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.
He was an American agent and was used to attack Iran between 80-88. He then started think that he was a sultan on his own and disobeyed America. He started to persecute his own people. He is finally owned and finished. He was cruel and deserved his end if you ask me.
I rather feel sorry for Ghaddafi. He did not deserve his end. He must be valued as an example of a real Arabic leader
Qaddafi, Saddam Hussain etc. they are all the same tyrants with some peculiarities. They follow their desires, lead an idle and prosperous life and are ready to crush every dissidence and obstacle that rises in front of their path. They may adopt some aspects of Islam in order to preserve the homogeneity of their societies and the integrity of the state, but they do not care much about Islam beyond that.
Saddam was a nepotist, narcissistic, authoritarian dictator who oppressed his people when they objected to his action or made any move of opposition. He was an Arab nationalist and has foremost favored his own tribe and gave them the share of his (embezzled national) wealth and appointed them to government positions. However he oppressed Kurds, even using chemical weapons against them, and Shiites who were accused of loyalty towards Iran. His relatives in the military and governance would do any injustice without any consequences, including rape and murder. It is even said that his hideaway was given away by a Kurd from Tikrit, whose daughter Saddam Hussein's son had allegedly raped. The same son is also known to have killed other military officers with whom he got in odds. Saddam of course may have had some pro-Islamic appearances, but this was again rather motivated by nationalism; like celebrating the conquest of Madain and praising Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas (radiyallahu anh).
As for Qaddafi, he replaced Islamic law by his own rules, the Green Book, that emanated from his hawaa' (baseless, self-made desires and ideas). And he too was oppressive, as all tyrants. He may have served for the welfare and development of Libya, refused imperialists and exploitation and helped other Muslim countries, but this does not whitewash his transgressions against Islam. Unfortunately people are quite quickly deceived by such worldly values like prosperity and development, which are in reality nothing when weight of with the value of Islam.
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)
Qaddafi, Saddam Hussain etc. they are all the same tyrants with some peculiarities. They follow their desires, lead an idle and prosperous life and are ready to crush every dissidence and obstacle that rises in front of their path. They may adopt some aspects of Islam in order to preserve the homogeneity of their societies and the integrity of the state, but they do not care much about Islam beyond that.
Saddam was a nepotist, narcissistic, authoritarian dictator who oppressed his people when they objected to his action or made any move of opposition. He was an Arab nationalist and has foremost favored his own tribe and gave them the share of his (embezzled national) wealth and appointed them to government positions. However he oppressed Kurds, even using chemical weapons against them, and Shiites who were accused of loyalty towards Iran. His relatives in the military and governance would do any injustice without any consequences, including rape and murder. It is even said that his hideaway was given away by a Kurd from Tikrit, whose daughter Saddam Hussein's son had allegedly raped. The same son is also known to have killed other military officers with whom he got in odds. Saddam of course may have had some pro-Islamic appearances, but this was again rather motivated by nationalism; like celebrating the conquest of Madain and praising Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas (radiyallahu anh).
As for Qaddafi, he replaced Islamic law by his own rules, the Green Book, that emanated from his hawaa' (baseless, self-made desires and ideas). And he too was oppressive, as all tyrants. He may have served for the welfare and development of Libya, refused imperialists and exploitation and helped other Muslim countries, but this does not whitewash his transgressions against Islam. Unfortunately people are quite quickly deceived by such worldly values like prosperity and development, which are in reality nothing when weight of with the value of Islam.
Ofcourse we cannot show Qaddafi a perfect example of an Islamic leader but we know that he tried to establish atleast a kind of Islamic rule a socialist Islamic one and he was honest unlike the others. He had a position against the imperialist west. He did significant things for his people. He almost established a semi socialist semi Islamist system. And he is the only example of an Arabic leader we can show of the last a houndred years
- - - Updated - - -
format_quote Originally Posted by azc
Now he is a part of history...chapter closed
Nah.. If you cant analyze history, you cant synthesize future
He was an American agent and was used to attack Iran between 80-88. He then started think that he was a sultan on his own and disobeyed America. He started to persecute his own people. He is finally owned and finished. He was cruel and deserved his end if you ask me.
I rather feel sorry for Ghaddafi. He did not deserve his end. He must be valued as an example of a real Arabic leader
If you would of stopped at the first paragraph it would of been good. Ghaddafi didn't rule by the law of Allah, tried to implement his "green book" which was suppose to outline his political beliefs, as if Islam and Muslims need such a worthless book. And far from what the Arab world needs. Saddam was a tool of the Global Elite and when he exhausted his usefulness he was destroyed.
If you would of stopped at the first paragraph it would of been good. Ghaddafi didn't rule by the law of Allah, tried to implement his "green book" which was suppose to outline his political beliefs, as if Islam and Muslims need such a worthless book. And far from what the Arab world needs. Saddam was a tool of the Global Elite and when he exhausted his usefulness he was destroyed.
