Adonis Diaries

Archive for the ‘Islam/Moslem/Islamic world’ Category

Cases of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya…

Are secular and national concepts anathema to Arab/Islamic spirit?

The successive “freer election” processes in the Arab/Islamic States that overturned dictator regimes are bringing in to power Islamic political parties, with almost landslides. 

In Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt, where parliamentary elections have proceeded, the Islamic “Muslim Brotherhood” parties called “Party of Justice”, in emulation of the Turkish Islamic party in power, have captured no less than 40% of the votes. 

In Egypt, even the ultra-conservative Islam (the Wahhabi Saudi Arabia brand of extreme obscurantism) has come second to the “Muslim Brotherhood” party with about 25% of the votes…

The election laws and procedures are very complicated, favoring the political parties with heavy financial funding from foreign States such as Saudi Monarchy/ Arab Gulf Emirate States/USA..

.The Islamic parties are the best organized and have invested in rural areas for decades: Such as local schools, health services (dispensaries, hospitals…), social services for the poorer communities..

.Basically, filling the vacuum that regimes failed to cover and care for…

Religions in all States have the basic power of rallying the poorer classes and downtrodden around mythical concept that play on the hope of better life, if Not on earth, at least in heaven.

Islam is one of the religion that through daily praying practices assemble millions in specific location. These assemblies are perfect for propagating coded orders to elect specific candidates

Religious practices: Not meant for your state comfort

Posted on: May 3, 2020

In No period of worshipping history, religion was Not associated with killing one another, creating the notion of the sacrificial lamb, the collateral damages of the destitute, the downtrodden, the ignored, the unknown.

Worshipping is the pure definition of believing in a set of illusions and myths.

We believe in a God, a cultist system, the Nation, the Money, the Army, the Banks, artificial wealth that Not backed by readily exchangeable goods and services…

Mankind will keep worshipping any one of these fiction realities, even if half of mankind is slaughtered or trampled.

Religious freedom should Not be about “religious comfort.” In the way you want to practice your world view.

If government should protect my right to practice my religion, it does Not follow it is society’s obligation to make that practice easy or carefree.

If your faith prevents you from sitting on an airplane next to a woman who isn’t your wife, then move to another seat.

If your faith tells you you can’t go to the same bathroom with some people, then figure out how to order your life so that you use the bathroom in a place that seems appropriate for you.

If your faith tells you that you can’t sell wedding cakes to certain people, don’t go into the business of selling wedding cakes.

If you are Not a physically handicapped person, understand that we are Not obligated to satisfy your mental handicaps.

Here is story:

“Let me guess: the passengers were Not Muslims, and I leave you to guess of what religion and sects they were.
As I found my seat in the plane going from Germany to New-York, I began to notice that almost all my fellow passengers were men, all dressed alike, obviously part of a very observant religious group.

The man sitting next to me was a member of the group. I said hello and began settling in for the flight.

But just as I’d begun buckling my seat belt, my seat partner signaled for the flight attendant and explained to him that I would need to be moved to another seat: his religious freedom, he said, was violated by my presence, as his religion does not allow him to sit next to a woman who is not his wife”.

Sans la laïcité des lois au monde occidental qui permet aux Islamist fanatiques et autre religions de vivre en leur milieux, peut être que Daesh n’aurait aucune raison de se fourvoyer la bas?

A Muslim war leader, at the sold of the Caliph in Damascus, was the first to catapult Al Kaaba in order to destroy it, to kill a muslim who took refuge in Kaaba, who killed the grandson of The Prophet, who killed a Muslim while praying, and about 40,000 Muslims reneged as soon as the prophet died.

The first designated Calif Abu Baker spent his 2 years fighting these renegades with savage retribution, and led by the bloodthirsty and extremist Khalid Ibn al Walid. This same war leader who massacred thousands of civilians when he entered Damascus.

Folly of follies: Worshipping illusions

Mankind learned to fear and abhor death when he invented the notion of liquid currencies or money.

Mankind began to worship killing other humans when he realized that it generated quick money.

Only taking care of our daily tasks keeps us sane for the duration.

The folly of follies is when we indulge in maniacal routine daily tasks to avert the imminence of folly.

Task like constant dusting, frequent re-arranging furniture, cataloguing and ordering what we possess…

Why this rich culture still untouchable to investigation?

Mind you that Ignorance(Jahiliya) period mentioned in Islamic rhetorics meant period of the people still Not believing in the monotheistic religions

Posted on April 2, 2010

Islam calendar starts in 622 AC, the date the Prophet Muhammad fled to Medina (Yathreb) from Mecca.

The past or before date zero, or the culture and tradition of pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula, has been practically untouched by researchers and Islamic investigators. though countless wonderful poems of that period are published and even much richer than poems written after that period.

The period prior to 622 or year one of “Hegire” is lumped as the period of ignorance (Jahiliyya) by Muslims.

The Arab World still teaches pre-Islamic poetry and poets; it is mostly through these poems that the “Arabs” emulated the vocabulary and were acquainted with the very rich parts of pre-Islamic culture, traditions, and customs.

Fact is, you cannot understand Islam without the contexts that pressured the prophet Muhammad to compromise with the multitude of tribes allied to Byzantium and Persia empires.

