arma@raksha.eng.ohio-state.edu (11/08/90)
In a posting , Ayman recites what went on in a discussion on the Talk.politics.mideast network between him and (I assume) other muslims (since they talk about matters of shariaa also). About his question of whether it is haram (forbidden) to "invite" non-muslims (armies) to the arab peninsula: I don't think I have the knowledge to say clearly the shariaa point of view since I am neither a aalem nor a moujtahed. But we were commanded by allah to follow His rule and that of the prophet. After the prophet died, it is the learned people(ulama) that will show ordinary muslims like me the right path (al ulamaa warathatul anbiaa). So the conclusion is to follow the opinions of the ulama. But the prophet "peace be upon him" said also that "al muumin kaison faten" The beleiver is good and smart is one of the meanings of this hadith (words in arabic hold different meanings) so we will follow what our ulama say but (to acertain extent) think about what they say and not follow them completely blinde (since they are human and they could err). Then we should think about the fatwa given by our ulama that it is allowed to let the american army inside Saudi Arabia. Well let's look first at other nations like Lebanon, they couldn't defend themselves, they had a weak army, that's why they now are puppets in the hand of Syria and Israel. (even the Palestinians that are in lebanon are capable of influencing the lebaneese future more than any lebaneese can). Another more recent example, Kuwait which relied on promises (from Non muslims) to preserve its integrity, is now a government in exile begging "non-muslims" to kill muslims in order to restore the muslim ? kuwait. So we shouldn't rely on outside help, we should follow the teachings of the prophet Peace be upon him and the Quran "Wa aiidou lahum ma istataatum min kuwa wa min ribat el khail TURHIBOUNA bihi adouwa allahi wa adouakum". Now about the fatwa, well first for the ulama from Saudi Arabia who said that it is permissible for Fahd to invite americans. They are the same ulama that two months beforer that fatwa gave another fatwa that it is not permissible to bring non-muslim servants to the arab peninsula (and to any ordinary man/woman, if we are afraid of non-muslim servants then it is "min bab awla" to be afraid of non-muslim ARMIES which are capable of inflicting more damage than servants which are hopless "la hawla lahum wala kuwa". For the azhar ulama, they also gave two STRANGE fatwas one was that "shahadat al istithmar" one of the many forms of riba (interest) is halal, the other is that muslims should fight against Iraq (and kill muslims in Iraq) on the side of the americans (who are the ennemies of islam) and muslims should have a treaty with ISRAEL. So what those ulama are practicing is the contrary of "ashidaun ala al kuffar ruhamaun baynahum" they are telling us to be hard on muslims and be forgiving with non-muslims (Israel). About comparing Fahd's action to the treaty between the prophet peace be upon him and the jews, one answer: Did you ever hear of a jew fighting in Badr or Uhud with the prophet sala allahu alayhi wa sallam ? I heard that he refused the help of non-muslims in all of his ghazawat. Also there are lots of ahadith about not seeking the help of non-muslims. About what the GULF states could have done. Compare the period Saddam Hussein stayed in power and the period Al Saoud Stayed in power. In his period Saddam built a very strong army, what did Saudi's do (I don't talk about other GULF states because they do not deserve the name of state they are like Lebanon borders only with no true state inside). Also the more surprising thing is that saoudis have more money than Iraq. So logically they should have more potential to be strong through their ability to buy armas. So it is the fault of Saoudis that they are not strong now. About what was said that no muslim country came to protect Saoudis, well one example is Afghanistan. Hikmatyar, one of the leaders of the Afghan mujahideen told Saoudis that he was ready to send as many as the americans to protect al aradi al mukaddasa. But fahd preffered the blonf army (who will not have detrimental effects on his throne by spreading their ideas inside his people). Remember that is those same mujahidin that fought against more advanced USSR and drove it out of afghanistan). About paying protection money to non-muslims and its difference from paying money to muslims for protection. Well a simple answer is that moneyto non-muslims is used for fighting islam in: 1. Palestine. 2. Lebanon. 3. Syria. 4. Philippines. 5. Africa. and the list goes on That's the difference. About supporting Iraq against Iran, that's a good example to show that an umma should not RENT people to defend it while taking advantage of not fighting because sooner or later they will have to fight so they will have to prepare themselves. Gulf states, helped fortify Saddam's armies instead of fortifying their own because they wanted Saddam to fioght Iran fore them. Now they are helping Americans in order for the later to fight Iraq. And god only knows who will they help or RENT next in order that he fights americans out.