Ok I exegarated him with a real example of an Arabic leader. But as for his book.. Muslims have written books thats not news. That just doesnt mean that he wanted to replace Quran with his book.
Ok I exegarated him with a real example of an Arabic leader. But as for his book.. Muslims have written books thats not news. That just doesnt mean that he wanted to replace Quran with his book.
What we need are leaders that adhere to the Quran and Sunnah. And he wasn't one of them. But I see that he is so popular on social media because he comes off as standing up to the West, hence the exaggeration about his legacy.
"When a person sees the road as too long, he weakens in his walk." - Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah
Saddam Hussain was supported by the west but then he broke off from them and did what he felt was right to rule his people. With 4 million dead, even those who supported his fall are crying in the streets for him to come back and regretting their actions. This is why Islam does not support overthrowing a ruler, even a bad one. Anyway, we do not talk bad about the dead, especially Muslims. And whatever he did, Allah blessed him with a good end. His last words were the shaahadah as the shia khawrij hanged him in secret like cowards. we can only hope for such a good end ourselves. Best we leave it at that.
Ofcourse we cannot show Qaddafi a perfect example of an Islamic leader but we know that he tried to establish atleast a kind of Islamic rule a socialist Islamic one and he was honest unlike the others. He had a position against the imperialist west. He did significant things for his people. He almost established a semi socialist semi Islamist system. And he is the only example of an Arabic leader we can show of the last a houndred years
- - - Updated - - -
Nah.. If you cant analyze history, you cant synthesize future
Invasion of Iraq and execution of Saddam Husain is the slap on the face of Muslim countries and it opened the door of killing of innocent people at large. Rulers of the region are equally responsible for humiliation of Iraqi people in abu ghraib, in their own country.
Saddam Hussain was supported by the west but then he broke off from them and did what he felt was right to rule his people. With 4 million dead, even those who supported his fall are crying in the streets for him to come back and regretting their actions. This is why Islam does not support overthrowing a ruler, even a bad one. Anyway, we do not talk bad about the dead, especially Muslims. And whatever he did, Allah blessed him with a good end. His last words were the shaahadah as the shia khawrij hanged him in secret like cowards. we can only hope for such a good end ourselves. Best we leave it at that.
Is Saddam and Ghaddafi Muslim? They didn't rule by the law of Allah and they were in a position to do so because they had an iron grip on their nations. Those two got what they deserved. And I will leave it at that.
Oh, and nice revisionist history about Saddam breaking off from the West and do what is right to rule his people. I'm sure the Kurds would agree with you.
Last edited by Misbah-Abd; 03-31-2018 at 06:15 PM.
I have not examined the book but most probably it contains ideas contradicting Islamic teachings and laws, which were in order to be applied in practice. Supposedly there would not be any criticism if it were an auxiliary law book like the Mecelle of the Ottoman government.
Moreover, Qaddafi wanted to buy the tomb of Jamal Abdunnasir to make it into a central pilgrimage sight in Benghazi that is should be visited like the grave of Prophet Muhammad, as explained by Shaykh Abdulhamid Kishk.
In my opinion these tyrants are very peculiar person with various kinds of ideas formed in their unrestricted minds. Out of these minds beneficent ideas can emanate, just as ideas that transgress the borders of Allah. He somehow reminds me of Genghis Khan, who actually never claimed to be Muslim - at least being honest and understanding that Islam is a whole. He agreed to every aspect of Islam except Hajj and Qurban forwarding some complaints. Just like him these dictators have their own whims which they put in front of the divine laws.
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)
Ofcourse we cannot show Qaddafi a perfect example of an Islamic leader but we know that he tried to establish atleast a kind of Islamic rule a socialist Islamic one and he was honest unlike the others. He had a position against the imperialist west. He did significant things for his people. He almost established a semi socialist semi Islamist system. And he is the only example of an Arabic leader we can show of the last a houndred years
- - - Updated - - -
Nah.. If you cant analyze history, you cant synthesize future
I have not examined the book but most probably it contains ideas contradicting Islamic teachings and laws, which were in order to be applied in practice. Supposedly there would not be any criticism if it were an auxiliary law book like the Mecelle of the Ottoman government.
Moreover, Qaddafi wanted to buy the tomb of Jamal Abdunnasir to make it into a central pilgrimage sight in Benghazi that is should be visited like the grave of Prophet Muhammad, as explained by Shaykh Abdulhamid Kishk.
In my opinion these tyrants are very peculiar person with various kinds of ideas formed in their unrestricted minds. Out of these minds beneficent ideas can emanate, just as ideas that transgress the borders of Allah. He somehow reminds me of Genghis Khan, who actually never claimed to be Muslim - at least being honest and understanding that Islam is a whole. He agreed to every aspect of Islam except Hajj and Qurban forwarding some complaints. Just like him these dictators have their own whims which they put in front of the divine laws.