We can claim that a curtain (hijab) has descended on pre-Islamic period simultaneously with the veil that descended on women after the Prophet death.

Thus, women were banished from political power and dealing with political affairs in public, two decades after Muhammad’s death. In these first 3 decades, the beloved youngest wife Aisha of Muhammad was the most learned in Islamic laws and the context in which they were voiced.

Aisha taught many generations of women on their Rights and how to dictate themselves the marriage contracts…and the society followed in these “liberal” new customs of free meetings and gathering, free discussions and poetic jousts…and newer fashions among the women.

And Aisha confronted many faked and false Hadiths (stories of the Prophet behavior and activities) until her death at the age of around 60.

This is no coincidence that Islam after Muhammad’s death had made the connection between pulling a curtain on the Jahiliyya period and the veiling of women in society; removing women from the public political landscape.

During Jahiliyya, each Arabic tribe worshiped idols made of wood or stone; there were many Jewish and “heretic” Christian-Jew sects (as labeled by Christian Orthodox Byzantine Empire) in Arabia and in Mecca.

The 3 most potent and powerful idols were female idols such as Al Uzza, Manat, and Al Lat.  Although the tribes made their yearly pilgrimage to Mecca where the Kaaba contained over 360 idols, this pilgrimage was mainly for doing commerce and enjoying the weeklong festivities and debauchery. 

The main pilgrimage (hajj) for the powerful tribes was to their preferred idols in other locations and towns.

The pragmatic nomads in the Arabian Peninsula and the neighboring deserts have created idols commensurate to their individualistic needs to vent their frustrations with periodic sacrifices, including “handicapped” babies of both genders.

During Muhammad’s time, baby girls were mostly the sacrificial human kind by poor families, especially in periods of great food distress.

Since violence, revenge, and frequent wars “razzias” against other clans were the norm for looting of animals, camels, and slave girls…  powerful female goddesses were purchased and erected for pilgrimage as scapegoats to the tribes’ violent activities.

Thus, female goddesses represented violence, symbol that violence and revenge are the mark of female behavior and dark spirit.

For example, goddess Manat (death) was the oldest idol and was worshiped by the tribes of Aws and Khazraj that inhabited the region of Yathreb, later called Medina (the first Islam City-State).  The original meaning of Manat is taken from a Semitic root meaning “counting of the days of life” that connote death (manya).

The temple of Manat was a natural rock (sakhra) on the coast between Mecca and Yathreb; the two tribes considered that the pilgrimage was not complete until they stopped at the temple of Manat where they shaved their head and offered sacrifices. Manat was a powerful goddess dictator (taghia) and swords were deposited in her temple.

The Prophet gave his nephew Ali bin Abi Taleb the two swords in the temple after it was demolished; one of the sword was called Zulfiqar. 

Representatives of the tribes of Aws and Khazradj had extended permission to Muhammad, after three years of negotiation, to settle in Yathreb with his converts after the tribes of Mecca decided to chase them out.

The other female goddess was Al Lat and was worshiped in Taif, a region on the eastern shores facing Persia.  The main tribe of Taif, the Banu Thaqif, erected square walls around the rock of Al Lat.  Most desert tribes, all the way to Palmyra in northern Syria, worshiped this goddess.

Al Lat had all the attributes of goddess Athena wearing battle helmet, breastplate, armor, and holding a lance.  Banu Thaqif was one of the latest tribes to submit to Allah because Muhammad failed at several expeditions to enter Taif.

Actually, it was Taif that was the preferred destination to Muhammad when he decided to flee Mecca but he was chased out of Taif after his failed negotiation to settle there.

The third most powerful “taghia” goddess was Al Uzza (dignity, physical force and power); the most powerful tribe of Quraich in Mecca consecrated her. 

Al Uzza was the most violent divine warrior and was represented in the form of a tree or three acacias trees and located way up north in Nakhla as Shamiya on the way to Iraq’s caravans.

The temple of Al Uzza was equipped with a slaughtering alter (manhar) called “ghabghab”.  General Khaled bin Al Walid was ordered to destroy the temple of Al Uzza in 630 after Muhammad entered Mecca peacefully as the victor.

General Al Walid was the Quraish leader who defeated Muhammad’s troops in the battle of Uhud; this failed campaign of the Prophet generated 3 years of civil unrest in the City-State of Medina and most of the verses that abridged female equal rights that were previously gained in the first four years.

Note: About ten years after Muhammad’s death, the Arabic Islamic Empire had extended vastly.

The governor Abu Mussa al Ach3ari wrote to the second caliph Omar bin Al Khattab: “You sent me several letters that were not dated.” Omar assembled a council to set up a calendar.

A few opted to using the Byzantium calendar, others the Persian calendar, but the majority recognized that a calendar means power and wanted an Arabic/Islamic calendar.

The discussions led to adopting the date of the Prophet’s immigration to Medina in 622 AC as Date Zero. Omar had said: “this is the year that divided truth from falsehood.”

Islam lunar calendar is of 354 days and started with the month of “Muharram”; the pre-Islamic particular month that prohibited wars and revenge among clans.

In pre-Islam, the tribes used to add one month on the third year for calibration with their commercial dealings. Muhammad forbid to add this month; thus, the Islamic calendar is one year ahead for every 33 Christian years since the year 622.

The Imperialist Origins of Saudi Arabia

By Yanis Iqbal / April 22nd, 2021

Note: I posted many articles on the Saudi monarchy and the history of the Arabian Peninsula. This is one of the exhaustive research papers

Why Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, a Sunni absolute monarchy, is enthusiastically supported by the West, and promoted as a global promoter of “democracy” and a peaceful entity in the region? This question is rarely asked.

The apparent mismatch between liberal democracy and religious fundamentalism is hastily airbrushed when the matter is about oil trade and arms deals.

This attitude is not an expression of mere hypocrisy on the part of the West; it is deeply rooted in a historical process, whereby the Arabian Peninsula was propped up by major powers as an outpost of imperialist interests and a bulwark against revolutionary ideologies.

Creating the Kingdom

Sheikh Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, was an 18th century peasant who left date palm cultivation and cattle grazing to preach locally, calling for a return to the pure beliefs of the seventh century “authenticity”.

He denounced the worship of holy places and shrines as denying the “unity of the One God”. He insisted singularly on beatings that led to inhumane practices: thieves should be amputated and criminals executed in public.

Religious leaders in the region objected when he began to perform what he preached and the local chief in Uyayna asked him to leave.

Wahhab fled to Deraiya in 1744, where he made a pact with Mohammad Ibn Saud, the leader of the Najd tribes and the founder of the dynasty that currently rules Saudi monarchy today.

Wahhab’s daughter became one of Ibn Saud’s wives. Ibn Saud utilized Wahhab’s spiritual fervor to ideologically discipline the tribes before hurling them into a battle against the Ottoman Empire.

Wahhab considered the Sultan in Istanbul as undeserving of any right to be the Caliph of Islam and preached the virtues of a permanent jihad against Islamic modernizers and infidels.

Lamenting the demise of the former greatness of Islamic civilization, he wished to remove all bidah (innovations/heresies), which he regarded as heretical to the original meaning of Islam.

Basing himself on the Sunnah (customary practices of the Prophet Muhammad) and the Hadiths (accounts, collections of reports, sayings and deeds of the Prophet), he wished to purge the Islamic world of what he viewed as the degenerative practices introduced into the Islamic world by the Ottoman Turks and their associates.

In 1801, Ibn Saud’s army attacked the Shia holy city of Karbala, massacring thousands and destroying revered Shiite shrines. They also razed shrines in Mecca and Medina, erasing centuries of Islamic architecture because of the Wahhabist belief that these treasures represented idol worship.

The Ottomans retaliated, occupied Hijaz and took charge of Mecca and Medina.

(Actually, it was the army of Egypt Muhammad Ali, at the insistence and persistence of the Ottoman Sultan Muhammad 4, and led by his son Ibrahim Pasha, later labelled the “Little Napoleon” by the French, that Ibrahim army entered Deraiya and erased it around 1820. Ibrahim took all his time to progress slowly and rally the tribes before advancing surely and determinately. It is after Ibrahim retreated from the peninsula, and after the British captured Aden in Yemen, that the British resumed their weapon and financial support to the Wahhabis).

The Ibn Saud-Wahhab alliance remained in the interior, with the full support of the British in weapons and money, until the Ottomans collapsed after World War I.

By 1926, the al-Saud clan – led by their new patriarch Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud – and their fanatical Wahhabi allies – the Ikhwan, or “Brotherhood” – once again seized control of the holiest cities in Islam, as well as important trading ports on the western coast of the peninsula. 

Like the initial advances of the 1700s, it was a campaign defined by bloodshed, forced conversions, enslavement, and the enforcement of the strict and eccentric laws of Wahhabism. 

It was also a campaign that was grounded in an alliance between Abdul Aziz and the British Empire. A 1915 treaty turned the lands under Abdul Aziz’s control into a British protectorate, ensuring military support against rival warlords and uniting the two against the Ottomans.

The intimate relationship between British imperialists and Abdul Aziz continued even after the dismantlement of the Ottoman empire, reflected in their close cooperation in the war against Sharif Hussein of Mecca, the Guardian of the Holy Cities, the chief of the clan of Hashem and directly descended from the Prophet.

Hussein had contributed the most to the Ottoman Empire’s defeat by switching allegiances and leading the “Arab Revolt” in June 1916 which removed the Turkish presence from Aqaba.

He was convinced to alter his position after Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, made him believe that a unified Arab country from Gaza to the Persian Gulf would be established with the defeat of the Turks.

The letters exchanged between Hussain and McMahon are known as the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. As soon as the war ended, Hussein wanted the British to fulfill their war-time promises.

The British, however, wanted Sharif to accept the division of the Arab world between the British and the French (Sykes-Picot agreement, two Jewish administrators) and the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, which guaranteed “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine through a process of colonization done by European Jews. 

These demands were laid out in the Anglo-Hijaz Treaty – written by the British – which Hussein refused to sign.

In 1924, the British unleashed Ibn Saud against Hussein. Lord Curzon hailed this as the “final kick” against Hussein.

Meanwhile, the Ikhwan grew increasingly angry about Abdul Aziz’s accommodation with the imperial powers that financed him. They disliked his lavish lifestyle, his family’s relations with the West, the relative leniency toward the Shia sect on the coastal region of the Gulf.

The Shia were actually being savagely repressed, but the desired rate of execution in forcible conversion and deportation were Not to the level expected by the Ekhiwan.

The introduction of new technologies (the telegraph, for example, was viewed as being of satanic origin).

Consequently, the Ikhwan began to openly rebel in 1927, shortly after Abdul Aziz signed another treaty with the British which recognized his “complete and absolute” rule of the twin kingdoms of Hijaz and of Najd and their dependencies.

The Ikhwani insurgents, after conquering the various regions of Arabia, began to attack the British and French protectorates of Transjordan, Syria and Iraq in order to subject them to Wahhabi doctrines.

They came into direct conflict with imperialist interests in the Middle East. After some three years of fighting, Abdul Aziz – with military assistance from the British Empire – defeated the rebellion and executed the leaders. 

(It was the same deal as done during the initial Nazi regime as the German army demanded that Hitler militias be dismantled, the militia that brought him to power. Hitler personally got engaged in arresting his own leaders in what is known as Cristal Night)

In 1932, Ibn Saud confirmed his conquests by crowning himself as king of a new state, named after himself and his family: Saudi Arabia.

The suppression of the Ikhwan revolt did not in any way signify the weakening of Wahhabi fundamentalism. Threatened by Islamic radicalism, the royal family co-opted the Ikhwan movement by incorporating its local leaders into the Saudi state apparatuses.

This laid the foundations for the backward ideology of the state: unity of religion and loyalty to one family, making Saudi Arabia the only state in the world that was titled as the property of a single dynasty.

Cozying Up to USA

In 1933, Abdul Aziz had to face a severe financial crisis because his main source of income, taxation of the hajj (Muslim pilgrimage), had been undermined by the world slump.

(Actually, the Wahhabis were intent on destroying the Kaaba (shrine) and forbid Islamic pilgrimage as anathema to their ideology, but Saud was reminded of the wealth he could generate from the Hajj seasons)

For £50,000 in gold he gave an oil concession to Standard Oil of California (SOCAL). The deal between Abdul Aziz and SOCAL provided crucial funds for the fledgling king to consolidate his precarious rule.

Indeed, at the time, his rule was so tenuous that Britain had more control over the House of Saud than the House of Saud had over their own recently conquered dependencies. 

SOCAL gave Abdul Aziz a $28 million dollar loan, and paid an annual payment of $2.8 million in exchange for oil exploration rights throughout the 1930s. SOCAL later merged with three other US firms (Esso, Texaco, Mobil) to form the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO).

This began exploration in eastern Arabia, and in 1938 production of Saudi Arabian oil commenced. The developing political economy of Saudi Kingdom quickly became linked to ARAMCO and its American backers, as the company built labor camps, corporate towns, roads, railways, ports, and other infrastructure necessary for the production and export of oil. 

These infrastructural projects tapped into subsidies from the US government that ran into the tens of millions of dollars.

During the Second World War, the role of Saudi monarchy as a reliable partner of a nascent American empire was strengthened. In 1943, Washington decided that “the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States” and lend-lease aid was provided: a US military mission arrived to train Abdul Aziz’s army and the United States Air Force (USAF) began construction of an airfield at Dhahran, near the oil wells.

These arrangement were to give the US a position independent of the British bases at Cairo and Abadan (port in Iran.

This airbase became the largest US air position between Germany and Japan, and the one nearest Soviet industrial plants. Washington managed to retain the base only until 1962, when anti-imperialist resistance forced the Saudi monarchy to ask the Americans to leave.

Not until three decades later, following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, were the Americans provided with an opportunity to reoccupy the base.

The relationship between the US and Saudi Kingdom was famously sealed in a 1945 meeting on the Suez Canal between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abdul-Aziz. The two leaders agreed that the kingdom would supply the US with oil, and the US government would provide the kingdom with security and military assistance.

Over the years, US presidents reiterated their commitments to Saudi monarchy security. The 1947 Truman Doctrine, which stated that the United States would send military aid to countries threatened by Soviet communism, was used to strengthen US – Saudi military ties.

In 1950, President Harry S. Truman told Abdul-Aziz, “No threat to your Kingdom could occur which would not be a matter of immediate concern to the United States”.

This assurance was repeated in the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine. The 1969 Nixon Doctrine included aid to three strategic American allies in the region – Shah of Iran, Saudi monarchy, and colonial Israel.

After the US-supported ruler in Iran was overthrown and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter issued his Doctrine as a direct threat to the Soviets, essentially asserting USA’s monopoly over Middle East’s oil.

Carter’s successor, Ronald Reagan, extended this policy in October 1981 with the “Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine”, which proclaimed that the USA would intervene to protect the Saudi rulers.

While the Carter Doctrine focused on threats posted by external forces, the Reagan Corollary promised to secure the kingdom’s internal stability.

Spreading Counter-revolution

The 1960s and 1970s saw the emergence of Saudi petro-nationalism, based upon the rapidly expanding oil industry and the growth of transnational energy corporations.

