A Response to Those Who Apply the Verse “And whoever among you takes them as allies, then he is one of them” to Justify Fighting Muslim Armies Allied with the Americans.

The Shaykh : You have heard this question, and especially since this verse has previously been cited as evidence, I felt obligated to pause for a moment to clarify such a noble verse .

The questioner : And also .

The Shaykh : Perfect. Taking as allies is like disbelief; taking the disbelievers as allies is like disbelief itself. I think our brothers present here, either all of them or most of them, remember with me that disbelief is divided into two types: creedal disbelief and practical disbelief. Creedal disbelief is that which takes its adherent out of the religion, whereas practical disbelief does not take him out of the circle of Islam, but he becomes among the sinful, perishing people who fall under the general meaning of the statement of the Lord of the Worlds: . A Muslim’s taking of a disbeliever as an ally is also divided into two types: taking as an ally that is disbelief and apostasy, and taking as an ally that is practical and not creedal. The difference between practical and creedal disbelief is known to you all, and taking as an ally branches from it. So, whoever takes the disbelievers as allies and considers that permissible in his heart, that is apostasy itself. And whoever takes the disbelievers as allies out of desire, benefit, ignorance, or erroneous ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), that is not disbelief without a doubt. But some of it falls into the circle of sin, and some of it falls into the circle of erroneous ijtihad. Perhaps you have heard, as I have heard, from some Saudi preachers that they argue to justify what they did in bringing disbelievers into their lands by stating that it is established that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sought the help of some polytheists. And one of the most amazing examples I heard was when the Messenger (peace be upon him) emigrated from Makkah to al-Madinah, he sought the help of a man—I forgot his name—a guide, an expert in the roads.

The questioner : Suraqah.
Al-Halabi : 'Abdullah ibn Urayqit.

The Shaykh : 'Abdullah ibn Urayqit. Perfect, the point in any case is that names do not concern us; what concerns us is the named thing: that the Messenger sought the help of a polytheist man to know the road from Makkah to al-Madinah. We say, Glory be to Allah, . So the intended meaning is that this is a strange argument, but our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) is the One who knows the secrets of what is in the breasts. If the one who cited this to justify this wrong matter actually thought the matter was so, then if it is the first case, it is a sin upon a sin, because the sin is in bringing the disbelievers, and the other sin is justifying and legitimizing this bringing. And if it is the other case, it is rewarded ijtihad with one reward. So the difference between practical and creedal disbelief is the same difference regarding a Muslim’s taking of a disbeliever as an ally. If this taking is accompanied by considering it permissible in the heart, it is disbelief itself. And if it is not accompanied by that, it is either a sin or one reward. Therefore, one of the trials existing among us now is exaggerating in sanctifying those who do not deserve sanctification and destroying those who do not deserve destruction. For example, this King Fahd, because he brought these disbelievers, became a disbeliever in the eyes of the people! My brother, whoever declares a Muslim a disbeliever has himself disbelieved. So why do you rush to declare people disbelievers? It is a strange matter. This has become the affair of the common people. Since two or three days after the incident, I entered a shop of ours there in Jabal al-Nasr to buy something. Of course, I was in the car, I stopped the car next to the shop, and it appeared that people were gathered in a place arguing about these issues. And a man entered and said, “Peace be upon you.” I said, “And upon you be peace.” He said, “What is your opinion, Professor? Did Fahd do this, is it disbelief or not?” I said to him, “No.” Or he said, “Is he a disbeliever or not?” I forgot now, the important thing is I said to him, “He is a disbeliever? No, but he is misguided.” Or I said to him, “It is misguidance and not disbelief.” I forgot, I am the one who forgot. So now, the ijtihad of people, and they have no knowledge, and perhaps if one of them were measured by the same standard they applied to the King and judged him as a disbeliever, he would turn out to be more disbelieving than him, because he does not know his ignorance and does not know the misguidance he is falling into, this one who dares to declare people disbelievers! So the point is that this man, without a doubt, erred and fell into far misguidance in opening the door that, if they had shed a lot of blood and spent millions, they would not have achieved what they achieved with the word “Welcome.” As we said earlier, “Here is the throne, so take it.” The intended meaning is that this is a mistake, but we cannot say this is a disbeliever. We return to say that the Ba'ath system is disbelief, but we do not judge every Ba'athist as a disbeliever, because he may be misguided or ignorant. So we must establish [the case]. As for it as a system, there is no doubt that it is a non-Islamic system, and what is such is a disbeliever and not a Muslim, this system. So the point is, if , the meaning is that he is one of them, either in creed or in practice. If it is in creed, he is one of them by a hundred percent. And if it is not in creed but only in practice, he is one of them in action. And this is very common in the hadiths and texts. For example, . The amazing thing is that people know this hadith and none of them moves, but now that this occasion has come and this verse has come, if so-and-so disbelieves! Well, where are you from such a hadith, first in understanding and then in application? If you say that whoever imitates a people is one of them, meaning that imitating them is disbelief and apostasy, then how many disbelievers are there in this age who imitate the disbelievers! But we say no, the meaning of the hadith is not , meaning creed, unless it is creed with them, then he is one of them. But if it is in form, he is with them in form and not with them in heart. Yes, likewise, for example, the hadith of . Does this mean he is a disbeliever? No, my brothers. The Arabic language is very broad, and therefore it is not permissible to interpret this verse, which is interpreted today by a group who were known in the past as the Group of Emigration... today they are known as the Group of Jihad. They apply it to all rulers, because without a doubt, all Muslim rulers have what they call diplomatic or industrial envoys, or whatever, and they seek their help. So then, all of these are one of them, he is one of them. My brother, it needs detail. But the truth is that the least thing that can fall under the general meaning of this verse is to stay away from declaring people disbelievers, as long as it is in practice. And with this, I mention a narration in "Sunan al-Bayhaqi" with a sound chain that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) received a letter from some of the lands, and he wanted the scribe of Abu Musa al-Ash'ari to read it to him. And the letter was in the mosque, so 'Umar ordered Abu Musa to order his scribe to go to the mosque and take it to read it. He said, “He is a Christian, he does not enter the mosque.” He said to him, “A Christian?” and read to him this verse: . I did not find among the Muslims anyone I could seek help from for writing, so I sought help from what? This Christian disbeliever. Up to here, 'Umar expanded the meaning of the verse to the meaning of practical taking as an ally, so it is not permissible to this extent. But this does not mean that Abu Musa disbelieved, no. But if he had found someone to take the place of this Christian scribe, he would have erred. But if he did not find, as is the reality today regarding the governments that we say seek the help of some foreign experts, we see no obstacle at all in that. But if his emotion is with them, and his help is with them, and his heart is with them, then that is disbelief itself. Yes.

