What's new

Your thoughts on Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (Saladin) ?

Richard the Lionheart was suffering. He had a fever and appealed to his enemy Saladin send him fresh water and fresh fruit. Saladin did just this - sending frozen snow to the Crusaders to be used as water and fresh fruit. Also in a later battle, when Saladin saw that Richards horse had been killed, Saladin sent him a new horse.....Saladin admired Richards, fighting skills,courage and bravery.
 
.
Salahuddin was not only a great defender and conqueror but a great human as well. There is a novel in urdu " TAREEKH IMAAN FAROSHOON KI" i dont know its available in other language or not but its worth reading novel.If any one wants to know about great sultan he can read that novel.
 
.
Initially he wasn't as good in character and did the same mistakes which were common for rulers at that time, i.e. abuse of power and killing of opposition. He then got defeated and his army was shattered, he narrowly escaped death in that war"https://defence.pk/#
https://defence.pk/#

For over 88 years the Crusader Army in Jerusalem had a policy of divide and rule where the various tribes across the Muslim world were pitted against each other on the basis of Fiqr differences. He was the General of Sultan Nur ad-Din whose sole purpose in life was to defeat all forces that were in the obstacle of creating disunity among Muslims. Hence why the majority of his opposition were either suppressed or killed. Pakistan needs a person based upon his character, where even on his death he did not even have one gold dinar to his name.
 
.
As already pointed out by Austerlitz, he was a mediocare battle field general as can be seen from Arsuf, but an extremely intelligent man who for example at Hattin drew his enemies patiently into the trap before cutting of their water supplies and eventually slaughtering them. His treatment of Non Muslims is well known since when he captured Jerusalem, unlike the Crusaders who slaughtered every Jew and Muslim in the city, he gave safe passage to all Christians to the coastal forts like Acre and Tripoli that were still held by the Crusaders. It has to be said that though that although Salahuddin was a remarkable figure in himself, he often overshadows his uncle Shirkuh and former liege Nuredin Zengi, who played an instrumental role in uniting the Muslims of the Levant from Aleppo to Cairo and thus surrounding the Crusaders states on all sides except the sea. It was this base that Salahuddin inherited from the aforementioned men that subsequently gave him the men and resources to gradually push out the Crusaders.

Probably the Greatest Muslim general, but he did behead all the Knights Templar and all the Knights of S:t John
captured after the Battle of Hattin, when they refused to renounce Christendom, in favour of Islam.
Richard, the Lionheart was by some (contemporary scholars) considered to be a war criminal, for doing the same after the Siege of Acre.
 
.
Probably the Greatest Muslim general, but he did behead all the Knights Templar and all the Knights of S:t John
captured after the Battle of Hattin, when they refused to renounce Christendom, in favour of Islam.
Richard, the Lionheart was by some (contemporary scholars) considered to be a war criminal, for doing the same after the Siege of Acre.
That was not any way Perfect time of conversion, Who gonna beleive in that scenario of War he asking Knights to abandon christianity & accept islam o_O
 
.
Salah addin is great figure in Muslim history but its ethnic origin is still up for debate. His parents were Turkish according to archives.
 
.
He is a lot famous in Muslims. He is like role model to most of Muslims scholars as well as their followers.
 
.
Just recently saw the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" this afternoon, and the character of Saladin caught my eye and attention.
The ending part when he enters Jerusalem and picks up a fallen Crucifix and places it back on the Church Altar got me goosebumps!

Was it safe to say he was a fair ruler? Did he treat Jews, Christians and Muslims equally?
He was one of The Great Rulers in HE HISTORY OF WORLD.
 
.
As already pointed out by Austerlitz, he was a mediocare battle field general as can be seen from Arsuf, but an extremely intelligent man who for example at Hattin drew his enemies patiently into the trap before cutting of their water supplies and eventually slaughtering them. His treatment of Non Muslims is well known since when he captured Jerusalem, unlike the Crusaders who slaughtered every Jew and Muslim in the city, he gave safe passage to all Christians to the coastal forts like Acre and Tripoli that were still held by the Crusaders. It has to be said that though that although Salahuddin was a remarkable figure in himself, he often overshadows his uncle Shirkuh and former liege Nuredin Zengi, who played an instrumental role in uniting the Muslims of the Levant from Aleppo to Cairo and thus surrounding the Crusaders states on all sides except the sea. It was this base that Salahuddin inherited from the aforementioned men that subsequently gave him the men and resources to gradually push out the Crusaders.

More than arsuf where both sides were at least comparable in numbers with saladin having a slight majority,and being faced by probably the best european commander at the time...saladin's limitations as a battlefield commander are exposed in the earlier battle of montgisard where his whole force of ~25,000 was surprised and destroyed by less than thousand templar knights and a few thousand infantry.
Battle of Montgisard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similarly we see his brilliant strategic understanding at hattin...where he basically won without fighting...and then at the critical moment after arsuf..where he refused further battle and forced richard into a hopeless logistical situation by employing scorched earth tactics.

As a man,yes he was more advanced than the men of his time...in nobility of character and vision.
 
. . . .
Probably the Greatest Muslim general, but he did behead all the Knights Templar and all the Knights of S:t John
captured after the Battle of Hattin, when they refused to renounce Christendom, in favour of Islam.
Richard, the Lionheart was by some (contemporary scholars) considered to be a war criminal, for doing the same after the Siege of Acre.

Not even close. You have to read about the generals of early Islam. You know those people who created the greatest empires the world had ever seen in terms of size, influence and riches back then and who defeated several powers of the time simultaneously. Their empires lasted several centuries and not a few decades like the Mongols that came 600 years after.

Undefeated generals with more victories in battles than anyone else. Such as Khalid ibn Walid (ra)

Khalid ibn al-Walid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or the Rashidun Caliphs.

Salah ad-Din (ra) was a great general and the vast majority of his army were local Muslim Arabs who defeated the Crusaders and Christians once again. He was born in modern-day Iraq. Tikrit to be precise. Of Kurdish origin but partially Arab as well. Most of his descendants now live in the Arab world.
 
.
Just recently saw the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" this afternoon, and the character of Saladin caught my eye and attention.
The ending part when he enters Jerusalem and picks up a fallen Crucifix and places it back on the Church Altar got me goosebumps!

Was it safe to say he was a fair ruler? Did he treat Jews, Christians and Muslims equally?

Good movie, I saw a battle scene where there were infantry archers dressed in Seljuk style, may be they wanted to show the detail that a big part of his army were Turks, even if thats not what they intended its still well thought, better then classic all turban&beard combination in orientalist movies.

On Saladin, well he was a skilled ruler, but he's indeed a bit overrated, mostly because he was operating in Holy Lands which had symbolic importance to both Muslims and Christians.

Edit: Found it
mtkz80.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
What makes you say that? Please give your reasons...
- He was very mediocre military leader.
- His dynasty did not last for long and did not leave any traces.
- He did not even eliminate the Crusader kingdoms in Palestine. They were destroyed by Mamluks 100 years after his death.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom