What is your opinion on the fatwa permitting the entry of multinational forces to defend Saudi Arabia?

The questioner : In the name of Allah, and all praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. O Shaykh, what is your opinion regarding the validity of the fatwa stating that it is permissible for multinational forces to enter to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam’s aggression?

The Shaykh : We have spoken about this issue many times, and my brother here, who is in front of you now, has many tapes on it, some very long, some short, and some of medium length. Therefore, I will not be lengthy in answering this question, because it has become, for me, trite due to its frequent repetition. Do you understand what I mean by "trite"? We have heard such fatwas and could hardly believe them because of their distance from the Shari'ah texts and the principles of knowledge. But it seems that reports have reached us that some of the pious issue fatwas permitting the bringing of disbelievers into the lands of Islam, claiming that these are friendly states. We say: First, it is not permissible for a Muslim state, especially one that constantly declares that it rules by the Book and the Sunnah, to seek the aid of the enemies of its religion, first, and the enemies of the Muslims, second. This is because I can imagine a people who disbelieve in the religion of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), but who may be peaceful toward the Muslims, not hostile to them and not at war with them. I can imagine this. So if this people who disbelieve in the religion of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) are peaceful toward the Muslims, it is not permissible in the religion of Islam to seek their aid to fight other disbelievers or other disbelieving peoples. Why? Because it is authentically established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in more than one hadith that some individuals, at times, and some groups of disbelievers, at other times, wanted to fight the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So when he asked them, or asked the individual among them: , his answer was . And in the text of the narration of Imam Muslim, . Our previous discussion reached the hadith of Muslim: . We will not seek the aid of a mushrik or a mushrik. This "will not" is for perpetuity, I think. The previous speech was clear, and the last thing it ended with was his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): . No doubt... Glory be to the One who taught you. We said that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , even those who were peaceful toward him and not hostile to him. So it is all the more and more appropriate that it is not permissible for a Muslim to seek the aid of a mushrik who is hostile to him. This is all the more appropriate than the first. And more appropriate than all of this is that it is not permissible for a Muslim to seek the aid of a hostile state which, if it is not the strongest state in the entire world, is among the strongest states, such that if the Muslim state seeks the aid of this disbelieving state, and its severe enmity toward the Muslims is well known, and it enters the lands of Islam, it is possible that it will not leave the lands of Islam, because it is an enemy of the Muslims and the religion of the Muslims, as experience has shown. So it is a grave error to seek the aid of the Americans in this recent time, especially since there are Jews in the American army who are known for their severe enmity, and the Americans support and back them against the Muslims in all the lands of Islam, especially in Palestine. Therefore, this seeking of aid is contrary to the Shari'ah in many aspects and contrary to Shari'ah policy in general. If there were a permission to seek the aid of disbelievers if they were peaceful, if there were a permission for such seeking of aid, then this seeking of aid is not something the Wise Lawgiver would allow. And so I said: If the seeking of aid is from the Americans and the British. The British are those who prepared the land of Palestine for the Jews, and the Americans are those who consolidated their position and supplied them with their money and weapons. When can the saying of him (peace and blessings be upon him) be realized: or ? This means nullifying this hadith and the interest of the Muslims in general. And among the things that grieve the soul and make the Muslim confused about some of the policies that are happening today in the lands of Islam is that the Saudi state feared the Ba'athist state represented by Saddam, so why did it bring the Syrian Ba'athist state into its land? These are matters that truly make us, even though we are far from politics and its practice, know for certain that the matter is not in the hands of the Muslims. The matter is in the hands of the Americans. The Americans are those who imposed on the Saudi state to open its doors to the Americans and the British and to whoever the Americans want. It pretends before the Muslim world to seek the aid of Islamic states, so it is Egypt, and I don't know which, and it is the Ba'athist Syria. So what is the difference between this Ba'ath and that Ba'ath? There is no Islamic difference, but there is a political difference. This Ba'ath, America is pleased with it, and this Ba'ath, America is angry with it. So all the states that consider America a friendly state, unfortunately, and it is one of the greatest enemies of the Muslims, all these states that follow in the train of America must be pleased with what America is pleased with and hate what America hates. Where are the verses we used to hear before this greatest calamity befalling us? We do not hear them from other lands except from the lands of Saudi Arabia: . So what greater and more dangerous turning