Saddam Hussein, Shaheed?

[Suhaib Jobst]

Saddam Hussein, Shaheed?

One cannot but be affected by the event on blessed Eid al-Adha, with the execution of Saddam Hussein at-Tikriti, the former leader of Iraq. The purpose of this article is to examine whether or not we may consider Saddam a murtad or a Shaheed, insha'Allah....

Originally Saddam had been considered murtad due to his general adherence to the Ba'athist ideology. We affirm the apostasy of this ideology. Yet we cannot help but point out those same Muslims who were among the first to make takfeer of Saddam are the foremost in making excuses for the taghut rulers who legislate man-made laws in place of Shari'ah.

Shaykh Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz (rahimahullah) issued a fatwa which declared Saddam a murtad and his blind followers eagerly propagated this fatwa. Yet he also issued general rulings that the ruler who fails to rule according to Shari'ah, has left the fold of Islam. Where may we find their anger for the Sake of Allah and His Deen when the creation have taken His Attributes as their own?!

So we can't but help notice that Saddam happened to be an enemy of the Salool (Sa'udi) regime, whose propaganda made him into an apostate so as to justify the introduction of infidel troops into the Peninsula. Yet they had no problems when his interests converged with theirs. And they make excuses in their failure to implement Tawheed and worship Allah according to His Attributes, which include the Haakim.

And from the subject in front of us, concerning the belief upon which Saddam Hussein died, then there are a number of matters which prevent a ruling of apostasy, beginning with the general rulings followed by those which are more specific:

1 - Such a ruling at this time would serve only the interests of the Crusaders and their treacherous agents, as mentioned by Shaykh Abu Basir at-Tartusi (hafidahullah).

2 - His death has come and past, and the matter was doubtful in the remaining three years of his life. So we leave his affair to the Will of Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala).

3 - It is at least doubtful whether Saddam died upon Iman or Kufr. So long as there is the slightest doubt he was a Muslim, then we refrain from calling him a kafir. Shaykh Tartusi said: "The implications of the haste in error may have dire consequences."

4 - Saddam called for Jihad against the enemies of Islam and said that it was fard for the Muslims to fight against the invaders of Iraq.

5 - He served as a thorn in the eyes of the Rafidah Shi'ites and helped prevent the spread of Shi'ism. So he stopped the expansion of the Rafidah revolution of Iran from spreading to Iraq and the Peninsula, as was the stated intention of the Khomeini gang.

6 - He suppressed the innovated practices of the Shi'ites, such as their committing Shirk at the grave of Hussein (radiallahu anhu) and cracking down on their public celebrations on Ashura. And at the same time when the Saudis and other than them were giving the Shia much greater freedom in their rituals, Saddam was suppressing their evil.

7 - He helped unite the Sunni Muslims of Iraq and strengthened the call of Ahlus-Sunnah, creating an environment which would later nurture the call to Jihad and the Islamic state, whose foundations is one of Tawheed.

8 - He invoked Islamic prayers and employed Islamic historical and religious themes, which ran contrary to the secular, kafir, Ba'athist ideology.

9 - He brought the Holy Qur'an into the courtroom and repeatedly invoked the name of Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala), in a manner which at least puts his infidelity into doubt.

Add to this what occurred during his hanging, when the Rawafid executioners were taunting him with "Muqtada! Muqtada!". So it was clear that the Shi'ites hated him since he stopped them from making Iraq into a Shi'ite state, which they have now accomplished with the aid of the Crusaders.

There is much in the fact that it occurred around the same time Shi'ites celebrate Ashura and that it occurred close to one of the holiest of all Shi'ite shrines. It becomes clear that the Rafidah Shi'ites have become greatly emboldened by their actions in Iraq and the entire region, and revel in the unprecedented influence they now exercise throughout the region.

Saddam remained firm in the face of all these odds, and warned Muslims about the growing threat of Shi'ite expansionism represented by Iran and noted their hypocrisy when it comes to posing as the "defenders" of the cause of Palestine.

And it was reported that before his final death, Saddam made the shahadah. The important thing to remember about this is that the execution was private and it was videotaped by secret only. So Saddam was a man facing his last minutes and yet he made affirmation of his Iman, the Islamic belief upon which he died.

We judge based upon what's apparent from the individual and the preceding information has convinced me that it is at least very likely - and we have no indication to the contrary - that Saddam Hussein at-Tikriti died a shaheed.

We ask Allah to accept his martyrdom, use his death to waken the virtuous Ahlus-Sunnah Muslims of Iraq, to awaken the wider Ummah to the conspiracies of the enemies of Islam, whether they be from the Zionists, Crusaders, or the Rafidah.

May Allah admit Saddam into the ranks of the other shuhadaa who died in the Jihad for Iraq, including our martyred shuyookh Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi and Abu Anas as-Shaami - may Allah have mercy upon them all. May Allah admit them into the widest reaches of Jannah and make them an inspiration for the Muslim youth. Ameen!

And Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) knows best.

Suhaib
14 Dhul-Hijjah 1427 / January 2, 2007

[Logic lover]

The man died like a honourable brave man -but with the Shahada loudly and clearly reciting.

The man, who appeared as Muslim during his last days - made us proud by holding onto the reliance on Allah as he walked towards the place of execution (Ya Allah, he said).

The Sunnis should take inspiration and courage from the way he gave up his soul - reciting the Shahada and smiling in the midst of taunting by the kuffar at the moment of his execution. This is like watching a hero in a 'movie'.

I think, the Americans did him a great favour by toppling him and his statues - thus eliminating kufr and shirk of legislation carried out under his leadership. His downfall gave rise to the noble Jihad in Iraq. The Mujahideen benefited from his arsenal of different kinds. They also benefited from the expertise of the former armed forces.

We should be grateful to him and make dua to Allah that He accepts Saddam as a Shaheed. We only judge on the apparent.

[defenderofbusharraf]

i agree with logic lover.....any1 with a small percentage of imaan in their heart would feel proud of this brave mans death. indeed saddam hussein did many things in opposition to islamic shariah but in terms of his personal, specific outcome, u will recall a proud man affirming the shahada before death. publicly embracing Tawheed, affirming the sole creator, Allah Swt.

u will re call the famous hadeeth of the kaffir who embraced islam just before he was about to be killed by a muslim fighter, when he raised the sword. however the muslim killed him anyway, and when Muhammad saws heard of this he was sad. and it was said to him by the muslim that the man only declared the shahada because he saw he was about to die. and Muhammad Saws dissaproved and said he had not been sent to open the hearts or bellies to see.

so in regards to Saddam Hussein, he had been publicly declaring the shahada openly many times during his trial for the past year and his declaration just before his death was not the first time. he was just affirming what had been stated before.
Allah swt stated in the Quran that He will make the believers firm at their time of death, so alhamdullilah, as logic lover said, u can see the President of Iraq smiling and proudly declaring his belief in Tawheed. such Honour, just before death. some muslims dont even get a chance to proclaim it when leaving this dunya.

did u not see saddam while being lead to the platform? he was saying YA ALLAH, YA ALLAH, YA ALLAH slowly.......in stark contrast to filthy raafida shia pigs, who at funerals chant YA ALI YA ALI YA ALI..............i felt proud that day, that such a man, was able to look into those kuffar shias faces and proclaim Tawheed.

Insha allah ta'ala, he may be forgiven and may Allah swt accept his imaan. ameen.

[abubakr]

Asalamu alaykum

Wasnt Saddam a sufi? i know his right hand man Izzat al-Douri is a sufi follower of the qadiri tariqah.

Ive also seen the video but i cant spot saddam sayin ya Allah after the rafidas were sayin ya ali?

[defenderofbusharraf]

wa alaikum assalam wr wb

akhi the kuffar shias proclamations of shirk, meaning the YA ALI, i was not referring to the saddam hussein execution. i was referring to kuffar shias funerals, where they chant YA ALI, calling upon Ali..........it is a very well known ritual, amongst the pakistani kuffar shias at least.

indeed saddam hussein was saying YA ALLAH slowly, u can hear it when he is not on the hanging platform and also as he is stepping onto the platform as well. where he then declares the shahada twice.

as for saddam being a sufi, i have no knowledge of this. all i can see is his open declaration of the shahada, his belief in tawheed, hearing the words " la illaha illallah" coming from his mouth before he left this dunya. we go by the apparent and open.

Allah hu alam.

[waziri]

If there had been an uprising at the time when sadam was in power by the mujahideen and they had managed to remove him from power by the will of Allah,I think the mujahideen would have tried him according to the sharia and if found guilty would have executed him.

I also feel that sadam should have become a mujahid and fought the americans maybe by doing a martyrdom operation.But thats easy for me to say.

[Logic lover]

Saddam might not have reversed from his kufr before his capture. He might have repented after his capture, which was about 3 years ago.

So, he could not have joined the ranks of the Mujahideen whilst in captivity.

But, what he did at the time of excution, is a pleasant thing for the Muslims to remember and to take encouragement from.

As the dua of a wise Salaf was:

''O Allah, make the Day of Judgement as my best day and make the best deeds my last ones''.

Whoever dies upon La ilaha IllAllah, will enter paradise. I ask Allah that it is the case with Sadddam Hussain At-Tikriti.

[AbuOmar]

i take back what i said.

[abu~Adil as somali]

asalaamu alaykum,

i hope you brothers are fine and in the spirit of islam.How is everything...

puting that aside for a minute

I kept watching Sadam Hussein execution and i couldnt be more impressd or proud of a example of a muslim meeting his death.

subhaanallah when i saw him i remebered 3 things.

1.The prophet(ASW) said "whoever's last words is LAILAAHA ILAA ALLAH,enters paradise,this is a autheitic hadeeth.

2.A person will do the work of the people of hellfire until between him and the hellfire is but an aems lengh, then he does the deeds of th e people in paradise and he/she enters it.

3. what amazed me the most is that we are a witness for him that he died on the kalima laa ilaaha ilaa Allah muhamada rasuuluallah.subhaanallah we dont look at the past deed of the person but the state he died in.

anyway brothers i wish you the best.

salam o alykum

[gag order]

the hadith about dying with la illaha illallah refers to the story of the jewish boy who converted to islam moments before his death. and i believe it was mentioned that he will enter paradise without accountability.

however, does this hadith apply to saddam who was a committed deviant throughout his life? even though "he did us proud by declaring the shahada," with his last act redemption and may allah accept it and accept his repentance, but more importantly, i sincerely hope for his sake he recanted his deviant beliefs and used the time in captivity to reflect on the kufr of baathism and realize that jihad was the right path in both wars.

allah granted him the oppurtunity to approach death with all his faculties and he bore the sign of a good death ie the shahada to the very end, and faced it with a courage rarely seen or heard of.

in islam, if pious and truthful people who know the deceased were to speak well of the deceased then paradise is assured for that person......................

