Rulings concerning the hostile disbeliever, the one under treaty, and the dhimmi. ?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Here, I must remind the brothers present that the position of Muslims toward disbelievers is one of three positions: either hostility, or treaty, or the payment of jizyah. As for hostility, it is clear; that is, when there is no agreement between the Muslim state and the disbeliever state regarding a matter or a truce, it is a hostile state, and it is permissible for Muslims to fight it. This is the first section. The second section is the treaty, which is when the disbeliever state agrees with the Muslim state on certain conditions. At that point, the blood of the disbeliever under treaty from the Muslim state becomes forbidden, just like the blood of a Muslim. A severe and eloquent warning was given against killing a man under treaty. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said in an authentic hadith: In some narrations: Sahih Ibn Hibban 64:292. This is a man under treaty, not a hostile one, and not a dhimmi. The dhimmi is the one we said pays the jizyah. We have defined the hostile one, and we have defined the one under treaty. Both the hostile one and the one under treaty are independent in their lives, but it is permissible for Muslims to raid the hostile one, whereas it is not permissible to raid the one under treaty, nor to take his wealth, nor to make his blood lawful as long as the treaty is in effect. As for the third section, which is the dhimmi, they are those who were invited to Islam and given the choice of one of three things: either Islam, or the payment of jizyah from the hand while they are humbled, or fighting. They preferred to pay the jizyah, so they became people of the dhimmah. That is, it is not permissible for Muslims to transgress against them, just as it is not permissible to transgress against those under treaty, and even more so, because the dhimmi is not under a treaty for a specific period, whereas the one under treaty is for a specific period agreed upon by Muslims and disbelievers. The dhimmi lives under the banner of Islam and submits to the rulings of Islam. In recognition of this submission, he pays the jizyah from his hand while he is humbled. What has happened now is that the Saudi state has made a treaty with the Americans and others, and unfortunately, they brought them to their lands. They are under treaty, so it is not permissible to betray them, neither in their blood, nor in their wealth, nor in their honor.
Another questioner: O Shaykh, excuse me
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner: And the Americans here constitute a force. If I were the one under treaty and stronger than him, such that I could control him and rule my people, yes, it is not permissible. But this American who came to me came with a force stronger than mine. So I fear him and dread him, and he is a danger to me, to Islam, and to the Sacred Lands.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.
The questioner : Please go ahead.
The Shaykh: What does this statement mean?
The questioner: The meaning is, how is it not permissible to kill him?
The Shaykh: May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you, O you enthusiasts. You have not considered what is happening in Palestine. One Jew is killed, and dozens of Muslims are killed.
The questioner: And in the end ... .
The Shaykh: Listen, and in the end, you want the Palestinian land to have no Muslims in it and remain exclusively for the Jews, is that okay?
The questioner: No, no, I do not want that.
The Shaykh: But the plan that Muslims are following today, which they call the Intifada, and unfortunately the Arab states support it with words, and our people and brothers, and so on, and so forth, and then they do not provide them with a single bullet.
The questioner: What is the way to salvation?
The Shaykh: Excuse me, stick to your first question. What is the way? That is a second question. But leave aside the enthusiasm that only increases the evil. You want to say, based on what I said earlier, that Saudi Arabia entered into a treaty from a position of weakness, and this is true. But my brother, think about what you are saying. If it were said to enthusiastic individuals from the Saudis, like our brother Ahmad, and perhaps others among the present, "Kill the American wherever you see him," do you see what the Americans would do to these Muslims who betray the Americans? They entered the country at the wish of its people and residents, who say, "May Allah reward you," and do not kill them. Instead of one, dozens and hundreds are killed. Then you do not take us, meaning, if I am frank with you, whoever it is permissible to kill, it is permissible to plunder, and whoever it is permissible to kill and plunder, it is permissible to transgress against his honor. So what do you think? Perhaps it has reached you that there are American female soldiers, and that they walk in the streets of Riyadh, for example, and Jeddah as well. What do you think if one of these enthusiastic young men, especially if he is a bachelor who is about to burst because of lust and the absence of a wife to release his desire in, finds a beautiful woman on the seashore, that he would devour her and destroy her?
The questioner: This is one matter, and that is another matter, my sir.
The Shaykh: No, my sir, the one who distinguishes between this and that means he does not know what Islam is. The permissibility of his blood, the permissibility of his wealth, the permissibility of his honor, from the disbelievers, or as I told you, disbelievers are three categories. We start with the most important, then what is below it: the dhimmi, the one under treaty, and the hostile one. The hostile one, his blood, wealth, and honor are lawful. As for the one under treaty, he is like the dhimmi; his blood, wealth, and honor are not lawful, because these people are living under the guardianship of Islam and under the banner of Islam. The dhimmi is clear because we said he lives in the Muslim state and accepts its rule. As for the one under treaty, he is under a treaty and its conditions. If the disbelievers violate one of the conditions, at that point it is permissible for Muslims to break the treaty and consider them hostile, as happened between the Messenger (peace be upon him) and the polytheists in the Battle of the Conquest.
The questioner: Well, my sir, the wording is clear. You mentioned that there are girls, there is alcohol, there is a constitution. So there is a contradiction, meaning it conflicts with Islam.
The Shaykh: My brother, speak words, may Allah reward you. Speak words of the Shari'ah. When a dhimmi man lives in a Muslim state, is it forbidden for him to drink alcohol? It is not permissible. Do not use your mind, my brother. Our Lord said:[An-Nahl 16:43] It is forbidden for him to go and worship the cross in the church. No. [Al-Baqarah 2:256] Islam is rulings and a Shari'ah, clear and bright, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: But unfortunately, we no longer know our religion or our Islam, and therefore we discuss our matters with our minds and our desires, and we fall into such contradictions, and this is not permissible. Yes.
The questioner: Regarding this treaty, all countries today claim that America came to Saudi Arabia without permission from Saudi Arabia and imposed it on them. This is one aspect. The second aspect
The Shaykh: No, before the second aspect
The questioner: is connected to it. When the Crusaders were in the Levant, what happened between the Crusaders... May Allah help us... .
The Shaykh: And what are we talking about? What are we talking about, my brother? May Allah guide you. We are saying:Sunan Abi Dawud 2760Sahih (Al-Albani) I am not saying "your Prophet," I am saying: So what has happened to you now? You have forgotten your Prophet and now you are worshipping Saladin, and you are wondering, "Did those Muslims in the time of Saladin fulfill the treaty or not?" Do not imagine that if they were Muslims, they would fulfill treaties or break them. Do not imagine, my brother.
Another questioner: ... Excuse me
The questioner: They fulfill it, if it was...
The Shaykh: My brother, let him be silent when you were talking. Now you be silent, he is talking. Yes.
The questioner: Excuse me, O Shaykh. Was the Levant under treaty with the Crusaders? In Palestine, Saladin or someone else comes from Egypt and engages in war with the Levant with the Crusaders, and it happens that the Muslim army of the Levant is lined up with the Crusader army and fighting. Was the Muslim army, for example, the Egyptian one fighting the Crusaders at that moment, wrong, because the Levant was under treaty with the Crusaders?
The Shaykh: You are imagining now, you are imagining the current situation. Was it like that in that time? May Allah know best.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: And if my understanding is wrong, tell me it is wrong. You are imagining that Saladin was on one side and the other states were on another side. This is how you are imagining it.
The questioner: I am imagining, I know that some...
The Shaykh: I am asking you a question, save yourself from a lot of words. I am asking you like this, are you imagining it?
The questioner: I did not understand your question. Repeat it to me.
The Shaykh: Yes, may Allah guide you. I did not understand the question. You want to say so, you want to lose my words.
The questioner: No, my sir.
The Shaykh: I am asking you, may Allah reward you.
The questioner : Please go ahead.
The Shaykh : Today, in our understanding of your words, there are many states, and the Saudi state has become entangled, and I say this frankly, and made this agreement with the Americans. But the state of Iraq has no agreement with the Americans. This is what I understand from your words: if the Saudi state is entangled and has made a treaty with the Americans, then Iraq is not entangled in this entanglement and has no treaty. So if it is not permissible for Saudi Arabia to transgress, and it must uphold the covenant and the oath as we explained earlier, then Iraq is not bound. And this was the situation in the time of Salah al-Din, was it not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes. I tell you the answer from two aspects. First, if the situation in the time of Salah al-Din is as you think, then it is not a Shari'ah situation. And in that case, you will understand that your analogy to that situation does not benefit you at all, because it is an impermissible analogy to an impermissible reality. In other words, is it permissible for Muslims to be states, or should they be one state?
The questioner : One state.
The Shaykh : One state. Now, in the time of Salah al-Din, there were small states, without a doubt, just as is the case now. Do you think every state was fighting the Crusaders on its own, or did the states at that time gather under Salah al-Din to fight the Crusaders?
The questioner : He gathered them after they had fought each other.
The Shaykh : No problem, they fought each other. We are talking now about the Crusaders: did he gather them or not?
The questioner : May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you. My brother, we are not talking about before; we are talking about after. When Salah al-Din fought the Crusaders, were they separate states like us today, or did they become one hand against the Crusaders?
The questioner : He did not fight them in one battle, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Salah al-Din did not fight the Crusaders in one battle. He fought them, and some Muslims were fighting the Crusaders with him.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. This is how you waste our time and then make us open the door for questions. I ask you a question, why don't you answer me? It is obligatory for me, if I ask you a question, to answer you. And if I ask you and you do not answer me...
The questioner : I will answer you, O our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : You are not answering. I am telling you, I am telling you: when Salah al-Din fought the Crusaders, did he fight alone, or with the other states? You do not answer. You say before and after, and so on. What is the meaning of this detail? I am telling you: at the time Salah al-Din fought the Crusaders, was he alone, or were the states in agreement with him to fight the Crusaders?
The questioner : He unified the states into one state under his leadership.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is the answer. Now, what is the situation?
The questioner : The situation is states.
Another questioner : Separate.
The Shaykh : So how do you analogize this situation to that situation?
The questioner : I do not analogize.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, it is not permissible. This analogy that he wants to make, my brother, may Allah guide us and you. You want to be a man knowledgeable in analogy.
The questioner : O Shaykh, he gathered them on one day.
The Shaykh : Listen, my brother, may Allah guide you. If you admit that they were one state, and you admit that now they are states, how do you analogize states to one state? States that are separate, enemies of each other, some with the Crusaders, some against the Crusaders and the Muslims, and so on. How do you want to analogize the situation to that situation? I wish the states now would agree with each other against the Crusaders.
The questioner : O Shaykh, Salah al-Din used to go out with the army of Sham...
The Shaykh : We want to address the reality of the situation now. What do you have to do with history? Now we want to address the reality. How do you address it? Question by question. We must address this reality now. That has passed and ended. And Allah has given victory to the Muslims. Now, how is this reality addressed? By the Arab states remaining separate, each with a law and system that contradicts the second system and the second law? Or must they unite as Salah al-Din united?
The questioner : They must unite.
The Shaykh : So what does your recourse to old history benefit you? As long as modern history contradicts old history, so what is the action now, so that these people become against the disbelievers and against the Crusaders? Tell me, what is the action?
The questioner : Uniting the Muslims in the same way as Salah al-Din. He used to strike everyone who opposed him, even if they united with the Christians.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. Now you have made Salah al-Din your prophet. It is clear.
The questioner : No, no, he is not my prophet. My prophet is Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : So why do you not return to your Prophet, to whom no falsehood comes from before or behind? You do not return to him.
The questioner : I return.
The Shaykh : What did you find in Salah al-Din that you did not find in the noble Prophet?
The questioner : Salah al-Din was a follower of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). We did not find anything new in his action.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : We did not find. No, we do not follow Salah al-Din. We follow Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : Therefore, as the old Arab said: "Whoever enters the sea, the waterwheel becomes unnecessary." Correct?
The questioner : Authentic
The Shaykh : So the sea is Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and Salah al-Din is the waterwheel. Why do you return to the waterwheel and leave the sea? What does your sea tell you regarding the reality of the Arab states today? Is it not obligatory for them to unite against the Jews, against the Crusaders, against the Buddhists, against disbelief in all its types and forms? Is it not so?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, do you find, do you hear any echo from them, do you hear a voice from them that they want to unite for Islam and the religion of Islam? Say it frankly...
The questioner : No
The Shaykh : So why are you searching in old history? You must look at the new history now, and see what must be the reality now. First, regarding the separate Arab states. Second, regarding individuals. Every Muslim has an obligation. So what is our obligation today? Our obligation is that each of us should set himself up as if he is the head of a state, and he must establish a system that we fight the Americans, because Saudi Arabia became entangled and brought them to their lands. Who can fight the Americans among the Islamic states today, and the British and the French and the like? And then, unfortunately, our negligence...
Another questioner : Indeed, Allah will give you victory.
The Shaykh : Our negligence is far away.
The questioner : No, no, no.
The Shaykh : And now you have brought the argument. Now you have brought the argument.[Muhammad 47:7] What does it mean? What does [Muhammad 47:7] mean?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, where are the true Muslim states? Where are they?
The questioner : And I do not know. If I am a believer, do you know that I am not a believer? Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : Yes.
Another questioner : Is it permissible for a Muslim to make a treaty with a disbeliever against a Muslim?
The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible.
The questioner : Therefore, the Saudi treaty: they made a treaty with disbelievers against Muslims.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. What am I talking about?
The questioner : Yes, the interjection...
The Shaykh : No, it is not for you, my brothers. You did not intend to speak, or what? I am not talking. I am saying this is wrong, this is not permissible. And we have lectures on this issue. So what is the meaning of this question?
The questioner : The second interjection: the treaty was resorted to in order to protect against Iraq's intervention in Saudi Arabia. Suppose the treaty-maker is the one who transgressed. Here, his blood becomes lawful for the Muslims.
The Shaykh : My brother, we talked about that hour. May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you all. It is as if we are talking, without offense, with walls. Now I did not mention to you the story of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.
Another questioner : They broke the covenant, they killed them.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you.
The questioner : I am sorry.
The Shaykh : But you were sleepy, you.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: In the name of Allah.
The questioner : My question is about inheritance, if Allah wills. My question is about inheritance, O Shaykh.
Whoever kills a man who has a treaty in his abode will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance can be found from a distance of so much and so much.
من قتل معاهدا في كنهه لم يرح رائحة الجنة وإن ريحها لتوجد من مسيرة كذا وكذاFrom a distance of one hundred years.
من مسيرة مئة عامAnother questioner: O Shaykh, excuse me
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner: And the Americans here constitute a force. If I were the one under treaty and stronger than him, such that I could control him and rule my people, yes, it is not permissible. But this American who came to me came with a force stronger than mine. So I fear him and dread him, and he is a danger to me, to Islam, and to the Sacred Lands.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.
The questioner : Please go ahead.
The Shaykh: What does this statement mean?
The questioner: The meaning is, how is it not permissible to kill him?
The Shaykh: May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you, O you enthusiasts. You have not considered what is happening in Palestine. One Jew is killed, and dozens of Muslims are killed.
The questioner: And in the end ... .
The Shaykh: Listen, and in the end, you want the Palestinian land to have no Muslims in it and remain exclusively for the Jews, is that okay?
The questioner: No, no, I do not want that.
