The Afghan Lands and the Ruling on Jihad Therein, with a Discussion on When Jihad Is an Individual Obligation and When It Is a Collective Obligation.

KThe questioner: The father has some remarks regarding it.The Shaykh : Abu Malik, a shaykh among the shaykhs, has remarks... the Albanians... meaning it is permissible for us to fight alongside these people.
Another questioner: ...it is permissible for us...

The Shaykh: What is permissible for us?

The questioner: To agree, or to tell some of the Muslims, "Fight alongside these people." That is one thing.
Second: The issue of political awareness. Is this political awareness present among these mujahideen and their leaders?

The Shaykh: It is not present.

The questioner: Also, regarding the issue of 'aqidah (creed), is it present among all the forces?

The Shaykh: It is not present.

The questioner: So, for example, we have neglected our educated, aware, and understanding youth, who possess sound 'aqidah, and we have thrown them into the laps of these and those, as we have come to know and learn, because I went there with some of the groups among them. He goes with the group, and then later he comes from behind on one of the mountains, harboring hatred, and kills some of his companions, because he is either a Communist, or an Ash'ari, or a superstitious Sufi.

The questioner: A Shi'i.

The questioner: Yes, a Shi'i. How can we trust people like these with our youth, while we are preparing them for good and for good leadership and leadership with unity of command?

The Shaykh: I see this, may Allah reward you. The first point of the questions: Are these lands, the Afghan lands, Islamic lands or not? And you heard me say in all the questions you asked, "They are not so, they are not so," and so on. Do we conclude that these lands are non-Islamic lands? I do not think that any person among these brothers you mentioned, and we have heard about others as well, would say: "These lands, due to their deviation from Islam, whether in 'aqidah, or in worship, or otherwise, cease to be Islamic lands and are classified as disbeliever and mushrik lands." That is, you do not see a Muslim who does not distinguish between the Afghan lands and the Russian lands. I do not think anyone would reach the point of this tawhid (oneness) and lack of distinction between those who migrated to the Afghan lands, who are disbelievers, mushriks, and atheists, and the attacked lands, which are Islamic lands. If the matter is as I say, I do not believe anyone would say of the Afghan lands: "They are not Islamic lands." So the discussion begins with the claim that these lands are Islamic lands. From here is the starting point of the research, especially since these people are diverse. Either we raise the previous issues and the like, and I see that as a concrete error. So whoever among these people, as I believe, agrees with me in this statement that these lands are Islamic lands, with their flaws and all, then we say: If Islamic lands exist, what is the obligation of the Muslims? I believe, in this situation, that all those questions are not applicable at all. Those questions apply, as we said and continue to say, if a group claiming to be in jihad in the path of Allah arises, we impose on them all these conditions I mentioned, and we impose on the head that there be a Caliph pledged to by the Muslims. But the defense of Islamic lands is a different type of jihad than the jihad in the path of conveying the Islamic call to other lands.
This I do not know that any of the scholars of the Muslims, when they all agreed, that if some Islamic lands are attacked by disbelievers, it is obligatory for the Muslims, as a practical obligation, to go out to repel this enemy who attacked a part of the Islamic lands. And I do not know that anyone conditions that all these lands be in agreement on one 'aqidah and one opinion, but it is sufficient that they be Islamic lands, and that is enough. If the matter is so, then all these issues and doubts are not applicable. Take, for example, what remains in my memory of what I heard from you just now, how we throw our youth into that place.

The questioner: The battle is not balanced.

The Shaykh: I say: This statement does not exist, because we are throwing them into jihad in establishing the obligation of our Lord - Mighty and Majestic - upon us. In other words, either we say: This jihad is obligatory, or it is not obligatory. But I am correcting myself now, and this is perhaps a precision in expression from... Either we say: This jihad is permissible, or it is not permissible?

The questioner: Meaning, do we not say: It is an individual obligation?

