Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!crackers!m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU!shari
From: gt8145a@prism.gatech.edu (FADEL,AYMAN HOSSAM)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Kuwait
Keywords: ummah, shar', independence
Message-ID: <1990Nov5.005432.30878@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 5 Nov 90 00:54:32 GMT
Sender: shari@wpi.WPI.EDU (Shari Deiana VanderSpek)
Followup-To: soc.religion.islam
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 110
Approved: shari@wpi.wpi.edu


Assalamu alaikum,

A discussion on soc.culture.arabic and talk.politcs.mideast
went something like this, and I'd like to hear the opinions
of others on this matter.

I said:

King Fahd's invitation to the non-Muslim soldiers is wrong
legally (shar'i) for two reasons.

1.  It is forbidden for muslims to seek the help non-Muslims
fight Muslims.

2.  It is forbidden for a non-Muslim power to enter the
Arabian Peninsula.  This is on the basis of the report
of Umar radiya allahu anh who said the Prophet salla allahu
alaihi wa sallam said:  There should not be two religions
in the peninsula of the Arabs.

3.  god azza wa jall said in the Quran that Muslims were to
be the witness over mankind after the Prophet p.b.u.h.  There-
fore, non-Muslims are not authorized to settle disputes among
muslims.

4.  God tabarak also said that when two parties of Muslims fight
other muslims should arbitrate.

they said:

1.  Many muslim scholars have declared Fahd's move permissible,
among them the scholars of al-azhar.

2.  The Prophet's treaty with the Jews of Medina shows that it
is permissible to seek the aid of non-Muslims.

I said:

1. a.  These scholars do not have freedom of expression in political
matters.  However, I am in a quandry, since I believe we should
follow our scholars in all things.  Otherwise, we follow the 
conjecture (zann) of non-scholars.

2. a.  The Prophet was not fighting any muslims.

   b.  The Prohet salla allahu alaihi wa sallam was made the chief
of Medina, and all disputes among the Jews were supposed to be
resolved by him.  Moreover, the Muslims were protecting the Jewish
tribes.  In this situation, the non-Muslims are fighting muslims
to solidify their control of oil resources.

Then I said:

1.  If the Gulf states would take some painful internal remedies,
they could be strong enough to defend themselves.
    These remedies include:
	a.  Allowing all to become citizens.
	b.  Ceasing the massive subsidies in health, housing and
education.
        c.  Making qualification the basis for reward,not
citizenship (muwatana).
	d. compulsory military service.

I should note here that I wrongly implied that foreigners did not
get free health care in Kuwait.

They said:

1.  Even with these measures, they would not be strong enough to
defend themselves.

So I responded:

Then they should rely on Muslim countries for defense.

They said:

No muslim country came.

I said:
  
Then Gulf countries should have increased the financial reward of
protection.

They said:

Then how is that different from us paying protection money to the
non-Muslims?

I said:

It's better to pay protection money to Muslims than non-Muslims.

I also said:

All who supported Iraq against Iran should realize that this was
absolutely forbidden, and they should feel much regret and repent.

I received no response about this.

Throughout, many insisted that it is none of my business how
the Arabian Peninsula khallasaha allahu min junuud al-kaafiriin
is run.

Please comment.  Am I way off here?

Wassalam,

Ayman