Jewish Journal

What Made Saddam Run?

by Reuven Firestone

Posted on Dec. 18, 2003 at 7:00 pm

What was the driving force behind Saddam Hussein's behavior? Was it his Arabness? His Islam? Or just generic cruelty?

There is a famous story from the Jahiliyya, that long period in Arabia before the emergence of Islam, about a Jew named Samaw'al (Samuel) B. Adiya. He was entrusted with the heirloom armaments of a famous Arab poet and promised to keep them (and the poet's daughter) safe until his return.

But the poet did not return. He had been poisoned on his way home, and his enemy demanded the prize entrusted to Samaw'al. Samaw'al was a man of his word and refused to deliver them to his friend's enemy.

He retreated into his fortress home, but the enemy managed to capture his son. Samaw'al preferred to witness his son killed before his eyes rather than betray the trust committed to him, and Samaw'al's name thus became proverbial among the Arabs to this day for fidelity and honor, even at great personal cost.

This is not a pretty story from a Jewish perspective, and Samaw'al did not follow the Jewish law of pikuach nefesh (saving the life of another), which takes precedence over all Jewish law, aside from the three absolutely cardinal sins of murder, adultery or public acts of idolatry. This was because Samaw'al's behavior -- in fact his entire identity -- was defined by a complex combination of influences.

Two of those influences were his Jewishness and his Arabness. Like Jews all over the world in those days and today, his personal values and behavior were influenced by a combination of Judaism and local cultures. He was both a Jew and an Arab. In this legend, Samaw'al's Arab identity overshadowed his Jewish identity.

There is no individual on Earth whose behavior is determined by traditional Arab culture alone. All Arabs are also Muslims or Christians or Jews. Even so-called secular Arabs are profoundly affected by the religious environments in which they have been raised. Culture is actually a complex matrix of influences, like the maps we used to see, where a basic geography is layered with plastic overlays, each one adding more detail and complexity to the picture. We should be grateful for the overlays of religion in human history.

With all the current condemnation of religion as the most dangerous source of mass violence, the truth is that Islam softened the old tribal brutality of Arabia. The greater the effect of the religious overlay of Islam, the greater the civilizing of the old ways. The less religious overlay over the old Arabian culture, the more barbaric the behavior.

Saddam was a secular Arab who emulated the mores of pre-Islamic Arabian culture with a passion.

Jahiliyya, the term applied to Arabia before the emergence of Islam, means hopeless ignorance. Pre-Islamic Arabia was the Jahiliyya because it was rife with senseless and unceasing violence and brutality until the softening influence of Islam.

In fact, the Jahiliyya was hardly different from the unceasing tribal violence and cruelty of old Germanic tribes before the mitigating influence of Christianity. The Vandals and Goths overran Europe, raping and pillaging as they conquered and destroyed much of the continent. Their lawless carnage was over when their culture was overlaid with Christianity.

But although the anarchic brutality was ended, violence did not really cease. The religious overlays of Christianity and Islam covered the old cultures, but compassion did not replace the old inclinations.

In both cases, religious organization simply methodized the madness and directed it outward. Witness the great conquests by the Islamified Arabs and the Crusader destruction by the Christianized Europeans. But slowly, the religious values of compassion began to seep into both cultures. This didn't end violence, to be sure, for human aggression appears to be a very basic part of human nature. However, religion softened the tendency toward cruelty in the treatment of the other.

Just take a look at the greatest perpetrators of mass violence in Western history. Hitler, Stalin and Saddam all rejected religion. Hitler and Saddam both tried to reclaim the old pre-religious cultures of violence: the so-called "Aryan" culture of the pre-Christian Germanic tribes and the old pre-Islamic Arab valor. Stalin, too, rejected religion in his totalitarian communism. True religious compassion would have diminished the murders of millions.

I am generally critical of Muslims who claim that their fellows who sin by murder or inhumane violence against innocents are not really Muslims, because such rhetoric abdicates responsibility for a brother's behavior. But in the case of Saddam, he really was not a Muslim. His cause celebre was the old pre-Islamic Arab muruwa, roughly translated as machismo and brutal manliness. As a Muslim, he would have strived for taqwa, roughly translated as religious awe and fear of God.

We in the West often confuse Arab with Muslim and indigenous cultural behaviors with Islam. Who could blame us? After all, Islam emerged as an Arabian monotheism, and it contains some of the old Arabian norms. But like Judaism, which represents a softening of the harsh and often brutal behaviors evinced from the Bible, Islam has softened the harsh and often brutal behaviors of the Jahiliyya.

Saddam was an Arab who aspired to Jahiliyya behavior. His brutality, like that of Hitler and Stalin, was not a result of his religion, but rather, a lack thereof.  

Reuven Firestone is professor of medieval Judaism and Islam and the director of the Edgar F. Magnin School of Graduate Studies at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.

Tracker Pixel for Entry


View our privacy policy and terms of service.