Saddam Hussein

Misbah-Abd said:
So any Arab who desires independence is a nationalist jahil also or are you just an Arab nationalist talking nonsense?
Click to expand...

Yeah pretty much, any Muslim in general who desires independence from his fellow Muslims for reasons outside of religion is a nationalist jahil. I don't care what ethnic/linguistic group that person belongs to.

I'm not an Arab (well maybe ancestrally but that doesn't really count since many Muslims are Arabs ancestrally).
 
Ibn Shahid said:
Yeah pretty much, any Muslim in general who desires independence from his fellow Muslims for reasons outside of religion is a nationalist jahil. I don't care what ethnic/linguistic group that person belongs to.

I'm not an Arab (well maybe ancestrally but that doesn't really count since many Muslims are Arabs ancestrally).
Click to expand...

But you praised Saddam for doing the same thing now that you call a nationalist Jahil, i.e. unifying under one Arab nation. ^o)
 
Misbah-Abd said:
But you praised Saddam for doing the same thing now that you call a nationalist Jahil, i.e. unifying under one Arab nation. ^o)
Click to expand...

He was trying to unify Muslims, not separate them further. That's totally different to the idea of Kurdistan.

Are you Kurdish?
 
Ibn Shahid said:
He was trying to unify Muslims, not separate them further. That's totally different to the idea of Kurdistan.

Are you Kurdish?
Click to expand...

Nope. But why is it ok for the Arabs under the banner of nationalism to have a nation but not the Kurds? And I doubt Saddam had any intention to unify Muslims under the banner of Tawheed. Like I said before, he was in a position to implement Shariah but didn't do it. He could of unified the Muslims in his own country under the Law of Allah but didn't do that.

And let's face it. The Arabs only have their countries because the kuffar divided it up that way.
 
Misbah-Abd said:
Nope. But why is it ok for the Arabs under the banner of nationalism to have a nation but not the Kurds? And I doubt Saddam had any intention to unify Muslims under the banner of Tawheed. Like I said before, he was in a position to implement Shariah but didn't do it. He could of unified the Muslims in his own country under the Law of Allah but didn't do that.

And let's face it. The Arabs only have their countries because the kuffar divided it up that way.
Click to expand...

It's okay for the Arabs because their process involved reunifying Muslims, not further chopping us up into smaller groups like the Kurds want. It is a movement which is beneficial for the Muslims.

Islam is an integral part of Arab nationalism, promoting the latter indirectly promotes the former. You will struggle to find an Arab nationalist who does not hold Islam close to their heart.
 
That is the most absurd comment you have made on this forum. History and the current state of affairs suggest otherwise. Unbelievable.
 
Ibn Shahid said:
Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

"It's okay for the Arabs because their process involved reunifying Muslims, not further chopping us up into smaller groups like the Kurds want." Chopping the Arabs up into smaller groups is exactly what happened. Take out an Atlas of the Middle East and tell me how many Arab countries you see there.

"Islam is an integral part of Arab nationalism, promoting the latter indirectly promotes the former." Islam has nothing to do with any nationalism.

"You will struggle to find an Arab nationalist who does not hold Islam close to their heart." There are many Arab nationalists who are Christian, Communist, Socialist, Apostates, etc.

Come on brother. I sense some Arab nationalism in your words. This Deen isn't about nationalism. It's about the Nation of Muhammad s.a.a.w.


 
Misbah-Abd said:
"It's okay for the Arabs because their process involved reunifying Muslims, not further chopping us up into smaller groups like the Kurds want." Chopping the Arabs up into smaller groups is exactly what happened. Take out an Atlas of the Middle East and tell me how many Arab countries you see there.

"Islam is an integral part of Arab nationalism, promoting the latter indirectly promotes the former." Islam has nothing to do with any nationalism.

"You will struggle to find an Arab nationalist who does not hold Islam close to their heart." There are many Arab nationalists who are Christian, Communist, Socialist, Apostates, etc.

Come on brother. I sense some Arab nationalism in your words. This Deen isn't about nationalism. It's about the Nation of Muhammad s.a.a.w.


Click to expand...

The Arabs desired a unified Arab nation, not the multiple independent nations they ended up getting. They consider this a great backstabbing of the colonial powers (serves them right though for rebelling against the Caliphate). Also, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about Arabs in modern times who want a unified Arab state, not the Arabs who rebelled against the Caliphate

Arab nationalists are overwhelmingly Muslim, and view Islam as integral to their nationalism as Islam started in Arabia. Islam doesn't promote Arab nationalism, but Arab nationalism promotes Islam wholeheartedly, just like how Punjabi nationalism promotes Sikhism, or Indian nationalism promotes Hinduism. Very few of them are not Muslim, and those that do not believe in Islam are almost certainly not apostates. Apostates do not like Arab nationalism because it promotes Islam.

Of course, but our objective is to unify the Ummah, yes? Movements like this help us achieve our objective, I see no reason not to embrace the Arab nationalists attempts at unifying the Arabs, as it only leads to Muslims being more unified.

I can't be an Arab nationalist, I'm not an Arab. I am a Muslim nationalist though (not talking about that movement in South Asia, I'm talking about being hyper-patriotic about my Muslim identity).
 
Misbah-Abd said:
"It's okay for the Arabs because their process involved reunifying Muslims, not further chopping us up into smaller groups like the Kurds want." Chopping the Arabs up into smaller groups is exactly what happened. Take out an Atlas of the Middle East and tell me how many Arab countries you see there.

"Islam is an integral part of Arab nationalism, promoting the latter indirectly promotes the former." Islam has nothing to do with any nationalism.

"You will struggle to find an Arab nationalist who does not hold Islam close to their heart." There are many Arab nationalists who are Christian, Communist, Socialist, Apostates, etc.

Come on brother. I sense some Arab nationalism in your words. This Deen isn't about nationalism. It's about the Nation of Muhammad s.a.a.w.


Click to expand...

He is correct and you are wrong, had Saddam attained what he wanted the Arabs would be more united thus a large Muslim nation would exist with a common people then eventually if Allah willed the greater Ummah, Saddam was not a Baathist like that Nusayri dog Assad, Saddam was from Ahlus Sunnah his uncle raised him religious the people of Saddam in Salah ad Din region of Iraq and areas like Anbar and Ninawa are strongholds of Sunnah they are like the Arabs of Rasoolillah (SAAWS) and of the Jazeera they are the same people, and by the will of Allah they were charged with authority over the land of the two rivers.

Saddam was shield against the Safawi Majoos and a torment upon them, even Rasoolillah (SAAWS) said the Muslims of Iraq will suffer because of a Roman intervention, it is clear that prior to such an intervention the Muslims were better off. Saddam was not perfect but he defended his nation and people, he was a just ruler, I have heard many from Iraq and other Arabs living in Iraq under the era of Saddam even say that a Rawafid would not dare utter a word against a companion or wife of the prophet.

Prior to the invasion he initiated a massive Dawah campaign he built Masjids across Iraq even in the UK.

He died reciting the Shahada, how many of us will do the same?

Fear Allah.
 
Those who are bad mouthing Saddam, he won. He got paradise. What do you have?
let's stop worrying about the dead and start worrying about our akhirah.
 
Last edited:
Ibn Shahid said:
The Arabs desired a unified Arab nation, not the multiple independent nations they ended up getting. They consider this a great backstabbing of the colonial powers (serves them right though for rebelling against the Caliphate). Also, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about Arabs in modern times who want a unified Arab state, not the Arabs who rebelled against the Caliphate

Arab nationalists are overwhelmingly Muslim, and view Islam as integral to their nationalism as Islam started in Arabia. Islam doesn't promote Arab nationalism, but Arab nationalism promotes Islam wholeheartedly, just like how Punjabi nationalism promotes Sikhism, or Indian nationalism promotes Hinduism. Very few of them are not Muslim, and those that do not believe in Islam are almost certainly not apostates. Apostates do not like Arab nationalism because it promotes Islam.

Of course, but our objective is to unify the Ummah, yes? Movements like this help us achieve our objective, I see no reason not to embrace the Arab nationalists attempts at unifying the Arabs, as it only leads to Muslims being more unified.

I can't be an Arab nationalist, I'm not an Arab. I am a Muslim nationalist though (not talking about that movement in South Asia, I'm talking about being hyper-patriotic about my Muslim identity).
Click to expand...
You are right, Akhi, this person is very ignorant about Hikmah of some rulers in the past, when we lost Saddam we lost one of the few great rulers of this modern time. Had Saddam lived in the 1200s Wallah there would be Khutbas about him in the Masjid he would be given the Salah ad Din treatment, he would be praised like the Ottomans.

It's obvious the individual prefers the Safawi regime that rapes, steals, and murders and slanders the first of this Ummah, and Rasoolillah (SAAWS) said "The sign of the hour will not occur until the last of this Ummah curse the first."
 
anatolian said:
Saddam may have died a Muslim but there is a difference between being Muslim and being a cruel Muslim. What we criticize is his cruelty, primarly towards the Iraqi Kurds. He killed civilian people in Halabja.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD]Halabja chemical attack - Wikipedia
...[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]
Click to expand...

Why did he take this step...?

see it in your given link:

''The Kurdish rebellion of 1983 occurred during the Iran–Iraq war as PUK ...combining the forces of KDP and PUK succeeded in retaining control of some enclaves with Iranian logistic and sometimes military support. The initial rebellion resulted in stalemate by 1985.''
 
azc said:
Why did he take this step...?

see it in your given link:

''The Kurdish rebellion of 1983 occurred during the Iran–Iraq war as PUK ...combining the forces of KDP and PUK succeeded in retaining control of some enclaves with Iranian logistic and sometimes military support. The initial rebellion resulted in stalemate by 1985.''
Click to expand...

There is no harm with fighting with the armed rebelions but he targted also unarmed people, children with chemical weapons. That gas bruttaly killed those Kurdish children in Halabja.
 
anatolian said:
There is no harm with fighting with the armed rebelions but he targted also unarmed people, children with chemical weapons. That gas bruttaly killed those Kurdish children in Halabja.
Click to expand...

Did the women and children support their men...?
 
azc said:
You have soft corner in your heart for Genghis khan....?
Click to expand...

Ibn Shahid said:
Asalamu Alaikum

Khan banned circumcision and the halal method of slaughtering. He also completely massacred Muslims living within the Khwarezmid Empire and tried to do the same to the Muslims within the Delhi Sultanate (luckily he failed miserably).

He was a terrible tyrant, no respect should be given to him other than the fact that he should be recognised as a powerful military leader.
Click to expand...

Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah.

Of course I reject him too :) Otherwise I would not compare him to the other tyrants...

I had lately read his constitution, called "Yasak", which included many good aspects like tolerance, preserving the nasl (prohibition of fornication) etc. so I found it to be reminiscent of other tyrants who along their whole oppression and transgression against Islam had some praiseworthy stances, which but nonetheless do not suffice to repair their overall image and our judgement of him. And that had been my final conclusion. And I mentioned this because many people take the good aspects of a tyrant, like Saddam Hussein, and completely ignore his great atrocities.
Further discussions on him in this thread would be superfluous, as this thread is about contemporary tyrants.

- - - Updated - - -

JustTime said:
You are right, Akhi, this person is very ignorant about Hikmah of some rulers in the past, when we lost Saddam we lost one of the few great rulers of this modern time. Had Saddam lived in the 1200s Wallah there would be Khutbas about him in the Masjid he would be given the Salah ad Din treatment, he would be praised like the Ottomans.

It's obvious the individual prefers the Safawi regime that rapes, steals, and murders and slanders the first of this Ummah, and Rasoolillah (SAAWS) said "The sign of the hour will not occur until the last of this Ummah curse the first."
Click to expand...

Please stop twisting the words of others and using a black-white logic or interpreting every verse and hadith according to your own view.

The hadith you quoted certainly does not apply to Saddam Hussein who live in our century, but rather to the companions and salaf.

It is known what contemporary scholars have said about him... Most people supporting him are just Arab nationalist, IS sympathizers - as most ex-Saddam officers joined IS, or ordinary Iraqis/Arabs who are emotionally overwhelmed by the lack of leadership in the Islamic world and thus seek to find makeshift leaders.

You say he was not a Baathist? Are you serious with this claim? The Iraqi Baathists are those who helped Hafiz al Assad to obtain power! Abdullah Azzam had stated in his lectures that Saddam Hussein is a disbeliever, and that his view on this is certain. Saddam Hussein and all these Baathist value Michael Aflaq as their leader, who is a Christian.

Brother @Ibn Shahid you are probably mixing the basic love for one's own race and the desire for unity with Arab nationalism. For the latter one has been started and deeply influenced by Arab Christians from Lebanon. If somebody doubts this he may have a look on the first literature promoting Arab nationalism. There is only place for one nation, which is Islam, so we may only have Islamic nationalism, nothing else. And this does not exclude the ordinary feelings of greater closeness and geniality towards one's own cultural (consequentially ethnic) environment.
 
JustTime said:
He is correct and you are wrong, had Saddam attained what he wanted the Arabs would be more united thus a large Muslim nation would exist with a common people then eventually if Allah willed the greater Ummah, Saddam was not a Baathist like that Nusayri dog Assad, Saddam was from Ahlus Sunnah his uncle raised him religious the people of Saddam in Salah ad Din region of Iraq and areas like Anbar and Ninawa are strongholds of Sunnah they are like the Arabs of Rasoolillah (SAAWS) and of the Jazeera they are the same people, and by the will of Allah they were charged with authority over the land of the two rivers.

Saddam was shield against the Safawi Majoos and a torment upon them, even Rasoolillah (SAAWS) said the Muslims of Iraq will suffer because of a Roman intervention, it is clear that prior to such an intervention the Muslims were better off. Saddam was not perfect but he defended his nation and people, he was a just ruler, I have heard many from Iraq and other Arabs living in Iraq under the era of Saddam even say that a Rawafid would not dare utter a word against a companion or wife of the prophet.

Prior to the invasion he initiated a massive Dawah campaign he built Masjids across Iraq even in the UK.

He died reciting the Shahada, how many of us will do the same?

Fear Allah.
Click to expand...

More revisionist history. That post of yours sounded more like a eulogy rather than an honest assessment of history.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top