The petrol bonanza – driven by the western economies’ steady consumption of oil – not only filled the coffers of the Saudi state, but also provided the Saudi state the ability to spread Wahhabi ideology, Not as a minor creed of militant jihad, but as a cultural export to influence the direction of Islam.

(Actually, it was the insurgency of the Ekhwan after the entrance of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and their occupation of the Kaaba in 1977 that convinced the Saudi monarchy to revisit its origin and cow under harsher laws and customs, principally targeting women and exporting millions of their brand of Quran, free, and establishing thousands of Madrassas (religious schools) in the Islamic world)

Oil wealth enabled the Saudi royal family to counter the rival interpretations and denominations of the Islamic world, and spread its influence over the Ummah (the community of the faithful). In other words, the Saudi ruling elite attempted to project itself as the ultimate definer and protector of the Ummah.

The export of Wahhabism to other countries was a part of the post-World War II US-Saudi strategy, wherein the two countries were allies in their opposition to Soviet “godless communism,” with USA focused on communism while the Saudis were more concerned about the “godless” side of the equation.

Wahhabism also served as a counter-revolutionary instrument against Nasserism, Ba’athism, and the Shia radicalism of the Iranian revolution.

Saudi Arabia started an organisation called the World Muslim League in 1962 to “combat the serious plots by which the enemies of Islam are trying to draw Muslims away from their religion and to destroy their unity and brotherhood.”

The main targets were republicanism (Egypt Gamal Abdel Nasser Nasserite influence and invasion of Yemen) and communism.

The objective was to push the idea that these anti-monarchical ideologies were shu’ubi (anti-Arab). Saudi Arabia was also a central member of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), created in 1969 as a counter-balance to the socialist-oriented Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

Apart from this geopolitical function, OIC was used by Saudi monarchy to undermine its regional adversary, namely Nasserite Egypt.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 brought shudders into the palaces of the Saudi royal family, and into the US higher establishment. The overthrow of the monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi announced the creation of an Islamic form of republicanism. 

Iranian Islamic leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said that Islam and hereditary monarchies were incompatible and he characterized Saudi Arabia as a US agent in the Persian Gulf.

Saudi rulers felt threatened. They denounced Iran’s revolution as an upheaval of heretical Shiites, but to no avail as Islamic republicanism swept the region, from Pakistan to Morocco. 

Ultimately, the Saudis and the West egged on Saddam Hussein to send in the Iraqi army against Iran in 1980 and supported by all the colonial powers, including the Soviet Union, with all kinds of modern weapons and financial infusion from Saudi Monarchy and Kuwait).

That war went on till 1988, with both Iran and Iraq bleeding for the sake of Riyadh and Washington. (Over 400,000 Iraqi soldiers perished and 1.5 million Iranians. A ceasefire was announced as Khomeini felt that this war might resume indefinitely if he comes to die before an end to it)

Iraq, weakened by the lengthy war, turned against its Gulf Arab financiers who were demanding to be repaid, at the USA request. With insufficient support to rebuild Iraq, Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, threatening Saudi Arabia as well.

The US entered the picture with its full spectrum warfare – bombing Iraq to smithereens and providing Saudi Arabia with the confirmation that the US military would protect it till the end of time.

Once the history of Saudi Arabia is understood, it can be easily concluded that the monarchs of the kingdom willingly entered into a relationship of geo-political servitude to the West.

The kingdom would have had marginal or limited importance in the world if it was not supported wholeheartedly by the British and American empires.

With the significant backing it received by the colonial powers, Saudi Arabia became an international political player. With the help of their enormous oil wealth, the decadent kings and princes of Saudi Arabia have been perpetrating massacres and wars in various countries, such as the bombing of Yemen, the indirect attacks in Syria and Libya.

All this has been allowed to happen by the West, which provides both tacit and explicit support to the House of Saud in its myriad crimes.

As Che Guevara said, “The bestiality of imperialism…knows no limits…has no national boundaries”.

ISIS hates the original label of Daesh: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria

Posted on September 21, 2014

From the start, what exactly was the problematic of the colonial powers in calling the extremist Islamist group? An occupation that has taken over much of Syria and Iraq.

At first, many called it the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or (the acronym Daesh in Arabic).

However, due to differences over how the name should be translated from the Arabic, some (including the U.S. government) referred to them as ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, meaning Syria, Jordan Lebanon and Palestine).

(The US preference for ISIL iwas n order to satisfy the wishes of their obscurantist Wahhabi Saudi monarchy that is scared to giving the ISIS any further expansion schemes into Arabian Peninsula, the hotbed of Wahhabism and their homeland. Wahhabism is the extreme Protestant counterpart in Islamic sects)

To make matters more complicated, the group later announced that it should simply be called the “Islamic State” – a reference to the idea that the group was breaking down state borders to form a new caliphate.

(Or the caliphate title is thought after by the Saudi monarchy and Turkey)

A number of media groups, including The Post, the Associated Press  and, eventually, the New York Times, adopted the Islamic State, while others stuck with ISIS and ISIL.

Now the French have added another complication.

On Monday, the French government released a statement that included a reference to the group under a different name: “Daesh.Adam Taylor September 17 , 2014


An image made available on the jihadist Web site Welayat Salahuddin on June 11.

