What is the ruling on seeking the aid of disbelievers against Muslims? Is it apostasy or not?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The author of the statement says, regarding the issue of the one who seeks the aid of a disbeliever, in summary: "If he sought the aid of a disbeliever against a Muslim, without considering it permissible in his own view according to the Shari'ah, in order to repel an aggression he believed was being inflicted upon him, without intending to fight the Muslims initially or to shed their blood, and out of fear for his wealth and his self, and he did not find among the Muslims anyone to protect him from this aggression, then he is not sinful for that." What is your comment?
The Shaykh : Here, the air seemed to be cut off, as if it was being blocked here, because the air came to my side and they turned it away from me. I do not like the air—laughs—
The questioner : We seek refuge in Allah from desire.
Al-Halabi : You mean the extended one...
The Shaykh : Yes, what we say is "air." And no living being is free from air, but he must be free from every desire. Yes, especially in this time when desire has become a followed desire. The answer, my brother, is that the issue of sinfulness is one thing, and ijtihad is linked to sin, whether negatively or positively. In other words: it is known in the Shari'ah, as He (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Mishkat al-Masabih 3732 So the one who exercises ijtihad and errs out of necessity is not sinful. This statement I just made, first of all, whose words are they? Who is the one who said it?
The questioner : The one who said it is unknown.
The Shaykh : Unknown, okay. This statement you quoted just now: either the one described as having done this, seeking the aid of a disbeliever, is a mujtahid, in which case he is not sinful, like any other Shari'ah ruling; or if he is not a mujtahid, then he is sinful. And in the expression, there are gaps that carry in their folds a lack of precision in expression. For example, from what I understood from what I heard from you just now, his saying, this is only beneficial if the intention is whether he is a disbeliever or not. For example, we said just now regarding the one who abandons prayer: this one who abandons prayer is sinful, unanimously; because there is no room for ijtihad here. So we say: if he abandons prayer while believing, he is an open sinner; and if he abandons prayer while denying it, he is a disbeliever. That is, he does not consider abandoning prayer permissible. So this one who brought the disbelievers into the lands of the Muslims: either he is a mujtahid, in which case the previous answer applies, which is that he is not sinful. But what is the meaning of the condition "and he does not consider it permissible"? Suppose he did consider it permissible...
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, it is because he discussed the permissibility before...
The Shaykh : Listen, listen. Suppose he considered it permissible, but he considered it permissible through ijtihad. What is the difference? There is no difference. Did you understand?
The questioner : Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : Now we will look at the observation of the brother Ali.
Al-Halabi : He, our Shaykh, is indulging in the research. So the brother summarized for you a summary. Otherwise, before that, he said whether he considered it permissible or not.
The Shaykh : I do not know. I am talking about this paragraph.
Al-Halabi : The statement is correct.
The Shaykh : Okay, now repeat the same statement.
Al-Halabi : If you could repeat the statement from the beginning.
The Shaykh : No, no, the same paragraph that you spoke about.
The questioner : I wanted to read a larger paragraph than this, but wait, wait. "And if he sought the aid of a disbeliever against a Muslim, without considering it permissible in his own view according to the Shari'ah, as explained previously in the first case, then if his seeking of aid was to repel an aggression he believed was being inflicted upon him, without intending to fight the Muslims initially or to shed their blood, and out of his fear for his wealth and his self, and he did not find among the Muslims anyone to protect him from this aggression, then he is not sinful for that, whether there was fighting or not."
The Shaykh : This is the same expression you read, and it is the reasoning. So does your thinking before that change the subject?
The questioner : Just regarding the mention of the word "permissibility," what is its role? Because it is in order to be cautious about what came before. That is its role.
The questioner : It is after and before, and I think it is very closely related to this subject.
The Shaykh : Bring it, let's see.
The questioner : "And among the issues connected to this subject is the issue of the one who seeks the aid of a disbeliever against the Muslims. It is looked into: if he considered his action permissible in his own view, a Shari'ah permissibility, and allowed it for the purpose of shedding the blood of the Muslims or humiliating them and taking their wealth, then he is a disbeliever by this; because he considers a forbidden matter permissible. And if he sought the aid of a disbeliever against a Muslim, without considering it permissible in his own view according to the Shari'ah, as explained previously in the first case, then if his seeking of aid was to repel an aggression he believed was being inflicted upon him, without intending to fight the Muslims with it initially or to shed their blood, and out of fear for his wealth and his self, and he did not find among the Muslims anyone to protect him from this aggression, then he is not sinful for that, whether there was fighting or not. But if his seeking of aid of a disbeliever was other than the two previous cases, that is, he did not consider it permissible, and it was not to repel a suspected aggression, then he has committed a major sin by this, and sincere repentance is obligatory upon him. And sincere repentance is not realized, and sincere repentance is not realized, except with its conditions." Then he lists here, from the chapter on the rulings of coercion...
