykh, may Allah reward you with good, I mean, what do we think? I mean, why do you think that some leaders of the Islamic movement in Jordan, in particular, became and supported Saddam...

The Shaykh : Because they rule according to their own desires and do not stand by the Shari'ah. I mean, they are defending Iraq. So, what is the difference between Iraq as a ruler and any other ruler who may beautify his rule and his actions? There is absolutely no difference in that. And therefore, we have been, and remain, and praise be to Allah for that, caught between the two stones of a mill. When we denounce the Saudis seeking the aid of disbelievers, we become an enemy to the Saudis, even though we are with them, at least, in the oneness of Allah. And when we denounce the praise of Saddam and that he has changed and his condition has improved, and so on, and we wait—this is a man who spent about twenty years, or a quarter of a century, imposing the Ba'ath Party on the Muslims there, along with its rulings, and many righteous Muslims were killed. We did not feel pity for the Ba'ath Party; rather, we felt pity for the Iraqi people. And now you see the effects of seeking the aid of disbelievers: what has befallen the Iraqi people in terms of tearing apart and fragmentation, where the Americans are in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and Allah knows when they will leave. So we ask Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to have mercy on His Muslim servants, to inspire them to return to the religion with the correct understanding, and not to be partisan to a ruler. And let them suspend the term that has become widespread in the modern age: "the one in authority." This is what he wants. Who is the one in authority? It is 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. He is a man from among the people. It is obligatory upon the one in authority, from ancient times, to form a council of consultation, and he is in greater need of this methodology than 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. If 'Umar ibn al-Khattab wanted to rely on his opinion, his person, and his knowledge, especially after hearing that testimony from the one who , he would have done as he pleased: "Do this, do not do that. Do this, do not do that. Attack and hold, and so on." But he did not know as Allah revealed to the heart of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) . And the Messenger of Allah is more entitled to not consult, let alone 'Umar. 'Umar is more entitled to consult than the Messenger, and the Messenger is more entitled than 'Umar to not consult, because he does not speak except by revelation from the heavens. But he made it an eternal legal principle: . So every Muslim state that claims to rule by the Shari'ah of Allah and to judge by what Allah has revealed must, above all, have a council of consultation. This council must include, first, a select group of scholars: scholars of the Shari'ah, and second, scholars in all the sciences that this society needs, whether it be economics, society, politics, the army, and so on. If an emergency befalls the Muslim lands, this council is consulted, and then it is said, "The one in authority has seen such and such." As for the one in authority who did not consult, and was told to do such and such, and he did it, and then he imposes upon the scholars to justify and legitimize this reality—this is absolutely not of Islam in any way. And therefore, I want to seize this opportunity and take advantage of the presence of an old brother of ours, who perhaps has knowledge by which we can correct some of our previous concepts. We say that the Americans brought their army to Saudi Arabia without consulting the scholars. What is your opinion? Did they consult?

Another questioner : No, Shaykh. The consultation did not take place until after the American army was already present, approximately.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. This is what we believe, unfortunately, with great regret.

Another questioner : But even, Shaykh, regarding the permissibility, it does not apply to the current situation in the Kingdom, because the matter has exceeded, I mean, the level of seeking aid; it has become, approximately, American leadership regarding the war.

The Shaykh : It has become so?

Another questioner : American leadership. I mean, even before the attack, they gathered to study the land attack, and the leaders who gathered did not include

The Shaykh : any Saudi

The Shaykh : or any Arab, approximately.

The Shaykh : We said this was our assumption before.

Another questioner : As for the withdrawal, it is not expected, I mean. Now the American forces are working to establish bases...

The Shaykh : There is no power and no strength except with Allah.

Another questioner : And they have heavy weapons. When needed, the American forces present in the Indian subcontinent, with a guard of nearly ten thousand or nine thousand soldiers, guard these bases. If anything happens inside the Kingdom, the planes drop paratroopers into these bases.

The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar. This is the problem. This is colonialism.

Another questioner : Abu Bakr al-Jazairi says, as Al-Albani said, "The lands were not colonized as..." So colonialism can be military, and it can be in the citizens and locations, and so on...

The Shaykh : Okay, we heard news about our dear friend, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen. First, news that supported seeking aid, then we heard another news, as if, I mean, after he saw it, as if he changed his opinion. Is this true? As we hope.

Another questioner : I do not know, Shaykh. But rumors are many during events.

The Shaykh : No, now we are done with the events, they claim.

Another questioner : But what is known about the Shaykh is that if he changed his statement, all people know about it. So if he retracted his fatwa, he must announce it to everyone.

The Shaykh : I mean, you have no information.

Another questioner : Nothing has reached us. Even the rumors say that Shaykh 'Abd al-'Aziz retracted, but the Shaykh still affirms that he has not retracted his fatwa.

The Shaykh : Like this.

Another questioner : This is Shaykh Ibn Baz. As for Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, we have not heard anything from him of this speech.

The Shaykh : Okay, there is a perception that there was pressure on Shaykh Ibn Baz.

Another questioner : Allah knows, Shaykh. But I think the Shaykh is not one of the people who submits to pressure. You might say misguidance, or that he was given incorrect information, that is possible.

The Shaykh : Yes, you may.

Another questioner : But the pressure, what is he being pressured about?

The Shaykh : This is what we know about the Shaykh. Allah is the helper.

Another questioner : This is what we assumed about Shaykh 'Abd al-'Aziz, that he is not one of those who is pressured.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is not far-fetched, because...

Another questioner : Especially during the events, the Shaykh was isolated. It was very difficult to reach him by phone. I tried for about half a month and could not reach the Shaykh during the events.

The Shaykh : Okay, Shaykh 'Aman. There are questions here. Do you have such questions?

The questioner : From which aspect?

The Shaykh : That he is perhaps connected to some government entities there.

Another questioner : By Allah, Shaykh, Shaykh Muhammad 'Aman is known for his sound creed.

The Shaykh : All those who wrote and supported this, it has no relation to creed. This has to do with independent legal reasoning.

Another questioner : I mean, the Shaykh's words may be severe in his response. He spoke withThe Shaykh : Rabi' about the response, and he said, "I was harsh with our Shaykh"The Shaykh : Nasser. And it reached us that the Shaykh said, "This is my African-ness" regarding Shaykh Muhammad 'Aman. And he apologized in a previous gathering that brought people together and said,The Shaykh : "Nasser is one of our sheikhs, and some of the words that came from me, I did not intend them for the Shaykh. Rather, the response was general. And some newspapers exploited the direction of the speech so that, for example, they mention the criticism ofThe Shaykh : Nasser, and then they come with the praise of Abu Ghuddah on the same page. Yes.

The Shaykh: O Allah, OAbu Layla .