The following are reportedly Gaddafi’s last words:
“What you’re doing is wrong, guys. What you’re doing is wrong. Do you know what is right or wrong? What are you doing? It’s haraam [forbidden]. It’s not allowed in Islamic law. Haraam. What you are doing is forbidden in Islam!”
I am not a Muslim myself, and I am therefore not qualified to judge what is, or is not, forbidden in Islam. Others here are far more qualified then myself to comment on this.
I however know that the Arabic word “Shahid”, which is usually translated as “martyr”, has exactly the same origin as the Greek word martys (μάρτυς) – it means witness.
The Christian tradition holds that no matter how evil or sinful your life has been, you can redeem it until your last breath by becoming a martyr, a witness of God’s truth. If “Islam” means “submission to God” then Gaddafi’s last words were “what you are doing is forbidden to those who submit to God”. That is, of course, true and even though I never had any sympathy for Gaddafi, I recognize that his last words were a true witness to God, addressed not only to the screaming lunatics who beat him to death, but also to the leader of the pseudo-Christian Western world who allowed them to take power in Libya (and in many other countries).
For those who can stomach the image of a 69 year old man being lynched, you can see evidence of this crime in the following sites:
Yea… I just thought this was NATO propaganda… but the video looks pretty damning… unless it’s a double or someone who just happens to look a lot like him.
I don’t get how this could have happened… where was all his bodyguards and army at? You would think the rebels wouldn’t even be able to make any in roads where he is at (and as far as I know they haven’t been able to hold any ground there)… so what happened? A bunch of lunatic, poorly trained terrorists conducted a raid into hostile territory?
Sure NATO bombed the convoy… but was it that decimated, that it couldn’t fight off these tards? In the end, I suppose ghaddafi got what he dished out himself.
-AAA
@AAA: well, what is quite clear is that besides a very small group of followers Gaddafi had NOBODY willing to really fight for him. His regime was full of CIA-agents and other turncoats from top to bottom, his armed forces had zero loyalty for him and by and large his entire power structure was corrupt to the bone.
While I am deeply disgusted by the manner of his murder, I am under no illusion about the kind of regime he headed.
Yes, there is *a lot* of karma at work here…
I actually thought Gadaffi had majority support among the more urban and modern population but with the sudden fall of his forces in Tripoli and reports of jubilant celebrations in Tripoli and across Libya on RT he probably was as much of a tyrant as Saddam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PFIdm3WWQo
Not sure how much genuine popular support Assad in Syria has.
To the question of of what is forbidden in Islam: When Imam Ali was assassinated, he lived for a couple of days after the attack. The assassin was caught and tied up, but the ropes were tight. Then the Imam ordered that the ropes be loosened, that the man not be abused in anyway whatsoever, that he be fed, etc.
Then the Imam said that, if he should die from the assassin’s wound, that he should be executed in a single blow with absolutely no additional pain or suffering inflicted, let alone torture.
In his battles the Prophet of Islam absolutely forbade the abuse of prisoners: “Feed them the same as what you eat” he famously said.
In recorded world history, Islam was the first civilization to codify strict rules of war, more strict than even the generally ignored Geneva conventions in most cases. Once the Prophet’s general Khalid was fighting a man during the heat of battle. Just at the point where the opponent was about to lose the fight he announced his surrender, but Khalid killed him anyway. When the Prophet heard what happened he asked Khalid to give an accounting. Khalid said, “He just surrendered at the very last second to save his own skin; it was not sincere”. Nevertheless, the Prophet censured Khalid very severely and publicly, and refused to even look at him for quite some time.
Dragging Qaddhafi around and beating him while screaming “Allahu Akbar” is the height of anti-Islamic behavior. This scene is an example of what the Qurʾān calls the Age of Ignorance, of which extreme Wahhabism is a primary exemplar in the Muslim world.
Mrs Clinton’s bloodthirsty gloating was just as if not more sickening …
Peace
To the question of bodyguards etc … It’s quite possible they were all killed. Keep in mind that Sirte put up a very stiff resistance against Nato and the “rebels” for quite some time.
And the rebels would never have been able to take Sirte without Nato carpet-bombing the place; the city has been mostly destroyed according to many accounts.
I look at it a bit differently; it’s amazing that Qaddhafi held out so long in the face of what he was up against.
God knows best and
Peace
Keep in mind that Sirte put up a very stiff resistance against Nato and the “rebels” for quite some time.
Indeed. But in my admittedly limited understanding, this is not so much a factor of faithful support for Gaddafi as it is a tribal matter. This is also illustrated by the fact that the Libyan military did not, as such, put up much of a of resistance to NATO. The capital, in particular, collapsed at an amazing speed. No amount of NATO bombings can explain why an urbanized area like Tripoli collapsed so fast to a relatively small force. The examples of Beirut, Grozny, Gaza and so many others clearly prove that a determined infantry force can put up a fierce resistance even against a vastly superior force.
My 2cts.
“The capital, in particular, collapsed at an amazing speed.”
I’ve wondered about that, even the “rebels” did not expect it. I even wonder if Qaddhafi had some sort of strategy in place by not fighting for the capital.
I’ll be interested to read the real history of what happened, if and when it is written. I have a feeling there are more surprises in the story …
Your point about the tribal nature of the battle for Sirte is probably right. But Franklin Lamb has reported that across the Libyan tribes there is much distaste for the “rebels” and Nato as well … we’ll see how it plays out …
Peace
@Ishamid:I even wonder if Qaddhafi had some sort of strategy in place by not fighting for the capital
Yes, Saif al-Islam actually said that, but then the expected counter-attack never materialized so I would have to conclude that this was just grandstanding and a way to explain how the “rebels” got into Tripoli essentially unopposed.
across the Libyan tribes there is much distaste for the “rebels” and Nato as well
Oh that I am sure is true. Very soon all the non-Wahabi parts of Libyan society will realize what kind of horror expects them. Combine that with a comprehensive collapse of the former (very effective) social infrastructure, and we have another “Iraq” in the making: a developed, rich, sophisticated, highly educated country fully collapsing into violence, chaos, thuggery, extremism, tribalism and poverty.
This is the “democracy” brought to you by the US/NATO…
Gadhafi was a good man — “they” just couldn’t stand it — the murderers could not have been Libyan — more like the Arab mercenaries / thugs brought in by other Arab sell out (to NATO-Rothschild) countries.
With Gadhafi, Libya had the highest Human Development Index in Africa.
http://www.citizensamericaparty.org/libyatruth.htm
Remember folks, the media lies and deceives, and puts on a lot of staged stuff.