[Abuz Zubair]

I must say, it is rather sad and astonishing how once a Taghut, a tyrant, ba'thi kafir, etc, etc, can turn, not only into a Muslim, but also a martyr who is to be, thereafter, showered with endless du'as...

So what if he said the kalima before his death? He has been saying it all his life. The Iraqi flag had Allahu Akbar on it. He was shown praying during the Gulf War. He professed faith in Islam through out his career as a Ba'thist, as he perused and persecuted the 'wahhabis' and other Islamists up and down the country.

So what exactly changed this time? The fact that he is a victim of American Aggression? Is this all it takes for one to be a believer and a martyr?

And is it enough for a person to say li ilaha illAllah to be in paradise? Isn't this the belief of the sect whose name begins with M and ends with a?

One of the conditions for repentance from Kufr is to recant the kufr belief explicitly. It is not enough to simply say the Shahadah, especially if he has been saying it all his life anyway, as he fights against Allah and His Messenger. This guy, on the other hand, remained the leader of the Ba'th party until he died, and continued to write nationalistic poetry. Was he brave in the way he died? Yes, he was. Did he die a Muslim? There is no sign of his repentance from Ba'thism AT ALL.

And if death bed shahada is all it takes for one to die a Muslim, nay a martyr, then I am sure al-Hallaj, the pantheist Sufi would also make a great Shaheed.

What happened to Saddam was probably the many du'as of grieving mothers whoes sons he merciless killed and tortured to death.

So, ila jahannam wa bi'sa al-masir, to Saddam, the Rafida and the Americans... what a chilling lesson for every living tyrant.

[gag order]

to continue where i left off:

"in islam, if pious and truthful people who know the deceased were to speak well of the deceased then paradise is assured for that person......................"<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->

..................however, we do not know him or know enough about his circumstances to declare him a shaheed unless someone relates to us that he recanted.

during his incarceration, his baathist loyalists continued to fight under the banner of nationalism. some baathists even participated in democracy whilst under occupation after bieng invited to renounce the insurgency and worse still, nationalistic loyalists assisted in fighting other mujahideen in anbar.

did saddam denounce this or did he applaud it?

[Suhaib Jobst]

Based upon the points our brothers mentioned and the article of Shaykh Abu Bashir (hafidahullah), on which I drew some of my information, then we may safely conclude it is not apparent whether Saddam fully repented or not. Here's another interesting article on the subject:

Clarification on the Apparent Status of Saddam Hussein
Monday, 01 January 2007

In regards to the statement of the kalima recited from the mouth of Saddam Hussein, it is clear from the evidences from the Qur'an and sunnah that in order for the murtadeen(i.e. Saddam Hussein) to be considered Muslim they need to publicly reject what made them an apostate in the first place. Just as in the past when jahil Muslims took Atatürk as a "hero of Islam" we are seeing the same today with Saddam due to the abandoning of the Shariah. The U.S. media seems to have taken quite an extensive coverage of this event as if it were a great victory for the freedom-loving world. Not to mention that it was the same freedom-promoting government that supported this dictator at the beginning. Below are the evidences which prove otherwise for those Muslims who have let their emotions becomes their guidelines.

It is authentically reported that the Prophet (saas ) said:

"Whoever said: "Laa ilaaha illallaah," and rejected all that is worshipped besides Allah (swt ), (know that) Allah (swt ) has forbidden the taking of his property and the spilling of his blood; and his account will be for Allah, the Almighty, the All-powerful."

Whoever said: "Laa ilaaha illallaah," pronouncing it, understanding its meaning and acting upon all that it entails, and rejected all that is worshipped besides Allah (swt ) (i.e. by his heart, his tongue and his actions), it is forbidden for the Muslims to take his property (except what the Law requires such as the payment of zakah), or to take his life, except as the Law requires (such as the punishment for adultery after chastity, or disbelief after belief or for murder); and his account will be for Allah (swt ): That is, He will take charge of his account on the Day of Resurrection, and if he was truthful in his testimony, He will reward him, but if he was insincere in his testimony, He will punish him.

Benefits Derived From This Hadith

1. The virtue of Islam which protects the life and property of whosoever embraces it.

2. The obligation to desist from enmity towards the disbeliever, should he embrace Islam, even though he should do so during a battle until and unless it should be proved that his testimony was false.

3. That a person might say: "Laa ilaaha illallaah", without rejecting that which is worshipped besides Him."

4. That the conditions of acceptance of faith include pronouncing the shahaadah: Laa ilaaha illallaah, and rejecting all that is worshipped besides Him.

5. That judgement in this world is based on appearances.

6. The forbiddance of appropriating the property of the Muslim unless it is ordained by Islamic Law, such as zakah, or a legally imposed fine in compensation for that which he has destroyed (be it property or a life).

Relevance of the Hadith to the Subject of the Chapter

That it proves that the meaning of Tawheed and the explanation of the shahaadah: Laa ilaaha illallaah are not complete without a categorical rejection of all that is worshipped besides Allah (swt ).

-Chapter Four: Kitaab-at-Tawheed-

We see here that along with saying Laa illaaha illallah, one must also reject all that is worshipped besides Allah.

For muslims to accept repentance of an apostate, the apostate must declare his repentance from the kufr or kufrs due to which he left the fold of Islām. If he repents from those inwardly but found no means to relate it, then Muslims are not responsible over what they do not know, and he is treated as a kāfir in the world. But Allāh جل جلاله accepts his repentance. So his ruling in this world is a matter and it is another in the hereafter.

The fighting of Abū bakr رضى الله عنه against the apostates who prevented the Zakāt, they used to pronounce the Kalimah even after they fought, but they were not considered to be Muslims because they did not come back from what initiated their kufr, and that is the prevention of zakāt.

The people whom Alī رضى الله عنه burnt with fire were those who pronounced the kalimah, but they were killed due to their not repenting from what initiated their apostasy, and that is their saying the Alī رضى الله عنه was a Ilāh. Although they repeated the kalimah and prayed.

And the most apparent matter, the people of Banū Hanīfah, who apostate due to their believing in the false prophet Museilamah, so they repented from making baraa’a from him. And they went for ribāt to kūfa and the incident happened, in which they said some words which indicates their belief that Museilamah is on more truth. But they did not enter in to that religion. So the sahaba brought them, and some were killed while others repentance were accepted.

So do you think that their merely saying the kalimah would save them from being pronounced as kāfirs? Nay but their repentance would not be accepted by us muslims until they make baraa from what initiated their kufr. This due to the reason that the kufr they uttered was while they were chanting the zikrs of prayer and saying the kalimah. So how does the muslims know that whether they repented or not, if they do not repent from the cause which initiated their kufr?

There story is related like this:

And like the Ijmā of the Sahāba رضى الله عنهم in the time of Uthmān رضى الله عنه about the takfīr of the people of the Masjid who mentioned a word about the (tn* correctness) of the prophethood of Museilama, (and this) while they did not even follow him. And verily the Sahāba رضى الله عنه differentiated about the matter of acceptance of their repentance.

- (From Majmū’ Muallaffāt of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Wahhāb 210-215/6)

This brings us to our question from the begining: Was Saddam Hussain Muslim ( deriving from the fact that he recited Laa illaaha illallah before his death)?

Our answer: No.

Not only did he not reject the taghoot by obeying the Baa'th Party, he also imposed and contributed to implementing these laws upon the people of Iraq. So, although he did recite Laa illahaa illallah, he did not reject the taghoot, thus erasing his title as a Muslim.

We cannot make the excuse that he didn't have an opportunity to reject the taghoot due to the shia's, but he had many opportunities, including when he made his final address to the Iraqi people.

A side note: If sincere Muslims weren't already aware, but the Rafidi Shia's had a hand in the execution since this was their ultimate dream of executing Saddam. So with the help of American forces they were able to carry it out. This goes to show how the American forces and the Rafidi Shia's of Iraq have allied themselves together. The American forces know that the Rafidi Shia's pose the biggest obstacle for the establishment of Khilafah in Iraq so they have done the Shia's a favor in order to get one back.

http://www.islamicthinkers.com/index/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=589&Itemid=2

[abu dujanah]

aswrb,
brothers i know there has been alot of confussion regarding this issue and some ppl even regard him as a shaheed etc...

firstly it is not right to call a ruler who used to rule by other than what Allah revealed as muslim and secondly it is not right to straight away make takfeer on him without to research and ask about the issue to the ulemas.

firstly i agree that this shouldnt be argued about or anything to give the kuffars the upper hand.

but just a few things i would like to say about the issue.

1. if we all agree before saddam was murtad, then its not right for us to say maybe he repented etc.... as this is frm the shaytaan. we as ahlus sunnah we judge on the apparent and know that in islam there is a principle of the certainty being removed by certainty. so if we are certain he was murtad then we have to be certain or see clear evidence that he repented.

2. some might say but he has signs of emaan on him, but who says he never used to pray when he was ruler, or that he never used to read quran, or go hajj, or recite shahaadah....he used to do all of that and more..even to put Allahuakbar on the iraqi flag
know that in islam the thing that made u come out of the fold of islam is the thing that u should correct to come back into islam.

3. ther are conditions and pillars of tawheed, so just because he said his shahaadah b4 he died doesnt mean nothing as he used to say it when he was an apostate... and know that it is not enough to say the shahaadah as if we scan all the txt in islam we will see that the prophet(saw) stipulated certain conditions for this kaalimah, so just because one condition is done doesnt mean thats it his in jannah or he died a shaheed.

4. im not saying we should all just go out and hasty make takfeer or call him a shahheed. as it is not wise to start arguing about this issue, as some salaf made takfeer on hajjaj ibn yusuf some never so we shouldnt start believing only one view is right while the other is wrong and start to force ppl on this view.

5. for those hypocrites and others out there who say who are u, who did u study with etc.... who are u to call a person kaafir etc.

-it is allowed for anyone to call a person kaafir if they have ilm about the nawaqidul emaan and its preventions and have ilm on this subject like the ulemas say.

