Does Iraq's claim that Kuwait is part of it justify this aggression?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : I said that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an act of rebellion and injustice, but Iraq claims that Kuwait is part of Iraq.
The Shaykh : And what does Kuwait claim?!
The questioner : It claims that it is an independent part.
Another questioner : An independent state.
The Shaykh : So now I return to my previous point: what is your position in this grammar?
Another questioner : History proves it, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I know, my brother. This is one of the points that is usually raised, and we have answered it with many answers. Suppose that is the case; where was Iraq all the years that passed while the Kuwaiti state was living independently of it? Where was it?!
The questioner : Shaykh, there were several attempts to reclaim Kuwait, but they did not succeed...
The Shaykh : That is not the answer to my question.
Another questioner : Shaykh, there is...
The Shaykh : Be patient, may Allah guide you. In any case, it seems the issue requires us to get to the heart of the matter without question and answer. If we assume the matter is as Iraq claims, that Kuwait is an inseparable part of Iraq, and that British policy separated the child from its mother, is that good? Fine. Is it not the case that the United Arab Emirates, which is cited as an example throughout the world, has no small states from a single Arab nation of this reduced size? Is this not also a misfortune of British colonialism?
The questioner: Certainly.
The Shaykh : Ah, what do you think? Is there any Muslim who permits one of these small states to annex another state on the grounds that the original was one state? Is it permissible? I tell you immediately, you will all say it is not permissible. Who says it is permissible?
Another questioner : In principle, in Islam, there is one state.
The Shaykh : Listen, may Allah guide you. I want to know who I am talking to! You are adopting the permissibility, correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, do you adopt the permissibility of annexing one small state to another by the best means or by the worst means?
The questioner : By the best means, if it is better.
The Shaykh : So if it is not possible by the best means, and one of these states, as we said at the beginning of the speech on a moonless night, seized the state next to it, is it permissible?
The questioner : If it is for the public interest...
The Shaykh : Do not say "if it is," may Allah guide you, because the hypothesis I set is already established. When I asked you, by the best means or by the worst means? You said by the best means if it is possible. Did you say this based on the fact that there is no benefit, or based on the fact that there is a benefit?
The questioner: For the benefit.
The Shaykh : Ah, and therefore now do not leave your position weak; what do you add? A condition? Because this condition is already established, correct, or not? I will repeat now so that it does not escape the mind. Some say if there is a benefit for an Arab state to annex its neighbor to it, it is permissible, but by the best means. We say, and if it is not possible by the best means, is it permissible to aggress against it?
The questioner : ... We do not call it aggression.
The Shaykh : Well, what do we call it?
The questioner : A benefit.
The Shaykh : Listen, everyone, for some reason I spoke a sentence in the introduction where I said do not speak without knowledge. May Allah reward you, and this neighbor of yours was advised to be patient because it is clear that he is eager to speak. Be patient for a moment. So what is your answer, my brother?
The questioner : The Islamic world...
The Shaykh : Do not give me a lecture. I am telling you, the entire Islamic world, of Arab states and non-Arab states, must be what? One state. Is there disagreement among Muslims on this? There is no disagreement, so you do not want a lecture on something on which no two people differ, and as was said in old times, "no two goats butt heads in it." This is a closed matter, it is finished. But if we want to establish the one Islamic state that has no second, is it to be in accordance with the Shari'ah or in contradiction to the Shari'ah?
The questioner : If in accordance with the Shari'ah, we will lengthen the story...
The Shaykh : So if it is in accordance with the Shari'ah, and we told you about small states, I have gone to the Emirates more than once, meaning by car, some of the states are a quarter of an hour away, you enter the borders of the second state. This is, of course, the application of the British rule that America and all colonial states adopted: "divide and conquer." This is well known. So will the comprehensive unity, and since we have heard the word comprehensive unity, even if it is limited to comprehensive Arab unity. As for comprehensive unity that includes non-Arab states, even if they are Islamic, this is not heard, unfortunately, with great regret. So will the realization of Islamic unity be by a path contrary to the Shari'ah? No one says so, meaning no one says the end justifies the means, as we mentioned earlier. So it must be by a lawful method. Now we must stop here, and the one who is eager to have a role in speaking should be patient with us, and his patience is only from Allah. We say now, what is the path to achieving the desired unity? What is the path Islamically? The one who has an answer should raise his hand and speak by the best means.
The questioner : We want to hear from you.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good, this is just your opinion.
The questioner : Everyone.
