What is your opinion of the fatwa of Shaykh 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Baz regarding the permissibility of killing Iraqis, even if they are praying?

The questioner : The issue of Shaykh Ibn Baz's fatwa, perhaps you have heard about it, regarding the permissibility of killing an Iraqi even if he is praying, just as in the fatwa of those who were praying and the Kuwaitis killed them, saying, "There is nothing wrong with you, they were praying..."

The Shaykh : This contradicts the explicit hadith: , but this was based on a previous fatwa that the Ba'athists are disbelievers. Is this fatwa correct in its absolute form? We say no, with complete clarity. Therefore, "what is built on a defective foundation is defective," "what is built on an invalid foundation is invalid," "what is built on an error is an error," especially when the fatwa explicitly contradicts the Prophetic text . We have, for many years, since we were in Syria and living, unfortunately, as you are also living, unfortunately, under the rule of the Ba'ath, we were and still are not issuing fatwas declaring every Ba'athist a disbeliever, but we issue fatwas that the Ba'ath system is disbelief. This distinction arises from understanding Islam. I think you know the meaning that disbelief is divided into two categories: a creedal category and a practical category. It is also divided in another way, and the outcome is the same: heart disbelief and verbal disbelief. Verbal disbelief corresponds to practical disbelief, and heart disbelief corresponds to creedal disbelief. Creedal, because speech is an action. If a Muslim utters a word of disbelief, does he thereby apostatize from Islam, or must something else be added to it? The answer is: Yes, it is necessary that this verbal disbelief be accompanied by creedal, heart disbelief. And we know, by observation and by reality, that many of the Syrian Ba'athist youth, we first saw them praying, praying and fasting, but they were Ba'athists. And we know from many of them, my brother, we want to live. Even I have this magazine now, you know it, the magazine of Jihad. They write about it here about the city of Khost and its conquest. You must have heard. They conducted an interview with some prisoners, asking them, "Why are you in the Communist Party?" He answers with words like this: "I am forced, because I need to feed my family and my children. Why did I cooperate with the Kabul Communist system? Because my family lives in Kabul, and we suffer from financial problems, and I was forced to work in order to feed my family." This is truly what we hear from many individuals. And look now, what is the difference between such individuals and those who seek the aid of disbelievers? Those who seek the aid of disbelievers said, "We are forced." Well, and these people also said, "We are forced." Is this considered an excuse for these people and not for those? We do not say this is an excuse, but this is an excuse that we cannot declare them disbelievers and exclude them from the religion, because he did not explicitly state with his tongue that he adopts the Ba'ath Party or the Communist system as a system in his life. Therefore, as long as he has not explicitly stated his creed first, and as long as he declares the performance of some Islamic rituals second, such as prayer, this is knowledge like the white flag, which prevents, in the international system, that this be touched with harm, because he has surrendered. Therefore, it is not permissible to say that the Ba'athists or the Communists, every individual among them, is a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion, so that it is valid for us to build a ruling that if you see a Communist or Ba'athist praying, kill him, and there is nothing on you. I do not believe this is of Islam in any way, ever. But all I hope for, and in the recent past, we were talking with some enthusiastic youth who still attack some Saudi scholars, and among them Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymeen. So I said to him, my brother, these people, although we have stated our disagreement with them and our correction of them, we also cannot enter their hearts and say that they have made lawful what Allah has forbidden. Rather, it may be that this is their opinion and independent legal reasoning, and they misjudged the situation. They claimed that "necessities permit the prohibited," but there is no necessity that permits these prohibitions. So there is a possibility that these are scholars exercising independent legal reasoning and that they will be rewarded. So it is not permissible for a Muslim to be harsh with these scholars, just as we defend the Communists. We say, it is not permissible for us to declare a Communist individual a disbeliever. So we come and mislead great scholars and jurists because they erred in one or two or three issues. The truth is that it should be said that these fatwas are wrong, but we cannot believe that these people said what was contrary to what appeared to them. And this is also my answer to your question.
The student : Our Shaykh, but in addition to this good answer, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew of the hypocrites without killing them, because they were praying.

The Shaykh : Yes, yes, yes.