- ive studied with a few sheikh's, and as far as i know Sheikh abu baseer never called saddam a muslim, as i study with him and i was there when he gave the fatwa, hsomeone asked him the hukm for saddam, and he said he couldnt give a verdict as there are some elements of doubt, and he cant use kuffar media to base his judgment. he said it was unclear.

aswrb

[Suhaib Jobst]

Wa Alaykum as-Salaam wa-Rahmatullahi wa-Barakatuh,

Jazakallah Khair for clarifying the position of Shaykh Abu Baseer (hafidahullah). Then I recant my previous statements and realize now that I was too hasty in considering his tawbah and that he died the death of a martyr. I ask Allah to use this event to strengthen the call of Tawheed and Jihad in Bilad ar-Rafidain, and to awaken Ahlus-Sunnah to the threat of the Rafidah. Ameen.

[stranger1395]

Answer to the question by Sh Tartusi

The Position Regarding Saddam Husayn and the Ruling Upon Him

Q: Our Shaykh…you know - may Allah Bless you – the intensity of the tests that the Islamic Nation is experiencing, and Allah is the source of Assistance. And we know, with certainty, the level of effort and sacrifice on your part in answering various doubts and statements, so, we will not take too much of your time, with Allah’s Permission. We have come across a great difference of opinion regarding the issue of the disbelief of the former Iraqi president, Saddam Husayn. So, from the brothers are those who refrain from declaring him to be a disbeliever, and supplicating against him, as we have been cut off from any trustworthy news in regards to him, and they have attributed their position to some of the edicts of the contemporary scholars, and they also say this because of some apparent signs of repentance on Saddam’s part, taking into account his ignorance of the fundamentals of the Religion, as well as some bits of news of his situation that indicate some hint of rectification on his part.

On the other hand, you have some who have insisted upon specifically declaring him to be a disbeliever, supplicating against him that he enter Hell, etc. They support their position by pointing to the clearcut disbelief on the part of Saddam, and the lack of news that they hear of any true repentance. So, they say that his ruling remains that of kufr, and they said that it is necessary for him to openly announce his repentance in order for us to refrain from declaring him a disbeliever. Otherwise, he remains a disbeliever that we supplicate against.

And because of our great confidence in your opinions and fatawa, and our desperate need for a decisive word, we hope from Allah that He makes your guiding of us as mountains in the scale of your good deeds. And it is not hidden from you that we require some explanation, along with evidences, may Allah Bless us with you, and benefit the youth of this Ummah by you, and make us those who hear a statement and follow the good in it.

A: Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

It is not proper, nor is it allowed, to refrain from declaring the kufr of the Arab Socialist Ba’th Party, as well as the disbelief of those who adopt its beliefs, and openly call to its concepts.

As for what is related to the person of Saddam Husayn, and whether or not he carries the ruling of being a disbeliever, I see that the man has entered into a stage of being in a situation of doubt, which prevents us from specifically making takfir of him, and, by default, ruling him to be of the inhabitants of Hell. And these doubts that surround him are numerous, and are from a number of angles:

- His being of those who incited to Jihad against the invading Crusaders on the land of Iraq, and this stand of his is of the numerous factors that brought him closer to the hangman’s noose, and this stand will be remembered by history, and he will be thanked for it;

- His keenness to offer the prayers in their stated times, even while in the midst of hearings in the taghut courts, where he would interrupt the hearing to get up to pray!

- His repeated utterings of the slogans related to faith and Islam – slogans that completely contradict the concepts and mannerisms of the Arab Socialist Ba’th Party;

- His keenness on carrying the Noble Qur’an with him everytime he appeared to face the court, or appeared in the media, as if he wishes to say to the people: ‘Here! I believe in this Book, and all that is in it! And I will die upon this belief!’;

- His being judged in by the enemies of the Ummah, from the invading Crusaders, as well as their Rafidi Shiite cronies - and they are more deserving of being tried in court than he is, due to the crimes they have committed that have gone beyond imagination. It is not expected that such people would reveal to us any of the good aspects of the man that would prove his open repentance from all that he used to have of beliefs and positions. In fact, we would notice constant interruptions of the broadcasts of his hearings, and this would take place whenever he would make a statement that went against the interests of the invaders and their servants!

- The man might have his own reasons and strategy for not announcing his repentance by way of public media, and his open acknowledgement of his past mistakes, and his admittance that he was upon misguidance. This might affect the strength of the resistance and the Mujahidin, dividing them, and giving the invaders and their cronies an excuse to commit more war crimes against the land and its people. Or, it could have given them an excuse to hand him the sentence that he was given recently, and this is a point of view that must be considered;

- The man was exposed to all types of tests, humiliation, and torture – all of which take him out of the category of being a taghut, and instead, make him a weak, oppressed slave, hoping for the Mercy of his Lord. So, these tests, especially the difficult ones, expiate one’s sins, and purify him of them, as the Shar’i texts have indicated.

These various points, when combined, are what pushed me to say that the man is now in a situation of doubt, which prevents us from making a specific takfir of him. And the most that can be said regarding the man is that his situation is doubtful from all angles: it is seemingly kufr from one angle, and opposite to that from another angle. And doubtful kufr does not override clear Islam, and its likes do not nullify open Islam, as clear and open Islam is not nullified except by clear, open kufr, just as the texts and principles of the Shari’ah state. And from the scholars of the past were those who would refrain from declaring one a kafir if his words could be interpreted as kufr from 99 angles, and would not be interpreted as such from one angle, due to what this entails of a rush to perform takfir, mistakenly doing so, leading to results that are not praiseworthy!

In addition, I do not see it as being from the wisdom – in these tough times that the Ummah is generally experiencing, especially in Iraq – that we speak idly of the man, and openly expose his faults, and rule him to be a disbeliever and apostate, especially after he has arrived to his current position of weakness, and has been stripped of all of his past characteristics and luxuries, so that we do not give the Crusader invaders and their cronies more of an excuse to carry out the crimes that they are still committing!

It is not thinkable for us to participate with the invading Crusaders – at their head, the tyrant George Bush – and their treacherous Rafidi Shiite servants, in their collective happiness in regards to the situation of the man!

Even those brothers who have differed with us in regards to the status of this man, we see it fit for them to remain silent, and to keep their beliefs to themselves, so that they would not be unsuspecting helpers to the invading criminals and their treacherous slaves in regards to what they carry out of crimes against the rights of the Muslim servants of Allah on the bleeding land of Iraq – hanging all of their excuses on the coat hanger of Saddam Husayn!

The discussion regarding the kufr of Saddam Husayn, or the lack thereof, after it has gotten its current level of attention, is no longer to be considered beneficial. In fact, its harm is greater than its benefit, and there are tyrants and criminals who are still roaming free, displaying open disbelief and transgression and oppression, of all types. So, let us aim our arrows at them, as it is not from the traits of manhood to fight against the dead and those who are essentially ruled to be dead, leaving the living tawaghit of disbelief and oppression to spread mischief in the land!

This is my answer to the question, and our final call is that all praise is for Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

‘Abd al-Mun’im Mustafa Halimah (Abu Basir at-Tartusi)

10/17/1426 (11/8/2006)

Original Arabic: http://www.abubaseer.bizland.com/had...adath%2035.doc

[Intoodeep]

Alhamdulillah the brothers here have some knowledge...but the ummah is on a different wavelength. Most muslims feel he is a shaheed and his death, esp. on Eid has indeed made him into a Martyr for them.

[Logic lover]

It is not what the ordinary members of the Ummah think, but what the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah understand the matter to be on the apparent. Those who consider that Saddam did not make an apparent repentace from his kufr ideology, seem to have a strong point on the issue of not considering him as Muslim at the point of death.

It appears that Saddam had enough chances to make a public rejection of Bathism, but he failed to do so.

But, it is said that we should allow allowances for his situation and hence consider the issue of his Islam as doubtful.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

did anyone read his last message to Iraqis? I read parts of it and there he didnt mention Baas, but instead praised Jihad and Mujahedin who you know are in absolute majority ahl ul sunna. Allahu Allam, we will notfind out until yawm al qiyama his state. I know that the Mercy of Alllah is boundlees, and He could make him die in a different way, but many muslims around the world felt strong feelings when kufar and their cronies killed a man who was saying kalimah. The shia were happy on the other hand.

Remember when the prophet (saw) was passing by two funerals and people were saying good about one man and bad about another. And remember that the last deeds and words are the most important. I really hated Saddam before, even when he was captured, but watching his death made me feel sorry for him. Maybe he didnt know that he has to publicly denaunce baasism?

Anyway, this is not somthing to argue about, everyone has his own opinion. MAy Allah have mercy on all Shuhada of the past year, and how many and great ones there were, May He accept them as shuhada, and may he have mercy on us.

[Abuz Zubair]

but instead praised Jihad and MujahedinYes... he did that during Gulf War, too.

The problem with the Muslim masses is that they are too gullible to tell who is for them, or who is against them; who wants their good and who is abusing them.

Muslim masses, as far as I remember, were also behind Saddam during Gulf War, simply because the guy had the nerve to stand up to America.

To the masses, there isn't a bigger shaytan in existence than America, and no one stands up to it except a believer... or so they think

[Suhaib Jobst]

Saddam was clearly adherent to an apostate ideology, and was initially backed by the Americans. But they ran afoul of him because he wanted to have some level of independence.

He participated in carrying out their desires, especially in regards to suppressing the call of authentic Islam. He was naive and realized his serious mistake in a confession, "I have starved the wolves, and fattened up the dogs."

"And he means by the wolves, the Mujahidin of Ahl As-Sunnah, and by the dogs, the Ba'this and whoever is like them from the hypocrites, opportunists and flatterers who are the attendants of the rulers in all of the Arabic countries." (Husayn ibn Mahmud, "'Ar-Rajul Al-'Imlaq' The Giant Man," Part 3, At-Tibyan Publications, 30 Thul-Qi'dah, 1426).

Just because he was hated by the enemies of Islam does not mean he was automatically a Muslim by default: "For he remains a Ba'thi, and he did not become a Jew or a Christian, and despite kufr being one Millah, except they would not be pleased except with the Jewish or the Christian kufr." (ibid.)

After reading all the evidence, it becomes clear to me Saddam made some sort of amends for his previous apostate ideology. But I don't know if it reached the level of an actual repentance, especially in that it was not made public. There was no clear statement in which he completely disavowed himself from the Ba'athist ideology, although he could have made such a statement. So the matter is very unclear and we have to be careful in considering him a Muslim. We can't think on emotion; I was relying on such when I made my original statement that perhaps Saddam could have been a shaheed.

But like the ruling from Shaykh Abu Baseer (hafidahullah) mentioned, there are murtadeen still living and aiding the enemies of Islam. I hate to see the brothers being divided over this issue. Perhaps we can use it to our advantage? Such as waking the Muslims up to the Rafidi threat, at a time when we see the Shi'ites being empowered and more Muslims becoming confused as to their affair.

[Ibn Adam]

I must say, it is rather sad and astonishing how once a Taghut, a tyrant, ba'thi kafir, etc, etc, can turn, not only into a Muslim, but also a martyr who is to be, thereafter, showered with endless du'as...

So what if he said the kalima before his death? He has been saying it all his life. The Iraqi flag had Allahu Akbar on it. He was shown praying during the Gulf War. He professed faith in Islam through out his career as a Ba'thist, as he perused and persecuted the 'wahhabis' and other Islamists up and down the country.

So what exactly changed this time? The fact that he is a victim of American Aggression? Is this all it takes for one to be a believer and a martyr?

And is it enough for a person to say li ilaha illAllah to be in paradise? Isn't this the belief of the sect whose name begins with M and ends with a?

One of the conditions for repentance from Kufr is to recant the kufr belief explicitly. It is not enough to simply say the Shahadah, especially if he has been saying it all his life anyway, as he fights against Allah and His Messenger. This guy, on the other hand, remained the leader of the Ba'th party until he died, and continued to write nationalistic poetry. Was he brave in the way he died? Yes, he was. Did he die a Muslim? There is no sign of his repentance from Ba'thism AT ALL.

And if death bed shahada is all it takes for one to die a Muslim, nay a martyr, then I am sure al-Hallaj, the pantheist Sufi would also make a great Shaheed.

What happened to Saddam was probably the many du'as of grieving mothers whoes sons he merciless killed and tortured to death.

So, ila jahannam wa bi'sa al-masir, to Saddam, the Rafida and the Americans... what a chilling lesson for every living tyrant.

I was discussing the issue of Saddam with a friend recently.

My friend suggested that for every testimony of faith that a person makes then we have to renew our assumption of Islam for that person because it may be accompanied with internal repentance for what has preceded which we may not be aware of.

Such that even if a person were to have made open kufr but thereafter we witnessed him making a testimony of faith we should assume that he is Muslim based on not having seen any 'new' open kufr since he made that new testimony.

His primary argument for this was the ahadith about Usama bin Zayd killing someone on the battlefield after he'd uttered the shahadah.

His reasoning was that Saddam in his last days and hours was openly showing outward actions and statements in accordance with Islam and an absence of what had preceded from him and therefore we should assume for him Islam. Especially as his death came mid-shahadah and these were his last words.

I'm still undecided on Mr. Husayn myself and don't really consider it something essential to have a full cognisance of but I was a little perturbed by this principle he argued that irrespective of what actions a person does, for us to thereafter hear them utter a shahadah it would reaffirm our belief that they are Muslim.

Doesn't that effectively remove actions from being apart of Iman if a statement that contradicts an action of kufr is given more legal wait than the action itself?

[abu_vovo]

Were not Saddam's actions of clutching the Quran from the beginning of his trial to the end, his words and actions in court and his dawah to the entire world-wide ummah by dying as a muslim enough?? How do we even know Saddam knew the legalities of a public taubah for his past??

Why is it that his "La ilahah ilallah" is not acceptable?? What petty-minded people to demand public repentance. And pray tell, how can he do such from a prison cell?

What a glorious rahmah from Allah SWT to allow Saddam to die as he did. And what guarantee do we have that we'll die in an honorable way with the shahadah on our lips?? Fear Allah! Can you guarantee that you will die declaring the Shahaddah and Allah won't stop you to say it like we have heard countless stories related about this situation??

If you can't give this guarantee for yourself then fear Allah and do not belittle a person who departs this world with the best words that have ever been spoken on his lips.

[Abuz Zubair]

Ibn Qudama says in al-Muqni:

وتوبة المرتد إسلامه وهو أن يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا عبده ورسوله إلا أن تكون ردته بإنكار فرض أو إحلال محرم أو جحد نبي أو كتاب أو انتقل إلى دين من يعتقد أن محمدا بعث إلى العرب خاصة فلا يصح إسلامه حتى يقر بما جحده ويشهد أن محمدا بعث إلى العالمين أو يقول أنا بريء من كل دين يخالف دين الإسلام


"The act of repentance for an apostate is to testify that there is no one worthy of worship but God and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger; unless if his apostasy was due to denial of an obligation, legalising the prohibited, denial of a prophet, or a book; or if he were to change to the religion of those who believe that Muhammad was only sent for the Arabs; then in that case, his Islam is not valid until he utters what he had denied, and testifies that Muhammad was sent to the entire world, or says that I am free from any religion that contradicts the religion of Islam"


None of this happened with Saddam Husayn. He remained the leader of the Ba'thist party till he died, and even before hie death he was writing a nationalist poem.

I don't have a huge problem with the opinion in itself that he may have died a Muslim. What I have a problem with is the mindset which makes any and every victim of US aggression a hero. This is a very dangerous mindset, and is rooted in sometimes Arab pride, and/or emotionalism.

[Tisatashar]

...I don't have a huge problem with the opinion in itself that he may have died a Muslim.

What I have a problem with is the mindset which makes any and every victim of US aggression a hero. This is a very dangerous mindset, and is rooted in sometimes Arab pride, and/or emotionalism.

What I have a problem with is the mindset which makes any and every enemy of US aggression a kawwarij / terrorist. This is a very dangerous mindset, and is rooted in sometimes rida, and/or nifaq.

[Abuz Zubair]

What I have a problem with is the mindset which makes any and every enemy of US aggression a kawwarij / terrorist. This is a very dangerous mindset, and is rooted in sometimes rida, and/or nifaq.
... or ignorance... you are right, but this is not what the thread is about...

Here is Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi from the Shafi'is saying the same:

وإن كان ممن يزعم أن النبى بعث إلى العرب وحدها أو ممن يقول إن محمدا نبى يبعث وهو غير الذى بعث لم يصح إسلامه حتى يتبرأ مع الشهادتين من كل دين خالف الإسلام لانه إذا اقتصر على الشهادتين احتمل أن يكون أراد ما يعتقده
وإن ارتد بجحود فرض أو استباحة محرم لم يصح إسلامه حتى يرجع عما اعتقده ويعيد الشهادتين لانه كذب الله وكذب رسوله بما اعتقده ( فى خبره ) فلا يصح إسلامه حتى يأتى بالشهادتين

[Ibn Adam]

Ibn Qudama says in al-Muqni:

وتوبة المرتد إسلامه وهو أن يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا عبده ورسوله إلا أن تكون ردته بإنكار فرض أو إحلال محرم أو جحد نبي أو كتاب أو انتقل إلى دين من يعتقد أن محمدا بعث إلى العرب خاصة فلا يصح إسلامه حتى يقر بما جحده ويشهد أن محمدا بعث إلى العالمين أو يقول أنا بريء من كل دين يخالف دين الإسلام


"The act of repentance for an apostate is to testify that there is no one worthy of worship but God and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger; unless if his apostasy was due to denial of an obligation, legalising the prohibited, denial of a prophet, or a book; or if he were to change to the religion of those who believe that Muhammad was only sent for the Arabs; then in that case, his Islam is not valid until he utters what he had denied, and testifies that Muhammad was sent to the entire world, or says that I am free from any religion that contradicts the religion of Islam"


None of this happened with Saddam Husayn. He remained the leader of the Ba'thist party till he died, and even before hie death he was writing a nationalist poem.

I don't have a huge problem with the opinion in itself that he may have died a Muslim. What I have a problem with is the mindset which makes any and every victim of US aggression a hero. This is a very dangerous mindset, and is rooted in sometimes Arab pride, and/or emotionalism.

Akhi, is the principle in Ibn Qudamah's words, that a specific public repentance from previous beliefs is required from then one who meets the above description, derived from a specific text?

Someone suggested it could be derived from an ayah in al-Baqarah but I haven't been able to find it yet.

Also, I've previously understood that for the one who dies where his last words were the kalimah then it is regarded as a possible indicator of a successful Hereafter. However, someone has suggested to me that it is stronger than merely an indication of a possible good outcome, they argue that it is an absolute proof. Such that any person who dies with the shahadah as his last words will be in Jannah (at some point).

In addition to citing various narratives regarding the status of the kalimah, they reasoned that Allah would not allow someone to die upon such words if there were not some eventual good abode for them.

They also conversely mentioned another argument that someone who dies upon a major sin as a last action, for example mid-zina', then they died upon kufr and their outcome is that of a kafir's. Referring to the narrations that mention the iman hovering above such a person whilst he is in the act and saying that whilst he was mid-act iman had left him and he therefore died in a state of kufr.

If you have time please could you comment?

[Abuz Zubair]

Akhi, is the principle in Ibn Qudamah's words, that a specific public repentance from previous beliefs is required from then one who meets the above description, derived from a specific text?

Someone suggested it could be derived from an ayah in al-Baqarah but I haven't been able to find it yet.

Well, something like this could be derived from induction, since we know that repentance dictates that one repents from the specific crime he had committed.

Also, allowing one to reclaim faith for himself by simply testifying, without repenting from that which expelled him in the first place is a legal loophole, because then anyone can reject any part of Islam, and when faced with the charge of apostasy, he could conveniently say the testimony and get out of trouble. This pretty much renders the laws of apostasy defunct.

Also, I've previously understood that for the one who dies where his last words were the kalimah then it is regarded as a possible indicator of a successful Hereafter. However, someone has suggested to me that it is stronger than merely an indication of a possible good outcome, they argue that it is an absolute proof. Such that any person who dies with the shahadah as his last words will be in Jannah (at some point).

Qadyanis, too, state the testimony of faith, but by agreement their testimony of faith does not benefit them at their death beds - by agreement, because they did not repent from the specific crime that nullified their Islam.

I don't see why we should differentiate between Ba'athists and Qadyanis.

In addition to citing various narratives regarding the status of the kalimah, they reasoned that Allah would not allow someone to die upon such words if there were not some eventual good abode for them.
I don't think there is any solid proof for that.

What is confirmed is that our belief consists of actions and statements, and a faith without either of them is not at all a faith on account of which one may enter paradise.