away is there than this turning away in which the Saudi state has fallen in these recent days? And this is the example you can touch with your hand: Saudi Arabia sought the aid of America out of fear of the Ba'ath, and the one it feared, America brought it to the very heart of Saudi Arabia. And I have said in many speeches, and I did not want to lengthen the speech in reality for the reason I mentioned at the beginning of this answer, that we have spoken a lot, and very much, about this great calamity. I said: What prevents the Americans, and among them are soldiers of the Jews, from occupying their old land of Khaybar and occupying the outskirts of Madinah, if not Madinah itself, the places of Banu Nadir and Banu Quraizah? It is very natural that they long for them, and they are far from Palestine. So what is the matter with them, since they have occupied it? And what is the matter with them, since they have occupied those lands, not by their power or their weapons, but by the policy that is deviant from wisdom and from the Shari'ah at the same time? What prevents the enthusiastic Jews from occupying Khaybar and occupying Madinah? Can the Saudi state repel the plot and the scheme of these people if they want to occupy their old lands? And Saudi Arabia feared Iraq, and Iraq is not stronger than America. So if it is pleased with the occupation of its lands by America with its consent, what is the difference if Iraq occupies these lands? These are Ba'ath and these are Ba'ath, and these are Jews. And so this is a very great predicament, and I believe that the basic problem is in this ailment for which there is no cure except what Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) wills by His power and wisdom. I believe that this bringing in of these disbelieving enemies, and the completion of the calamity is that we call the enemies friends. When were these friends of the Muslims? This is the completion of the calamity. The purpose of this bringing in was not based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: , nor on His saying: . I believe that in the lands of Saudi Arabia there are distinguished scholars whom we may not find in other lands except rarely. If their opinion had been taken before the event occurred, and they studied the internal harms that would result, other than the external harms that befall all the Islamic states, if they had been consulted and reflected on the harms that would result, they would not have permitted this bringing in in any way. But dictatorship, in modern and Arabic expression, tyranny in rule, with the cover of the Shari'ah with sweetened words of the Book and the Sunnah, the Book and the Sunnah. And there is no Book and Sunnah left for us except prayer and fasting and reciting the Qur'an and broadcasting the Qur'an on organized occasions. And this is a good matter without doubt. But . As long as we want to rule by the Book and the Sunnah, it is from the Book and the Sunnah to consult the people of knowledge. Are there people in those same lands who can say that the people of knowledge had their opinion taken before these disbelievers were brought into the lands of Islam? I do not think so. But after the event occurred and the Muslim world began to rise up against this calamity, orders were issued to the people of knowledge to issue their fatwas supporting this reality. Some of them hesitated at first, as it appears to us, and Allah knows best. Then they found themselves compelled to issue fatwas under the title of "necessities permit the prohibited." I say: This is a reversal of the Shari'ah realities. If the Americans, and they are the largest state in the world or among the largest, had attacked Saudi Arabia, what would it do? It would have to fight and strive in the path of Allah and attain one of the two good things: either victory or martyrdom in the path of Allah. But there is no longer in the Muslim world in general, and in Saudi Arabia in particular, anything called jihad except in name. Otherwise, how does the verse say: ? If they had truly wanted jihad, they would have prepared for it before these massive preparations they call economic and social, and of which they boast that they have become prominent among the nations in this aspect. So where is the preparation for jihad in the path of Allah? So when it feared facing Iraq as it attacked Kuwait, it cannot strive in the path of Allah. If it can, can it seek the aid of the disbelieving enemy? Is this an excuse? Allah is the Greatest. And perhaps some of the shaykhs, at least there, have begun to return to their senses and realize that they were supporters of the ruler who got into this predicament. And we, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , we do not know what was in the heart of this ruler or this government when it sought the aid of the enemy of its religion. Did it also want to plot against Islam and the Muslims, or was this a rash, immature opinion? And it is natural that it should be so, as long as it does not apply the Noble Qur'an: . But since the event has occurred, let us now look at what the Saudi state can do. I do not think the most foolish of the foolish imagines that Saudi Arabia, merely by saying to the Americans, and among them are Jews by the thousands, and the British, and among them are Jews, and they are the owners of the Balfour Declaration, that there is nothing, no matter how foolish, that says and believes that merely Saudi Arabia not ordering the Americans and the British to return to their lands means they will say: "At your service." This, unfortunately, is something that makes blood flow instead of tears. So we say: . We ask Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to make for this Ummah an exit and a relief from what has befallen it. This is what comes to my mind as an answer to this question.