Libya’s revolution is in ruins

[Deleted L]

At 3:22 the man says: “I fought against Qaddafi with the Zintan and the Bani Walid fronts. Now if Qaddafi were alive, i’d fight for him.”

 

[Laagite]

Libya reminds me of 1991 Somalia

 

[Aurelian]

Libya is that kid that had a bright future after coming out from huge crisis, but everyone around him wanted him faile

 

[Deleted L]

Libya reminds me of 1991 Somalia

Good example. This is why rebelling against the Muslim rulers even if they’re tyrannical is dangerous and our scholars throughout history have consistently warned against rebellion, not out of love for the ruler but because the outcome of such rebellions is always chaos, foreign exploitation, disunity and more oppression. Atleast under a tyrannical Muslim ruler, the country is united and somewhat manageable whereas if he is forcefully removed by the masses (who often times are not politically or ideologically alligned), anarchy, destruction and absolute chaos follows after his removal. We seen this consistent outcome throughout history and even in our times (Libya, Yemen etc).

During the civil war, crossing into another warlord’s territory was a major risk. There was complete widespread brutality as this wikileaks article states:

“The ability of Somalis to survive in Mogadishu under conditions of widespread brutality and violence testifies to their resilience. To cross from one warlord's region into another involved major risk; sometimes even to leave one's house entailed major risk. Nevertheless, many of the bazaars and markets continued to function. Life goes on.”

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Inside_Somalia_and_the_Union_of_Islamic_Courts#After_the_Barre_Presidency_.281991-1998.29

Al-Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) stated: “There have not been a people who revolted against their ruler except that their condition after their rebellion was worse than before they rebelled.”(Minhāj As-Sunnah 3/231)

 

[Omar del Sur]

Good example. This is why rebelling against the Muslim rulers even if they’re tyrannical is dangerous and our scholars throughout history have consistently warned against rebellion, not out of love for the ruler but because the outcome of such rebellions is always chaos, foreign exploitation, disunity and more oppression. Atleast under a tyrannical Muslim ruler, the country is united and somewhat manageable whereas if he is forcefully removed by the masses (who often times are not politically or ideologically alligned), anarchy, destruction and absolute chaos follows after his removal. We seen this consistent outcome throughout history and even in our times (Libya, Yemen etc).

During the civil war, crossing into another warlord’s territory was a major risk. There was complete widespread brutality as this wikileaks article states:

“The ability of Somalis to survive in Mogadishu under conditions of widespread brutality and violence testifies to their resilience. To cross from one warlord's region into another involved major risk; sometimes even to leave one's house entailed major risk. Nevertheless, many of the bazaars and markets continued to function. Life goes on.”

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Inside_Somalia_and_the_Union_of_Islamic_Courts#After_the_Barre_Presidency_.281991-1998.29

Al-Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) stated: “There have not been a people who revolted against their ruler except that their condition after their rebellion was worse than before they rebelled.”(Minhāj As-Sunnah 3/231)

"U R MADKHALI JUST DESTROY UR COUNTRY BRO"

 

[Laagite]

Good example. This is why rebelling against the Muslim rulers even if they’re tyrannical is dangerous and our scholars throughout history have consistently warned against rebellion, not out of love for the ruler but because the outcome of such rebellions is always chaos, foreign exploitation, disunity and more oppression. Atleast under a tyrannical Muslim ruler, the country is united and somewhat manageable whereas if he is forcefully removed by the masses (who often times are not politically or ideologically alligned), anarchy, destruction and absolute chaos follows after his removal. We seen this consistent outcome throughout history and even in our times (Libya, Yemen etc).

During the civil war, crossing into another warlord’s territory was a major risk. There was complete widespread brutality as this wikileaks article states:

“The ability of Somalis to survive in Mogadishu under conditions of widespread brutality and violence testifies to their resilience. To cross from one warlord's region into another involved major risk; sometimes even to leave one's house entailed major risk. Nevertheless, many of the bazaars and markets continued to function. Life goes on.”

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Inside_Somalia_and_the_Union_of_Islamic_Courts#After_the_Barre_Presidency_.281991-1998.29

Al-Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) stated: “There have not been a people who revolted against their ruler except that their condition after their rebellion was worse than before they rebelled.”(Minhāj As-Sunnah 3/231)

Somalia was a shithole before and after Barre, more so after than before and its going to take decades before it becomes livable