The picture shows militants of the Islamic State posing with their trademark jihadist flag after they  seized an Iraqi army checkpoint in the northern Iraqi province of Salahuddin. (Welayat Salahuddin/HO via AFP)

France had hinted that it would begin using this term – how the group is referred to in much of the Arab world – before, but this week appears to be the first time that the country has used it in official communications.

This is a terrorist group and not a state,” Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told reporters last week, according to France 24.

I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists. The Arabs call it ‘Daesh’ and I will be calling them the ‘Daesh cutthroats.’ ”

That logic is certainly understandable, and the French aren’t alone in bristling at the idea that an extremist group gets to take the moniker “Islamic State.”

Last month, Egypt’s leading Islamic authority, Dar al-Ifta, called on the world’s media to stop using the term, instead suggesting a new term: “al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria” or QSIS.

“The initiative by Dar al-Ifta came to express the institution’s rejection of many stereotypes that attach the name of Islam to bloody and violent acts committed by such groups,” Ibrahim Negm, an adviser to Egyptian grand mufti Shawqi Allam, told al-Arabiya News.

And a group of British imams recently called on British Prime Minister David Cameron to stop calling the group “Islamic State,” making a request for a new moniker, “Un-Islamic State,” instead.

“We do not believe the terror group responsible should be given the credence and standing they seek by styling themselves Islamic State,” a letter sent from the imams to Cameron read, according to the Guardian.

“It is neither Islamic, nor is it a state. Despite the admirable French logic, Daesh comes with its own complications.

As historian and blogger Pieter van Ostaeyen noted back in February, that word is a transliteration of an Arabic word (داعش), an acronym for al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham (which is itself a transliteration of the group’s Arabic name: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام).

There are a variety of different schools of transliteration, and there are a number of different styles for writing the Arabic acronym in Latin characters: The Washington Post uses DAIISH, but DAASH, DAIISH and DAISH are also used.

However it’s spelled, there’s another big factor: The group is reported to hate the moniker.

The Associated Press recently reported that the group were threatening to cut out the tongues of anyone who used the phrase publicly, and AFP have noted that the term “Daeshi” has been used a derogatory term in some parts of the Middle East.

Some analysts have suggested that the dislike of the term comes from its similarity to another Arabic word, دعس, or Da3ess.

That word means to trample down or crush.

Adam Taylor writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. Originally from London, he studied at the University of Manchester and Columbia University.

Syria: Fundamentals of this Land. Part 1

Posted on September 30, 2012

The first part focuses on the fundamental social and geopolitical conditions of Syria and the Syrian people.

The next article will approach pragmatically how the problems in Syria could be resolved, during and after the Assad regime…

1. Syria is Not determined by mountain chains and desert borders.  Syria is its rivers: The Euphrates, Tigre, Al Assay, Litany, and the Jordan rivers.  It is on the shores of these rivers and the Mediterranean Sea that the earliest known urban City-States (dozens of them) conglomerated and traded with one another and the outside world.

2. Syria is also “Arabic”, aside from the half dozen of other “ethnics”. Hundreds of tribes from the Arabian Peninsula settled Syria, many centuries before Islam was disseminated by prophet Muhammad.  These tribes were mostly Christians, the kind of sects labelled “heretics” by the Orthodox Church of Byzantium.  

Many of these tribes were persecuted and they fled to high mountain chains, or retreated temporarily to the desert borders, and fled to the Persian empire (beyond the eastern shores of the Euphrates) in order to sustain their customs and traditions.

3. Those “Arabic/Syrian” tribes converted to Islam, an almost identical religion as theirs, and were the backbone of the “Arabic/Muslim” armies that vanquished Byzantium and swiftly expanded eastward to crush the Iranian Empire and then toward Egypt and northern Africa…

4. The two Islamic Empires of the Umayyad dynasty in Damascus and the western Morocco/Islamic empire located in Andalusia (Spain) confirmed the Arabic nature of Syria and spread the knowledge of sciences, medicine, cosmology and philosophy for over one thousand years, as the dominant civilization in the Mediterranean Sea basin and in Central Asia…

5. Arabic is not just the latest add-on to the Syrian civilization and identity: Arabic is what gave Syria its lasting and defining identity and sovereignty, and the Arabic language was “modernized”, made legible, and acquired its universal appeal thanks to the educated Syrian people. The current Arabic language is fundamentally Syrian, and its ancestor language is the Aramaic and later called Syriac…

6. Syria, including Lebanon and Palestine, is the hotbed of interactions among the three “monolithic” religions (Judaism, Christian and Islam). Without the presence of these 3 religions in Syria, Syria will be lost as a special entity in the Middle-East, an entity of the convergence of their very similar customs and traditions for thousands of years…

7. Most of the ancient myths, mentioned in the Bibles and archaeological documents, originated from Syria, in this rich land of the earliest urban civilization

8. Syria is the land where most of the persecuted religious sects, fleeing the oppression of the dominant religions of the periods, settled on the mountain chains and eked out a harsh living, raising goats and occasionally looting nearby urban centers…

These minorities were ever ready to side with revolts against the pseudo central powers in Damascus, Baghdad, and occasionally Aleppo…Time to deal with minorities as essential in the fabric of the Syrian community

9. Almost all “Warrior Empires” originating in Central Asia, northern Iran, and northern Turkey…loosely occupied Syria, appointing military governors in the conquered provinces, just to collect the tax…

The majority of the urban dwellers accommodated with the invaders, traded economically and culturally, and eventually transferred their culture to the warrior empires.  

It is the Syrian people, craftsmen, architects, artisans, and skilled workers who built the temples, palaces, schools, the infrastructure…in the lands of the invaders.  

The archaeological findings in the warrior empires are the jobs of the Syrian people

Will Biden be able to stop Erdogan neo-Ottoman expansionism?

Christian Malard, International policy expert and diplomatic consultant

The Ottoman Recep Tayyip Erdogan is trying to reweave the nationalist fibre, through external provocation, because he is weakened on the inside by a sluggish economy and growing unpopularity.

It is a dangerous game because he wants to project himself beyond his borders and is once again seeking to settle scores with his historical Armenian enemies, whose genocide in 1915 was caused by Turkey (and processed and executed by the Kurds?). Which Erdogan denies. And that is a shame

Erdogan also defies Europe, the United States and NATO (Trump had an open and almost daily communication with Erdogan), of which he is a member, and above all Russia, on three fronts:

In Syria, where he provides military aid to Islamist rebels hostile to Bashar al-Assad supported by the Kremlin; in Libya, where he supports the camp opposed to Vladimir Putin; and in the Caucasus, at the heart of the Russian president’s sphere of influence. (And still, Putin is patiently negotiating Russia economic interests with Erdogan)

NATO, for its part, shows a distinct weakness by refusing to sanction him. Undoubtedly for fear of letting go the second most powerful army, after that of the United States, within the Atlantic Alliance. (Like what the Turkish army can come to aid against Russia army?)

Diplomats stationed in the region, for the most part, say that Erdogan is opening new fronts as a diversionary tactic because his cursor is set by the 2023 presidential election.

Erdogan fears late fallout from the “Arab Spring”. He still has in mind how his late friend, the Egyptian Muslim Brother, Mohamed Morsi, was ousted in 2013 by the military after a year in power.

And then, it should be recalled, first of all, that the Russo-Turkish alliance is an unnatural alliance, even if it has erased, in recent years, its numerous geopolitical divergences.

History is there to remind us that the Ottoman and Russian empires fought many wars for the domination of the Middle East. (Actually, the decision to get rid of the Armenians during WWI was because they consistently supported Russia wars against the Ottoman empire, as Germany was confronting the Russia emperor forces on the Turkish front.)

Until now, their good relations have been based on a common will to drive the West out of conflict zones and to take advantage of the vacuum left by Donald Trump’s America in the Middle East.

Today, we must ask ourselves two questions:

  1. Has the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict signed the end of this unnatural geopolitical alliance? And is Vladimir Putin going to want (and be able) to continue to use Turkey to divide NATO? For, by opening a third front in the Caucasus against Russia, Erdogan has called into question the status quo that Vladimir Putin maintained in the region.

2. If Turkey persists in tilting the balance of power, Vladimir Putin will no doubt end up coming out of his reserve. And the anti-Western policy will no longer suffice to mask the growing differences with Ankara.

Things aren’t looking good with France either.

It should be remembered that Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a Muslim Brother, therefore being an Islamist. And as such, it is unacceptable for him to hear Emmanuel Macron’s speech against the Islamist pandemic launched against the West and its values.

One wonders who Fahrettin Altun, Erdogan’s communications director, is mocking when he says that “the insidious policy of cartoons, separatism against the Muslims and searches of mosques are not linked to freedom of expression.

Erdogan, who had thousands of soldiers, lawyers, judges, politicians, journalists, Kurdish activists, etc… eliminated to establish his power. Is he best placed to give lessons on freedom of expression?

Erdogan wants to challenge the secular heritage of Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, which dates back to 1924, by initiating a resurrection of the Ottoman Empire. He seeks to appear as the best defender of Muslims throughout the world and the leader of a Sunni world in which he wants to compete with Saudi Arabia, which he classifies as an anti-Turkish axis, along with the United States, the United Arab Emirates and Israel.

Like Vladimir Putin, he took advantage of the American withdrawal from the Middle East to increase his influence and territorial expansionism.

Through this international outbidding, Erdogan aims to create a diversion to hide the chaotic economic situation in his country: the unemployment rate is 13% and affects 26% of young people.

And the Turkish currency the lira is collapsing against the dollar. So much so that there is no longer a sacred union around Erdogan, despite all the powers he enjoys.

His popularity is waning; his Islamist conservative party, the AKP, is torn apart since its defeat at the 2019 municipal elections.

His former Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and his former Minister of Economy, have gone into opposition.

And if the presidential and legislative elections, scheduled for June 2023, were held today, he would come out losing to his republican rival, Ekrem Imamoglu, who took away the mayor of Istanbul, held by the Islamo-conservatives for 25 years.

Weakened as never before on the inside, Erdogan tries to bounce back, multiplying provocations and outrages on the international scene.

But a question now arises for him: will the arrival of Joe Biden force him to revise Turkey’s foreign policy, at a critical moment for him internally?