Whoever says 'la ilaha illallah, enters paradise', is the very textual proof on which the Murjia base their doctrine, in exclusion to the other textual proof that necessitate that there is no faith for the one who refuses to combine belief with action.

They also conversely mentioned another argument that someone who dies upon a major sin as a last action, for example mid-zina', then they died upon kufr and their outcome is that of a kafir's. Referring to the narrations that mention the iman hovering above such a person whilst he is in the act and saying that whilst he was mid-act iman had left him and he therefore died in a state of kufr.

This is the belief of the Khawarij. Faith hovering over a person does not mean he has become a kafir... It is only the negation of this person having absolute and complete faith.

So a person denying in that situation still dies with faith in his heart, yet he is not to be called a believer (mu'min), because only a righteous servant deserves this title. He is called a fasiq, which is by definition a sinful Muslim.

[Abu Hafsa]

Man you need to get over this topic, and pont your arrows at more important things. I dont know why you all discussing such complex detailed knowlege matters, i thought you was suppose to refer to the people knowledge, post the fatwas who said he died apostate and those who said he did not, then take your pick based on who u believe is stronger and you trust more. Khalaas.

[MosDef]

Saddam's Loyalist Mish'an Al-Jabouri and Shiite Iraqi Journalist Sadeq Al-Musawi Fight on Al-Jazeera TV over Saddam's Execution: :D

This is hilarious, they nearly started handbags.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IUS4BaMGxxQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IUS4BaMGxxQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[gag order]

the saddam loyalist did his homework before the interview it seems.

[MosDef]

yes lol "you persian shoe". They both looked pathetic.

[akademyaenglish]

Special Issue of Turkish Islamic Weekly BARAN on the Occasion of the Martyrdom Anniversary of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein

The Weekly BARAN, Turkish Islamic periodical belonging to the most significant Islamic revolutionary movement (IBDA) in Turkey, presents a detailed special issue one year after the martyrdom of the former legitimate president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein.

Here is an interview made with the founder of IBDA Movement, Salih Mirzabeyoglu, right before the Gulf War, which reflects the standpoint of this Islamic movement on Saddam Hussein and his historic action, along with an article titled “Allah’s Will is Saddam” from that special issue of the weekly BARAN.

The Weekly Cuma: When you, as the “Commander” of the IBDA movement, were asked to make an interview by our reporters about the Gulf Crisis, you said that there is no point in speaking just for the sake of speaking. We would like to relate all you talked about in that preliminary talk of ours with you.

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: By all means! First of all, I believe that the issues should be handled at a level they actually deserve. The reason why I mention this measurement is here: One side of the issue seems extremely simple and good for easy talk, however, the other side of the issue is extremely complicated and requires much thought on the lessons it has given. Instead of speaking the same things over and over again and pretending to say something and playing games like flying children’s kites, I am interested in catching the inward matter, spiritual motifs, and make then the inflaming, fuelling, motivating, directing part of the Islamic movement. This is the point where I stand when I talk to you, I will speak within this framework.

The Weekly Cuma: If you do not mind, I would like to learn about your general opinions on the attitude of the parties involved in the Gulf Crisis.

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Obviously, according to me, neither the different parties of this crisis nor the ones who were somehow involved into the issues know really what is going on. Everything is moving in its course just like groping behind a thick curtain of fog. There is a kind of ambiguity and uncertainty both in terms of analyzing things and in terms of power mathematics. One has to stop and think about the profound lessons emerged due to divine reasons!

The Weekly Cuma: All right, then, what do you think about the situation of Turkey under these circumstances?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Now, please listen to me, because I am going to read some newspaper clips in which you can find Turgut Ozal’s statements. This is what he said on August 11: “I don’t think there will be a serious action in the Gulf Region. I really don’t believe...” Seventeen days later, on August 28, he says: “This war can hardly be prevented!” That’s what he said to the BBC. One day before this he stated: “The survival of Saddam Hussein’s regime is at stake each day!” However, on August 13, he said the contrary: “I don’t think Saddam can ever be overthrown. He is very powerful. And he is acting as the father of all Arabs!” Then on September 22, he told to a journalist: “This issue can eighty or ninety per cent be settled through embargo, yet patience is needed!”

The Weekly Cuma: Whatever he says is contradictory to each other, is that what you would like to point out?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Yes. And, in addition to all of this, there is the ambiguity of Turgut Ozal’s position and scope of authority and imagine the situation. He is acting as if he is the president (as in the US within the presidential system) of the state. Let me put it in other words: There is no presidential system in Turkey, and in doing so, Turgut Ozal is in fact violating a Constitutional rule as the head of the state, which is indeed a symbolic position.

The Weekly Cuma: Could you please elaborate more on this? And what is relevance of this to the Gulf Crisis?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Due to the availability of exact and continuous applications, I have to use the United States of America as an example for the Presidential System. In the US, “the executive power” belongs to the president elected by the public; in other words, “the executive” is represented by one person: the President; to whom the Vice President and the Members of the Cabinet deeply faithful. In terms of the rank relations between the cabinet members and the President, the cabinet members in this system are described as “secretaries” by the law practitioners. The executive agent is the president; this is the reason why the regime is called “Presidential Government.” The secretaries have to obey the policy made by the President and the president has the right to terminate their positions whenever he wants. And let me add this too: The authority of the President to command the armed forces is not symbolic as it is in the regimes of parliamentary head of state as ours. He has the authority to send troops to any place in order to maintain the security of the United States of America and the administration of the foreign affairs too is among his tasks. Well now, in our system, it might be possible to change the tasks and role of the head of the state and to make him superior to the government representing the parliament, especially when there is such a puppet prime minister; however, this would bring about many problems, because it is just a statue without a base. The Gulf Crisis will reveal the system crisis in Turkey. To tell the truth, within a period of authority chaos and civic disorder, there will then be a proper basis for all those revolutionary movements!

The Weekly Cuma: Then, I guess, it will come down to the discussion about the question how real the identity Turgut Ozal assumed in his visit to the United States of America is.

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: We have to go beyond the personal level and accept the fact that, neither at home nor abroad, Turkey has the cultural and moral image it would like to take up and achieve. If you think about this comment together with what I said about Turgut Ozal, you will see that the consequences are amazing. First of all, today, one can easily see that the power of the governing party in the parliament and the public support given to them is not proportionate and the election of the head of the state has been carried out in a questionable fashion. The prime minister is acting like an orderly officer of the head of the state, which is neither lawful, nor ideal.

One should remember that he was a man who did his best to abuse former prime minister Suleyman Demirel’s power by buttering him up and who asked his permission while he was assigned to take a position after the coup on September 12, 1980 and remember how he became unfaithful and perverse as a party leader. If you remember all this, then you can infer about Yildirim Akbulut (puppet prime minister during the Gulf Crisis!) whose relationships were mostly based on his own profit and political interests. Whether Yildirim Akbulut has a kind of courage to resist Turgut Ozal or not, but within this kind of relationships, the ground is always changeable and insecure. The insecurity results from the illegal image drawn by Turgut Ozal and all about the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament belonging to their own Party and even Party Organizations. And there are the opposition parties who do not recognize him and who regards him as the president of ANAP (Motherland Party) not the head of the state. As a consequence, the political attitude which is claimed to be Turkey’s official policy especially abroad in fact does not reflect the realities in Turkey legally, socially, or morally!

The Weekly Cuma: What might be possible effects of this situation on the Gulf Crisis or the effects of the Gulf Crisis on us?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: First of all, such a structure cannot motivate our people to make their moves according to official policies; in other words, it won’t be able to stimulate, excite, provoke or lead them. Then, both in terms of the US and Europe and of their auxiliaries here in Turkey might be very much surprised at all these unexpected developments by distinctive personalities!

The Weekly Cuma: You do not approve of Turkey’s engagement with the United States of America and Europe during the Gulf Crisis. Then, what do you think about Saddam Hussein?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Yes, I do disapprove of collaborationist and toady policies! The commitments involved in without taking Islamic groups’ reactions into account, may produce unexpected consequences. It will never be unreasonable if the issue is considered in terms of hatred against Western in general, in particular American imperialism instead of “like or dislike Saddam Hussein”; because it has got cultural and psychological roots in our people. And I would obviously like to say that in all those countries with a Muslim population as the majority, regardless of the attitude of the government, the members of the society have a distinct sense of intuitions and emotions. I don’t want this to sound like a possibility of this or that but for this or that reason, the life of foreigners in Muslim countries is somewhat in danger. The American and Western citizen will have to confront not only with Islamic groups but also with leftist and nationalist organizations!

The Weekly Cuma: Do you think, the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq is evaluated within a sound frame of mind in Turkey?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: It’s a good question! The talk between the former prime minister Bulent Ecevit and Saddam Hussein opened the eyes of many people and therefore now there are power centers feeling rather disturbed. Now, let me give you an example to clarify. While a reporter from a periodical was interviewing me three or four years ago, I refuted his weak arguments and then he held onto the “the law against nuisance” like a life buoy, and he asked me if I was one of those proponents of the prohibitions. As a matter of fact, I find the law rather ridiculous because this is a country where the gypsy culture is now administrating the country and gypsy culture is among the missions of the Ministry of Culture and the performers of belly dance are titled “artist” and acclaimed, and where one is given a ministry after flattering the right person and where the civil servants uniformed or not publicly get rich through all kinds of illegal ways and where fat women use their husbands' high positions like a piece of furniture at home. And despite all this social and administrative weakness and despite this bunch of people who dishonestly gain billions of lira in an apparently honest way, there are mothers who sell their flesh in order to feed their children and where good men and soldiers are encouraged or ordered to watch pornographic movies to loosen their Faith and Islamic motifs in their lives and call it “supporting secularism and education.” My being against that law and my addressee’s is not the same. Anyhow, I replied to him: “Suppose, I am a proponent of the prohibitions. But when you are against my being so, don’t you see that you are also one of those proponents of prohibitions?” Well, here is what I mean: When discussing some of the issues, hasty and false conclusions are reached and imposed on people. People are conditioned to think within certain prejudices or thought. For example, one says, “The occupation of Kuwait by Saddam cannot be approved of!” When you hear the responses to this complaint, one who is against this opinion might as well say: “The occupation of Kuwait by Saddam cannot be approved of but...” Why should it not be approved of?