The Shaykh : What changed? The same thing. Yes.
The questioner : Then he indulges here and says, from the chapter on the rulings of coercion, as if he wants to explain all of this from the chapter on the rulings of coercion; because he says that coercion falls upon the individual and the society...
The Shaykh : In any case, I do not know. Did you get the answer to your question?
The questioner : Yes, yes, I got it.
The Shaykh : Here, the air seemed to be cut off, as if it was being blocked here, because the air came to my side and they turned it away from me. I do not like the air—laughs—
The questioner : We seek refuge in Allah from desire.
Al-Halabi : You mean the extended one...
The Shaykh : Yes, what we say is "air." And no living being is free from air, but he must be free from every desire. Yes, especially in this time when desire has become a followed desire. The answer, my brother, is that the issue of sinfulness is one thing, and ijtihad is linked to sin, whether negatively or positively. In other words: it is known in the Shari'ah, as He (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
When a judge gives a decision having tried his best to decide correctly and is right, he will have a double reward; and when he gives a decision having tried his best to decide correctly and is wrong, he will have a single reward.
إذا حكم الحاكم فاجتهد فأصاب فله أجران ، وإن أخطأ فله أجر واحدThe questioner : The one who said it is unknown.
The Shaykh : Unknown, okay. This statement you quoted just now: either the one described as having done this, seeking the aid of a disbeliever, is a mujtahid, in which case he is not sinful, like any other Shari'ah ruling; or if he is not a mujtahid, then he is sinful. And in the expression, there are gaps that carry in their folds a lack of precision in expression. For example, from what I understood from what I heard from you just now, his saying
and did not consider it permissible
ولم يستحل ذلكAl-Halabi : Our Shaykh, it is because he discussed the permissibility before...
The Shaykh : Listen, listen. Suppose he considered it permissible, but he considered it permissible through ijtihad. What is the difference? There is no difference. Did you understand?
The questioner : Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : Now we will look at the observation of the brother Ali.
Al-Halabi : He, our Shaykh, is indulging in the research. So the brother summarized for you a summary. Otherwise, before that, he said whether he considered it permissible or not.
The Shaykh : I do not know. I am talking about this paragraph.
Al-Halabi : The statement is correct.
The Shaykh : Okay, now repeat the same statement.
Al-Halabi : If you could repeat the statement from the beginning.
The Shaykh : No, no, the same paragraph that you spoke about.
The questioner : I wanted to read a larger paragraph than this, but wait, wait. "And if he sought the aid of a disbeliever against a Muslim, without considering it permissible in his own view according to the Shari'ah, as explained previously in the first case, then if his seeking of aid was to repel an aggression he believed was being inflicted upon him, without intending to fight the Muslims initially or to shed their blood, and out of his fear for his wealth and his self, and he did not find among the Muslims anyone to protect him from this aggression, then he is not sinful for that, whether there was fighting or not."
The Shaykh : This is the same expression you read, and it is the reasoning. So does your thinking before that change the subject?
The questioner : Just regarding the mention of the word "permissibility," what is its role? Because it is in order to be cautious about what came before. That is its role.
The questioner : It is after and before, and I think it is very closely related to this subject.
The Shaykh : Bring it, let's see.
The questioner : "And among the issues connected to this subject is the issue of the one who seeks the aid of a disbeliever against the Muslims. It is looked into: if he considered his action permissible in his own view, a Shari'ah permissibility, and allowed it for the purpose of shedding the blood of the Muslims or humiliating them and taking their wealth, then he is a disbeliever by this; because he considers a forbidden matter permissible. And if he sought the aid of a disbeliever against a Muslim, without considering it permissible in his own view according to the Shari'ah, as explained previously in the first case, then if his seeking of aid was to repel an aggression he believed was being inflicted upon him, without intending to fight the Muslims with it initially or to shed their blood, and out of fear for his wealth and his self, and he did not find among the Muslims anyone to protect him from this aggression, then he is not sinful for that, whether there was fighting or not. But if his seeking of aid of a disbeliever was other than the two previous cases, that is, he did not consider it permissible, and it was not to repel a suspected aggression, then he has committed a major sin by this, and sincere repentance is obligatory upon him. And sincere repentance is not realized, and sincere repentance is not realized, except with its conditions." Then he lists here, from the chapter on the rulings of coercion...
The Shaykh : What changed? The same thing. Yes.
The questioner : Then he indulges here and says, from the chapter on the rulings of coercion, as if he wants to explain all of this from the chapter on the rulings of coercion; because he says that coercion falls upon the individual and the society...
The Shaykh : In any case, I do not know. Did you get the answer to your question?
The questioner : Yes, yes, I got it.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.