Adonis Diaries

Archive for April 8th, 2009

Ideology: Not such a bad Concept before Ruling (April 2, 2009)


I believe that personal reflection is the best alternative for discovering a set of values (most compatible with our strongest passions) to guide our behavior.  However, there are many obstacles for any individual to access his own “ideology” of life.  First, the school system, family upbringing, community customs and traditions are as many diverse implicit ideologies that an individual has to comprehend and sort out. Second, it presupposes that an individual has reached enough maturity to believe that his reflections can affect the course of events.  Third, it presupposes that the governing institutional systems care about individual opinions and demands and are ready to examine them seriously.  Fourth, it presupposes that the individual has enough will, energy, education, and perseverance to discover his own set of values and ideological system.


Basically, an ideology transmits perceived habits and models for interpreting social and political conditions. To a lesser extent, an ideology communicates explanations and lead us to making choices for situations and events. It is my contention that every ideology or political party implicitly exhibits a philosophical line.

Since a philosophical construct is fundamentally a process of prioritizing our individual set of passions, that cannot be changed but re-ordered, then focused as a collectivity of like minded association, then it is beneficial for any ideology to debate the philosophy that is most compatible to its priority of passions.

It is up to graduate philosophers to analyze the party line and extract the corresponding philosophy out of hundreds that the human mind has constructed.  An ideology that misses opportunities to seriously debate its underlying philosophy is bound to fail as a gathering of focused passions. I am aware of a case where a fresh graduate in philosophy and a fresh member in a political party attempted to stick his personal philosophy to the party ideology instead of objectively analyzing the underlying philosophy and allowing free discussion on the topic; it was an opportunity that was missed to debating a rough philosophy that had potentials to be fine tuned and accepted by the collectivity of members.


Most political ideologies loudly claim that the members are the subject matter, that the members are the driving force and the main concern of the ideology.  That line of thinking should be the purpose of syndicates because that is the reason for instituting syndicates and professional associations. Political parties should avoid the technical hypocrisy of proclaiming that their goals are the members’ benefit. 

Members in political ideologies are simple cogs of focused passions. Fresh members in political parties are willing to slave for free and accept all the nonsense, constraints, and abject humiliation on opinion restraints because “they need apprenticeship period” to comprehend and thoroughly learn the mystery behind an ideology, as if it was a cult. Those individual cogs who regurgitate the political lines and memorize them by rot and spew them integrally are the one who accede to the higher echelons and then reap the benefits and advantages; there are no rooms for divergence of opinions on ideological lines, otherwise, a new ideology is in the making.

It is worth noting that those who accede to the higher echelons are invariably astute power grabbers but very limited spiritually because they fail to invest energy and time on personal reflections. Those limited minded “leaders” are imposed on society for needed reforms that invariably fail and leave tracks of long miseries and sufferings.


  Any ideology is inherently a cult with many super imposed constructs of myths and verbal testimonies of elders that are added as the rank swells; these abstract constructs are meant to increase the obscure notions and make the ideology more fascinating and enduring to the youth, simply because the ideology failed to adhere to an explicit philosophy of rational cohesion. Fundamentally, schisms are implicitly divergences on priorities of passions to focus on, which are interpreted as political differences.

Religions follow the same process as ideologies and end up splitting and forming schisms and cults.  The core of religions and political ideologies are of abstract constructs with the same consequences on societies.  The main difference between religions and ideologies is that religions invariably end up adhering to a philosophy as guiding rod and are thus enduring in all levels of life for many centuries.


Ideologies as religions are necessary passages for individuals’ spiritual development; they are the building blocs for getting aware and hopefully caring for human miseries and problems.  Ideologies are extensions to our spirit because we need the association of people to develop our soul.


Find me an individual who never joined a political ideology or at least cared in his youth to learn the ideologies of his time and I can forecast that this individual will specialize in his professional discipline and be a complete illiterate outside his field of specialty; he will end up a very narrow minded person with no heart or soul to count on for change and social reforms.  I would be uncomfortable dealing with an individual who joined an ideology in youth and never felt the need to re-examine his ideology: I simple cannot believe that a young person can be bright enough and wise enough to knowing his strongest passions before dealing with the real world and people.