The Shaykh: Allow me, meaning, now, you have three levels. Is jihad permissible? Yes, jihad is permissible. Is it a collective obligation? Is it an individual obligation? So now I began and said: I am correcting myself. This is a method of research and presenting the issue so that it becomes clear to everyone. I am beginning now to speak about going out to jihad there. Either it is permissible, or it is not permissible. So I am starting from here, and I want the answer to start: Is jihad there permissible or not permissible? Likewise, I say from my side, and I hope Allah does not disappoint my expectation, as I said just now... We received from your lands, I do not know the rumors that reached us from your lands, I do not know thatThe Shaykh : in the hospital... and so on. They predict in advance.
... They called us on the phone, even for the first time, despite the fact that I rarely have a connection with the office.The Shaykh : Ibn Baz, so the employees at his house called, and I was not there. They said: Ask aboutThe Shaykh : and tell him: How is he? He is fine. And they informed us that he is in the hospital. We do not have this news. All of this is praise be to Allah. So, did he go to the mosque from this speech? And after that, my cousin Hammam called me there in Jeddah. Meaning, of course, as we all know, and the only defect in news is its narrators. A person, by mistake or intentionally, spreads incorrect news, and people pass it along, and it becomes a mass-transmitted report. So, praise be to Allah, you did not hear anything of this.
We return to what we were doing. The research was about jihad in Afghanistan. So, for the first time, it occurred to me now, because some of the distinguished people present now raised some issues they transmitted from some of their brothers there in your city. So it occurred to me to proceed in the research on this point in a way I perhaps do for the first time. I say: Jihad in Afghanistan is either permissible, or it is a collective obligation, or it is an individual obligation. And I said before that: The Afghan lands, because it was among the issues raised just now that there are desires and Sufi blocs, and Shi'ites, and so on. And the question was: Do you believe these things exist? The answer was, of course, affirmative. Yes, yes.
But after that, I raised the following question: Despite these things, are these lands either Islamic lands or non-Islamic lands? I added clarification: Either we say: There is no difference between the attacked Afghan lands and the attacking Russian lands, these are disbelievers. And as they say now - I add and build on what I said just now, he says: Meaning, we have like the Albanian, whose translation is "the dog in pork." Does a Muslim say this? Meaning, if the Russians defeat the Afghan lands, meaning, do you have, for example, this example? A bone breaks some of it. Do you see how? Does a Muslim on earth say this? I do not think so. This is my good opinion of people. So, there is no reason for us to say: Those lands are Islamic lands, with their flaws and all, and we said this before. Now we returned to the meaning, to the statement of the ruling on jihad there, based on an issue that arose: How do we throw our sons and youth into those lands and their blood is wasted like this? At that time, I said it is necessary to look at the ruling of this jihad. It is undoubtedly either permissible or obligatory. Then it is of two types: collective obligation and individual obligation. Is there anyone among those who said: Let us imagine that a Muslim says: The jihad of these people in their lands against the Russians is not permissible, or do we say: It is a permissible matter?
Now I want an answer from the attendees, despite the difference of opinions, but can it be said: It is not permissible?

The questioner : No, we say: regarding the Afghans, this is permissible, and we have the right to help them with whatever money we can, and to stand with them.

The Shaykh : We are not entering into the details now: is jihad there permissible or not?

The questioner : It is permissible for them. As for me, I am in Medina, sitting there, and I have political awareness; I understand and know that the current order of fighting between the Afghans and the Russians is orchestrated by America, and the situation in the Gulf is also orchestrated by Russia. There is a conflict and struggle between two great powers, each wanting to plant a foot to compete with the other. I come to young men with an Islamic education, who are utilized in every country, and I tell them: go and hand yourself over to these Russians, and they will kill you.

The Shaykh : Hand yourself over.

The questioner : I mean, does he go to an unequal battle?!

The Shaykh : ... If you please, Your Eminence.The Shaykh : I also differ on this point. Ask our brothers who know what my opinion is on the current fighting in the Gulf and the fighting in Afghanistan. I say, and some of our brothers are present at the time I say this: that jihad there is an individual obligation, not a collective obligation. I say: as long as the way is open before it is closed, why? Because I believe in what you say. But does this mean making the Afghans an easy prey?

The questioner : No

The Shaykh : If you please, they say in Syria: "Eat me and cover me." Do we make the Afghans an easy prey for the Russians? The answer is no, as I said earlier. Do we say that jihad there is not permissible? The answer is no, we do not say it is not permissible, but rather it is permissible. Right or wrong? Because, may Allah bless you, these premises lead to conclusions. Before we establish the premises agreed upon by everyone, it is not good to reach the conclusion. Right or wrong? If you say, for example, God forbid, that it is not permissible, what is the benefit of the discussion? Because if you say it is not permissible, you are saying it is not permissible and sending them money, and it is not permissible to send them weapons. Right or wrong? And so you say that it is not permissible.