The Weekly Cuma: Do you approve it?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: We should first be reminded of some truths. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Kurds in Iraq; the well-known Halabja massacre. On the other hand, the systematic torture and oppression on the Kirkuk Turks have continued for years. There was nobody to object to this, was there? Who sold the weapons to Saddam who used them in the genocide there?

The Weekly Cuma: The issue was considered to be an internal affair of Iraq or that was how it was regarded then.

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: This is a very significant point to be emphasized. The territories of a country are not created by justice or injustice but by de facto situations. After a while, Kuwait may be included into the Iraq’s internal affairs. Today, the main concern of the West; I deliberately say “the West”, instead of the world, is not the sense of justice but the fear of a break in their imperialist order. And the other countries are just their subjects; they are the slaves; the bit players. The United States of America invaded Panama to nobody’s objection; who could do anything against it? As for the question whether I approve Saddam’s Kuwait invasion or not, my reply will be a resounding “yes!”

The Weekly Cuma: Then, what could be the aftermath of this issue or the pros and cons for Turkey?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: If you do not mind, I would like the remind you of what I said at the beginning. I said, what is of importance to me is to understand the depths of the issue and use it as the motivating fuel of the Islamic movement. This is the attitude of a man of action and of idea; in other words, one that catches the essential meaning which causes and directs all other events, grasps the fundamental concept and quality from which all other details stem, finds out the soul of the corpse which is subject to that soul. When one is a journalist, he reports the news with comments or in bits and pieces of comments in accordance with his personality and puts some photographs relevant to the story. A scientist evaluates the things within certain criteria. The reason why I say all this is well, I am not a journalist and there is no point in repeating the same news in my own words here. Now that I specified my place as a locus of abstraction and intuition, I’ll tell you the beneficial aspect of all this for Turkey: Turkey will not be able to live within the policy, or rather, the policy-less-ness of “Peace at home, peace in the world.” These conditions warn that the existence of anyone who indicates no dominant will to survive or makes no significant effort to grasp the core of things and who is not equipped with a supreme goal and ideal which those efforts are to be based on will be wiped off the map. Everything is against such apathy of a corpse now. Can there a greater pro or benefit than this?

The Weekly Cuma: Can you please clarify it?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: By nature, spiritual enthusiasm in a society from the individual to the family, as its expression, has certain outer appearances and images to keep. What can be accomplished with what facilities and how can you find those chances to reach wherever you want to? Even the simple act of eating food is an expression of a policy motivating our faculties as a desire stemming from our own body to survive. Only in a soul-less corpse is there no desire to attack and carry on. When we look at the history of the foreign policy of Turkey, we see that it resembles a debtor trying to run away from his creditors always. Now, look at the situation: Greece snatched the twelve islands in the Aegean Sea and has now abused the concept of territorial waters and it is about to lay claim to that zone from end to end. Moreover, it is ready to consider the Turkish ferryboats sailing from Izmir to Istanbul to be moving inside the Greek territorial waters. Greece again attempted to annex Cyprus and retains the memory of a Greek Istanbul and has dreams about it in the future conditions; Syria is in attempts to annex Hatay; Iraq, in need of water, and therefore longs to control Southeastern Anatolia along with targeting the Russia-Iskenderun line as a means to be used in a Middle East strategy, etc. And Turkey, like a poor and idle man who pretends to be pretty well off and victimized by the consolation of “peace at home, peace in the world,” by those who have no idea what image to give at home or abroad, was brought to a totally different point now. A powerful Iraq is not at all convenient for Turkey; however, if Turkey supports the United States of America, all the other countries involved in the issue will regard it as a Western pawn in the Middle East. That is, a lose/lose situation. To put it briefly, all the internal and external conditions actually force Turkey to accomplish its mission, to a great Islamic emergence and to the leadership of the world of Islam. This is the only raison d’etre for Turkey. To me, the benefit of all this is covered by this warning!

The Weekly Cuma: You said that you approved of Saddam Hussein’s move.

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: I have already said that the territories of a country are created by de facto events. Now, let us go back to the matter of justice or injustice. Without repeating the already known news, I am going to tell you briefly: Iraq had to do it. It was like an attempt of a man to eat a lion in order not to die of hunger. On the other hand, there is this puppet state who could not, in any sense, demonstrate any distinctive quality in depth or width other than being an Arab tribe. To erase this country from the global map is beneficial, in terms of the requirement of the grand existence of the Middle East, both as a step to a well-organized image of the Middle East and as a means to destroy the imperialist powers and to stir the world for this purpose. The Western policies which drew territories on sand and caused the peoples of the Middle East to fight against one another along these territories are now in a dilemma. If Saddam Hussein had handled it more tactfully, for instance, as necessary Islamic policies not out of a material gain or desire, he would be a real hero. What was Kuwait but a treacherous country who poured all its oil income, ignoring the poor Islamic world, to the West?

The Weekly Cuma: They say that the world had just entered a period of relaxation and peace when Saddam made a hash of something. What do you think about that?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Now, here is the time to mention our dear deceased Grand master and demonstrate what it is to give a strong grasp of things! In order to give the best response to this story of “relaxation,” I would like to read one of his articles written at the end of 1970s. Here, let me read it to you:

“Since we are in the alarming worry about the missing order at home of our own, we seem to ignore the outside indicators which threaten us with a terrible destruction. The greatest events of the recent weeks is the inclination for the agreement of disarmament between the US and Russia. In fact, this is not a real disarmament but a tactic as the non-use of weapons against each other. It should be very well understood that, Turkey has been able to stand up thanks to the opposite winds blowing from the East and the West since the Second World War. These winds clash with each other right above us and somewhat support our country weakened by its own troubles. In other words, this is what has helped us maintain the temporary and artificial balance so far. The harmony between the United States of America and Russia should make us nervous before anybody else; we should be alarmed and decide where and how we should seek our right to exist in the future. Such a harmony which might sound to be favoring peace and relaxation in the world will most probably result in profit-distribution between Russian and the US in the Near and Middle East Region and particularly in oil-supplying regions. This mutual smile and shaking-hands between the lion and the tiger of course should frighten the herd of deer in the forest but do they really understand, intuit or see this danger and is there anyone taking action?”

Here is a comment as fresh as it has been just written. They feel their empire is at a decline and they now put all their efforts to regain their strength through a new structure, and we take this period as “peace in the world!” Now, imagine a man. He is beating another man, battering and punching him, and becoming exhausted after a while. As soon as the other man raises his hand, some peacemakers start objecting to it: “Look, he is not hitting you at the moment, why should you beat him; it is pointless, isn’t it?”

Throughout history, each era has its own limits and conditions, along with the balances which are advantageous for some and disadvantageous for the others. And that era is not the end of everything but a link in the chain of Human History. Otherwise, any action resisting against exploitation, oppression and slavery would indicate a breakdown in peace and balance. After all, the self-evident truth clearly shows itself: what on earth are the Western world and the United States doing in the Middle East?

The Weekly Cuma: What do you think about the embargo imposed on Iraq?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: First of all, I would like to emphasize one point clearly: It is a shame that Turkey overtly plays a role of guard of the West and the United State of America in the Middle East and support them. As for the embargo issue, one should first think about the answer of the following question: “While waiting for Iraq to be dissolved by the embargo, do you also take into account that embargo itself can dissolve the agents of the embargo as well?” In my opinion, this is where it comes down to: Apart from all this small political tradesmanship, the world is on the verge of chaos, in which all the small and spiritually unsupported dreams are destroyed and all the significant accounts are settled; and now it has become impregnated with many huge and unexpected changes!

The Weekly Cuma: Anything you would like to add or any message?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: I would like all the members of our congregation to emphasize to themselves these points: they should be professionally organizing and leading the amateur activities on behalf of a true idea and they should be feeding and supporting the professional activities within an amateur fashion and excitement and will to support. They should be active actors of the stance they take rather than talkative spectators of the events. Our stance has nothing to do with the trivial; it has to do with Islam per se!

(The Weekly Cuma - October 1990)



ALLAH’S WILL IS SADDAM!

Benemsal

“Where lengthy doors prostrate themselves…”

Did you not witness how the stouthearted son of the worldwide Muslim community, the mujahid of his homeland, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, defeated the Anglo-Persian invaders by reaching martyrdom when the dawn broke in the morning, on December 30, 2006? Did you not see how he sacrificed himself for the Oneness of Allah while defending Iraq against the allies consisting of kafirs and munafiqs? Did you also not witness that Allah crowned him with eternal glory, victory and honor? Did you really not see how he humiliated the runaway remains of al-Qadisiyyah through standing straight like a sword with aplomb while those bandits imagined that they themselves would humiliate and insult him?

Allah is pleased with Saddam urging his nation to join jihad in His way that He made Saddam’s enemies acknowledge his volitional toughness, and the invincibility of his leadership, and crowned him the everlasting president of Iraq.

Would you like to hear the truth, that is, the obvious truth which Allah does not allow to be forgotten?

He ruled his country justly and similarly in the way Hazrat Umar did and reached martyrdom like him who was stabbed with a khanjar by a Persian spy, an enemy of Ahli Sunnah.

Saddam never allowed Allah’s dominion to be looted. He saved the poor. He raised the level of health and education services. With a sudden attack, he also destroyed the Persian Republic’s armies that were getting ready for an assault on Iraq.

Besides, he protected Palestine from going through a possible Persian assimilation. A state belonging to Ahli Sunnah had an undoubted right to crush the collaborators who cooperated with the enemy forces and stabbed the nation in the back when the country was in war. And he did!

Do the Western liars not know? Of course, they do! You should know how insistently those torturers begged him, when he was a captive in their hands, to give up and stop the jihad defending the nation, desert the direction of martyrdom, and go out of Iraq. But he kept his word. He, at every turn, urged the mujahids to perpetuate the jihad. Can they say that they did not hear?

And Allah wished him to reach the martyrdom he aspired to and took him up to Himself. Let them deny it if they can! Allah’s lion is in truly Green Zone right now, along with his two sons and all the mujahids martyred during this holy Resistance.

His voice and face are everywhere in Iraq, in every home, on every front of the Resistance, attached to every Iraqi just like the flesh and nail, the parent and child, the tree and its bark.

When Saddam said “This war is the mother of all battles,” the allies consisting of kafirs and munafiqs made fun of that. See how many battles it caused to arise, and will cause in the future!

Allah’s patience is infinite but his respite is not! It is high time Western societies woke up before it is too late! Otherwise, those who exploit His infinite mercy will be struck in an infinite furious way!