In many moments in life we asked “what is the meaning and purpose in life?”   How about we start from the obvious?  We are a bunch of jumbled passions that drive our life and we ache to re-order our passions and discover the strongest passions that mean most to us. We want to be discriminated as an individual, not on physical traits but as thinking reflecting persons that have distinct set of passions that we managed to prioritize; we finally think that we know who we are and what drove our life. We want to be at peace with our soul and spirit.

What is the Meaning of Life?  (April 6, 2009)


In a previous essay “Ideology: Not such a bad Concept before Ruling” I dealt with the notions of ideologies, philosophies, and religions: their purposes and structures. I ended the essay with the following paragraph:

“In many moments in life we ask “what is the meaning of and purpose in life?”   How about we start from the obvious?  We are a bunch of jumbled passions that we all share and that drive our life; we ache by reflection to re-order our passions and sort out the strongest passions that mean most to us. We want to be discriminated as an individual, not on physical traits but as thinking reflecting persons that have distinct set of strong passions that we manage to prioritize and focus; we finally think that we know who we are and what passions drove our life. We want to be at peace with our soul and spirit.”

When we claim that we are in an introspection phase then we are explicitly finding time to sort out the driving passions that were predictive of our life path.  We all have the same passions at various degrees of power and interest that no outside processes can change or transform unless we consciously act on them to redirect our focus.  Introspections are highly useful conscious periods in our life to comprehend the strongest of our passions and set priority for future activities.  Basically, we are adopting a philosophy to life that is compatible with our strongest passions.  That is what we constantly do: we are addicted to constructing models because we are spiritual designers.  We want to categorize our passions intellectually, by our volition and labor of reflection.

Most religions have to erect an ideology and sometimes slightly update it to face changes; the sacerdotal castes main job is to pressure you to accept their set of values and morals as the best that characterize you.  In fact, religions do not want you to exercise introspection and learn your own characteristics; they want to “save you that hassle” and show you the proper way; they want you to be the man, among all same men, with preferred set of passions instead of realizing your individuality.  Only those following the preferred “type” are selected in heaven as on earth; the black sheep of strong individuality are not recognized in heaven because only the mediocre, the humble, the naïve, the simple-minded can be saved.


That was a good starting lead to answering the meaning of life.  I have a question: if you were to choose between knowing the “truth” or safeguarding and preserving your conscious then what would you decide?   I know that you will try to circumvent this basic query by returning a question with another one such as “Isn’t conscious linked to truth searching?” or “Isn’t knowledge an illusion?”

If even scientific facts should be recognized as statistical facts because uncontrolled observations have the tendency to show up occasionally and need to be categorized, understood, and then modeled.  If justice is fundamentally a consensus agreement among the jury then why do we cling so staunchly to truth or “absolute fact”? 

If “truth” is not reachable, if we know that any predictive model can be altered by surprised “chance” observations, if it is proven at every moment in our life that uncertainty is king and it loves to convince you at the most critical events, then why fight for truth and spread disorder for an illusion? 

Our scientific and rational mind is fighting the good fight and is persistent in its endeavor because it refuses impositions of religious abstract notions that have no foundations or convincing premises. Our scientific mind is not fighting “faith” but fighting the sacerdotal castes’ value systems and ideologies.

What about conscious? We can define conscious by its consequences on our nerves, its wrenching battle through sleepless nights, and through nightmares.  Conscious is the constant fighting between imposed religious set values and your strong valid passions that define your individuality.  We are battling to preserve our rightful individuality in a manner that would not shock the community as “crazy behaviors”. 

Most of the time we define conscious as how the community expect us to act and decide because religious belief system is enduring and hard to conciliate with.


You always have a choice: truth or conscious; and this dichotomy is not to vanish any time soon and you will have to select differently at many moments. This critical choice is our daily battle and our constant struggle to find meaning to our life.


By God, I hope that the set values imposed on me is the correct one.  I would hate after death to face up a reality that is not compatible with what I cowardly submitted to.  I would hate to be condemned for laziness in the mind or condemned for not acting according to my own labor of reflection. Justice is ultimately an individual case and what the community believed is totally irrelevant and redundant for supporting supposed clemency.