The questioner : No, their ruling is the ruling of those below them in their country, the person who is sitting in their country...

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, we say: "Eat me and cover me." We have now agreed that jihad there is permissible, is that not so?

The questioner : I do not say it is permissible for every Muslim.
.....

The Shaykh : Fine, the question comes to you, and it is the last one: if in these nearby lands the Muslims do not prevail over their enemy, is it not obligatory for the other neighboring countries to help them as well?

The questioner : In reality, now, to say: ... the fighting.

The Shaykh : Allow me, you have not answered me. May Allah forgive you.

The questioner : I say: the reality now for the Afghans themselves... because the one who is fighting all of Russia is not fighting in Afghanistan, whereas the one who says that all of Russia has come out...

The Shaykh : This is all going off-topic.

The questioner : It is not going off-topic, Shaykh. The problem now is that the Afghans who reached there and knew the number of Russian fighters and the numbers say that they are fewer in number than the Afghans present there. So the matter has not reached what we imagine. It is all political nonsense.

The Shaykh : Why do you not say this regarding the Pakistanis?

The questioner : I told you this. I say: the Pakistanis, if the situation compels them and they need them. But I tell you: now the Afghans who are present...

The Shaykh : O Shaykh Abdullah, may Allah bless you. When you say "if the situation compels them," with the same condition: if the situation compels the other countries, is it not obligatory for them what is obligatory for the Pakistanis?

The questioner : It is obligatory for every Muslim.

The Shaykh : This is what...

The questioner : I agree with you, but when? When there is need. The need has not reached...

The Shaykh : Allow me. Well, how has the need not reached? Now I am assuming a hypothetical scenario regarding the reality of the Muslims, which is regrettable. If the Muslims all rose up in the entire Islamic world as one to defend and help the Afghans in their land, do you think the battle would have lasted eight years? Answer me before anything else. I am assuming a hypothesis, and I am sorry it is a hypothesis, and it should be a practical reality. If all the Muslims rose up as one man and helped the Afghans against the Russians, would you see this war lasting eight years?

The questioner : Fine, is this obligation, for example...

The Shaykh: You did not answer.

The questioner : No

The Shaykh : No, do not escape from this answer. And then you said nothing about them that we can build upon.

The questioner : Let me repeat it, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : I say: if we assume that all the Muslims rose up as one man to help their Muslim Afghan brothers who have deviated from Islam—I say this to clarify the reality—to help these Afghans against the Russians, did you think this war would last seven or eight years?

The questioner : It would not last, if they had done so, but they did not.

The Shaykh : So, is the continuation of the war between these Muslims and the Russians not caused by the Muslims' negligence in their lands?

The questioner : There is no doubt in this. But is this specific to Afghanistan, or also...

The Shaykh : Please, allow me, do not shift the topic now...

The questioner : Because all the lands of Islam are one.

The Shaykh : The lands of Islam are a second topic, but now we have reached something very important: you admitted that if the Muslims had all risen up as one man, the war would not have lasted eight years there. So why did it last? Is it not because the Muslims were negligent? You admitted that they were negligent. So their negligence is that they did not fulfill the obligation upon them.

The questioner : But why do we limit this to Afghanistan?

The Shaykh : Who told you, Shaykh, that we were negligent? I do not think you have become a Shaykh like me who forgets quickly. I said to our brothers earlier: I fear most of all that Afghanistan will become a second Palestine. You forgot this statement. I do not differentiate. Now, if someone from here or from there... goes to do jihad in Afghanistan, will they come down by helicopter or cross some borders?

The questioner : They cross some borders.

The Shaykh : ... These borders are now open. If they are not closed, is jihad possible now for non-Afghans? If the borders between the Pakistanis and Afghanistan are closed, is it all the Pakistanis who should do jihad? And you said: because it is obligatory for them because they are neighbors. All of them? Say it plainly. It is not all of them. So this is what I fear most: that the borders will be closed and Afghanistan will become a second Palestine. I said this earlier, and I said it two or three years ago. But all this must not change our doctrinal trust in the legal ruling. I am asking a very clear question now: Is it not obligatory for all Muslims to do jihad in Palestine?

The questioner: He must.

The Shaykh : Is it a collective obligation or an individual obligation?

The questioner : When? I mean, now?

The Shaykh : I do not say: now, and before now, and after now. Is it not obligatory for the Muslims to do jihad in Palestine?