The Shaykh: But the plan that Muslims are following today, which they call the Intifada, and unfortunately the Arab states support it with words, and our people and brothers, and so on, and so forth, and then they do not provide them with a single bullet.
The questioner: What is the way to salvation?
The Shaykh: Excuse me, stick to your first question. What is the way? That is a second question. But leave aside the enthusiasm that only increases the evil. You want to say, based on what I said earlier, that Saudi Arabia entered into a treaty from a position of weakness, and this is true. But my brother, think about what you are saying. If it were said to enthusiastic individuals from the Saudis, like our brother Ahmad, and perhaps others among the present, "Kill the American wherever you see him," do you see what the Americans would do to these Muslims who betray the Americans? They entered the country at the wish of its people and residents, who say, "May Allah reward you," and do not kill them. Instead of one, dozens and hundreds are killed. Then you do not take us, meaning, if I am frank with you, whoever it is permissible to kill, it is permissible to plunder, and whoever it is permissible to kill and plunder, it is permissible to transgress against his honor. So what do you think? Perhaps it has reached you that there are American female soldiers, and that they walk in the streets of Riyadh, for example, and Jeddah as well. What do you think if one of these enthusiastic young men, especially if he is a bachelor who is about to burst because of lust and the absence of a wife to release his desire in, finds a beautiful woman on the seashore, that he would devour her and destroy her?
The questioner: This is one matter, and that is another matter, my sir.
The Shaykh: No, my sir, the one who distinguishes between this and that means he does not know what Islam is. The permissibility of his blood, the permissibility of his wealth, the permissibility of his honor, from the disbelievers, or as I told you, disbelievers are three categories. We start with the most important, then what is below it: the dhimmi, the one under treaty, and the hostile one. The hostile one, his blood, wealth, and honor are lawful. As for the one under treaty, he is like the dhimmi; his blood, wealth, and honor are not lawful, because these people are living under the guardianship of Islam and under the banner of Islam. The dhimmi is clear because we said he lives in the Muslim state and accepts its rule. As for the one under treaty, he is under a treaty and its conditions. If the disbelievers violate one of the conditions, at that point it is permissible for Muslims to break the treaty and consider them hostile, as happened between the Messenger (peace be upon him) and the polytheists in the Battle of the Conquest.
The questioner: Well, my sir, the wording is clear. You mentioned that there are girls, there is alcohol, there is a constitution. So there is a contradiction, meaning it conflicts with Islam.
The Shaykh: My brother, speak words, may Allah reward you. Speak words of the Shari'ah. When a dhimmi man lives in a Muslim state, is it forbidden for him to drink alcohol? It is not permissible. Do not use your mind, my brother. Our Lord said:
So ask the people of the message if you do not know.
فاسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمونThere shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong.
لا إكراه في الدين قد تبين الرشد من الغيI have left you upon a white, pure [path], its night like its day. No one strays from it except one who is destroyed.
تركتكم على بيضاء نقية ليلها كنهارها لا يضل عنها إلا هالكThe questioner: Regarding this treaty, all countries today claim that America came to Saudi Arabia without permission from Saudi Arabia and imposed it on them. This is one aspect. The second aspect
The Shaykh: No, before the second aspect
The questioner: is connected to it. When the Crusaders were in the Levant, what happened between the Crusaders... May Allah help us... .
The Shaykh: And what are we talking about? What are we talking about, my brother? May Allah guide you. We are saying:
If anyone kills a man whom he grants protection
من قتل معاهداً في كنههWhoever kills a person who has a treaty of protection in violation of its terms will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance can be found from a distance of such-and-such.
من قتل معاهداً في كنهه لم يرح رائحة الجنة وإن ريحها لتوجد مسيرة كذا وكذاAnother questioner: ... Excuse me
The questioner: They fulfill it, if it was...
The Shaykh: My brother, let him be silent when you were talking. Now you be silent, he is talking. Yes.
