Ruba Mansour,osman li:
The critic on Saladin Ayyubi has no direct relation to his person, because satire or praise of Ayyubi has no effect on him in his grave, The attack here was on the culture of lying and believing lies, then ignoring virtues, emulating vices, and surrendering to inverted values. All of this led and continues to lead to a great distortion in the view of the event analytically, and consequently in evaluating the event objectively and benefiting from this evaluation.
We have Saladin and his stories and deeds, and we have the film director Youssef Chahine, who produced a film about the military leader Saladin, exaggerating his military power and downplaying his brutality, placing him as a human being in the ranks of angels. So, what is the impact of the introduction to Youssef Chahine’s film, which is far from the truth, on society? Did this society become stronger by exaggerating the power of Ayoubi? Did the people turn into angels like Ayoubi? Can it be said that Chahine’s positive film regarding Ayoubi is nothing but a process of self-deception and inoculating people with false information instead of the true? Where is the benefit of forgery when its rope is short, and the truth will inevitably appear sooner or later.
The perception of reality (truth) is not subject to the will alone, but to the ability to perceive and understand, and thus the ability to evaluate correctly, The greatest difficulty in evaluating Arab personalities and events lies in the inability of the Arab personality or the Arab mind, which is afflicted with imbalance and a tendency to ignore and the inability to comprehend the vast difference between victory and success in being able to recognize human moral values and interact with them. If the Arab personality in general wanted to evaluate something, it would evaluate it through a polarized logic, and the most important polarization here is the pole of violence and fascination with military victory, expansion, and killing everyone who stands in the way of the war pole. The mind polarized by war, victory, and narcissism sees only the good in military victory, regardless of the destruction and killing that accompanies this victory. It is a victory over life and thus failure, and this is the difference between victory and success. In the biography of Saladin, one can only see the victory of war and the warrior. What about the people whom Saladin defeated?! Sensitivity to evil and vice is a “crude” sensitivity, a lacking sensitivity. !.It seems as if killing itself has turned into a victory over life. Victory is the standard by which self-power is measured, and the more this power grows, the more it is attracted to it and identified with it. The dynamic military power has become a goal, a means, and a guarantee of the amazing ability to achieve victory in wars. The clarity of this mind’s conscience and morals was not clouded by the fact that Saladin had turned into a human locust that destroys everything wherever it sets foot, even the people of the Levant, not to mention the Egyptians, the Sudanese, and many others. What concerns Saladin concerns his colleague and partner, Nur al-Din al-Zangi, who practiced with Saladin a relationship of camaraderie-treason, a relationship of mutual betrayal (conspiracy). This was a characteristic of many relationships in the past between warriors seeking material or moral spoils. This characteristic found its way into the present in a form that revolved around the concept of conspiracy or betrayal that causes every calamity. The model of the concept of conspiracy (treason) is not limited to al-Zangi and Saladin, but rather includes most of the The heritage of religious controversy…the killing of more than 70% of the caliphs, whether they were rightly guided or not, only confirms the dominance of the concept of treason (conspiracy) over behavior. The sick mind is not concerned with success in life, but with victory in wars. The starvation of Allama Suhrawardi is not considered, important, or concerned. Saladin always won a battle, and the slaughter of Malik ibn Nuwayrah is of no importance in evaluating the morals of Ibn al-Walid. Khalid ibn al-Walid always won a hundred battles. The sick, blind, and insightless mind is unable to imagine the state of peoples under the weight of swords, such as the Drawn Sword of God, whose morals allowed him to practice slaughter in order to capture a woman, or as a punishment for those who neglected to pay zakat. How would this person deal with the beautiful women of the colonies and with the peoples who must pay jizya?? The limited mind is unable to analyze and conclude that the Drawn Sword of God is highly qualified to practice rape and mass slaughter with a pathological disregard for the value of life. Therefore, this mind resorts to subtraction in its evaluation of Ibn al-Walid. The Drawn Sword, may God be pleased with him, does not perform actions of this kind, and all that is said about him is Lies and deception stemming from hatred of religion. Khalid ibn al-Walid did not slaughter Malik ibn Nuwayrah, nor did he seize Layla Umm Tamim. The Al-Azharite accounts that boasted about his slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were merely an expression of hatred and deception. The noble Companion is infallible, and thus a role model!
The sick mind is focused on religion, which represents its sole wealth, and on victory, which represents the path to its wealth, just as the Bedouins are in obtaining the spoils of war. When there is no real victory, an imaginary victory is immediately fabricated. What matters is the feeling of victory… imaginary or real, it makes no difference. Is there really a parallel between the victories they claim and the victories actually achieved?