The questioner : It is obligatory for them, but with organization. It is not without organization. They are now without organization, and by Allah, in my opinion, it is not obligatory for them. I want to live with reality. I am now seeing this, and this is what has occurred to my mind, and I do not know...

The Shaykh : The legal ruling, may Allah bless you.

The questioner : The legal ruling, I say: the legal ruling in this is built upon, Shaykh, people going out without permission. And they have gone out now, and thrown themselves into problems, and they know nothing. Now, most of our sons have gone out now, and they know nothing. They do not know how to hold a rifle. And we know that Khalid ibn al-Walid, perhaps in the Battle of Yarmouk, what did he do? He retreated when he found the force unequal. So now we do not have what is equal to the enemy, and the enemy is playing with us.

The Shaykh : You have sentenced the Muslims to death.

The questioner : By Allah, it is the reality. What can we do?

The Shaykh : The reality has no excuse, Shaykh. I am saying: what do you do? You may change your belief.

The questioner : I do not change my belief, but I also take precautions for my belief.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. I am telling you: your creed has not changed. You are asking me, what does it mean that your creed has changed?

The questioner: What, O Shaykh?
.......

The Shaykh : Fine, here is your question, and it is the last one. If these nearby countries do not lose out by the Muslims overcoming their enemy, is it not obligatory for the other neighboring countries to help them as well?

The questioner : In reality, right now, if we say: ... fighting.

The Shaykh : Excuse me, you have not answered me. May Allah forgive you.

The questioner : I am saying: the reality for the Afghans themselves is ... because the ones fighting Russia are not all fighting in Afghanistan, whereas the one who says that all of Russia has come out ...

The Shaykh : All of this is going off-topic.

The questioner : It is not going off-topic. The problem now is that the Afghans who reached there and learned the number of Russian fighters and the numbers say that they are fewer in number than the Afghans present. So the matter has not reached what we imagine. It is all political nonsense.

The Shaykh : Why do you not say this regarding the Pakistanis?

The questioner : I say: the Pakistanis, if the situation forces them and they need them. But I tell you: the Afghans who are there now ...

The Shaykh : O Shaykh Abdullah, may Allah reward you. When you say: if the situation forces them, with the same condition, if the situation forces the other countries, is it not obligatory for them what is obligatory for the Pakistanis?

The questioner : It is obligatory for every Muslim.

The Shaykh : This is what ...

The questioner : I agree with you, but when? When there is a need. The need has not reached ...

The Shaykh : Excuse me, okay, how has the need not been reached? Now I am imagining a hypothetical scenario regarding the reality of the Muslims, which is regrettable. If the Muslims all rose up in the entire Islamic world as one to defend and help the Afghans in their land, do you think the battle would have lasted eight years? Answer me everything. I am assuming a hypothesis, and I am sorry it is a hypothesis, and it should be a real reality. If all the Muslims rose up as one man and helped the Afghans against the Russians, would you see the war lasting eight years?

The questioner : Fine, is this obligation, for example ...

The Shaykh: You did not answer.

The questioner : No

The Shaykh : No, you are dodging this answer, and then you said nothing about them for us to build upon.

The questioner : Repeat it once more, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : I am saying: if we assume that all the Muslims rose up as one man to help their Muslim brothers, the Afghans, who have deviated from Islam, this is a statement clarifying the reality, to help these Afghans against the Russians, did you think this war would last seven or eight years?

The questioner : It would not last, if they had done it, but they did not.

The Shaykh : So, is the continuation of the war between these Muslims and the Russians not caused by the Muslims' negligence in their lands?

The questioner : There is no doubt in that. But is this specific to Afghanistan, or also ...

The Shaykh : Please, excuse me, do not shift the topic ...

The questioner : Because all the lands of Islam are one.

The Shaykh : The lands of Islam are a second topic, but now we have reached something very important: you admitted that if the Muslims had all risen up as one man, the war would not have lasted eight years there. So why did it last? Is it not because the Muslims were negligent? You admitted that they were negligent. So their negligence is that they did not fulfill the obligation upon them.

The questioner : But why do we limit this to Afghanistan?

The Shaykh : Who told you, O Shaykh, that we were negligent? I do not think you have become a Shaykh like me who forgets quickly. I just said to our brothers: I fear most of all that Afghanistan will become a second Palestine. You forgot this statement. I do not differentiate. Now, if you have people from here or from there ... go to jihad in Afghanistan, will they come down by helicopter or cross beyond the borders?

