Many of you may know more about Saddam Hussein than I do. You may know Arabic and you may have more knowledge.
For me, it is very difficult to assess- what is the truth about him?
If you have knowledge, it will be appreciated if you share it.
What are your thoughts?
I post because I wonder what the people have to say.
I post also because I found this, which I think is very interesting. I haven't watched the whole thing yet but... I am very excited by what I have found.
I feel very excited to have found this. This was published about four days ago. This is footage in Arabic with English subtitles. To my knowledge, this was not previously available in English.
I feel this is something important. I have not watched the whole thing but- I feel this is something worth examining. What is the truth? It is very intriguing.
I hope people examine the footage and I hope people share their knowledge.
I definitely think there is more to be learned about this man. There are so many questions surrounding him.
So any Arab who desires independence is a nationalist jahil also or are you just an Arab nationalist talking nonsense?
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).
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).
But you praised Saddam for doing the same thing now that you call a nationalist Jahil, i.e. unifying under one Arab nation.
"When a person sees the road as too long, he weakens in his walk." - Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah
He was trying to unify Muslims, not separate them further. That's totally different to the idea of Kurdistan.
Are you Kurdish?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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).
"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.
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?
يا قافلة الخير "The Persian aggression against Iraq was a result of the arrogant, racialist and evil attitudes of the ruling clique in Iran."
-Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid at-Tikriti - العراق جمجمة العرب ورمح الله في الأرض
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).
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."
يا قافلة الخير "The Persian aggression against Iraq was a result of the arrogant, racialist and evil attitudes of the ruling clique in Iran."
-Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid at-Tikriti - العراق جمجمة العرب ورمح الله في الأرض
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.
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.
''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.''
''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.''
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.
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.
You have soft corner in your heart for Genghis khan....?
format_quote Originally Posted by Ibn Shahid
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.
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 - - -
format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime
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."
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.
And [there is a share for] those who came after them, saying, "Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful." (Surat al-Hashr, 10)
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.
More revisionist history. That post of yours sounded more like a eulogy rather than an honest assessment of history.
"When a person sees the road as too long, he weakens in his walk." - Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
-
Otherwise I would not compare him to the other tyrants... 
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks