If it is established that Kuwait signed a treaty with America to enter its territory to eliminate Iraq in order to protect Israel during the war between Iraq and Iran, does this indicate that Kuwait is the one who started the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation)?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah reward you. We say that the cause of the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) was Saddam in his aggression against Kuwait, but I want to clarify to our Shaykh (a scholar or teacher) that perhaps he has not received this information.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : It is established by official evidence that there was an agreement between the rulers of Kuwait and America during the war between Iraq and Iran, signed by the pens of the rulers of Kuwait, regarding the occupation of Kuwait by the Americans and directing a strike to eliminate Iraq because it represents a danger to Israel. If this is officially established and signed by the rulers of Kuwait, are they not the cause of the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) that led to Saddam’s entry and their occupation, and the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) reaching its current state?
The Shaykh : In answer to your question, I say: We heard some of this talk at the beginning of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Some of them told us: You do not condemn the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait with this strong condemnation.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because if Iraq had not occupied Kuwait, the Americans would have occupied Iraq. We were told this from the beginning of the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), and I think Abu Abdullah heard this, and some of our brothers.
The questioner : The claim that there are papers signed by the rulers of Kuwait, I do not say I heard it, I mean these papers, and they were unable to respond to them, I mean these papers.
The Shaykh : I do not care about this.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : I care that I hear the answer.
The questioner: Go ahead.
The Shaykh : Which you said at that time.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And I will say it, I will tell it and throw it as they say: "Two birds with one stone." So I say, I said and I say now as I said in that time: We said, if it is true that the Americans wanted to occupy Kuwait to strike Iraq, this is undoubtedly an aggression by the Americans, as they are doing now with Iraq against Kuwait, if this news is true. But this is not permissible Islamically to respond to the potential action of the Americans with an action that we make a reality, and we are Muslims and neighbors. If they do not want to observe the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) rulings, as is the case, meaning as a Ba'athist state that does not observe the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) rulings, then it should observe the right of neighborliness. So Islamically, it is not permissible for a Muslim neighbor to aggress against his neighbor on the pretext that the disbeliever is going to aggress against him, so let me be the aggressor. Undoubtedly, you have read with me in some books of the Sunnah (the Prophet's way) a hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) narrated in Sunan al-Tirmidhi from Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2007Hasan (Darussalam) This hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) came as marfu' (a report traced to the Prophet) and as mawquf (a report stopping at a Companion), and it is not valid as marfu' (a report traced to the Prophet), so we say it is a wisdom of Mas'ud. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud says: to the end. If it is permissible for a disbeliever ruler to aggress against a Muslim ruler, or if it is permissible for a disbeliever state to aggress against a Muslim state, that does not justify in any way whatsoever that the neighboring state of the one the disbeliever wants to aggress against should aggress against it. Meaning, a Muslim woman wants a disbeliever to defile her, no, it is better that the disbeliever defiles her, so let this Muslim defile her. This is completely non-Islamic logic. So I say: Suppose the matter was so, the alternative to Iraq aggressing against Kuwait was that some understanding should have taken place.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : It is established by official evidence that there was an agreement between the rulers of Kuwait and America during the war between Iraq and Iran, signed by the pens of the rulers of Kuwait, regarding the occupation of Kuwait by the Americans and directing a strike to eliminate Iraq because it represents a danger to Israel. If this is officially established and signed by the rulers of Kuwait, are they not the cause of the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) that led to Saddam’s entry and their occupation, and the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) reaching its current state?
The Shaykh : In answer to your question, I say: We heard some of this talk at the beginning of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Some of them told us: You do not condemn the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait with this strong condemnation.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because if Iraq had not occupied Kuwait, the Americans would have occupied Iraq. We were told this from the beginning of the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), and I think Abu Abdullah heard this, and some of our brothers.
The questioner : The claim that there are papers signed by the rulers of Kuwait, I do not say I heard it, I mean these papers, and they were unable to respond to them, I mean these papers.
The Shaykh : I do not care about this.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : I care that I hear the answer.
The questioner: Go ahead.
The Shaykh : Which you said at that time.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And I will say it, I will tell it and throw it as they say: "Two birds with one stone." So I say, I said and I say now as I said in that time: We said, if it is true that the Americans wanted to occupy Kuwait to strike Iraq, this is undoubtedly an aggression by the Americans, as they are doing now with Iraq against Kuwait, if this news is true. But this is not permissible Islamically to respond to the potential action of the Americans with an action that we make a reality, and we are Muslims and neighbors. If they do not want to observe the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) rulings, as is the case, meaning as a Ba'athist state that does not observe the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) rulings, then it should observe the right of neighborliness. So Islamically, it is not permissible for a Muslim neighbor to aggress against his neighbor on the pretext that the disbeliever is going to aggress against him, so let me be the aggressor. Undoubtedly, you have read with me in some books of the Sunnah (the Prophet's way) a hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) narrated in Sunan al-Tirmidhi from Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
Do not be a people without a will of your own, saying: 'If people treat us well, we will treat them well; and if they do wrong, we will do wrong,' but accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and do not behave unjustly if they do evil.
لا تكونوا إمَّعةً تقولون : إن أحسَنَ الناس أحسنَّا ، وإن ظلموا أسأنا ، ولكن وطِّنوا أنفسكم ؛ إن أحسنوا أن تُحسنوا ، وإن أساؤوا فلا تظلمواDo not be imitators
لا تكونوا إمعة
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.