The questioner : They cross beyond the borders.

The Shaykh : ... these borders are now open. If they are not closed, is jihad possible now for non-Afghans? If the borders between the Pakistanis and Afghanistan are closed, is it all the Pakistanis who should do jihad? And you said: because it is obligatory for them because they are neighbors. All of them? Say it plainly. It is not all of them. So this is what I fear most: that the borders will be closed and Afghanistan will become a second Palestine. I said this just now, and I said it two and three years ago. But all of this must not change our creedal trust in the legal ruling. I am asking a very clear question now: Is it not obligatory for all Muslims to do jihad in Palestine?

The questioner: He must.

The Shaykh : Is it a collective obligation or an individual obligation?

The questioner : When? I mean, now?

The Shaykh : I am not saying: now. And before now, and after now. Is it not obligatory for the Muslims to do jihad in Palestine?

The questioner : It is obligatory for them, but with organization. It is not without organization. They are now without organization, or is it not obligatory for them in my opinion? I want to live with reality. I am the one who sees this now, and this is what has occurred to my mind, and I do not know ...

The questioner : The legal ruling, I say: the legal ruling in this is built upon, O Shaykh, people going out without permission. And they have gone out now, and thrown themselves into problems while they know nothing. Now, most of our sons have gone out now and they know nothing. They do not know how to hold a rifle. And we know that Khalid ibn al-Walid, perhaps in the Battle of Yarmouk, what did he do? He retreated when he found the force to be unequal. So now we do not have what is equal to the enemy, and the enemy is playing with us.

The Shaykh : You have sentenced the Muslims to death.

The questioner : By Allah, it is the reality. What can we do?

The Shaykh : The reality has no excuse, O Shaykh. I am saying: what do you do? Do not change your creed.

The questioner : I do not change my creed, but I am also cautious about my creed.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. I am telling you: your creed has not changed. You are asking me, what does it mean that your creed has changed?

The questioner: What, O Shaykh?
............

The Shaykh : I said now: jihad in Palestine is an individual obligation for all Muslims, because these are the lands that we must defend. This is non-Islamic logic. All the Islamic lands are Muslim lands, and it is upon all Muslims to defend them. When we look at Muslims other than the Afghans, it becomes rhetorical speech that leads nowhere. No, I say: the first to say no, but with what does the Afghan face the Russians today? With knives. Why? There is an obligation. Outside the Afghan borders, is it not an obligation? There is no answer except purely emotional matters. I say: it is obligatory for all capable Muslims to help their brothers, these people, as long as the way is open. But if you consider this a trap for the Muslims, that is the problem of problems.

The questioner : By Allah, this is what appears to be the case. I consider this an existing trap, and the days, if Allah wills, will make this clear to us.

The Shaykh : If Allah wills, this will not happen.

The questioner : We ask Allah that this does not happen. But what is known in Islam is that the one who fights so that the word of Allah is the highest is in the path of Allah. As for the one who fights for nationalism and defense, and the banner is not unified, is there victory without unifying the banner? I see that as long as the banner is not unified, victory will not be a reality and will not occur. And these are matters that are known and known by every person.

The Shaykh : Look, we have spoken a lot to reach a result. Can you summarize the difference between my opinion and your opinion?

The questioner : No, summarize it yourself, O our Shaykh, may Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : I say: The difference between the political view and the Shari'ah view is that the Shari'ah view obligates Muslims in every Islamic land to support these people, whom you and others acknowledge must defend their country and fight. And I understand from your last statement that they must fight the Russians and their military might with rifles. These Afghans, who are obligated to fight the Russians and confront them with rifles, this is an obligation upon them. I say: As long as these lands are Islamic and have been attacked with all modern destructive military means, then in this case, Muslims must not wait to manufacture war machines and be able to meet weapons with the same weapons. Rather, they must now do what they can and carry whatever weapons they can, as is the case with the Afghans. I do not distinguish between an Afghan, a Pakistani, a Saudi, or a Gulf Arab, etc. All of these are Muslims, and since their lands have been attacked, and they are certainly Islamic lands, and the people of these lands are fighting the Russians with rifles, I say: It is obligatory for other Islamic countries to help these people, either with the same weapons or with better ones if they have the capability. Their negligence in jihad means they place themselves under the responsibility of being held accountable.

The questioner : Is the sin upon everyone?

The Shaykh : The sin is upon everyone, by your admission that if the Muslims had stood as one man and supported these Afghans, the war would not have taken this long course of eight years. This is from the Shari'ah perspective. From the political perspective, I believe, exactly as you believe, that there is a game in the United Nations Council set for Muslims, not only in this country but in all countries, and perhaps in lands in our very backyard, which we do not know about, and this... But does this mean that we neglect helping these Muslim brothers there? Regardless of the extent of their Islam, their strength, etc., we have finished with that. The political game is one thing, and the Islamic religious obligation is another. This is the difference between us and you. In the sense that I agree with you that there is a game, and it is intended to make Afghanistan a mouthful for the Russians and to strike them against each other, as is the case in Palestine, exactly. But this does not mean that Muslims leave their Muslim brothers to fight with whatever weapons they have and whatever people they have. Either I find a great divergence on the side of helping them with what we can, in terms of money, weapons, etc., and why do we not help them with everything we can? What is the difference between this and that?

The questioner : Yes, the difference between this and that is that these young men whom we send there have other obligations besides jihad. And you know, and everyone knows, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Companions did not make all Muslims mujahideen.

The Shaykh : First of all, you have entered into the discussion of collective obligation (fard kifayah) and individual obligation (fard 'ayn). May Allah reward you. This is an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) to repel the Russians by the Afghans. It is an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) at least for the Afghans. This is a matter of consensus, correct or not?

The questioner : Yes, but when is this consensus? If the enemy is incapable, or if the enemy is capable? If the enemy is capable, none of us denies that those who are playing among us...
The Shaykh: Let us leave the hypotheticals.

The questioner : It is not hypotheticals, it is reality... the balance of power now...

The Shaykh : You say, if so, do not go. We want to address the reality. This reality is either an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) or a collective obligation (fard kifayah). So you have brought an argument, which is a valid argument, but it does not apply here. The argument is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not have all of them go out with him, because the goal was in the way of conveying the call. But if they are attacked in their very backyard, they all go out together, correct or not? Here is a difference between...

The questioner : Muslims are now here in our backyard being attacked ideologically...

The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar, O Shaykh Abdullah, may Allah reward you. What do you see if our lands are Islamic lands, in Islamic lands, but the attack is ideological? If these Islamic lands are attacked in their backyard by those who brought the ideas to them, which is more severe? My question is not clear. Let us assume two regions, each region is an Islamic region. One region is attacked in its ideas but not in its backyard. The second region: is attacked in its ideas and in its backyard. Which is more severe?

The questioner : There is no doubt that the attack from the side of...

The Shaykh : Well, do you not see that we are on one topic and we are moving with you to a second topic? I am talking about the obligation of the second category. You come and argue with me and say to me: We are attacked in our ideas. Who told you: No, we are not attacked in our ideas? The research, may Allah reward you, is not in this. The research is in the second type: a region that was attacked by Muslims in its ideas, and this is what you are circling around, and we are with you in that. But if it is attacked in its backyard, do we accept this attack such that it becomes of the second type, attacked in its ideas and attacked in its backyard? By Allah, this is the very error, O my professor. I know well, and perhaps before people do not state it, that I fear what I fear that Afghanistan will return to being like Palestine again, because I know that the Russians did not attack these lands except as they say today in modern terminology, and they were given the green light by the Americans.

The questioner : In another way, it is now spreading in the newspapers and such that there is now an agreement between Russia and America.

The Shaykh : Yes, my sir, the Russian attack on Afghanistan is not a surprise to the Americans, and they have mutual interests between them, despite their enemies. This is from the political side. But this does not mean that we submit to the fait accompli, my brothers.

The questioner : We submit.

The Shaykh : We submit to whom?

The questioner : We now know that their scale is heavier, the scale of the enemies, because we have sins and disobedience, and added to this are shirk practices, and we have an imbalance in weapons. All these many evils make us a mouthful for them.

The Shaykh : You forgot what you said, O Shaykh Abdullah. You said: If the Muslims had fulfilled their obligation, the war would not have lasted eight years.

The questioner : Where are we from... the first?

The Shaykh : ... We address the issue with such instructions and directives. And for this reason, if we do not affirm this type...


The questioner : Why do we not address them ideologically before we help them? They do not accept.

The Shaykh : On the contrary, I say - you reminded me now of something I said recently. Jihad in Afghanistan: the going of some Islamic peoples who combined the Salafi thought and Salafi creed and the love of jihad in the path of Allah. These people have two benefits in going to Afghanistan for jihad in the path of Allah. The first benefit, which is what we were discussing, is helping the Afghans in repelling this attacking enemy in their lands. Second: to convey the Salafi call to the ideas of these people. Imagine with me, and I believe completely what you will say: If the situation stabilizes and an Islamic state is established, whatever its type, in Afghanistan, is it possible for you to go there and be a da'iyah (caller to Islam)? Answer me frankly.

The questioner : I answer you frankly, I went and found...

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. We are telling you: Assume that things stabilized and they established an Afghan state. Imagine this state as you hope for it or as you fear it, as you wish. Can you go there as a da'iyah for the creed and tawhid (the oneness of Allah)?

The questioner : The reality is, I decide that I can, I cannot.

The Shaykh : ... Can you or cannot? I tell you: You cannot.

The questioner: I am not able to.

The Shaykh : Well, why do you not say: I cannot? Why do you not say it.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Now we repeat the question. Now you and those like you, can you convey this call to Afghanistan? Say it frankly, not... from it.

The questioner : I am telling you a story, and it speaks for me.

The Shaykh : You are singing for me, and the free man is satisfied with a hint. A clear, explicit word is enough for me.

The questioner : I cannot now.

The Shaykh : You cannot now?

The questioner : Because I went and was unable to [do so], and I found one of the mujahideen while I was speaking to you about one of the mujahideen; I found a necklace around his neck in the camp... of the religion, and I asked him to stand up, so he stood up, and I said to him: "My brother, what is this?" He said: "This is for the Russian; it prevents my head from the Russian." I said: "My brother, do you not trust the One in whose path you fought to protect it?" He did not say anything to me... from this, so he did not answer me and remained as he was. One of the brothers who was with us, a companion when we went to the hotel, unfortunately they assigned him with us, and he does not speak about creed there, it is a political matter, and agitation and things like that, that is his work. He blamed me and stood up against me and said to me: "You are confused." What is this confusion?

The Shaykh : This is from the Muslim Brotherhood.

The questioner : He claims...

The Shaykh : This is the one I spoke to... that he is from the Muslim Brotherhood. I am telling you now: If the Muslim Brotherhood occupied the arena there and you made way for them and said to them: "Please, we are sitting here." Is this a victory for the da'wah or its destruction? This is one thing. May Allah reward you. You take a rule from a specific incident and then build castles and palaces upon it. That such an incident happened to you... you did not meet, meaning your Lord did not bless you with another incident where you met a person and found him wrong in his opinion regarding creed, etc., and you advised him and he accepted from you?

The questioner : It must be this.

The Shaykh : Allow me, it is not permissible for a Muslim to build a rule upon a single incident. Indeed, by Allah, such and such happened to him, so I am unable to be a da'i there.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : No, you are able; you forgot the question.

The questioner : I am saying: Even if I am unable...

The Shaykh : So it means the door will be closed in front of the Salafi da'is, and therefore seize this opportunity.

The questioner : Do we hope now that they will make us ministers or partners... is that possible?

The Shaykh : Am I saying it this way?

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Through mixing and da'wah, the same method of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). What did the Messenger do? You do not need to be reminded of this. May Allah reward you. I want to say: There is a vast difference between the current situation and what will be the case by agreement of both parties. The current situation facilitates the performance of jihad in two types: jihad against the disbelievers on one hand, and jihad against the innovators on the other hand. Whereas if the event occurs and the Afghan state is established, the door of jihad in both its sections will be closed, and you acknowledge this. So why do we now close the doors in front of ourselves and say: How do we throw away the lives of our youth and students? My brother, let them go and fight in the path of Allah and .

The questioner : Do we teach them or do they fight without teaching?

The Shaykh : Both, I say, May Allah reward you: Now seize the opportunity, and our Salafi youth there perform jihad against the disbelievers on one hand, and jihad against the Afghans in their ideas and their creeds, and in... this is an opportunity that does not allow for what comes after... I do not imagine at all, and I hope thatThe Shaykh : Abdullah understands me well. I do not imagine that if overnight the flag of the Islamic Afghan state is raised, I do not imagine it will be a state of tawhid (the oneness of Allah), but this does not mean that we do not support them and help them, especially since now we can help them in two ways: we help them against their external enemy and we help them against their internal enemy. By Allah, this is the opportunity of the age.

The questioner : ... in their scientific assistance, their education, and their teaching.

The Shaykh : The points that we are going around in circles aboutThe Shaykh : Abdullah is not going around in circles with me about them, and he knows the hadith . I say this statement is a response not only to the Saudis, so we do not limit it to them that they go and teach, it is also a response on behalf of all the Saudis. What is the difference between the Pakistani and the Saudi? Why do you say: It is obligatory for the Pakistani to help the Afghans materially, i.e., with money and knowledge? And you say for the Saudi, it is not obligatory for him to fight, but only to teach? Is this distinction acceptable? Regionalism responds to it as it responds to the Pakistani. The Pakistani is a Muslim, and we also need him.

The questioner : I said: This one is mobilized and that one is mobilized, because the border is one. The Pakistani and the Afghan are in the enemy's circle.

The Shaykh : But the Pakistanis are attacking.

The questioner : How? Some parts of Pakistan were attacked by some...?

The Shaykh : They were attacked but are not attacking...

The questioner : Overnight they expect this, because I said: Meaning, these people, by virtue of proximity, expect an attack...

The Shaykh : In any case, we ask that He guide us all to the straight path.
.

The questioner : Regarding the issue of leadership, is jihad obligatory with the absence of unity?

The Shaykh : I am still saying: You are looking at jihad in a general, absolute sense. I say: There is jihad that is a collective obligation (fard kifayah), this requires unity of leadership. An individual obligation (fard 'ayn), you know what they call today, rebels in an Islamic country that was attacked, people from here, and people from there, who is their leader? They have no leadership. These people need to do everything to expel this aggressor. So if you think it needs leadership, it means you have opened the way for the disbelievers to attack all Islamic countries, especially if they understand that these people do not move to defend their country unless they have a legitimate leadership. Legitimate leadership is related to the collective obligation, whereas the individual obligation requires all Muslims to mobilize entirely, no one who is able to carry a weapon should delay. If they are able over time to organize themselves, organize their detachments, appoint a general leader, and commanders, etc., this is their duty, because what is necessary for the performance of an obligation is itself obligatory. But at the time of attack, we say we do not fight until we are under one leadership.

The questioner : O Shaykh, leadership is not present here once, or it is not present... leadership...

The Shaykh : And I say: Amen, amen. Did you understand what I am saying?
.

The questioner : Okay, regarding jihad as an individual obligation, if the country is attacked, if this attacking country is more numerous than the attacked, is it an individual obligation?

The Shaykh : It is the regional one itself, this is what affects and corrodes it. My brother, is Islam only Afghanistan? The circle of Islam is wide. If Afghanistan is attacked, do not imagine that only Afghanistan was attacked, so that you imagine that if Afghanistan cannot [defend itself]... Therefore, we say: Why did this battle last eight years? Because they left Afghanistan alone. But if all Muslims had stood up to defend the land of Afghanistan as they defend their own lands, this war would not have lasted this long period, by the agreement of all. So why do you think this limited thought that if Afghanistan is defeated by the Russians? Without a doubt, Afghanistan cannot repel the evil of the Russians, because the Russians have been colonizing Islamic lands for years and expanding in inventing hellish machines and... etc. But do not stop at the Afghan land only because you are a Muslim. We are always in our lectures, especially those who raise their flag that the Qur'an is our constitution, etc., that all Islamic lands are one land. But in practice, you find everyone in their country works for the benefit of their country and does not think about the other country. And this is what has afflicted us now regarding Afghanistan. So your question is wrong because your question is purely regional, that the Afghans cannot [defend themselves], and I tell you: they cannot.

The questioner : I mean, O Shaykh, the question is: if a region is attacked and this same region is more numerous than the attackers, is it an individual obligation or a collective obligation?

The Shaykh : It is an individual obligation to do what they can, even if they are annihilated from first to last, it is an individual obligation. But I understand from your question that you are looking at the region separated from the other Islamic regions, or how did you imagine this question? First: Did you take the answer to your question?

The questioner : The number of Afghans is more than the number of Russians, meaning the sufficiency exists, the sufficiency is present. So is it obligatory for me in Medina and you to go out as an individual obligation to help them, or do I remain in Medina?

The Shaykh : Now, after this clarification, is jihad limited to a specific number of people? I think jihad is not limited to a specific number of people.