The questioner : Now, my lord, praise be to Allah that none of us has declared [someone] a disbeliever... that we are far from this matter and we realize it. We know that declaring someone a disbeliever did not cross our minds, the issue of declaring someone a disbeliever. But now you have alerted us to the issue of practical disbelief, not creedal. Now, what corresponds to this practical disbelief, and also the verse that says . First, is there any interpretation of it from Allah? Second, what is our position toward this practical disbelief? Meaning, we know that creedal disbelief is apostasy, is that not so? So whoever was a Muslim and apostatized... Practical disbelief is like like another sin. And what is our position when a Muslim takes a disbeliever as an ally and this is practical disbelief?

The Shaykh : The situation is clear, may Allah reward you. This varies from person to person. Can you reach him and prevent him from doing this work? That is the first obligation. If you cannot, can you offer him advice or a reminder? That is the second step, as mentioned in the hadith. The last is that you disapprove of it in your heart. Regarding the current problem, which is an international issue, as individuals, there is nothing we can do other than what you have heard: to disapprove of it clearly and not try to justify such actions, as we mentioned to you earlier, that the Ba'ath is more dangerous than these disbelievers. Therefore, we thought that from the perspective of repelling the greater harm with the lesser harm... No, my sir, that is a complete distortion of the truth. The point is that as individuals, regarding an international problem, I do not think we can do anything other than these stages, and of course, people differ.

The questioner : Forgive me, I want to expand a little...

The Shaykh : With your permission, thank you.

The questioner : My sir, let us suppose that as individuals we are unable to do anything. The state that rules us has decided to enter the war, let us suppose, of course, it has decided to enter the war. Do I understand in this case that I am like one who is compelled, and thus the detail you mentioned applies?

The Shaykh : Yes, it is the same detail.

The questioner : The same detail.

The Shaykh : The same detail.

The questioner : Do you allow me a word?

The Shaykh : Just a word!

The questioner : I mean a brief sentence.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Who seeks the aid of the enemies of the Muslims and the disbelievers, and he approves of it? I do not believe he seeks aid while in his heart, with his intellect, he says, "This is forbidden, but due to necessity it is permissible." We have not heard this. He takes pride in the fact that these people came to them quickly and eagerly, and so on. Yes, and he considers it permissible. He found among those who claim to be scholars in his lands to justify this crime, in reality, as a legitimate act and one of the acts of the Messenger, and that it does not contradict the Sunnah, and so forth. So, is this man, by pure intellect, reasonable, or do we believe he has such piety that he believes this act, which contradicts the Shari'ah, is a necessity to repel that invasion? Or does he approve of this act and consider it a good, fine deed? For example, one who drinks intoxicants, and we do not hear a comment on this, we say he may be a Muslim, he may be a disbeliever, he may consider intoxicants permissible, but if one says that intoxicants are good and their taste is nice and praises them, we say this person is a disbeliever, because he is praising the foul thing that Allah the Exalted has forbidden. So we do not think this of this man.

The Shaykh : Let him express his extremism.

The questioner : We do not think of him or his like that he believes this alliance is forbidden, but he resorts to it from the perspective of repelling harm. Rather, he approves of it and believes it is a legitimate and good act. Now, with him, there are several recorded fatwas in the newspapers and television and so on, and he does not believe he is contradicting the command of Allah.
The attendees: ...

The Shaykh : Hehehe.

The questioner : So this detail is not said in such a case... This detail is not said in such an occasion.

Another questioner : Either he is an open sinner, corrupt, and a liar, or he is a mujtahid who erred. Either this or that.

The questioner : Neither this nor that. I am with the one who is greater.
Al-Halabi : I seek forgiveness from Allah.

The Shaykh : Let him be, my sir, he does not know, it is better for him.

The questioner : No, I know and I say.

The Shaykh : You said you do not know.

The questioner : No, I say of them, with heart and tongue, like this. I say of them, with heart and tongue. You say open sinner or erring. I do not say this or that. I say of them, with heart and tongue, and my affair is with Allah.
The attendees: ...

The questioner : I say that they are with him, with heart and tongue, and my affair is with Allah.