“The Parson and the Prophet: A Study in the Origin of Islam” (Book Review, April 8, 2009)


Note:  The Arabic Lebanese manuscript “The Parson and the Prophet” was published in 1978 in Lebanon, most probably by the University of Kaslik in Jounieh, a university administered by the Christian Maronite Order. 

As the various religious sects started dialogue, the book was banned and rounded up from libraries.  The author used the pseudo name of Abu Mousa El Hariri; I overheard that the real author is a priest in his eighties by now.

As usual, I tell the story and leave the documentations, references, and quotations for the curious reader.

The story is basically to prove the strong and frequent connections between the Christian-Jew parson (priest) Warkat Bin Nawfal and his nephew the Prophet Mohammad and the fundamental influence of Warkat on the Prophet’s message.


In Kureich tribe, there are two clans related to their great grand father Kussai.  The richest clan includes the close relatives of parson Warkat bin Nawfal, Othman bin El Howeyress, and Khadija bint Khowayled. 

The poorer clan includes the sons and daughters of Abdel Mottaleb: Abdallah, Abu Taleb, Al Abbass, Abu Lahab, and Hamza among others.  Muhammad lost his father Abdallah before his birth and his mother at the age of eight.  He was cared for by the eldest of the uncles Abi Taleb. 

Abi Taleb was the father of Ali who will become the fourth Caliph.

Parson Warkat bin Nawfal bin Assad bin Abed El Azaa bin Kussai was the leading “patriarch” of the Christian-Jew sect of the Epyonites in Mecca; he was of one of the most prosperous clans of Kureich and a leader of Kureich tribe; he translated one the versions of the Aramaic Mathew Testament known as “The Hebrew Testament” into Arabic. This Testament and a version of the Bible were the only Books or sources of the faith of the Epyonites. 

There were many other Christian-Jews sects and purely Jewish sects in Mecca and the Arab Peninsula.  Two other Christian-Jew sects were Cerinthe and Elxai (see notes).

These sects were recognized in the Coran, but they were considered “heretics” by the Church of Constantinople after the conclave of Nicee (Turkey) in 325; they were persecuted within the Byzantium Empire.  Thus, parson Warkat was obviously not a priest since he was not of the Orthodox Christian sect of Constantinople, but the lead predicator and administrator of his sect. These sects were known as “Ahzab” (parties or organizations) in the Coran.

It is not correct to claim that the tribes in the Arab Peninsula were only pagans.  The term Jahiliya or Ignorants was created by the Moslem converts as a historical dividing period between Islam and the previous culture. It is not also correct to translate “Ummy” for illiterate: in the Coran it means those who didn’t follow the Bible of the previous prophets; it could be appropriate to translate it as “gentiles” in opposition to Jews.

Parson Warkat took special care of the orphaned Muhammad, one of the youngest relatives in the clan.  He taught Muhammad reading and writing and translating the Bibles from Aramaic to Arabic. The custom was for the learned men to translate and transcribe as often as needed; first, to memorize better the Books and to have spare copies for the initiated who were ready to be transmitted the mysteries of the sect. 

Thus, it is not correct that Muhammad was illiterate. It was convenient for the early Moslems to spread this myth because:

first, they were trying hard to prove that Muhammad was indeed a Prophet and

second, what better proof that Muhammad is a Prophet if an illiterate could be so wise if not the message was not revealed by God?

As Muhammad grew up, parson Warkat invited Muhammad to join the restricted party of their leaders of Christian-Jews to the retreats at Gor Haraa.  Once a year, during the fasting season of a month before Easter (tahannoth), the party of the fasting people would survive on vegetables, yogurt, and unleavened bread. The retreat included praying, contemplating, repeating and invoking God’s name, and reading the Bibles in silence and complete isolation from the inhabitants of Mecca.

After the fast, they would circle Al Kaaba 7 times (like during Palm Sunday the Christians would circle the church 7 times).  This is how the Prophet Muhammad was trained to receive revelations. In addition to parson Warkat this party included: Adel Motaleb, Othman bin Al Howeireth, Abdalah bin Jahsh, Abi Ummaya bin Al Maghirat.

