Some of the brothers say that Saddam Hussein, who is ideologically deviant and who participated in the killing of many da'is (callers to Islam),

The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : Do you know, O Shaykh, about Iraq and its sliding ideology, and its fighting of the Islamic call and the da'is, as I have witnessed them there? Of course, the brothers there, some of whom are in Saudi Arabia, say that we are siding with the Saudis in fighting the Iraqis in order to avert the great evil represented by the Iraqis, namely the Ba'ath Party and its support for the people of shirk, such as the Quburiyyah (grave worshippers), the Shi'ah, and the like. If Allah the Exalted were to allow Iraq to rule this Peninsula, shirk would spread in the two Holy Sanctuaries and in every place in the Peninsula. It would mean allowing those with extremely ideologically sliding views, as they exist in Iraq, to be present, for example, in the Kingdom. They say, meaning, we are siding with the Saudis and fighting with them in order to avert that evil. And even if there is evil in the Kingdom, it is less than the evil of Iraq. Perhaps the mentioned principle, the usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence) principle of "choosing the lesser of two harms to avert the greater," would apply?

The Shaykh : This has been discussed previously.

The questioner : Does the principle apply? May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : Has the matter of "averting the greater evil with the lesser evil" not been discussed previously?

The questioner : Of course.

The Shaykh : That is it.

The questioner : What is the point of that, O Shaykh? Does one, by this reasoning, mean to join the army...?

The Shaykh : Look, I will say something. As for this, the answer has already been given. But consider the matter as I have described it, and I do not say as I have stated, it is not correct. First, the Ba'ath Party in Iraq or in Syria does not represent either the Syrian or the Iraqi people, and I think you agree with us on this?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : It represents itself and those with it who are people of desires and personal material interests. As for the general Muslims in both countries, they are against the two Ba'athist governments. This is a fact that no one disputes at all. If that is the case, then here we must distinguish between the two types of colonialism, if the second occurred as the first did. The first colonialism that occurred was the Crusader colonialism, as we explained earlier and demonstrated the invalidity of the evidence or the argumentation with those evidences to justify seeking the aid of these disbelievers. When the Americans and the British take over some of the Arab lands, such as Saudi Arabia, it does not mean that the American government is the one that took over, but rather that the American people, with their government, is the one that took over. And so you can compare any other state. But if, may Allah forbid, Iraq were to take over the Saudi lands, it does not mean that the Ba'ath Party with the Iraqi people took over Saudi Arabia, but rather the Ba'ath Party, which does not represent the Iraqi people, is the one that took over. Therefore, if we wanted to adopt the lesser of two evils, there is no doubt that the evil of the takeover by the Ba'ath government, which does not represent the Muslim people, is less than the evil of the takeover by the Crusader government, which represents the disbeliever and represents disbelief. This is very clear. The American people, with their state, are in their Crusaderism, whereas the Iraqi and Syrian people are not with their state in their Ba'athism. So the two matters are completely different. This is from one aspect. From another aspect, the Americans and the British are more numerous and stronger than the Iraqis, without a doubt. So if Iraq were to take over the Saudis, it is possible that one day the Saudis and those who support them in their religion and in their tawhid (the oneness of Allah) would become strong against the Ba'athist rule, because it does not represent the Iraqi people. But for them to be able one day to overcome the American and British rule, which represents the two peoples in their religion and in their shirk and kufr (disbelief), is much harder than the first victory over the Ba'athist state of Iraq, which does not represent the Muslim Iraqi people. Therefore, I see that what was described, the claim that we join the Saudis, as you expressed it, to avert the greater evil with the lesser evil, this, first of all, contains at least a lack of precise thinking in assessing the two harms: the harm of the Crusaders occupying the Islamic lands and the harm of the Ba'ath Party occupying the Islamic lands. This is one thing. The other thing is that it is necessary to remind again: Iraq did not attack the Saudis. If it had attacked, it might be said, and I say often, that the principle you mentioned last and I mentioned before, which all converge on "averting the greater harm with the lesser" or "averting the greater evil with the lesser evil," is taken from the saying of Allah the Exalted: And that means when a person falls into a problem, he must commit one of the two harms. And all that is the case with Saudi Arabia is that it feared that what befell its neighbor, Kuwait, would befall it, so it sought help. There is no objection to seeking help from Arab states. But to seek help from disbelieving states, from which there is no way to remove them except that Allah wills, by a miracle from Him, Blessed and Exalted is He, because we were not able to remove the Jews, and these years have passed, and we cry out to all Arab states, first of all Iraq, that we want to remove the Jews from Palestine, and then we hear nothing but what was said: "I hear the noise but I see no flour." Therefore, I believe that justifying standing with the fighting alongside the Saudis against the Iraqis, despite its contradiction with his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) in the time of fitnah (trial, discord or temptation): , we do not see it as an acceptable justification. And perhaps all of us present can remember that when the fighting occurred between Ali and Mu'awiyah, and how different that fighting is from what may occur today in terms of the intention of each of the two groups at that time, which was to achieve victory for the religion of Allah the Exalted, whereas today there is nothing of that except the concern to preserve the wealth and lands of the country. Nevertheless, we all know that in the time of the fighting between Ali and Mu'awiyah, there were people from the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who withdrew from both sides. Why? Because it was a battle between Muslims, fighting each other. One of these Companions was withdrawing and did not join the army of Ali until when Ammar ibn Yasir was killed, because this Companion who had withdrawn from both sides had heard from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) his saying: So when Ammar was killed by the army of Mu'awiyah, at that time he saw the clear proof and joined Ali. But before that, how could I fight Muslims with Ali? Up to this point, the fear of the Salaf (the earliest generations) was that they would enter into battles that occur between Muslims, especially if the matter is as it is today, not a fighting in the path of Allah, but rather in the path of victory for material things, not for the religion.