May peace be upon those who stand by their words.

Source: The Weekly Baran, Issue No. 51, Istanbul, Turkey, December 27, 2007.

[akademyaenglish]

For the front page of BARAN:

http://www.barandergisi.com/kapak.html

For BARAN's website:

http://www.barandergisi.com

[akademyaenglish]

Special Issue of Turkish Islamic Weekly BARAN on the Occasion of the Martyrdom Anniversary of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein

The Weekly BARAN, Turkish Islamic periodical belonging to the most significant Islamic revolutionary movement (IBDA) in Turkey, presents a detailed special issue one year after the martyrdom of the former legitimate president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein.

Here is an interview made with the founder of IBDA Movement, Salih Mirzabeyoglu, right before the Gulf War, which reflects the standpoint of this Islamic movement on Saddam Hussein and his historic action, along with an article titled “Allah’s Will is Saddam” from that special issue of the weekly BARAN.

For the front page of BARAN:

http://www.barandergisi.com/kapak.html

For the website of BARAN:

http://www.barandergisi.com


The Weekly Cuma: When you, as the “Commander” of the IBDA movement, were asked to make an interview by our reporters about the Gulf Crisis, you said that there is no point in speaking just for the sake of speaking. We would like to relate all you talked about in that preliminary talk of ours with you.

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: By all means! First of all, I believe that the issues should be handled at a level they actually deserve. The reason why I mention this measurement is here: One side of the issue seems extremely simple and good for easy talk, however, the other side of the issue is extremely complicated and requires much thought on the lessons it has given. Instead of speaking the same things over and over again and pretending to say something and playing games like flying children’s kites, I am interested in catching the inward matter, spiritual motifs, and make then the inflaming, fuelling, motivating, directing part of the Islamic movement. This is the point where I stand when I talk to you, I will speak within this framework.

The Weekly Cuma: If you do not mind, I would like to learn about your general opinions on the attitude of the parties involved in the Gulf Crisis.

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Obviously, according to me, neither the different parties of this crisis nor the ones who were somehow involved into the issues know really what is going on. Everything is moving in its course just like groping behind a thick curtain of fog. There is a kind of ambiguity and uncertainty both in terms of analyzing things and in terms of power mathematics. One has to stop and think about the profound lessons emerged due to divine reasons!

The Weekly Cuma: All right, then, what do you think about the situation of Turkey under these circumstances?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Now, please listen to me, because I am going to read some newspaper clips in which you can find Turgut Ozal’s statements. This is what he said on August 11: “I don’t think there will be a serious action in the Gulf Region. I really don’t believe...” Seventeen days later, on August 28, he says: “This war can hardly be prevented!” That’s what he said to the BBC. One day before this he stated: “The survival of Saddam Hussein’s regime is at stake each day!” However, on August 13, he said the contrary: “I don’t think Saddam can ever be overthrown. He is very powerful. And he is acting as the father of all Arabs!” Then on September 22, he told to a journalist: “This issue can eighty or ninety per cent be settled through embargo, yet patience is needed!”

The Weekly Cuma: Whatever he says is contradictory to each other, is that what you would like to point out?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Yes. And, in addition to all of this, there is the ambiguity of Turgut Ozal’s position and scope of authority and imagine the situation. He is acting as if he is the president (as in the US within the presidential system) of the state. Let me put it in other words: There is no presidential system in Turkey, and in doing so, Turgut Ozal is in fact violating a Constitutional rule as the head of the state, which is indeed a symbolic position.

The Weekly Cuma: Could you please elaborate more on this? And what is relevance of this to the Gulf Crisis?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Due to the availability of exact and continuous applications, I have to use the United States of America as an example for the Presidential System. In the US, “the executive power” belongs to the president elected by the public; in other words, “the executive” is represented by one person: the President; to whom the Vice President and the Members of the Cabinet deeply faithful. In terms of the rank relations between the cabinet members and the President, the cabinet members in this system are described as “secretaries” by the law practitioners. The executive agent is the president; this is the reason why the regime is called “Presidential Government.” The secretaries have to obey the policy made by the President and the president has the right to terminate their positions whenever he wants. And let me add this too: The authority of the President to command the armed forces is not symbolic as it is in the regimes of parliamentary head of state as ours. He has the authority to send troops to any place in order to maintain the security of the United States of America and the administration of the foreign affairs too is among his tasks. Well now, in our system, it might be possible to change the tasks and role of the head of the state and to make him superior to the government representing the parliament, especially when there is such a puppet prime minister; however, this would bring about many problems, because it is just a statue without a base. The Gulf Crisis will reveal the system crisis in Turkey. To tell the truth, within a period of authority chaos and civic disorder, there will then be a proper basis for all those revolutionary movements!

The Weekly Cuma: Then, I guess, it will come down to the discussion about the question how real the identity Turgut Ozal assumed in his visit to the United States of America is.

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: We have to go beyond the personal level and accept the fact that, neither at home nor abroad, Turkey has the cultural and moral image it would like to take up and achieve. If you think about this comment together with what I said about Turgut Ozal, you will see that the consequences are amazing. First of all, today, one can easily see that the power of the governing party in the parliament and the public support given to them is not proportionate and the election of the head of the state has been carried out in a questionable fashion. The prime minister is acting like an orderly officer of the head of the state, which is neither lawful, nor ideal.

One should remember that he was a man who did his best to abuse former prime minister Suleyman Demirel’s power by buttering him up and who asked his permission while he was assigned to take a position after the coup on September 12, 1980 and remember how he became unfaithful and perverse as a party leader. If you remember all this, then you can infer about Yildirim Akbulut (puppet prime minister during the Gulf Crisis!) whose relationships were mostly based on his own profit and political interests. Whether Yildirim Akbulut has a kind of courage to resist Turgut Ozal or not, but within this kind of relationships, the ground is always changeable and insecure. The insecurity results from the illegal image drawn by Turgut Ozal and all about the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament belonging to their own Party and even Party Organizations. And there are the opposition parties who do not recognize him and who regards him as the president of ANAP (Motherland Party) not the head of the state. As a consequence, the political attitude which is claimed to be Turkey’s official policy especially abroad in fact does not reflect the realities in Turkey legally, socially, or morally!

The Weekly Cuma: What might be possible effects of this situation on the Gulf Crisis or the effects of the Gulf Crisis on us?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: First of all, such a structure cannot motivate our people to make their moves according to official policies; in other words, it won’t be able to stimulate, excite, provoke or lead them. Then, both in terms of the US and Europe and of their auxiliaries here in Turkey might be very much surprised at all these unexpected developments by distinctive personalities!

The Weekly Cuma: You do not approve of Turkey’s engagement with the United States of America and Europe during the Gulf Crisis. Then, what do you think about Saddam Hussein?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Yes, I do disapprove of collaborationist and toady policies! The commitments involved in without taking Islamic groups’ reactions into account, may produce unexpected consequences. It will never be unreasonable if the issue is considered in terms of hatred against Western in general, in particular American imperialism instead of “like or dislike Saddam Hussein”; because it has got cultural and psychological roots in our people. And I would obviously like to say that in all those countries with a Muslim population as the majority, regardless of the attitude of the government, the members of the society have a distinct sense of intuitions and emotions. I don’t want this to sound like a possibility of this or that but for this or that reason, the life of foreigners in Muslim countries is somewhat in danger. The American and Western citizen will have to confront not only with Islamic groups but also with leftist and nationalist organizations!

The Weekly Cuma: Do you think, the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq is evaluated within a sound frame of mind in Turkey?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: It’s a good question! The talk between the former prime minister Bulent Ecevit and Saddam Hussein opened the eyes of many people and therefore now there are power centers feeling rather disturbed. Now, let me give you an example to clarify. While a reporter from a periodical was interviewing me three or four years ago, I refuted his weak arguments and then he held onto the “the law against nuisance” like a life buoy, and he asked me if I was one of those proponents of the prohibitions. As a matter of fact, I find the law rather ridiculous because this is a country where the gypsy culture is now administrating the country and gypsy culture is among the missions of the Ministry of Culture and the performers of belly dance are titled “artist” and acclaimed, and where one is given a ministry after flattering the right person and where the civil servants uniformed or not publicly get rich through all kinds of illegal ways and where fat women use their husbands' high positions like a piece of furniture at home. And despite all this social and administrative weakness and despite this bunch of people who dishonestly gain billions of lira in an apparently honest way, there are mothers who sell their flesh in order to feed their children and where good men and soldiers are encouraged or ordered to watch pornographic movies to loosen their Faith and Islamic motifs in their lives and call it “supporting secularism and education.” My being against that law and my addressee’s is not the same. Anyhow, I replied to him: “Suppose, I am a proponent of the prohibitions. But when you are against my being so, don’t you see that you are also one of those proponents of prohibitions?” Well, here is what I mean: When discussing some of the issues, hasty and false conclusions are reached and imposed on people. People are conditioned to think within certain prejudices or thought. For example, one says, “The occupation of Kuwait by Saddam cannot be approved of!” When you hear the responses to this complaint, one who is against this opinion might as well say: “The occupation of Kuwait by Saddam cannot be approved of but...” Why should it not be approved of?

The Weekly Cuma: Do you approve it?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: We should first be reminded of some truths. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Kurds in Iraq; the well-known Halabja massacre. On the other hand, the systematic torture and oppression on the Kirkuk Turks have continued for years. There was nobody to object to this, was there? Who sold the weapons to Saddam who used them in the genocide there?

The Weekly Cuma: The issue was considered to be an internal affair of Iraq or that was how it was regarded then.

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: This is a very significant point to be emphasized. The territories of a country are not created by justice or injustice but by de facto situations. After a while, Kuwait may be included into the Iraq’s internal affairs. Today, the main concern of the West; I deliberately say “the West”, instead of the world, is not the sense of justice but the fear of a break in their imperialist order. And the other countries are just their subjects; they are the slaves; the bit players. The United States of America invaded Panama to nobody’s objection; who could do anything against it? As for the question whether I approve Saddam’s Kuwait invasion or not, my reply will be a resounding “yes!”