You have soft corner in your heart for Genghis khan....?
Is Saddam and Ghaddafi Muslim? They didn't rule by the law of Allah and they were in a position to do so because they had an iron grip on their nations. Those two got what they deserved. And I will leave it at that.
Oh, and nice revisionist history about Saddam breaking off from the West and do what is right to rule his people. I'm sure the Kurds would agree with you.
Asalamu Alaikum
Not sure about Gaddafi, but Saddam became a much more pious Muslim in his last few years. He died reciting the Shahadah.
Saddam Hussein did try to bring glory to Iraq, and advocated the Arabs unifying under a single nation.
The Kurds are irrelevant, they get along with nobody.
Is Saddam and Ghaddafi Muslim? They didn't rule by the law of Allah and they were in a position to do so because they had an iron grip on their nations. Those two got what they deserved. And I will leave it at that.
.
Regardless of how he lived his life, the fact that Allah gave him a good end means a lot more than what anyone can say bad about him. Anyone who dies with shahadah on their lips as their last words go to Jannah. Can you guarantee you will have such a good end? we should worry about ourselves rather than one who was blessed to have a good end.
It was narrated that Mu’aadh ibn Jabal (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “If a person’s last words are Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah, Paradise will be guaranteed for him.” Narrated by Ahmad, 21529; Abu Dawood, 3116; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel, 687
I have not examined the book but most probably it contains ideas contradicting Islamic teachings and laws, which were in order to be applied in practice. Supposedly there would not be any criticism if it were an auxiliary law book like the Mecelle of the Ottoman government.
Moreover, Qaddafi wanted to buy the tomb of Jamal Abdunnasir to make it into a central pilgrimage sight in Benghazi that is should be visited like the grave of Prophet Muhammad, as explained by Shaykh Abdulhamid Kishk.
In my opinion these tyrants are very peculiar person with various kinds of ideas formed in their unrestricted minds. Out of these minds beneficent ideas can emanate, just as ideas that transgress the borders of Allah. He somehow reminds me of Genghis Khan, who actually never claimed to be Muslim - at least being honest and understanding that Islam is a whole. He agreed to every aspect of Islam except Hajj and Qurban forwarding some complaints. Just like him these dictators have their own whims which they put in front of the divine laws.
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.
I have not examined the book but most probably it contains ideas contradicting Islamic teachings and laws, which were in order to be applied in practice. Supposedly there would not be any criticism if it were an auxiliary law book like the Mecelle of the Ottoman government.
Moreover, Qaddafi wanted to buy the tomb of Jamal Abdunnasir to make it into a central pilgrimage sight in Benghazi that is should be visited like the grave of Prophet Muhammad, as explained by Shaykh Abdulhamid Kishk.
In my opinion these tyrants are very peculiar person with various kinds of ideas formed in their unrestricted minds. Out of these minds beneficent ideas can emanate, just as ideas that transgress the borders of Allah. He somehow reminds me of Genghis Khan, who actually never claimed to be Muslim - at least being honest and understanding that Islam is a whole. He agreed to every aspect of Islam except Hajj and Qurban forwarding some complaints. Just like him these dictators have their own whims which they put in front of the divine laws.
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.
Not sure about Gaddafi, but Saddam became a much more pious Muslim in his last few years. He died reciting the Shahadah.
Saddam Hussein did try to bring glory to Iraq, and advocated the Arabs unifying under a single nation.
The Kurds are irrelevant, they get along with nobody.
Even the Kurds who are good Muslims are irrelevant? Nice blanket statement there. How about unifying under the single nation of Muhammad s.a.a.w. Or was that asking too much?
Even the Kurds who are good Muslims are irrelevant? Nice blanket statement there.
Kurds who are good Muslims will not advocate for an independent Kurdistan, and would get along nicely with their fellow Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Turkey.
Any Kurd who desires independence is a nationalist jahil.
He was an American agent and was used to attack Iran between 80-88. He then started think that he was a sultan on his own and disobeyed America. He started to persecute his own people. He is finally owned and finished. He was cruel and deserved his end if you ask me.
I rather feel sorry for Ghaddafi. He did not deserve his end. He must be valued as an example of a real Arabic leader
Do you know Ghaddafi was the richest man on Earth before he died? He was worth over 200 billion, but the western media never mentions it.
Kurds who are good Muslims will not advocate for an independent Kurdistan, and would get along nicely with their fellow Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Turkey.
Any Kurd who desires independence is a nationalist jahil.
So any Arab who desires independence is a nationalist jahil also or are you just an Arab nationalist talking nonsense?
"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
Misbah-Abd liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks