Gaddafi's death

Jaafa

With the death of Gaddafi, many have Muslims (and non-muslims) have come to criticize the manner of his death.

It is argued that he was technically a prisoner of war once captured and should have been treated as such. As a result most Muslim scholars will tell you that a POW has some basic rights in Islam. Such as a trial, food, water and in general not to be treated badly, similar to how POW's were treated in the time of the prophet (PBUH). Clearly this didn't happen in Gaddafis case.

Other argue that Gaddafi's was a special case. A man so evil, who had committed such atrocities and with still so much influence, deserved what he got and could not be allowed to live.

What do you say?

The Quadratic Equation

Jaafa wrote: »

What do you say?

I'd say he got a very quick and easy way out unlike his thousands of victims and their famailies.

Dades

I can understand why he was treated like he was and wouldn't blame the people who had suffered. I can only imagine the emotion and adrenaline at play.

However what I can't stomach was the media replaying the video over-and-over of a bloodied man being dragged about by his hair and beaten. My three year old saw it (in the morning) and wanted to know why the people on the television were "fighting".

wes

I understand why they did what they did to him. He was a horrible man who done much the same and worse to so many others. Also, tbh it was always going to end this way the moment he decided to fight to the death, so in a lot of ways he brought it on himself.

However, it would have been better if the Rebels captured him and put him on trial, so that his crimes could be exposed in a fair and transparent manner. It would have shown the world that the rebels were better than Gaddafi, and that would treat even there worst enemy with some compassion.

Jaafa

^ That would be my thoughts on the matter. I would also add if want they wanted to do was make him suffer,then surely 30+ years in solitary confinement would do better than a quick death.

irishconvert

Jaafa wrote: »

With the death of Gaddafi, many have Muslims (and non-muslims) have come to criticize the manner of his death.

It is argued that he was technically a prisoner of war once captured and should have been treated as such. As a result most Muslim scholars will tell you that a POW has some basic rights in Islam. Such as a trial, food, water and in general not to be treated badly, similar to how POW's were treated in the time of the prophet (PBUH). Clearly this didn't happen in Gaddafis case.

Other argue that Gaddafi's was a special case. A man so evil, who had committed such atrocities and with still so much influence, deserved what he got and could not be allowed to live.

What do you say?

He should have been put on trial. If he was such an evil man as people argue, then there should be no problem producing the evidence and ensuring a safe conviction. My view is that the evidence that would have come out would have embarassed some of his former allies, and perhaps even proved that they are as evil as he. So with the blessing of Hillary, the "rebels" finished the job the NATO started.

I think the "rebels" made a serious mistake by relying on the help of NATO, as we have been warned in the Qur'an, 5:51

O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as your protecting friends: they are only protecting friends of one another. Whoever of you disobeys this commandment will be counted as one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoers.

I think the "rebels" have been seriously misguided and from news reports I have read they have committed a very large amount of war crimes in this conflict.

donaghs

irishconvert wrote: »

He should have been put on trial. If he was such an evil man as people argue, then there should be no problem producing the evidence and ensuring a safe conviction. My view is that the evidence that would have come out would have embarassed some of his former allies, and perhaps even proved that they are as evil as he. So with the blessing of Hillary, the "rebels" finished the job the NATO started.

I agree, a trial would have been the correct thing to do. As bad as he was, I don't think he was much worse than the other dictators in the middle east.

irishconvert wrote: »

I think the "rebels" made a serious mistake by relying on the help of NATO, as we have been warned in the Qur'an, 5:51

Putting aside the wisdom of relying on an ancient religious text as a manual for conducting the Libyan rebellion, the rebels never had a chance without NATO.

The rebels were about to be finished off in Benghazi, until saved by direct NATO intervention. Even in the final battles, Gaddafi forces counter-attacks were able to send the rebels into retreat, until NATO close-air-support sorted them out.

irishconvert wrote: »

I think the "rebels" have been seriously misguided and from news reports I have read they have committed a very large amount of war crimes in this conflict.

That's true also. At best we can hope is they are only revenge attacks and this will stop once the new government gets to grips with the situation.

RichieC

Dead men tell no secrets...

craggles

irishconvert wrote: »

I think the "rebels" made a serious mistake by relying on the help of NATO, as we have been warned in the Qur'an, 5:51

So you feel it would have been better if they had refused any outside help and allowed themselves and their families to be tortured, slaughtered and eradicated in Benghazi by Gaddafi, which was only a matter of hours away at one point?

Really?

irishconvert

craggles wrote: »

So you feel it would have been better if they had refused any outside help and allowed themselves and their families to be tortured, slaughtered and eradicated in Benghazi by Gaddafi, which was only a matter of hours away at one point?

Really?

I think if you don't have the support of enough of your own people to try to overthrow a leader or Government, then you are foolish to do it. Egypt didn't need outside help, it was a genuine revolution. What happened in Libya was not a true revolution, it was encouraged and helped by external forces in much the same way as the failed attempt in Iran.

oceanclub

O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as your protecting friends: they are only protecting friends of one another. Whoever of you disobeys this commandment will be counted as one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoers.

When the West doesn't intervene in conflicts involved Muslims (such as Srebrenica), it gets condemned.
When the West does intervene to protect, it gets condemned.
I suppose you can't win when someone is determined to condemn using religious texts as a justification.

P.

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

I think the "rebels" made a serious mistake by relying on the help of NATO, as we have been warned in the Qur'an, 5:51

O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as your protecting friends: they are only protecting friends of one another. Whoever of you disobeys this commandment will be counted as one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoers.

Wouldn't any muslim living in any country where there are christian/jewish law-makers/law-enforcers automatically fall afoul of this?

Jaafa

irishconvert wrote: »

He should have been put on trial. If he was such an evil man as people argue, then there should be no problem producing the evidence and ensuring a safe conviction. My view is that the evidence that would have come out would have embarassed some of his former allies, and perhaps even proved that they are as evil as he. So with the blessing of Hillary, the "rebels" finished the job the NATO started.

I think the "rebels" made a serious mistake by relying on the help of NATO, as we have been warned in the Qur'an, 5:51



I think the "rebels" have been seriously misguided and from news reports I have read they have committed a very large amount of war crimes in this conflict.

Irishconvert I don't think you have understood the context in which that verse was reveled.

It came towards the end of the Madinah period when Muslims had control and set up their own society. At the same time some Jews and Christian had setup up parallel societies in Makkah. Tensions grew and armed conflict seemed likely between the Jews, Christians and polytheists who lived there. Some Muslims took it upon themselves to forge secret ties with both Jews and Christians so they could ally themselves with whoever came out victorious. So it is in this context the verse was revealed and I believe it refers to a specific period of time.

As you can see here the Quran does not encourage Muslims to shun all Christians and Jews, only a specific group of them who: 'take your religion for a mockery and a joke' Quran 5:57-58.

Personally for the large part I support NATOs operations in Libya, I just hope they will stay out from here on.

oceanclub

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wouldn't any muslim living in any country where there are christian/jewish law-makers/law-enforcers automatically fall afoul of this?

I consider his attitude completely incompatible with living in a multi-racial, multi-religious society.

P.

dead one

oceanclub wrote: »

When the West doesn't intervene in conflicts involved Muslims (such as Srebrenica), it gets condemned.
When the West does intervene to protect, it gets condemned.
I suppose you can't win when someone is determined to condemn using religious texts as a justification.
P.

Amazing -- Your statement has back ground of united nation, an organization full of western hypocrisy against Muslims --- Your statement is also proving truthfulness of subject verse--
Here are some copy pasted points which show the truthfulness of Quranic verse against the hypocrisy of UN
1. The United Nations blessed the creation of Israel. By doing so it went a long way to assuring its own demise.
2. Throughout his tenure the Government of Israel has been consistently uncooperative, even to the point of refusing him entrance into Israel and the Occupied Territories.
3. The United Nations itself has failed to respond strongly to this challenge to its authority thereby encouraging the view that the world body has not the political will to uphold international law and the principles of its Charter when it comes to the ally of a Great Power.
4. The response of the international community has also been "disappointing."

5. The UN sat idly by while the US and its “coalition of the willing” allies invaded and occupied Afghanistan and then Iraq on false claims of countering terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. When the US found itself saddled with rising costs of occupation and many of its allies withdrew from the coalition, the UN was called upon to set up a “Peacebuilding Commission” to provide a politically acceptable mechanism for overseeing the occupation and sharing the financial burden.
6. The UN also served US imperialist interests when the US attacked North Korea in 1950 and began the war of aggression against Korea. The UN endorsed the US aggression and further sent troops under the guise of “peace keeping” to fight alongside the US and South Korean armies against the North Koreans and the Chinese volunteers. It ultimately enforced the permanent division of the Korean nation through the establishment of the so-called Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) at the 38th parallel.

dead one

craggles wrote: »

So you feel it would have been better if they had refused any outside help and allowed themselves and their families to be tortured, slaughtered and eradicated in Benghazi by Gaddafi, which was only a matter of hours away at one point?
Really?

Will you allow vultures/robbers/criminals/hypocrites/global terrorists to settle your inter disputes ---

Hobbes

aaannddd... we are now past the point where the thread is no longer about Islam religion.