He was asked about the Shaykh's position on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the American intervention.

The questioner : Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may peace and blessings be upon our master Muhammad, his family, and all his Companions. As for what follows: There are some questions presented to you, hoping that Allah the Exalted will grant you success in answering them. The first question: What is your comment, your eminence, and your position regarding the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the intervention of American forces in the Arabian Gulf as well?

The Shaykh : The second part of the question is not precise, but the intent is understood. We will answer according to the intended meaning in the heart, not the literal wording. Is that clear?

The questioner : Is that clear?

The Shaykh : All right. As for the aggression of Iraq against Kuwait, there is no doubt that it is armed rebellion and injustice, which is not permissible in Islamic law in any way, regardless of the justifications or, as they say today, the reasons for such an aggression. It is known to all Muslims the saying of the Lord of the worlds in the Noble Qur'an: It is regrettable that there is no Muslim state today that applies the rulings of Islamic law one hundred percent. There is no doubt that some evil is less than some, but our point is that, unfortunately, there is no state that applies the rulings of Islamic law one hundred percent. Even if there were one today, it would not be the state capable of enforcing this Qur'anic ruling . It was supposed that the state expected to apply this ruling of Islamic law, either from the perspective of Islamic law or from the perspective of the state's adherence to enforcing the rulings of Islamic law, would be the Saudi state, because it is the best of the Islamic states in terms of applying and enforcing many of the rulings of Islamic law. This was what was presumed of it. But the other aspect I referred to at the beginning of my speech is that it must be in a position of strength such that, if it wishes to enforce the ruling of Islamic law stated in the verse, it can fight the rebellious faction. If it is capable in that it enforces the rulings of Islamic law to a great extent, as I mentioned earlier, in its own land, then, unfortunately, it is not able to enforce this ruling of Islamic law on others. And so, unfortunately, at a time when it was unable to enforce this ruling of Islamic law, it feared on its part that it would suffer what befell its neighbor, and there are borders between it and the one being aggressed upon. As the common Syrian proverb says, "If your neighbor shaves, wet your head." And so, unfortunately, the Saudi state, at a time when it was not in a position of strength in terms of trying to reconcile the two fighting believing factions, if it had wanted to stop the aggressor at his limit, it did not possess the power to enforce this ruling of Islamic law. The greatest proof of this is that when it feared that the contagion of the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait would reach Saudi Arabia, it did not limit itself to seeking the help of Arab states, but it sought the help of the disbelieving Crusader states. After this speech, which is the answer to the first part of your question, now comes the answer to the second part of your question, which you intend in your heart and not in your wording, because it is not important that these disbelievers entered as the Jews entered, because this ruling is known: it is not permissible in Islamic law. Therefore, I said at the outset that the question does not intend this meaning, but rather what is intended is: what is the ruling on seeking the help of these disbelieving Crusaders, is it not so?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And on that basis, we say, without any doubt or hesitation, that this seeking of aid is something for which the entire history of Islam has no precedent whatsoever. It is the worst of trials to befall the Muslim community in its entire history, because the cause of this entry of the Crusaders into the Islamic lands is not the war existing between the disbelievers and the Muslims. Rather, the cause is the Muslims’ luring of these disbelievers to seek their support against the rebellious faction or the rebellious group. There is no doubt that this is treating a disease with a disease that is more severe. This is not valid except according to one school of thought, the school of Abu Nuwas: “And I treated it with that which was the disease.” And in reality, I am extremely astonished by what reaches us, and I hope that what reaches us is not true in terms of reality, because Islamic jurisprudence, by the texts of its Book and the Sunnah of its Prophet, and by correct deduction, cannot accept what we hear of the justification or legitimization by some of the noble scholars in those lands of the Saudis seeking the aid of these Crusader disbelievers. This is because the meaning of their words returns to what some jurists say in their principles, even if they did not refer to it explicitly, but their practice alerts us that they are hovering around what the scholars of principles mentioned, namely their saying: “When a Muslim is caught between two evils, he chooses the lesser of the two evils.” They think that their resort to seeking aid from the Crusaders is less evil, and we do not say better, than the aggression of the Iraqis against the Saudis. We see that their point of view is refuted by text and jurisprudence, because the Iraqi aggression against Saudi Arabia did not occur as it occurred against Kuwait. Therefore, it is not valid to apply this rule which says that when a Muslim is caught between two evils, he chooses the easier of them. The greater evil, in the opinion of the scholars, which is the aggression of the Iraqis against the Saudis, did not occur, so that they could choose the lesser evil, in their opinion, which is seeking the aid of the disbelievers. As for the text, the matter is very clear, because it is established in more than one hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: The cause of the hadith is known in Sahih Muslim and others, and in a narration that al-Hakim brought out in al-Mustadrak, a group of polytheists came wanting to fight alongside the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) against the polytheists, so he said to them: They said: No. So he said, may the prayers and peace be upon him: This is a jurisprudential rule established by the one to whom It is not like some jurisprudential rules that may be subject to acceptance and rejection. There are rules established by the Hanafis that the Shafi'is contradict, and vice versa. But this rule was established by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) by his clear and explicit text: And on that basis, the meaning of something being a rule is that it must be adhered to always and forever, except for a contrary matter that does not contradict the rule in its essence, and it is only possible to apply a specification to it. Those who explicitly state the permissibility of seeking the aid of the Americans, the British, and others see that this seeking of aid has a basis in some specific incidents established in the Prophetic Sunnah, so these specifics would be exceptions to the rule. And we say, in response to this claim: First, it is a principle of jurisprudence that when the saying and the action differ, that is, the saying of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and his action, if reconciliation between his saying and his action is not possible, his saying is given precedence over his action. And if reconciliation is possible, that is better and more enduring. Those specifics that those who permitted this ugly seeking of aid rely on are specifics that are not mentioned in comparison to this calamity that has befallen the Saudi lands in particular and the Islamic lands in general. It is sufficient that every Muslim, even if he is not a scholar, compares and analogizes between what occurred from the Messenger (peace be upon him) in terms of specifics and this great calamity that has befallen the Muslims today. Look, for example, at one of their arguments: that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sought the guidance of a polytheist when he intended to migrate from Makkah to al-Madinah with his companion Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him). He sought the aid of that polytheist to show them the way. This is the second image that some also use as evidence: that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) borrowed armor from Safwan ibn Umayyah. When he borrowed it from him, or intended to borrow it from him, Safwan thought, and this was from his position of weakness toward the strong position of the Prophet, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would take it by force. So he said to him: “O Muhammad, by force, O Muhammad, or as a loan to be repaid?” He said: So look at the difference between such as these two hadiths and others by which they argue. The difference is great and very great. All the incidents, and I have recalled some of them for you, clearly indicate that when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sought aid, he was in a position of strength, capability, and dominance over those he sought aid from. If they had intended treachery against him, he was the stronger. He was with his companion Abu Bakr. If, for example, that guide showing the way between Makkah and al-Madinah had intended treachery against them, he would have been able to overcome him. Safwan ibn Umayyah also felt his weakness, so he said to him: “Do you take it from me by force, or is it a loan to be repaid?” He said, may the prayers and peace be upon him, as He, the Exalted, said: Likewise, when he also made alliances in some incidents, he allied with them while he was strong, as evidenced by the fact that when they intended treachery against him, he fought them and prevailed over them, as is known in the Prophetic biography. Where are these specifics in comparison to this great calamity that has befallen us in this era, where all the Islamic states, including Iraq itself, which all the Islamic states fear, if they were to gather entirely, would not be able to do anything other than return to Islam? They would not be able to expel the Americans and the British from the Islamic lands. How can this painful reality be compared to those specifics, while this reality contradicts the rule, which we should not forget: This is the rule. If an incident differs from the rule, it must be struck by this rule, and it is not permissible to do the opposite, which is striking the rule with this reality. Let us try to justify it and legitimize it with specifics that are not contrary to the essence of the seeking of aid that is negated by the rule, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sought aid to realize a benefit. And I hope you pay attention to what I am saying: a benefit in which there is absolutely no harm. As for our reality today, first, the benefit is not realized, and second, the harm is tangible and realized. The greatest proof is what the omens have begun to portend of extreme evil from the spread of corruption and the exposure of women’s private parts in many of the Saudi lands that the Americans have occupied. It is not my concern to argue with some narrations and specifics, because I truly do not trust these narrations, whether they are for us or against us. Rather, we must be certain regarding the narrations of the specifics. But we know by observation, for example, that when the Jews occupied Palestine, they spread corruption, licentiousness, open sinfulness, and lewdness in it, and so on. And those who go to European and American lands see open sinfulness and lewdness there. What prevents these disbelievers from spreading their corruption in the lands of Islam, when they were invited to the lands of Islam and did not impose themselves on the lands of Islam as was the case in the First Crusade? And finally, we say: what is the outcome of this seeking of aid? Is there a way to expel these disbelievers from the lands of Islam? If it is said, yes, there is an agreement, for example, between the Saudis and the Americans and the British that we brought you in by our choice, so if we order you to leave our lands, you must obey our order. Is this a statement that can be understood by one who knows the strength of these disbelievers and their treachery and breaking of their covenants and promises on the one hand, and on the other hand knows the weakness of the Muslims and the weakness of all the states? Therefore, I do not find in what we hear today of arguments by which they want to justify this calamity anything that makes it permissible at all. Rather, this is a calamity, as I said in the course of my speech, that has never befallen the Islamic world in such a manner. And I hope that Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, will save us from it by a miracle from Him. Otherwise, the Muslims are too weak to repel the Jews from the lands of the Muslims, and they are those who were called a wretched group of the most abject Jews. How can we repel the Americans, the British, the French, and others who have pounced upon the Muslims, at the request of a Muslim state that we hoped would be at the forefront of the Islamic states in rejecting the seeking of aid from the polytheists? To Allah we belong, and to Him we return.