Discussion of Iraq's defeat in the Gulf War.

The questioner : I mean, the question is about a specific situation. Let's suppose I am sitting in my house, a Muslim man attacked me, and I have a Christian neighbor.

The Shaykh : What did he attack you with?

The questioner : He wanted to steal my money, to rob my house.

The Shaykh : You mean he attacked you?

The questioner : Yes, he attacked my house. I have a neighbor who is Christian. I sought refuge in this Christian; I asked him to help me. I think this is permissible, of course.

The Shaykh : We will see what is behind the dune.

The questioner : I am asking you a question, answer me. The other question is behind this one.

The Shaykh : But I want your question to be realistic, not imaginary.

The questioner : This is real, it happens.

The Shaykh: No.

The questioner : It happens that someone attacks me.

The Shaykh : Do not imagine that he will come and knock on your door and you will go and call for help from the Christian. You will be in a defensive position, either you kill him or he kills you. As it came in the hadith So how did you imagine this scenario for me?

The questioner : I mean, the occurrence of this scenario is prevented, but it can happen.

The Shaykh : I am saying this, but you bring it up for me. I am not telling you what is behind the dune, what is behind it.

The questioner : I truly have Christian neighbors.

The Shaykh : Yes, this is a reality we believe in. How many Muslims have a Christian neighbor, and how many Christians have a Muslim neighbor? We believe in this. But the first scenario is that if you call for help from the Christian, it will be your end, God forbid. This did not enter my mind in any case. And above every one who has knowledge is the All-Knowing. This is the limit of our knowledge. What is your opinion? Do you enter the topic without this introduction?

The questioner : I am just asking a normal, innocent question... I mean, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, I think all the brothers know that there was mobilization by some Islamic groups and shaykhs regarding the topic of Iraq. They wove an image around Saddam Hussein that he was the new Salah al-Din. They started with the moon and ended with him praying with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) as imam. So people formed the idea that he was truly the new Salah al-Din. Suddenly, the defeat happened for Iraq, so they considered it a battle between disbelief and Islam.

The Shaykh : Do you agree with me, unfortunately, or do you not? It is written in the title. I say, unfortunately...

The questioner : Unfortunately, some people became frustrated and considered that Islam lost the battle.

The Shaykh: Allahu Akbar.

The questioner : What is your comment, O my Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Allah is the Helper. Everyone knows the shock that struck the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) when they became certain of his death (peace and blessings be upon him). The story of 'Umar regarding that is well known. The matter did not settle, nor did people remember the truth they knew, but the shock they were struck with made them forget it. Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) did not remind them except when he addressed them with his famous words: "Whoever used to worship Muhammad, then Muhammad has died, and whoever used to worship Allah, then Allah is Ever-Living and does not die." And he turned the people who were afflicted by what did I say?

The questioner : Frustration.

The Shaykh : Frustration. These people, Allah knows best, are one of two: either a believer with weak faith, or from the group of Ba'athists and secular party members. They cling to the created rather than the Creator. Without doubt, these people are in their clear misguidance, but with varying degrees in this misguidance. The exaggerations we used to hear, and the defense we also used to hear about Saddam Hussein until recently, the truth is that this did not stem from knowledge or intellect, but from unbridled emotions. I do not think these emotions are anything but Islamic. I think these emotions are Islamic, but they are purely illusory. We were in a position where we were neither with these people nor with those. We said, at the first aggression by Saddam against Kuwait, many Muslim youths were enthusiastic about this aggression and its support. Many discussions took place among many people, some of whom are with us on the line we follow, the Book and the Sunnah, and the methodology of the Salaf of the Ummah. It is difficult to convince them of the error of what Saddam did, because this type of people used to launch their support for this aggression from a non-Islamic basis, rather it is a basis of disbelief. And on this basis came this fierce American and British attack, and others. It is the basis that "the end justifies the means." Some Muslim youths, without realizing it, launched from this disbelieving basis, saying, "My brother, the union of two states into one is better than the existence of two states." So we would discuss and clarify to them, saying, "My brother, this statement is true, but what is the way to create one state from two? Is this the way, the strong attacking the weak?" So we would say, at the beginning of the fitnah, it is not permissible for a Muslim to be Iraqi or Saudi, because both states are considered contrary to the Islamic Shari'ah. One by its aggression against its Muslim neighbor, and the other by seeking help from the disbeliever, rather the disbelievers, and the worst of the disbelievers on the face of the earth. In support of this matter that is contrary to the Shari'ah, we used to and still hear that they seek help from Arab states and friendly foreign states! They know that the establishment of the state of the Jews, and I do not say Israel, and you must be careful, it is not permissible for you to support the Jews in their naming of their state as the state of Israel, because in this is the loss of the Muslims' attack on the Jews. Using a word other than the word "Jews" is media policy. So the Jews were enabled in the beginning, as is well known, by the British, then the Americans. Nevertheless, they have become, politically, friends to some Arab states today. So we would say it is not permissible for Muslims to be partisan for these or those. But when the battle actually began and it became clear to everyone, even the disbelievers, that the purpose of this battle by the allies was not truly what was initially broadcast, which was to prevent the evil of Saddam from reaching Saudi Arabia, and secondly to remove Saddam from Kuwait, but it became clear that the purpose was to crush the Iraqi people. And so it truly appeared at that time. We said it is obligatory for the Islamic states, as an alternative, to be a support for the disbelieving states as some did, or to be a support for the Iraqi people. But unfortunately: "I have heard, if you called a living person, *** But there is no life for the one you call."
As for supporting Saddam personally or his party, this is what I believe no Muslim would agree with. But these unbridled emotions that stem from a hadith with a weak chain but a correct meaning launched such enthusiasms and supported Saddam personally. This is without doubt an error, and the error became clear now after this defeat which we regret. You agree with us, if Allah wills, that this defeat was one we wished would not happen. Because the truth is, we were not calling on the Islamic states that do not respond to be a support for the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people for the sake of the Ba'ath Party, but because the signs began before the battle from these same disbelievers that they wanted to reorganize the Middle East with a new organization. And this means the signs began to appear that they wanted to subjugate the Middle East to the American system, or if you wish, to the rule of the Jews in Palestine. Then this evil would be greater than the evil of the Ba'ath rule in Iraq. Because I used to say and still say, the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, like the Ba'ath Party in Syria, neither party represents the people. The Ba'ath Party in Iraq does not represent the people of Iraq, and the Ba'ath Party in Syria does not represent the Syrian people. And the truth is, these two peoples are against the two parties.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : This is a second research topic, but I was aiming for this level of detail in response to the Saudis, who claim that they relied on disbelievers so that they would not rule from the Ba'ath Party. The Ba'ath Party, whether it has lived or will live for half a century, will live for a century, and then the Muslim people will overcome it. In other words, contrary to my previous statement, the Ba'ath Party does not represent the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people are Muslim; that is a disbelieving party. But Bush and his people, and all the other countries, their leaders and their subjects, represent one belief, which is the belief of the Cross. Therefore, the danger of the Cross occupying the lands of Islam and Muslims is far greater than the occupation by a Ba'athist party, which we do not hope will last long, as if the colonialism were the ruler. In any case, on this occasion, I remind you that the calamity that has befallen the people of Iraq is a calamity that befalls all Muslims, and they are all responsible for it, because we let them down. It is true, as you said, that they could not do anything, just as with the people. But as states, they could have cooperated and perhaps done something, yet they did nothing. Therefore, the statement of Allah the Exalted applies to us: In any case, I emerged from this war, in which we found a result that supports our intellectual and creedal starting point, which we have been calling Muslims to for more than half a century. It is that there is no benefit from all Islamic groupings that are based merely on grouping and gathering, and not on teaching, education, and upbringing. History must repeat itself. How did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) begin the call? So it is obligatory for all Islamic callers to begin with it. They must begin by teaching the Muslim people their religion and by raising this people on this religion. But we must remember a bitter truth: that Islam today, every person with Islamic culture, even in general, cuts off that the Islam understood today by the masses of Muslims is not the Islam that was understood by the Companions and the Successors. This Islam that we live today and experience, whether it relates to creed, rulings, or behavior, differs greatly from what this Islam was in the early centuries. Therefore, in order for Islam to bear the previous fruit in these days, it is necessary that we return to the same Islam, that is, the Islam that Allah revealed, as the Qur'an says, "a healing for what is in the breasts." It is a medicine and a cure for the diseases of the souls. This divine prescription is most like the prescription of a skilled doctor for physical diseases. This prescription from this skilled doctor for this dying patient in his illness: if he does not use this prescription, he will not be cured. And if he uses it but introduces into it what is not part of it, he may also not be cured, if we do not say that his illness may increase. This Islam, which was a cure for the first Arabs, who were living as polytheists, with no upbringing, no religion, no Shari'ah, and nothing else, yet because of this divine cure, they became the masters of the nations and defeated the most established nations of that time in culture and civilization, namely Persia and Rome. History repeats itself. This Islam today, in order to bear its fruit, it is necessary that we return to it. This means that it is obligatory for the scholars of Muslims to present Islam to Muslims as purified Islam. This is the intent of the speech: purified Islam, as if it had been revealed now, and there is no prophet other than the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). But as he said: So the cure is returning to the Book and the Sunnah, and then acting upon them. The Islamic world today is lost regarding the Book and the Sunnah. So the cure is that the people of knowledge perform this clarification of this purified Islam and raise those around them upon it. And then the believers will rejoice in the victory of Allah. As for gathering people, grouping them, and strengthening them materially, this is the experiment. This is Iraq, which, by the testimony of the enemies, is the strongest state in the Middle East. What did it benefit? As for the other states that... there is nothing upon them, but I believe that if this army had been believing, as we saw, it would have had a different result. As we saw the result of the jihad in Afghanistan, despite Afghanistan's distance from Islam in many aspects, but the jihad was the goal and its fruit was the establishment of the Islamic state. Here, there was nothing of that. So our position, unfortunately, was applying a jurisprudential rule: that if a Muslim falls between two evils, he chooses the lesser of them. We had two evils: either the occupation of these lands by the Americans, or the Ba'ath Party might occupy them. We see that, with its ugliness and its ugliness, it is less evil. As for supporting the Ba'ath Party, or supporting a person individually, this is not of Islam in anything.