Parson Warkat arranged an employment for Muhammad at his cousin Khadija’s caravan business. Khadoja caravans made trips to Damascus and Basra. Muhammad is aged 25.  Warkat asked Khadija to marry her employ and cousin Muhammad.  Khadija was over 40 of age and twice a widower with offspring.

Khadija was  extremely wealthy and had many suitors whom she refused.  The two clans met at the wedding ceremony and parson Warkat performed the rituals and as long as Khadija lived Muhammad did not marry another wife as the Christian marriage requires. Thus, parson Warkat made sure for his protégé Muhammad to become wealthy, prosperous, and a potential leader and successor to his rank as “patriarch” of the sect of Mecca.

Muhammad had several revelations that scared him because he thought it was Satan (shaytan) or bad spirits harassing him; Khadija, aided by parson Warkat, reassured Muhamad of being selected by the good archangel to preach the message and Warkat gave Muhammad his benediction and sent him proselytizing among the people of Mecca. 

The poorest and those considered in the lowest rank of society started to listen to Muhammad and follow him and perform ablution and praying as initiated.  Muhammad could not be touched by the angry Kureich clans because he enjoyed the support of Khadija, Warkat, and his uncle Abi Taleb.

When parson Warkat and Khadija died, Muhammad was over 40 and he was left without spiritual backing or clan support.  Revelations stopped appearing to Mohammad for four years before Muhammad had to flee to Medina to meet the converts who preceded him there.  A new phase in Islam was unfolding.


Note 1: The Epionite Christian-Jew sect was discussed and commented on by the early Christian scholars and Bishops like Irene, Epiphane, and Origene.  The name Epionites refers to the “poor” in Aramaic such as “Blessed be the poor”. This sect considered Jesus one of the great prophets. Jesus was not God or Son of God who received the revelations after John baptized him and thus, the messiah spirit entered him till he was crucified. 

Jesus message was teaching and preaching the revelation, but didn’t include saving or forgiving our sins. The Aramaic Testament of Mathew is their only book in addition to the Bible. This New Testament of Mathew used by the Epionites was revised, slanted and distorted according to Epiphanous. This sect persevered on frequent washing for purification, not eating meat, and to focus on aiding and feeding the needy, widowers, and people of passage. 

After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, many of the priests in Komran immigrated to Hijjaz in the Arab peninsula.


Note 2:  The Christian-Jew Cerinthe sect proclaimed that Heaven resembled life on earth where the body will get its fill of every passion it needed to satisfy; that the role of Jesus was to free his people from the Romans; that Jesus message was political and social.


Note 3:  The Christian-Jew sect Elxai was Gnostic ( relying on knowledge).  It preached that Jesus is another human and the Messiah in him vacated his body before martyrdom.  The Holy Ghost is the mother of Jesus and the Angel Gabriel depending on events. Jesus received the Bible from the angel and Gabriel taught Jesus wisdom and the ability to foreseeing the future.


Note 4:  We know that Aicha, the educated and most beloved wife of the Prophet, has dedicated her life into gathering and organizing the revelations.  The third Caliphate Othman bin Affan selected among the revelations and verses and arranged them by order of length and the gathered book was considered the official Coran. 

The shortest revelations or verses are the first chronologically and represent the message of Islam in the first 13 years before the relocation to Medina or Yathreb in 633 and the successive civil management and organization of the converts to Islam.


Note 5:  In February 5, 2009 I posted “Islam: the two messages of Jesus and Mohammad.  A challenge to all theologians: Islam is one of the Christian sects” I had not read the above manuscript and my hypothesis was based on the content of the Coran in the first 13 years of the message.  The hypothesis can now be confirmed that Islam started as one of the Christian-Jewish “heretical” sects that were scattered outside the Byzantium Empire.

After the “hejra” to Medina, the prophet could no longer ask for spiritual counsel from anyone and Islam followed an independent direction.




April 2009

Blog Stats

  • 1,519,187 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: