NOTE: This was originally published in a refutation form against a lying arrogant palace worshiper from the Sahawi Salafi sect.  But I chose to edit everything out except the evidences and sayings of scholars.

The First: The vast majority of scholars agreed that it was Haraam, as a basic ruling. They then went on to state an entire list of conditions for any exceptions to this basic rule, as follows:

a) If there is a need; most said “necessity”
b) No one else is able to help
c) The Muslims are able to repel those Kuffar, whose assistance was sought, from killing the defeated Muslim rebels who flee
d) The rule of the Muslims is dominant over the Kuffar
e) That these Kuffar are brave and able to fulfill what they are being asked to fulfill
f) That he trusts them to not contradict his orders in how to fight the Bughat as far as attacking and pursuing those Muslim rebels (Bughat) who flee or give up.

Then at this point, if the conditions existed for the exception to be made for that general prohibition, an Islamic state would be permitted to seek the military assistance of the Kuffar against the Muslim rebels, although some scholars left it unrestrictedly forbidden.

The statement of Ibn Hazm is in the original Fatwa of Shaykh Hamood (ra), and it states that the state’s failure to comply with the EXCEPTIONAL conditions he lists WOULD BE KUFR in that instance!

The Second: And it was referred to in the previous address; since when does declaring an action to be Kufr, necessitate that those who don’t see it as Kufr are Kuffar, let alone that they have committed Kufr? This has never been answered.

Shaykh Hamood (ra) said that it is not permissible for a Muslim to seek the assistance of a Kafir against the Bughat.
Hanafiyyah

‘Al-Bahr Ar-Râ’iq’, by Ibn Nujaym Al-Misri:

“And from them is that it is not allowed for us to seek help from the people of Shirk against the people of rebellion if the ruling of the Shirk is dominant. And there is no harm for the people of justice to seek help from the Bughat and the Thimees against the Khawaarij, if the ruling of the people of justice is dominant.”

Shafi’iyyah:

‘Rawdhat At-Taalibeen’, by An-Nawawi:

“The fifth: It is not allowed to seek help against them from the Kuffâr because it is not allowed to give a Kaafir authority over a Muslim.” – until he said: “...unless he is in need of seeking their help; then it is allowed with two conditions. One of them is that they have bravery and good performance and the second is that he is able to repel them if they (i.e. the Kuffar) pursue the people of rebellion (i.e. the Muslim rebels) after their defeat. And it is a must for the two conditions to be together for the permissibility for seeking help. This was stated by Ibn as-Sabbâgh and ar-Rûyânî and others from the agreement of the companions. And the phrasing of al-Baghawî necessitates its permissibility with one of them.”

‘Asnal-Matâlib’ by Abû Yahyâ Zakariyyâ Al-Ansârî:

“And seeking help against them from a Kâfir is Harâm, even if he is a Thimmî, as it is not allowed to give authority to him over us.” – until he said: “Yes, it is allowed to seek their help when it is a necessity…”

‘Tuhfat Al-Habîb’, by Al-Bujayrimî:

“His statement: ‘Because it is Harâm to give him authority over the Muslim..’ And likewise to make him the one who implements the Hudûd upon the Muslims…” – until he said: “Yes, if the benefit necessitates entrusting him with the authority of something, which no one other than him from the Muslims can establish, or the one who performs that from the Muslims has had some betrayal shown from him, while the Thimmî is considered trustworthy even if it is due to his fear of the ruler, for instance. Then it is not farfetched that it would be permissible to give him that authority when there is necessity.”

‘Hawâshî Al-Sharwânî’, by Abdul-Hakîm Al-Makkî Ash-Sharwânî’:

“What is apparent from their words is that this is not allowed, even if necessity calls for that. But it was clearly stated in ‘At-Tamammah’ the permissibility of seeking his help, in other words the Kaafir, when there is a necessity.”

‘Mughnî Al-Muhtâj’, by Al-Khatîb Ash-Shirbînî:

“Point of Notice: What is apparent from their words is that this is not allowed, even if necessity calls for that. But it was clearly stated in ‘At-Tamammah’ the permissibility of seeking his help, when there is a necessity.”

‘Nihâyat Al-Muhtâj’, by Muhammad Ibn Abil-‘Abbâs Ar-Ramlî:

“And a Kâfir is not to be sought help from against them, even if he is a Thimmî because it is forbidden to give him authority over a Muslim.” – until he said: “Yes, it is allowed to seek help from them, when there is a necessity.”

Hanâbilah

‘Sharh Muntahal-Irâdât’, by Al-Bahûtî:

“And it is forbidden to seek help against them from a Kaafir because it is giving him authority over the blood of the Muslims.” – until he said: “Except if due to necessity, such as the inability of the people of truth against them.”

‘Al-Mughnî’, by Ibn Qudâmah:

“And he does not seek help from a Kaafir in fighting them in any condition, nor from he who is of the opinion of fighting them when they flee. And this was what ash-Shâfi’î stated. And the people of opinion stated that there is no problem in seeking help against them from the people of Thimmah and those who were given security and another type from them, if the people of justice are dominant over those who they are seeking help from. And we take that the point is to repel them and return obedience and not killing them. And if the need calls for seeking help from them, then if he is able to repel them (i.e. those disbelievers he is seeking help from), then he seeks help from them. But if he is not able, it is not allowed.”

[Point: Not to dwell upon the incident of Juhaymân (ra), but would the Saudi Regime in 1979 be able to repel the French Foreign Legion, when it seems they were even unable to defeat al-Juhaymân (ra) and his followers, on their own?]

‘Al-Kâfî’, by Ibn Qudâmah:

“And he does not seek help from a Kaafir in fighting them, nor from he who permits killing them, because the point is to repel them, not to kill them, whereas the objection of those ones (i.e. the Kuffâr) is to kill them. Then if the need calls for seeking help from him, and he is able to prevent them from committing what is not permitted, seeking their help is permitted. Otherwise it is not.”

‘Kashâf Al-Qinâ’’, by Al-Bahûtî:

“And it is forbidden for the people of justice to seek help from a Kâfir in their war, in other words, their fighting of the rebels, because he is not sought help from in fighting the Kuffâr. So for him to not be sought help from in fighting a Muslim is more befitting. And because the point is to repel them, not kill them, while he does not intend anything except for killing them. ‘Or’, in other words, it is forbidden to seek help in their war from he who takes the opinion of killing them when they flee, due to what is in that from giving authority to him over he who it is not allowed to kill. Except for necessity, such as if the people of justice are unable to fight them, due to their small numbers. Then it is allowed for the need, due to their actions if it is not done.”

‘Al-Mubdi’’, by Ibn Muflih:

“And they do not seek help from a Kaafir in their war because he is not sought help from in fighting against the Kuffar. So for him to not be sought help from in fighting a Muslim is more befitting and because the point is to repel them and not kill them, and he does not intend, (except) killing them. Then if it is needed and he is able to repel them from performing that which is not allowed, seeking help from them is allowed, otherwise no.”

‘Matâlib Ulin-Nuhâ’, by As-Suyûtî Ar-Rahîbânî:

“And seeking help against them from a Kaafir is forbidden, because it is giving authority to him over the blood of the Muslims.” – until he said: “Except for necessity, such as the inability of the people of truth against them.”

Thaahiriyyah

‘Al-Muhallâ’, by Ibn Hazm:

“Are the people of Harb, the people of Thimmah, or other people of rebellion sought help from against the people of rebellion?’

“Abû Muhammad (ra) said: ‘The people differed regarding this as a group stated that it is not allowed to seek help against them from the Harbi, nor a Thimmî nor from someone who permits fighting them when they flee. And this was the opinion of ash-Shâfi’î (raa). And the companions of Abû Hanîfah said, there is no problem in seeking help against them from the people of Harb, the people of Thimmah and from the likes of them from the people of rebellion.’

“And we mentioned in the ‘Book of Jihaad’, the statement of the Messenger of Allaah, ‘Verily, we do not seek help from a Mushrik.’ And this is a general (text), which prevents the seeking of help from them in authority, fighting or anything else, except (in) that which the consensus has been confirmed concerning the permissibility of seeking their help in, like taking care of the animals, employment, or fulfilling a need, and other than that, from that which they do not come out from lowliness. And the (word) ‘Mushrik’ is used for a Thimmî and a Harbî.’

“Abu Muhammad (ra) said: ‘This is according to us (i.e. that it is not allowed), as long as the people of justice have ability to defend. But if they are at the brink of annihilation, and are in necessity, and they have no stratagem, then there is no problem for them to seek refuge with the people of Harb and to use the people of Thimmah in defense, as long as they are certain that they are in their support; they do not harm a Muslim nor a Thimmî in blood, wealth or a sanctity from what is not permitted.”
The Condition of ‘Necessity’

The reason we have emphasized this condition is because this condition is almost universally applied to any generalized prohibition in the Sharî’ah as an EXCEPTION to the general rule of prohibition. Consider the statement of Allâh, the Most High:

“Say: ‘I find not in that which has been inspired to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be Maytatah (a dead animal) or blood poured forth (by slaughtering or the like), or the flesh of swine (pork, etc.) for that surely is impure, or impious (unlawful) meat (of an animal) which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allaah (or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., or on which Allaah’s Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering). But whosoever is forced by necessity without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, (for him) certainly, your Lord is Oft¬-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Al-An’aam, 145)

In the Verse Allâh, the Most High, Himself mentioned this topic similarly. Firstly the general prohibition of dead meat, blood, pork and animals sacrificed for other than Allâh, was mentioned. And then immediately after that general prohibition, the exception was made due to cases of necessity.

So then it is not surprising from a person with the character, that he sought only to bold and underline the portion of the references he quoted, which permit an Islâmic state to seek the assistance of a Kâfir army, in cases of necessity, as the EXCEPTION to the general prohibition of this action. And all of this was pointed out in EVERY SINGLE quotation he posted, as an EXCEPTION to this generalized prohibition, which was CONDITIONAL upon some kind of necessity, need or other set of extreme circumstances. [Some actually didn’t even permit this seeking assistance under any condition, as was stated by Ibn Qudâmah about the opinion of ash-Shâfi’î (ra).

Why is this a big deal?

The reason it’s a big deal is because what -deleted- claimed would essentially be the same as him claiming the general, unrestricted and unconditional permissibility of eating dead meat, pork, or blood etc. Because we already know these things are permitted, in cases of necessity, in the same way an Islâmic state is permitted to seek the military assistance of a Kâfir army against the Muslim rebels, in cases of necessity. But in fact, what -deleted- claimed is much worse, because many of the same scholars he even quoted (in his delusional assumption that these quotations proved his point) actually mentioned even stricter conditions for the permissibility of seeking their help, such as being able to repel those Kuffâr whom they are seeking assistance from as well as power over them to prevent them from pursuing and killing the fleeing Muslim rebels after they have been defeated. Whereas the aforementioned verse ONLY mentions one condition; the condition of necessity.

A Point to the reader about the competency of -deleted-’s Fiqh and knowledge of Arabic:

Consider the following quotation that -deleted- cherry picked to prove his point that seeking military assistance from the Kuffâr against the Muslim rebels was unrestrictedly permissible as a basic ruling ‘by the vast majority of classical scholars’:

‘Al-Hâwî Al-Kabîr’ by al-Mâwardî:

“Al-Mâwardî said: ‘As for seeking help from the people of Ahad and Thimmah, in fighting the people of rebellion, then it is not allowed in any condition.” – until he said: “As for seeking help against them (i.e. the rebels) from those AMONGST THE MUSLIMS, who see it as permissible to fight them (i.e. the rebels) when attacking and fleeing, then ash-Shâfi’î prevented that due to what is necessary from refraining from (pursuing) them (i.e. the fleeing rebels), when they are defeated.”

* There is an entire paragraph missing from -deleted-’s post between what is above and what is bellow this point. We will translate the missing paragraph from the original book, which was skipped by -deleted- in his post. It is as follows:

Missing excerpt from -deleted-’s quote: “Then if it is said: ‘Would it not be allowed to seek help against them from he who contradicts his opinion regarding it, and acts upon his own Ijtihâd, just as it is allowed for the ruler to leave behind one who rules with his own Ijtihâd, even if he (i.e. the ruler) opposes the Ijtihâd of the one he leaved behind in the same way that it is allowed for the Shâfi’î to leave behind a Hanafî and for the Hanafî to leave behind a Shâfi’î?’ It is to be said: ‘The difference between them is that the fighting against the people of rebellion when fleeing is up to the Ijtihâd of the Imâm. And the one specified for it (i.e. repelling the rebels) is under orders (and therefore) prevented from performing (his own) Ijtihâd, while the one left behind in judgment is left up to his own opinion. So (in this case) Ijtihâd is allowed for him.’

* This marks the end of the paragraph left out by -deleted- [This was from the original book: “Al-Hâwî al-Kabîr”, by al-Mâwardî, Vol. 13/129-130, publication of Dâr Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut]

The quotation -deleted- posted continues bellow:

“Then since it is confirmed that the seeking of the help is to be prevented, then our companions differed regarding it, in two opinions:

“One; that it is a prevention of forbiddance and prohibition, and the second; that it is a prevention of recommendation and urging.”

“Then if necessity calls him to seek help from them, due to the inability of the people of justice to resist them, then it is allowed for them to seek their help with three conditions. – End of quote.

Explanation: What is being discussed in this quotation is whether or not it is permissible for the Muslim to seek the military assistance of other MUSLIMS who take the opinion that pursuing the Bughât (i.e. Muslim rebels) in order to kill them while they are fleeing, after they have been repelled, is permissible. The reason for this discussion in a book of Shâfi’î Fiqh is that according to Imaam ash-Shâfi’î and many others, the Bughât (Muslim rebels) are never to be pursued and killed when they flee from the battlefield after being repelled. So while discussing this, al-Mâwardî (ra) digressed into the issue of whether or not the Muslim state could make use of other MUSLIMS to defend the state if these MUSLIM soldiers did not prohibit the pursuit and killing of the Muslim rebels in the way Imâm ash-Shâfi’î did. So he mentioned the impermissibility of seeking help from non-Muslims unrestrictedly, then if the matter comes to there being some kind of necessity, he permitted the MUSLIM soldiers who see it as permissible to pursue and kill the Muslim rebels who flee to be sought assistance from. But even in this case, he only permitted seeking this MUSLIM assistance with THREE CONDITIONS! Some will say that these conditions mentioned in his quote also apply to seeking help from non-Muslims, but this is not the issue here. The issue here is that here in this quote, Al-Mâwardî is discussing Muslims. This is clear from numerous points.

1-The fact that in the beginning he stated, ‘As for seeking help from the people of Ahad and Thimmah, in fighting the people of rebellion, then it is not allowed in any condition.” So for him to state this, then go on to mention conditions in which it is allowed is self-contradictory.

2-His conditions came after he mentioned the seeking of help from Muslims, and had a discussion of some of the arguments used by those who permit it. So for these conditions to go back to this discussion is more befitting than to the whole thing, since they are two separate issues.

3-Regarding seeking help from non-Muslims, he used the phrase “Lâ Yajooz” and referring to Muslims, he mention “Mana’” Later when discussing the conditions, he used “Mamnû’’, which relates to “Mamnû’” and not “Jawâz”

4-That it was also mentioned al-Mâwardî mentioned in “Al-Ahkâm As-Sultâniyah”, that it is not allowed to use help from the non-Muslims, and he didn’t mention any conditions for it to be allowed.

This proves so much about -deleted-’s inadequacy in discussing issues like this. Firstly, his lack of Arabic knowledge prevented him from noticing that he was quoting a reference, which completely refuted his own view. Second, his comprehension was so dull that he didn’t even realize whose help was being discussed in assisting with fighting the Bughât. And thirdly, despite the fact that conditions were listed in order for this seeing assistance to be permissible, it was fellow MUSLIMS being discussed and not the Kuffâr, as he claimed.

Is it possible that he is aware of these facts regarding his inadequacies, and that this is actually the cause of his embittered personality and vulgar manners?
The final quotation from Ibn Hazm (ra) from ‘Al-Muhallâ’, which he pasted into his thread, was totally messed up. Sentences were mixed, blended together and out of order, changing the context, logic and meaning of what was quoted. We wonder if we should accuse him of ‘intentionally distorting’ the words of the scholars, or if we should just assume that this error was an accident, especially because in his version, the statement ‘…and this is ash-Shâfi’î’s opinion…’ appeared after Ibn Hazm’s discussion on when it would be allowed to use the people of Harb and Thimmah in defense against the Muslim rebels. Good thing we ‘did our homework’ by correcting the errors in his.

Firstly, Ibn Hazm (ra) actually lists a situation in which seeking the military assistance against the Muslim rebels IS KUFR! As he said:

“And if the rule of the Kuffâr is dominant over him, then with that he is a Kâfir, (based) upon what we mentioned.”