Should the Iraqi people be fought, or are they a Muslim people, and what is the ruling on seeking the aid of disbelievers?

The questioner : The Iraqi people are a believing people, and the military power they possess is considered a strength for the Muslims that intimidates the enemies. As it has become clear to us, it actually intimidated the enemies. So, when Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the countries allied with the disbelievers came to destroy this strength, and these countries and their rulers stood with them, is this not another crime besides the first crime they committed, which was that they allied with the disbelievers and took them as allies? And now they are destroying the strength that could have replaced this party, the Ba'ath Party, with an Islamic rule, and this strength would remain an Islamic strength that is respected. Now they want to destroy this strength, claiming they want to liberate Kuwait. But it is clear before us that they are striking Iraq and destroying Iraq's strength, which is considered a strength for Islam. So, is this considered a third crime?

The Shaykh : Doubled, yes. Unfortunately, this is what the media in all countries, even the countries of disbelief, testifies to: that America's attack on Iraq is not to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, but to crush this massive mechanized force that they discovered in Iraq and feared for their Jewish daughter, lest this force dominate her and annihilate her completely. Unfortunately, some scholars in those lands do not think carefully. I wanted to say: We have Salafi, monotheistic brothers numbering in the thousands, if not millions, whom they have lumped in with the disbelievers who are more disbelieving than America and Britain, and it is said that they must be fought. This is truly a serious and very serious negligence. I wanted to say something in reality, and this is regret upon regret: Islamic rule obligates every Muslim who lives in his Islamic land as a stranger to emigrate from his land to a land where he does not live as a stranger. We thought that the only refuge for those strangers who live in lands that are originally Islamic and whose people are still Muslim, but where the ruling over their heads is non-Islamic and thus they live as strangers, was that they should flee to Allah, flee to the House of Allah, and flee to the rule of what Allah has revealed. Where is this rule? It is the Saudi state. But what can we say when the Saudi state has closed its door to all these strangers and made the Saudi state for Saudis only? This is also a deviation among the many deviations that the scholars there do not address with their state, nor do they establish what is known in Islam, that for a Muslim, all lands of Islam are his homeland. So, this distinction that this is the land of Saudi Arabia and the oil is Saudi oil, and no one but Saudis should benefit from its land and oil, is a pre-Islamic tribal ruling that has no connection to Islam whatsoever. Therefore, the result of the effects of this system, which created this division among Muslims, is that the Saudis become enthusiastic when danger comes to their borders and fall into that serious violation—may Allah have mercy on you—by seeking the aid of disbelief. Why? To repel a danger that might befall them from Saddam. But they did not do that when our Muslim brothers in Afghanistan were fighting the Russian communists and their collaborators there. They did not say, "This is a danger surrounding some Islamic lands, so we must support them, even with disbelievers." Why this distinction? Because at its root, it is not Islamic. If they believed that seeking the aid of disbelievers was truly to repel a serious injustice and serious disbelief, they would not have distinguished between the Ba'athist communists and the Russian communists. Just as they sought aid to repel the danger of this Iraqi Ba'ath party, they should have done the same regarding this Soviet danger. But there, they did nothing but a little money. As for public aid and public seeking of aid, even if this seeking of aid is not permissible, they did not do it except when the danger was about to touch their land only. And so we say: The root of this idea is wrong. The Saudis should have been enthusiastic in the same way, despite the violation, even regarding the Afghans, but they did not do that. Why? Because Saudi Arabia is for the Saudis, and the Afghans are for the Afghans; they should manage their own affairs. We help them with as much money as we can, which is little. So, we seek help from Allah, meaning the harms are taking hold of one another. In summary: You should be with your Islamic emotion and supplicate in your qunut when you lead the Muslims, asking Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to support the oppressed believers on earth, to repel the plot of the disbelievers, and to make their end destruction.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Do not prefer...