What is your comment on the letter sent to you from Saudi Arabia, which suggests that you are content with Saddam in place of the Americans?

The questioner: This is placed in the introduction!

The Shaykh: In any case, the matter is clear that this is my response to a letter we received from Saudi Arabia, written in an emotional, non-Shari'ah language.

The questioner: What is your comment on this letter? May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh: The letter suggests that we are content with Saddam taking the place of whom? The Americans. This is, of course, absolutely not an option for us. However, we say that it was the duty of the Saudis to prepare to confront the aggression and stop it at its limit. They neglected what was obligatory upon them and immediately resorted to seeking the aid of the disbeliever, whose aid is not permissible, as is well known in the Shari'ah. But we say that if the event were to occur and the Iraqis, or the Iraqi army, were to occupy Saudi Arabia—may Allah forbid it—we do not look at this with an immediate perspective, but rather with a long-term perspective. As we have said more than once, the Iraqi people, the state does not represent them, so they are a Muslim people, not a disbelieving people like the American people. If we imagine that Iraq or the Iraqi army occupied Saudi Arabia as the Americans did, I do not imagine that this Iraq or this Iraqi army could occupy Saudi Arabia given the vastness of its land, especially if it had fulfilled its duty of confrontation with the weapons it is preparing to purchase from America and other countries for such an hour. But as we said, we look at the outcome. The Iraqis, however long they occupy, it will be possible for Saudi Arabia, in cooperation with other Islamic countries that do not accept the Ba'ath as a ruling, to expel the ruling from their land, because the Islamic force against the Ba'ath will, at some point, be stronger than the Ba'ath. As for opening the door for these disbelievers, the Americans and the British, to occupy the lands of Islam in the name of defending Saudi Arabia, this is undoubtedly allowing the occupation of the lands on the basis that the harm of the Americans is less than that of Iraq, or the Iraqi army, or the Ba'athist ruling. I am not surprised by what he said in his speech that the Americans did not commit atrocities when they entered Saudi Arabia as the Iraqi army did when it entered Kuwait. This is very natural, because the American and British armies are entering in full view of the whole world for defense, not to control the country and fight its inhabitants. So this result, which he dwelt on and compared between the two, seeing a very wide gap between the two armies, is a reality up to now. But the outcome is worse, because if the Saudi army had turned to fight the Iraqis—and this is their right—it is possible that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) would grant them victory over their enemy despite their fewness. But since they allowed the enemy to enter the country and violated the Shari'ah by allowing them in, victory is very far from the Saudis, and the soft political occupation will have an outcome much worse than the military occupation, which is usually temporary, no matter how long it lasts. Then I look at the issue from another angle, which I said to some people recently: Why did Saudi Arabia rise up and seek the aid of the American and British armies to fight Iraq, but did not seek the aid of these armies to fight the Jews? This perspective alone is a regional perspective, meaning that the Saudi state is now dealing with problems in the manner of nationalities. It sees that the Saudi lands have been invaded, so it must seek aid, even from disbelievers. But the Palestinian lands have been invaded, and it does not seek aid from Muslims, nor, a fortiori, from disbelievers. Why this distinction, when Islam makes the Islamic land one land? Just as the Saudis are enthusiastic about defending their land, they must be enthusiastic about defending any other Islamic land. We are not going far now regarding Palestine, because unfortunately a long history has passed, how many years? Forty years?

The questioner : More.

The Shaykh: Forty years and more. But why did Saudi Arabia not seek the aid of disbelieving countries to support the Afghans? Why? Because it does not care about the lands of Islam; it cares about its own land. Therefore, its defense and seeking of aid are not in the path of Islam, but in the path of the land, and this is one of the violations.