Refuting the doubt of applying some of the hadiths of the End Times to the Gulf War incident.

The Shaykh : So, what is the second hadith that you thought matched the reality?

The questioner : This means it is mentioned in it.
Al-Halabi : As for the first hadith, it is a valid hadith. Our brother gave it as an example on the basis that it is weak and matched the reality.

The Shaykh : No, I did not hear the word "weak," no. Yes, very well. The second hadith that you referred to?

The questioner : .

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : .

The Shaykh : Very well, the answer, my brother, to whom is the address directed?

The questioner : To the Muslims.

The Shaykh : To the Muslims, meaning when the Muslims are one nation as Allah (Mighty and Majestic) described them. Now, the disbelievers are invading a group of Muslims. Then, I hope our emotions do not overcome us, and I have declared that I am neither with the Iraqis nor with the Saudis, but rather, as you heard in the hadith: In fact, I said—and there is a cassette or more than one cassette on this—that among the evils of Saddam was the evil of the Saudis when they invited the disbelievers into their lands. And if it had not been for Saddam's aggression against Kuwait, this fitnah would not have occurred at all. So he bears the greatest burden for this fitnah, because "the one who starts it is the most unjust," as they say. But I do not want us to say that the disbelievers only aggressed against whom? Against Iraq. Rather, this is, in truth, a strange negligence among the Muslims. About half an hour before your arrival, a routine question came to me from Algeria. It surprised me by going straight to the question without giving me room to say, "What is your question?" He said: "Is jihad permissible now?" I said: "Yes, in Afghanistan." The point of my telling this answer is that ten years have passed in Afghanistan, so why have these Muslim peoples not moved? And I said in one of the cassettes, why did Saudi Arabia not seek the help of the disbelievers if seeking their help is a necessity as they say? Is this necessity specific to Saudi land only? Or when we lecture people and stir the emotions of the youth, do we say: "The Islamic land is one land, and if a country in the East or the West is harmed, it is obligatory for all Muslims to mobilize entirely," as came in the Noble Qur'an? So why this distinction? Just because a state feared being aggressed against, it did not rise to defend its land. If only it had done so! Instead, it rose to contradict his (peace and blessings be upon him) statement, which he made an eternal law, when he said: "We will not": for eternity. And you know, perhaps when you saw the disagreement between the people of the Sunnah regarding seeing Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in the Hereafter and the Mu'tazilah, the Mu'tazilah argued with His (Glorified and Exalted is He) statement to Moses when he said: The Mu'tazilah held fast to this negation and said this is a negation for eternity. The people of the Sunnah could not refute them, saying, "No, it is not for eternity," but they said—and their saying is the truth regarding this world, because the rulings of this world are not the rulings of the Hereafter—so you will not see Me, meaning in this world. So there is no contradiction between this negation, which is for eternity, and such as His (Glorified and Exalted is He) saying: and the mass-transmitted hadiths that the Muslims will see their Lord on the Day of Resurrection, as he said: The point is, they contradicted this eternal legal ruling: But no, they sought the help of the disbelievers, who have the upper hand, and the word of the Muslims is the lower one, unfortunately. They deemed it permissible due to necessity. I do not want to stray too far—again—from what I was aiming at: Why did they not seek the help of these disbelievers if necessity permits seeking their help when our Afghan mujahideen brothers fought the Russians and their tails for ten years? The answer is: That is not our land; we were not attacked in our land. But when the danger approached our land, then we deemed it permissible to contradict the hadith of our Prophet (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him). So the answer to the second hadith is the same as the answer to the first hadith, meaning the invasion mentioned in the hadith is the truce mentioned in the first hadith. So the invasion of the Muslims when they have power and a state. But now, as we see, unfortunately, there are warring and hostile factions, and we cannot imagine hostility greater than this reality today. And we do not need to narrate the reality as much as we need to breathe the Islamic ideas that have been absent from the minds of many of the elite of the Muslims, let alone the common people. Perhaps in this is an answer to what you asked.