Is it permissible for Muslims to submit to the systems established by the disbelievers, such as the restriction of weapons for Arab states, or is it not permissible?

The questioner : Now, my sir, there are actually plots circulating, and it appears that they will be implemented after the war with the disbelieving Iraq. We used to call it the Iraqi-Iranian war, and now we call the war with the disbelieving Iraq a war against the disbelievers. There are plans for specific arrangements for the region known as the Middle East, which is the Arab Islamic region. Among the proposals that have been agreed upon is the imposition of control over the weapons that Arab Muslim states may possess. Is it permissible in the Shari'ah to accept the principle that states—whether they are disbelieving, or in agreement with other Arab or Muslim states—should restrict the capability and potential of other Muslim states to arm themselves in order to defend themselves? And if it is not permissible, and the matter is one of dire necessity, meaning that you cannot possess these weapons in the first place, or possess their components? Second, in the second place, these states that want to impose this restriction on you, even without the participation of other Arab states, are capable at any moment of doing to you what they did to Iraq. The main issue with Iraq was that it possessed a strong army and effective weapons. Now, it is desired that no Arab or Islamic power should rise in this region so that they do not take control of this high technology. What is the ruling of the Shari'ah in this matter? Do we resist? Do we break the stick of obedience? Or what?

The Shaykh : I believe that the answer to such a question is not hidden from any Muslim, there is no difference between a scholar and a student. I believe that this question has many, many examples. And such a ruling stems from the non-implementation of the Islamic Shari'ah by all Arab states in a complete, Shari'ah-compliant manner. This has created in Islamic societies various groups with different directions and ideas, including the group that was called in some past years the Group of Takfir and Emigration, and which now calls itself the Group of Jihad. These people declare that these states that rule by other than what Allah has revealed are disbelieving states, and that it is obligatory to rise against them and fight them. When we discuss this type of people, we discuss them from two aspects. The first aspect is that declaring these rulers to be disbelievers and excluding them from the fold of Islam is an exaggeration in speech that is not permissible. Because a Muslim cannot be excluded from the fold of Islam except if he denies something of the rulings of Islam and that denial becomes apparent from him, and not merely for his practical opposition to Islam. This is not the point of discussion here, nor is it the evidence here. Rather, the point is that we say to them: And second, suppose that these states or these rulers are actually disbelievers who have apostatized from Islam, what can you do with them? You want to fight them and wage jihad against them, yet you have not been able to fight the Jews who settled in your lands and occupied them despite your noses and despite all the Arab states. We must return, Abu Yahya, to the question you raised earlier. Perhaps you remember that my answers in the fitnah that arose, and whose bad effects we are still living with, some people, due to their lack of understanding and lack of fiqh, may imagine that I contradicted my answers at the beginning of the fitnah and my answers at the end of it. I say, some people mean, we used to advise the enthusiasts from both sides, the entrenched ones and the armed ones, if the expression is correct: stay in your homes. But later we said that it is obligatory for Islamic states to fight with Iraq against the disbelieving states and their allies. Why is there this difference in the answer? I do not know if you received the tape in which the learned jurist should not be rigid, but rather should develop with events, giving each situation its proper form and ruling. I gave two jurisprudential examples for this. The first example: khamr (intoxicants) is forbidden because it intoxicates. This same drink, after it has fermented and become vinegar, has moved from prohibition to permissibility. Did you receive this tape?

The questioner : Yes. It actually came to us. He is asking on behalf of...

The Shaykh : On behalf of you.

The questioner : Not on behalf of... Is this the tape you are referring to?

The Shaykh : No, I don't think so.

Another questioner: He

The Shaykh : Is it? Ah, he was present.

The questioner : I was not present.

The Shaykh : No, I am saying Abu Malik was present. The point is. And the second example, which was also mentioned in that tape: water is purifying, purifier, and pure, so the three rulings apply to it. It may move from its state of being a purifier to being merely pure; it is pure, so if it touches clothes it does not make them impure, but it does not purify the body, and wudu' (ablution) is not valid with it. Then, if ritual impurity falls into it, it moves it from its state of being a purifier. This is what happened to Iraq after it was an aggressor against Kuwait, and we were saying: stay in your homes and do not fight with either side. This discussion is known to you, and the detailed statement in it is known. But after those disbelieving states and their allies attacked it, it began to appear that the intention was not, as was said in the Saudi media, that they sought the help of the disbelieving allies in order to repel the danger of Iraq's aggression against Saudi Arabia. It became clear that the intention was to crush the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people. On that basis, we said that it is necessary to repel the aggressors and the rebels, especially if they are from the disbelievers, and more specifically if they are from the greatest of the disbelieving states. But unfortunately, there was no Islamic state with Iraq, not even in name. Rather, there were many Islamic states with the aggressors and rebels, namely the disbelievers from the Americans, the British, and others. So we saw that the intention of this was to crush the Iraqi army for the safety of the Jews, to preserve the safety of the Jews. Then they began to announce that they would establish a system for this Middle East, and then they began to announce the ban on importing weapons, and so on. So that was among the reasons for my saying that it is necessary to help the Iraqi army with the other Islamic armies. But nothing of that happened, and no one won for the Iraqi army except in words, as is our custom of winning for our people in Palestine.