The questioner: Excuse me, O Shaykh. Was the Levant under treaty with the Crusaders? In Palestine, Saladin or someone else comes from Egypt and engages in war with the Levant with the Crusaders, and it happens that the Muslim army of the Levant is lined up with the Crusader army and fighting. Was the Muslim army, for example, the Egyptian one fighting the Crusaders at that moment, wrong, because the Levant was under treaty with the Crusaders?
The Shaykh: You are imagining now, you are imagining the current situation. Was it like that in that time? May Allah know best.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: And if my understanding is wrong, tell me it is wrong. You are imagining that Saladin was on one side and the other states were on another side. This is how you are imagining it.
The questioner: I am imagining, I know that some...
The Shaykh: I am asking you a question, save yourself from a lot of words. I am asking you like this, are you imagining it?
The questioner: I did not understand your question. Repeat it to me.
The Shaykh: Yes, may Allah guide you. I did not understand the question. You want to say so, you want to lose my words.
The questioner: No, my sir.
The Shaykh: I am asking you, may Allah reward you.
The questioner : Please go ahead.
The Shaykh : Today, in our understanding of your words, there are many states, and the Saudi state has become entangled, and I say this frankly, and made this agreement with the Americans. But the state of Iraq has no agreement with the Americans. This is what I understand from your words: if the Saudi state is entangled and has made a treaty with the Americans, then Iraq is not entangled in this entanglement and has no treaty. So if it is not permissible for Saudi Arabia to transgress, and it must uphold the covenant and the oath as we explained earlier, then Iraq is not bound. And this was the situation in the time of Salah al-Din, was it not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes. I tell you the answer from two aspects. First, if the situation in the time of Salah al-Din is as you think, then it is not a Shari'ah situation. And in that case, you will understand that your analogy to that situation does not benefit you at all, because it is an impermissible analogy to an impermissible reality. In other words, is it permissible for Muslims to be states, or should they be one state?
The questioner : One state.
The Shaykh : One state. Now, in the time of Salah al-Din, there were small states, without a doubt, just as is the case now. Do you think every state was fighting the Crusaders on its own, or did the states at that time gather under Salah al-Din to fight the Crusaders?
The questioner : He gathered them after they had fought each other.
The Shaykh : No problem, they fought each other. We are talking now about the Crusaders: did he gather them or not?
The questioner : May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you. My brother, we are not talking about before; we are talking about after. When Salah al-Din fought the Crusaders, were they separate states like us today, or did they become one hand against the Crusaders?
The questioner : He did not fight them in one battle, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Salah al-Din did not fight the Crusaders in one battle. He fought them, and some Muslims were fighting the Crusaders with him.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. This is how you waste our time and then make us open the door for questions. I ask you a question, why don't you answer me? It is obligatory for me, if I ask you a question, to answer you. And if I ask you and you do not answer me...
The questioner : I will answer you, O our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : You are not answering. I am telling you, I am telling you: when Salah al-Din fought the Crusaders, did he fight alone, or with the other states? You do not answer. You say before and after, and so on. What is the meaning of this detail? I am telling you: at the time Salah al-Din fought the Crusaders, was he alone, or were the states in agreement with him to fight the Crusaders?
The questioner : He unified the states into one state under his leadership.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is the answer. Now, what is the situation?
The questioner : The situation is states.
Another questioner : Separate.
The Shaykh : So how do you analogize this situation to that situation?
The questioner : I do not analogize.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, it is not permissible. This analogy that he wants to make, my brother, may Allah guide us and you. You want to be a man knowledgeable in analogy.
The questioner : O Shaykh, he gathered them on one day.
The Shaykh : Listen, my brother, may Allah guide you. If you admit that they were one state, and you admit that now they are states, how do you analogize states to one state? States that are separate, enemies of each other, some with the Crusaders, some against the Crusaders and the Muslims, and so on. How do you want to analogize the situation to that situation? I wish the states now would agree with each other against the Crusaders.
