It has become clear that the American presence in the Kingdom during the Gulf crisis was not an occupation; does the Shaykh’s ruling on this matter change?

Abd al-Malik: Shaykh, some of the scholars I met during this Hajj, who love you, asked me to ask you this question while keeping their identities confidential.

The Shaykh: With?
Abd al-Malik: While keeping their names confidential.

The Shaykh: Their names, yes.
Abd al-Malik: They said this is so that affection remains between us, because they disagree with your ruling on the Gulf issue.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Abd al-Malik: They said there is nothing between us andThe Shaykh : anything, because the issue is jurisprudential and is merely a matter of scholarly disagreement, but they asked what is the position ofThe Shaykh : now that it has become known that the ...

Another questioner : Peace be upon you

The Shaykh : And Abd al-Malik: And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah.
Abd al-Malik: That the entry of allied states into the Arabian Peninsula was not an occupation, and this assumption was refuted, so would this be a reason for the Shaykh to retract his ruling? They said, since we know ofThe Shaykh : his return to the truth, and he often teaches his students and seekers of knowledge this, what is your ruling on this matter? May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh: What is my ruling?
Abd al-Malik: You ruled that it is not permissible to ... Yes, please go ahead.

The Shaykh: Because in the ruling and in the conclusion of the ruling
Abd al-Malik: Yes.

The Shaykh: So what is the ruling?
Abd al-Malik: The ruling is that it is not permissible to seek assistance, and...

The Shaykh: Seek assistance absolutely?
Abd al-Malik: Ah, but, of course, you said in this case

The Shaykh: No, I hope we are precise in the matter. You must have understood from them what they understood from my ruling, so what is their understanding of my ruling?
Abd al-Malik: I see that they understood it in a limited way because they ... .

The Shaykh : So if
Abd al-Malik: They built on the idea that I am conveying ... .

The Shaykh: So, if their understanding is wrong, what should I answer them?
Abd al-Malik: They think that you based the ruling on the issue of occupation, but I learned that you based the ruling on the evidence and then included the issue of occupation and non-occupation and other things.

The Shaykh: We, my brother, said before the occupation happened, we said it is not permissible to seek assistance from these disbelievers. Why? Because first, the issue, I don’t know, we might waste time if you are already aware of my rulings on this matter, because we have several tapes.
Abd al-Malik: I have them, I am saying this to convey it to them.
Abu Layla: If they are eager, we can record it on the phone with them directly before they hear it in Jordan.
Abd al-Malik: They asked me to convey the answer to them.

The Shaykh: They asked you what?
Abd al-Malik: To convey your answer to them.

The Shaykh: Ah, actually, I don’t know if I can gather my thoughts and focus my mind and collect the main points I spoke about regarding the Gulf crisis. Everyone knows that before the incident occurred between those they call the allies and Iraq, Muslims in many Islamic countries were very enthusiastic for Iraq, and perhaps you know this?
Abd al-Malik: Yes.

The Shaykh: Well, and there were people known by their names and identities who made Saddam Hussein a hero and placed strange, very unusual hopes in him, and some of them were those who declared him a disbeliever while the fighting was ongoing between Iraq and

Another questioner: Iran.

The Shaykh: Iran, so they flipped. Their flip was not based on jurisprudential study, but either on unbridled emotions not bound by the rulings of the Shari'ah, or personal interests, and the matter is as they say: "The sweetest of them is bitter." So my opinion before the incident was, guys, do not be so enthusiastic for Saddam Hussein, because Saddam Hussein is known to be a Ba'athist and that he does not rule by what Allah has revealed, and so on, which is well known. Therefore, I always reminded them of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): Do not join either Saddam or the allies. I think you are aware of this. And I used to debate with some of the righteous young men who were enthusiastic for Iraq. Then what is called the People's Army arose?
onAl-Halabi: The People's Army, yes.

The Shaykh: The People's Army, thousands joined and reached the number, I think 40,000 to 60,000, wanting to go to fight with Iraq against the allies. I told them, guys, fear Allah, you are living in illusions. How do you set out from here to jihad in the path of Allah? Who will lead you from here? Any Muslim, if the prayer time comes, will stop you and order you to pray, or will they say, go, it is not time for prayer, and so on. So you are an imaginary group, meaning you do not think practically, and so on. Then suppose you reached Iraq, would you fight independently or would you join the Iraqi army? These are things they did not think about at all. Then if you reached there and it was decreed for you to fight side by side with Iraq, who would you fight? Would you fight Americans? Would you fight the British? You would fight your Muslim brothers, the Saudis, the Egyptians, and others, because these disbelievers will make Muslims the scapegoat in this issue, and Muslims are the losers whether they are with the allies or against the allies. This is what we used to say, so we concluded by advising them: stay in your homes, be the masters of your homes. When the incident happened and the allies actually attacked the Iraqis in Kuwait, at the time I was saying that the Iraqi aggression on Kuwait is not permissible, and brothers here remember well, and perhaps you heard the tape, I was saying that Saddam’s aggression on Kuwait created another harm, which was the Saudis seeking assistance from these disbelievers. So this seeking of assistance is one of the evils of Saddam Hussein. I don’t know if you heard this or not? I don’t know if those scholars heard this statement or not. I received ... .
Abd al-Malik: I fear they may not have heard it.