The questioner: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. But what I really want to reach is something I believe is important: that we should draw a conclusion from this calamity that has befallen the Muslim world, and not just Iraq. The conclusion and the lesson that we should take from it is that all Islamic groups and Islamic parties, in their methodologies, except for the Muslim group that follows the methodology of the Salaf al-Salih (the earliest generations), are all deviating from what would lead them to establishing the Muslim state. I am certain of this because the methodology to which we call people is the one in which Muslims should proceed and continue. This is because all Islamic parties and groups do not revolve around what we always and forever revolve around, which we refer to with two light words: purification and education. They do not revolve around this at all, but rather around coalition, gathering, and material preparation. So I say, no matter how much these people prepare, and no matter how long it takes them, they will barely reach the level of the material power that Iraq had when these disbelieving nations and their allies descended upon it. What did such material preparation benefit Iraq? It benefited it nothing at all. That is because the disbelievers are stronger than them. So if the Muslims do not arm themselves with a weapon that the disbelievers cannot arm themselves with, they will not be victorious over the disbelievers. History repeats itself. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), in terms of material strength, was much weaker compared to the two great powers known to everyone, which are Persia and Rome. And yet, our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) gave them victory, not by material weapons alone, because they used weapons, and we cannot deny that, especially since Allah says, as you know: Therefore, I said not by material weapons alone, but accompanied by spiritual or, let us say, faith-based weapons. If the Islamic groups and parties do not pay attention to this spiritual weapon with the same attention that the Messenger (peace be upon him) himself paid to it and educated his Companions upon, they will not be able to reach the material power of Iraq except after decades, and then Allah will not give them victory because they did not support Allah. We believe that the defeat of Iraq, after the news we were hearing and were almost flying with joy, and then it turned out to be like a mirage in a desert plain, which the thirsty man thinks is water—what befell Iraq after that news was one of two things: either those news reports were exaggerated and had no truth, or they had truth, and this is perhaps closer to the case, but they did not support Allah (Mighty and Majestic) except with words. And after the destruction of Basra, as they say, or after the time had passed, we began to remember Allah, to say takbir, and to call for jihad. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: So there is no benefit from all the independent legal reasoning and all the coalitions, whether international, individual, or party-based, except by returning to the Islamic call. And here comes our long and very long discussion: how much time is needed to purify Islam from what has entered it? And how much effort is needed to educate the Muslims so that they become one block upon this purified Islam? How much is needed? So we must continue on our path and move forward. It is not upon us to establish the Islamic state that all Muslims, with their different methodologies, desire. But it is upon us to walk on the straight path, as the Lord of the Worlds said: If the matter is so, and it is so, then may Allah reward you. There is no benefit in questioning what our position will be toward this new organization that will be imposed on the Islamic states, including the limitation of weapons. What can we do? What were we able to do as individuals to support Iraq except with supplication? And supplication, if it is not accompanied by lawful action, does not benefit, especially if the action is obligatory. How so, when it came in the authentic hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) that a man from his Companions was serving him, and his service was at the door at night, with nothing else, perhaps the Messenger would wake up at night and need something, and there was no one around to serve him and attend to it. So he stationed himself there. And the Messenger (peace be upon him), as his Lord the World described him rightly, valued the service of this noble Companion. So one day he said to him: "O so-and-so, ask, make a wish." And the man was wise, so he said: "Give me time, O Messenger of Allah, until I think. I want to make a good request, asking from one who is generous." Then he came to him and said: "O Messenger of Allah: " So what did the Messenger (peace be upon him) say to him? And here is the point. He said: " So what did we do for Iraq? Only empty words, supplication, and qunut, and so on. Have you seen any effect of this qunut? No. And this has a discussion. The reason is that most of those who make qunut and most of those who supplicate do not have their supplication raised from the earth to the sky. Why? Because his food is forbidden, his drink is forbidden, and his nourishment is forbidden. So how can it be answered? As it came in the hadith in Sahih Muslim that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) So I say that supplication is beneficial, but only if it is accompanied by obedience to Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And we hear the saying of the Lord of the Worlds: There is no state today that supports Allah. In fact, I may say a dangerous word now: there is no Islamic party that supports Allah. Because the support of Allah is only by knowing the law of Allah, and then this knowledge must be accompanied by action according to the law of Allah. And I do not find on the face of the earth a party that acts upon the knowledge of Allah as it came in the Book and the authentic Sunnah, and then combines the saying with the action. How so, when in the best of the parties, and the widest in scope and number, we hear from them words that if we were to assume the worst about them, we would say this is the speech of the disbelievers. My brother, let us leave the differences aside. This is not the time for them. We must form a coalition and gather, and so on. And on what basis is this coalition and this gathering? There is no basis. Just as the Iraqis gathered, the Ba'ath party and the Sunni and Shia Muslims, what was the outcome of their affair? A shameful defeat. And therefore, the independent legal reasoning of these Islamic groups and parties, if it does not return to purification and education, its work will be like scattered dust. And I see you almost raised your finger, so you have something, it seems? Please, go ahead.