The Shaykh : We do not want to impose our opinion on others. Is there anyone who has an answer? There is an answer here, please.
The questioner : The best path to unity is for the entire society to demand this unity.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. This is not a path, this is a call. This is a call, may Allah guide you.
The questioner : If it is not done by this method, a strong Muslim state annexes all the weak states...
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you. You do not distinguish between the call and the proof, you do not distinguish between the call and the path. You are singing about the call. We told you no one disagrees with it, but what is the path to achieving the desired Islamic unity?
Another questioner : Please, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Correct, my brother, make room for him, please.
The questioner : We accept the commands of Allah.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. This is the first time... This is the answer. May Allah reward you, and the best speech is what is brief and indicative. This is the answer of one who recalls the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Muhammad 47:7] O Muslims, where are you? You are scattered, absent, and lost with the lost. The only difference is that you were lost theoretically, while others were lost theoretically and practically. And woe to you, some evil is lighter than some. So you were lost theoretically, thinking that this annexation, which involves aggression, is the path to achieving unity. Achieving unity is, as you heard from your brother, to apply the legal rulings, and that is among the meanings of the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Muhammad 47:7] So O Muslims, I am not Iraqi and not against Iraq, and I am not Saudi and not against Saudi Arabia. Rather, I am with the Book, I follow it wherever it goes. So now you are all biased, meaning you think that if you side with Iraq's action, it means that you are also lost, not only theoretically but also practically. Now, to know that, I ask you: the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Muhammad 47:7] is one of the proofs that support our brother's statement that we should act and realize Islam. And I have a long lecture on this, but we are not in the position to give it now. So I say: Did Iraq, when it annexed Kuwait to it, support Allah? Say, everyone, fairly.
The questioner : We do not know, perhaps.
The Shaykh : How do you not know? May Allah guide you. How do you not know?
The questioner : They declare that they...
The Shaykh : Leave them to me. I am asking you. Do you believe in the depths of your heart that the annexation of Kuwait was a victory for Allah? Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar!! Everyone, if this annexation was for the victory of the cause of Allah the Mighty and Majestic, first, it would have been by a different path. Second, it should have been preceded by what we raised our voices in our countries for, that we want to throw the Jews into the sea. The Jews aggressed against Iraq in its own home and destroyed what is called what?
The questioner : The nuclear reactor.
The Shaykh : The nuclear reactor, they destroyed it in their own home and did not move a finger.
The questioner : They were not able to do so at that time.
The Shaykh : And after that, when did it become strong? When it aggressed on Kuwait, it became strong?! Why did it not take revenge?
The questioner : Before they aggressed on Kuwait, they were threatening to strike Israel.
The Shaykh : Never mind, why did they not do it?
The questioner: May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : I said that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an act of rebellion and injustice, but Iraq claims that Kuwait is part of Iraq.
The Shaykh : And what does Kuwait claim?!
The questioner : It claims that it is an independent part.
Another questioner : An independent state.
The Shaykh : So now I return to my previous point: what is your position in this grammar?
Another questioner : History proves it, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I know, my brother. This is one of the points that is usually raised, and we have answered it with many answers. Suppose that is the case; where was Iraq all the years that passed while the Kuwaiti state was living independently of it? Where was it?!
The questioner : Shaykh, there were several attempts to reclaim Kuwait, but they did not succeed...
The Shaykh : That is not the answer to my question.
Another questioner : Shaykh, there is...
The Shaykh : Be patient, may Allah guide you. In any case, it seems the issue requires us to get to the heart of the matter without question and answer. If we assume the matter is as Iraq claims, that Kuwait is an inseparable part of Iraq, and that British policy separated the child from its mother, is that good? Fine. Is it not the case that the United Arab Emirates, which is cited as an example throughout the world, has no small states from a single Arab nation of this reduced size? Is this not also a misfortune of British colonialism?
The questioner: Certainly.
The Shaykh : Ah, what do you think? Is there any Muslim who permits one of these small states to annex another state on the grounds that the original was one state? Is it permissible? I tell you immediately, you will all say it is not permissible. Who says it is permissible?
Another questioner : In principle, in Islam, there is one state.
The Shaykh : Listen, may Allah guide you. I want to know who I am talking to! You are adopting the permissibility, correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, do you adopt the permissibility of annexing one small state to another by the best means or by the worst means?
The questioner : By the best means, if it is better.
The Shaykh : So if it is not possible by the best means, and one of these states, as we said at the beginning of the speech on a moonless night, seized the state next to it, is it permissible?
The questioner : If it is for the public interest...