The Shaykh: And that is the case. I received many letters, they assume it this way. Some of them said to me, you are influenced by the propaganda against the Saudis.
Abd al-Malik: Yes, that is correct.

The Shaykh : I seek refuge in Allah. The point is, when the incident occurred and the fighting began, I found myself compelled not to remain frozen in that previous stance. Since the incident had already happened, I said: Now, it is obligatory to support neither the Ba'ath Party nor Saddam in his person, but rather to assist the Iraqi people against these invaders. It is true that Iraq was a rebel and oppressor in its aggression against Kuwait, but now the situation has developed to the point where the Americans have come from the ends of the earth for the sake of the Muslims? Far be it from Allah. Therefore, it is obligatory to support Iraq. However, I was practical, not idealistic. It is not permissible for you as individuals to support Iraq; it is necessary for states to support Iraq with their power, weapons, organized army, and so on. Even the Algerians were asking us, and I would tell them: It is obligatory to support Iraq, but not as individuals, but as a state. And as long as I was asked, this was my answer. So we said that the Saudis' seeking of aid, and the statement of their scholars—regarding their status in my mind regarding the permissibility of seeking aid—I said that these people are like those who were with us, who are driven by their emotions and do not rule by the law of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), nor do they rule by the sayings of the scholars who understood this Shari'ah. Their deviation is sufficient in that they came to the famous hadith, which is the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): Some of them went so far as to say that this is abrogated. What abrogated it? Particular incidents in which there is absolutely nothing resembling their seeking of aid. Their seeking of aid was not with one individual, nor five, nor ten, nor a hundred, nor an army that is the largest and strongest army in equipment and supplies, and so on, but with armies of disbelievers, as is well known. Where is this found in those incidents and particulars that make the bereaved laugh? They cite the Messenger of Allah's seeking aid from the Khariyyat who showed them the way from Makkah to al-Madinah, and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) borrowing the armor of Safwan ibn Umayyah. Wonders of evidence! And yet they are particulars that do not constitute a principle or establish a rule. And the Messenger of Allah says: Some of them went so far as to say this hadith is abrogated. What abrogated it? There is no rule in the principles of jurisprudence that a rule is abrogated by particulars; rather, these particulars are exceptions to the rule due to circumstances that befall one, but the rule remains safe. And the scholars, even the Hanbalis among them who said in some of their positions that seeking aid from disbelievers is permissible, said it is on the condition that the upper hand remains with the Muslims. Was their seeking of aid of this nature? I said to them, actually in a sarcastic tone regarding their opinion and their defense of what their government did: Perhaps you would permit seeking aid from the Jews in order to eliminate Saddam Hussein and his army.

Another questioner : Allahu Akbar.

The Shaykh : If they were asked this question, they would say, "We seek refuge in Allah," but the Jews are present in the American army.

Another questioner : Schwarzkopf is a Jew, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes?

Another questioner : Schwarzkopf, the commander of operations, is a Jew.

The Shaykh : Here is the point: the Americans who reached the sacred lands, and some of them, considering themselves Jews, longed for Khaybar and occupied it. Who is able to expel them from there? The Saudi army? It was not even able to take charge of defending...

Another questioner : Our Shaykh, this...

The Shaykh : Is this it?

Another questioner : Schwarzkopf says to the Israeli army radio: "We fought for you and made efforts to destroy your enemy."
Abu Layla : Repeat, repeat this. Read, read it...

Another questioner : Read, O Shaykh Nu'man.
Abu Layla : Just read the phrase.

Another questioner : This is the Wall Street Journal in an interview that was denied by official American circles and ignored by our media.

Another questioner : Our media.

Another questioner : Our media, yes. Schwarzkopf says to the Israeli army radio: "We fought for you and made efforts to destroy your enemy."

The Shaykh : There is no power or strength except with Allah. So the point, may Allah reward you, is that I said I fear that this will be a non-military occupation of the Saudi state without shedding blood. I said this and I still say it, and they cannot deny this fact even to this hour, because we do not know, and they do not know, the extent of the American army's spread in the Saudi state. I did not merely say that occupation is not permissible; I based the negation of this seeking of aid on, first, an authentic hadith for which there is no room to claim abrogation, and second, the sayings of the scholars who permitted seeking aid, who placed a fundamental condition in the matter, and this condition is not met in the Saudis' seeking of aid from these disbelievers. Is there anyone who says it is permissible to seek aid from disbelievers absolutely?

Another questioner : No

The Shaykh : I do not think anyone would go so far as to reach this level of degradation in thinking, otherwise my saying would apply to them: "Seek aid from the Jews." Perhaps I have answered what you asked?