The questioner : O Shaykh, Salah al-Din used to go out with the army of Sham...
The Shaykh : We want to address the reality of the situation now. What do you have to do with history? Now we want to address the reality. How do you address it? Question by question. We must address this reality now. That has passed and ended. And Allah has given victory to the Muslims. Now, how is this reality addressed? By the Arab states remaining separate, each with a law and system that contradicts the second system and the second law? Or must they unite as Salah al-Din united?
The questioner : They must unite.
The Shaykh : So what does your recourse to old history benefit you? As long as modern history contradicts old history, so what is the action now, so that these people become against the disbelievers and against the Crusaders? Tell me, what is the action?
The questioner : Uniting the Muslims in the same way as Salah al-Din. He used to strike everyone who opposed him, even if they united with the Christians.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. Now you have made Salah al-Din your prophet. It is clear.
The questioner : No, no, he is not my prophet. My prophet is Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : So why do you not return to your Prophet, to whom no falsehood comes from before or behind? You do not return to him.
The questioner : I return.
The Shaykh : What did you find in Salah al-Din that you did not find in the noble Prophet?
The questioner : Salah al-Din was a follower of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). We did not find anything new in his action.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : We did not find. No, we do not follow Salah al-Din. We follow Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : Therefore, as the old Arab said: "Whoever enters the sea, the waterwheel becomes unnecessary." Correct?
The questioner : Authentic
The Shaykh : So the sea is Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and Salah al-Din is the waterwheel. Why do you return to the waterwheel and leave the sea? What does your sea tell you regarding the reality of the Arab states today? Is it not obligatory for them to unite against the Jews, against the Crusaders, against the Buddhists, against disbelief in all its types and forms? Is it not so?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, do you find, do you hear any echo from them, do you hear a voice from them that they want to unite for Islam and the religion of Islam? Say it frankly...
The questioner : No
The Shaykh : So why are you searching in old history? You must look at the new history now, and see what must be the reality now. First, regarding the separate Arab states. Second, regarding individuals. Every Muslim has an obligation. So what is our obligation today? Our obligation is that each of us should set himself up as if he is the head of a state, and he must establish a system that we fight the Americans, because Saudi Arabia became entangled and brought them to their lands. Who can fight the Americans among the Islamic states today, and the British and the French and the like? And then, unfortunately, our negligence...
Another questioner : Indeed, Allah will give you victory.
The Shaykh : Our negligence is far away.
The questioner : No, no, no.
The Shaykh : And now you have brought the argument. Now you have brought the argument.
if you support Allah, He will support you
إن تنصروا الله ينصركمif you support Allah, He will support you
إن تنصروا الله ينصركمThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, where are the true Muslim states? Where are they?
The questioner : And I do not know. If I am a believer, do you know that I am not a believer? Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : Yes.
Another questioner : Is it permissible for a Muslim to make a treaty with a disbeliever against a Muslim?
The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible.
The questioner : Therefore, the Saudi treaty: they made a treaty with disbelievers against Muslims.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. What am I talking about?
The questioner : Yes, the interjection...
The Shaykh : No, it is not for you, my brothers. You did not intend to speak, or what? I am not talking. I am saying this is wrong, this is not permissible. And we have lectures on this issue. So what is the meaning of this question?
The questioner : The second interjection: the treaty was resorted to in order to protect against Iraq's intervention in Saudi Arabia. Suppose the treaty-maker is the one who transgressed. Here, his blood becomes lawful for the Muslims.
The Shaykh : My brother, we talked about that hour. May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you all. It is as if we are talking, without offense, with walls. Now I did not mention to you the story of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.
Another questioner : They broke the covenant, they killed them.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you.
The questioner : I am sorry.
The Shaykh : But you were sleepy, you.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: In the name of Allah.
The questioner : My question is about inheritance, if Allah wills. My question is about inheritance, O Shaykh.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.