The Shaykh : Do not say "if it is," may Allah guide you, because the hypothesis I set is already established. When I asked you, by the best means or by the worst means? You said by the best means if it is possible. Did you say this based on the fact that there is no benefit, or based on the fact that there is a benefit?
The questioner: For the benefit.
The Shaykh : Ah, and therefore now do not leave your position weak; what do you add? A condition? Because this condition is already established, correct, or not? I will repeat now so that it does not escape the mind. Some say if there is a benefit for an Arab state to annex its neighbor to it, it is permissible, but by the best means. We say, and if it is not possible by the best means, is it permissible to aggress against it?
The questioner : ... We do not call it aggression.
The Shaykh : Well, what do we call it?
The questioner : A benefit.
The Shaykh : Listen, everyone, for some reason I spoke a sentence in the introduction where I said do not speak without knowledge. May Allah reward you, and this neighbor of yours was advised to be patient because it is clear that he is eager to speak. Be patient for a moment. So what is your answer, my brother?
The questioner : The Islamic world...
The Shaykh : Do not give me a lecture. I am telling you, the entire Islamic world, of Arab states and non-Arab states, must be what? One state. Is there disagreement among Muslims on this? There is no disagreement, so you do not want a lecture on something on which no two people differ, and as was said in old times, "no two goats butt heads in it." This is a closed matter, it is finished. But if we want to establish the one Islamic state that has no second, is it to be in accordance with the Shari'ah or in contradiction to the Shari'ah?
The questioner : If in accordance with the Shari'ah, we will lengthen the story...
The Shaykh : So if it is in accordance with the Shari'ah, and we told you about small states, I have gone to the Emirates more than once, meaning by car, some of the states are a quarter of an hour away, you enter the borders of the second state. This is, of course, the application of the British rule that America and all colonial states adopted: "divide and conquer." This is well known. So will the comprehensive unity, and since we have heard the word comprehensive unity, even if it is limited to comprehensive Arab unity. As for comprehensive unity that includes non-Arab states, even if they are Islamic, this is not heard, unfortunately, with great regret. So will the realization of Islamic unity be by a path contrary to the Shari'ah? No one says so, meaning no one says the end justifies the means, as we mentioned earlier. So it must be by a lawful method. Now we must stop here, and the one who is eager to have a role in speaking should be patient with us, and his patience is only from Allah. We say now, what is the path to achieving the desired unity? What is the path Islamically? The one who has an answer should raise his hand and speak by the best means.
The questioner : We want to hear from you.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good, this is just your opinion.
The questioner : Everyone.
The Shaykh : We do not want to impose our opinion on others. Is there anyone who has an answer? There is an answer here, please.
The questioner : The best path to unity is for the entire society to demand this unity.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. This is not a path, this is a call. This is a call, may Allah guide you.
The questioner : If it is not done by this method, a strong Muslim state annexes all the weak states...
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you. You do not distinguish between the call and the proof, you do not distinguish between the call and the path. You are singing about the call. We told you no one disagrees with it, but what is the path to achieving the desired Islamic unity?
Another questioner : Please, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Correct, my brother, make room for him, please.
The questioner : We accept the commands of Allah.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. This is the first time... This is the answer. May Allah reward you, and the best speech is what is brief and indicative. This is the answer of one who recalls the saying of Allah the Exalted:
if you support Allah, He will support you
إن تنصروا الله ينصركمif you support Allah, He will support you
إن تنصروا الله ينصركمif you support Allah, He will support you
إن تنصروا الله ينصركمThe questioner : We do not know, perhaps.
The Shaykh : How do you not know? May Allah guide you. How do you not know?
The questioner : They declare that they...
The Shaykh : Leave them to me. I am asking you. Do you believe in the depths of your heart that the annexation of Kuwait was a victory for Allah? Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar!! Everyone, if this annexation was for the victory of the cause of Allah the Mighty and Majestic, first, it would have been by a different path. Second, it should have been preceded by what we raised our voices in our countries for, that we want to throw the Jews into the sea. The Jews aggressed against Iraq in its own home and destroyed what is called what?
The questioner : The nuclear reactor.
The Shaykh : The nuclear reactor, they destroyed it in their own home and did not move a finger.
The questioner : They were not able to do so at that time.
The Shaykh : And after that, when did it become strong? When it aggressed on Kuwait, it became strong?! Why did it not take revenge?
The questioner : Before they aggressed on Kuwait, they were threatening to strike Israel.
The Shaykh : Never mind, why did they not do it?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.