The Weekly Cuma: Then, what could be the aftermath of this issue or the pros and cons for Turkey?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: If you do not mind, I would like the remind you of what I said at the beginning. I said, what is of importance to me is to understand the depths of the issue and use it as the motivating fuel of the Islamic movement. This is the attitude of a man of action and of idea; in other words, one that catches the essential meaning which causes and directs all other events, grasps the fundamental concept and quality from which all other details stem, finds out the soul of the corpse which is subject to that soul. When one is a journalist, he reports the news with comments or in bits and pieces of comments in accordance with his personality and puts some photographs relevant to the story. A scientist evaluates the things within certain criteria. The reason why I say all this is well, I am not a journalist and there is no point in repeating the same news in my own words here. Now that I specified my place as a locus of abstraction and intuition, I’ll tell you the beneficial aspect of all this for Turkey: Turkey will not be able to live within the policy, or rather, the policy-less-ness of “Peace at home, peace in the world.” These conditions warn that the existence of anyone who indicates no dominant will to survive or makes no significant effort to grasp the core of things and who is not equipped with a supreme goal and ideal which those efforts are to be based on will be wiped off the map. Everything is against such apathy of a corpse now. Can there a greater pro or benefit than this?

The Weekly Cuma: Can you please clarify it?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: By nature, spiritual enthusiasm in a society from the individual to the family, as its expression, has certain outer appearances and images to keep. What can be accomplished with what facilities and how can you find those chances to reach wherever you want to? Even the simple act of eating food is an expression of a policy motivating our faculties as a desire stemming from our own body to survive. Only in a soul-less corpse is there no desire to attack and carry on. When we look at the history of the foreign policy of Turkey, we see that it resembles a debtor trying to run away from his creditors always. Now, look at the situation: Greece snatched the twelve islands in the Aegean Sea and has now abused the concept of territorial waters and it is about to lay claim to that zone from end to end. Moreover, it is ready to consider the Turkish ferryboats sailing from Izmir to Istanbul to be moving inside the Greek territorial waters. Greece again attempted to annex Cyprus and retains the memory of a Greek Istanbul and has dreams about it in the future conditions; Syria is in attempts to annex Hatay; Iraq, in need of water, and therefore longs to control Southeastern Anatolia along with targeting the Russia-Iskenderun line as a means to be used in a Middle East strategy, etc. And Turkey, like a poor and idle man who pretends to be pretty well off and victimized by the consolation of “peace at home, peace in the world,” by those who have no idea what image to give at home or abroad, was brought to a totally different point now. A powerful Iraq is not at all convenient for Turkey; however, if Turkey supports the United States of America, all the other countries involved in the issue will regard it as a Western pawn in the Middle East. That is, a lose/lose situation. To put it briefly, all the internal and external conditions actually force Turkey to accomplish its mission, to a great Islamic emergence and to the leadership of the world of Islam. This is the only raison d’etre for Turkey. To me, the benefit of all this is covered by this warning!

The Weekly Cuma: You said that you approved of Saddam Hussein’s move.

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: I have already said that the territories of a country are created by de facto events. Now, let us go back to the matter of justice or injustice. Without repeating the already known news, I am going to tell you briefly: Iraq had to do it. It was like an attempt of a man to eat a lion in order not to die of hunger. On the other hand, there is this puppet state who could not, in any sense, demonstrate any distinctive quality in depth or width other than being an Arab tribe. To erase this country from the global map is beneficial, in terms of the requirement of the grand existence of the Middle East, both as a step to a well-organized image of the Middle East and as a means to destroy the imperialist powers and to stir the world for this purpose. The Western policies which drew territories on sand and caused the peoples of the Middle East to fight against one another along these territories are now in a dilemma. If Saddam Hussein had handled it more tactfully, for instance, as necessary Islamic policies not out of a material gain or desire, he would be a real hero. What was Kuwait but a treacherous country who poured all its oil income, ignoring the poor Islamic world, to the West?

The Weekly Cuma: They say that the world had just entered a period of relaxation and peace when Saddam made a hash of something. What do you think about that?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: Now, here is the time to mention our dear deceased Grand master and demonstrate what it is to give a strong grasp of things! In order to give the best response to this story of “relaxation,” I would like to read one of his articles written at the end of 1970s. Here, let me read it to you:

“Since we are in the alarming worry about the missing order at home of our own, we seem to ignore the outside indicators which threaten us with a terrible destruction. The greatest events of the recent weeks is the inclination for the agreement of disarmament between the US and Russia. In fact, this is not a real disarmament but a tactic as the non-use of weapons against each other. It should be very well understood that, Turkey has been able to stand up thanks to the opposite winds blowing from the East and the West since the Second World War. These winds clash with each other right above us and somewhat support our country weakened by its own troubles. In other words, this is what has helped us maintain the temporary and artificial balance so far. The harmony between the United States of America and Russia should make us nervous before anybody else; we should be alarmed and decide where and how we should seek our right to exist in the future. Such a harmony which might sound to be favoring peace and relaxation in the world will most probably result in profit-distribution between Russian and the US in the Near and Middle East Region and particularly in oil-supplying regions. This mutual smile and shaking-hands between the lion and the tiger of course should frighten the herd of deer in the forest but do they really understand, intuit or see this danger and is there anyone taking action?”

Here is a comment as fresh as it has been just written. They feel their empire is at a decline and they now put all their efforts to regain their strength through a new structure, and we take this period as “peace in the world!” Now, imagine a man. He is beating another man, battering and punching him, and becoming exhausted after a while. As soon as the other man raises his hand, some peacemakers start objecting to it: “Look, he is not hitting you at the moment, why should you beat him; it is pointless, isn’t it?”

Throughout history, each era has its own limits and conditions, along with the balances which are advantageous for some and disadvantageous for the others. And that era is not the end of everything but a link in the chain of Human History. Otherwise, any action resisting against exploitation, oppression and slavery would indicate a breakdown in peace and balance. After all, the self-evident truth clearly shows itself: what on earth are the Western world and the United States doing in the Middle East?

The Weekly Cuma: What do you think about the embargo imposed on Iraq?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: First of all, I would like to emphasize one point clearly: It is a shame that Turkey overtly plays a role of guard of the West and the United State of America in the Middle East and support them. As for the embargo issue, one should first think about the answer of the following question: “While waiting for Iraq to be dissolved by the embargo, do you also take into account that embargo itself can dissolve the agents of the embargo as well?” In my opinion, this is where it comes down to: Apart from all this small political tradesmanship, the world is on the verge of chaos, in which all the small and spiritually unsupported dreams are destroyed and all the significant accounts are settled; and now it has become impregnated with many huge and unexpected changes!

The Weekly Cuma: Anything you would like to add or any message?

Salih Mirzabeyoglu: I would like all the members of our congregation to emphasize to themselves these points: they should be professionally organizing and leading the amateur activities on behalf of a true idea and they should be feeding and supporting the professional activities within an amateur fashion and excitement and will to support. They should be active actors of the stance they take rather than talkative spectators of the events. Our stance has nothing to do with the trivial; it has to do with Islam per se!

(The Weekly Cuma - October 1990)




ALLAH’S WILL IS SADDAM!

Benemsal

“Where lengthy doors prostrate themselves…”

Did you not witness how the stouthearted son of the worldwide Muslim community, the mujahid of his homeland, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, defeated the Anglo-Persian invaders by reaching martyrdom when the dawn broke in the morning, on December 30, 2006? Did you not see how he sacrificed himself for the Oneness of Allah while defending Iraq against the allies consisting of kafirs and munafiqs? Did you also not witness that Allah crowned him with eternal glory, victory and honor? Did you really not see how he humiliated the runaway remains of al-Qadisiyyah through standing straight like a sword with aplomb while those bandits imagined that they themselves would humiliate and insult him?

Allah is pleased with Saddam urging his nation to join jihad in His way that He made Saddam’s enemies acknowledge his volitional toughness, and the invincibility of his leadership, and crowned him the everlasting president of Iraq.

Would you like to hear the truth, that is, the obvious truth which Allah does not allow to be forgotten?

He ruled his country justly and similarly in the way Hazrat Umar did and reached martyrdom like him who was stabbed with a khanjar by a Persian spy, an enemy of Ahli Sunnah.

Saddam never allowed Allah’s dominion to be looted. He saved the poor. He raised the level of health and education services. With a sudden attack, he also destroyed the Persian Republic’s armies that were getting ready for an assault on Iraq.

Besides, he protected Palestine from going through a possible Persian assimilation. A state belonging to Ahli Sunnah had an undoubted right to crush the collaborators who cooperated with the enemy forces and stabbed the nation in the back when the country was in war. And he did!

Do the Western liars not know? Of course, they do! You should know how insistently those torturers begged him, when he was a captive in their hands, to give up and stop the jihad defending the nation, desert the direction of martyrdom, and go out of Iraq. But he kept his word. He, at every turn, urged the mujahids to perpetuate the jihad. Can they say that they did not hear?

And Allah wished him to reach the martyrdom he aspired to and took him up to Himself. Let them deny it if they can! Allah’s lion is in truly Green Zone right now, along with his two sons and all the mujahids martyred during this holy Resistance.

His voice and face are everywhere in Iraq, in every home, on every front of the Resistance, attached to every Iraqi just like the flesh and nail, the parent and child, the tree and its bark.

When Saddam said “This war is the mother of all battles,” the allies consisting of kafirs and munafiqs made fun of that. See how many battles it caused to arise, and will cause in the future!

Allah’s patience is infinite but his respite is not! It is high time Western societies woke up before it is too late! Otherwise, those who exploit His infinite mercy will be struck in an infinite furious way!

May peace be upon those who stand by their words.

Source: The Weekly Baran, Issue No. 51, Istanbul, Turkey, December 27, 2007.

[sword_of_islam]

may ALLAH have mercy on the lion of iraq who held onto the rope of ALLAH when he was captured by the army of dajjal, we make dua that he is granted shahada, please dont bring his past sins yes he was a kafir when he was ruler but he died inshALLAH shaeed the saudi ulema as well as the likes of sh abu baseer consider he died as a muslim and ALLAH IS HIS RECKONER

he pegged back the shia kafir from taking control of the arbaian peninsula and by ALLAH his charity for the muslims of palestine was immense he was in the hearts of the sunnis of iraq as well as the muslims of palestine

he made many mistakes as ruler and held communist beliefs but the proclamation of that there is non worthy of worship except allah and muhammad s.a.w his messenger is tawheed and defeats every other ideology in the universe

may ALLAH have mercy upon him

[Sarban]

he died reciting the kalimah, we can only wish to die in such a state, hes a shaheed insha Allah.

[MohammadMufti]

yes lol "you persian shoe". They both looked pathetic.

I thought he said you Persian dog, did they mistranslate it?