Just over a year ago, Joe Biden called Erdogan an “autocrat” and pledged to support the Turkish opposition.

More recently, during the Turkish president’s intervention in Nagorno-Karabakh, Joe Biden called Erdogan’s bellicose rhetoric, including the use of Syrian jihadist mercenaries to terrify the Armenian population, “irresponsible”.

For the time being, Erdogan wants to be conciliatory, but we cannot be fooled by his manoeuvres.

As always. He bets on the idea that Joe Biden will ensure, like all his predecessors, the stability of his relationship with Turkey, so as not to weaken the Atlantic Alliance, which has several hundred nuclear warhead missiles on Turkish soil (to do what with these atomic bombs?).

This nightly Mass Graves in Nineveh

Nabih Al-Burji. March 9, 2021

The charge of the western colonial powers: Hezbollah has gone to Syria to fight against Angels!

Yes, no less, fighting against angels, otherwise we would have seen how the land that produced 7 Roman emperors, gave birth to the bishop of Rome (Pope Gregory III), has been transformed, by Abi Bakr Al-Baghdadi, Abi Muhammad Al-Gulani, and Abi Omar Al-Chechani, to a paradise for democracy.

Hillary Clinton, Obama, the western colonial powers, Erdogan, the “Arab” monarchies and Emirs knew how to devastate Syria and massacre its people. Weapons from the colonial powers and cash from the petro-dollar monarchies.

Instead of the Republic of Plato, the Republic of Abi Dhar Al-Ghafari…

Were Hezbollah fighters supposed to welcome the terrorists with open arms in the campaigns of Lebanon eastern mountain chains, those Islamic extremists who massacred our Lebanese officers and soldiers who were made prisoners?

Was Hezbollah supposed to believe that these terrorists, if they had access to the statue of the Lady of Bechwat in the Bekaa Valley, they would have knelt before it, and shed tears on the feet of the Virgin Lady, just as it was in Maaloula, in Raqa, in Qoroush and in Mosul.

We have all followed the Islamic State Organization (ISIS) in Iraq.

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi had to declare the Caliphate from the place of Hussein in Karbala, or from the Monastery of Mar Uraha in Nineveh, or from the Church of Mar Corgis in Erbil, not to mention the Yazidi ′′ Lalish ′′ temple near Sinjar.

Who prevented him from reaching Baghdad, Erbil, and Karbala? Ask the White House. (It was the Iranian fighting volunteers, commanded by Qassem Suleimani, who quickly filled the void in the Iraqi Kurdish districts and stopped the advances of Abu Baker riff-raff))

The American army has been in Iraq since 2003, under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Where were the Apache planes when the terrorists were swooping on the city of Qoroush (Qaraqosh) the historic presence of Christianity in between the two rivers, and when Christians were chopped off with machete and swords, and when they were spending nights out in the open for shelter from the ′′ graves night in′′ Nineveh?

Was ′′ Hezbollah ′′ in Iraq when Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi appeared, with his double character, and where Freudian simulation between Hulaku and Shahriar, and when the new Mongols, on the horse s’ rift, Mosul city, which once hosted, the goddess Ishtar?

We didn’t imagine that the Iraqi tragedy was so horrific (but it’s Iraq, guys).

Pope Francis’s visit made this tragedy a panoramic trip.

Especially the horrors Christians have faced. We ask the Pentagon about that Iraqi army that he built over a decade, generals flying in women’s clothes, and in women’s shoes…

The tribes of Yagog and Magog (Yajooj Majooj) were supposed to enter Damascus to be within steps from Beirut, and they attracted Abu Suleiman Uzbek who promised, promised, and promised, to set up a ′′ camp for women ′′ in Downtown Beirut.

How could′′ Hezbollah ′′ implicate the pseudo Lebanese “state” in the collapse of relations with others when he went to Syria (to fight against angels).?

Maulana Al-Khalifa was supposed to receive drum rolls, following the footsteps of some of the political system stars when they visited, with their precious gifts, and with their honorable attitudes, military killers in Arsal Valley.

Saad Hariri PM, whom Hezbollah raised him on their shoulders (and we always wished the resistance would stay out of the jungle), is advising one of his mediators to carry Hezbollah party as a visa to enter Riyadh.

Thus, after more than four months of spinning inside the vicious circle, the state owner’s media office discovered that the party is adopting the manoeuvring a way awaiting Iranian password that allows it to start seriously in forming the government.

Self-exoneration as a philosophical rule. Your cup, homeland… (Kasak ya watan)

We don’t know whether the leader in charge knows what the moral meaning of words, who accuses Hezbollah of evasive maneuvers, duplicit,…

May the advice not be spent to close the south road, and the Bekaa road, to besiege ′′ Hezbollah ′′ and to catch Saddam, do not thank his punishment.

Thus above the rubble (like a red carpet) enters the palace of the dove.

Despite all that, the doors of the government have not been locked in front of him. He is the one who locks it down…again and again.

What Black Swan Theory has to do with Arab Spring uprising?

Posted on June 13, 2012

I have posted several articles on the Black Swan Theory and this link is in response to its application to Lebanon political/social structure https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/is-lebanon-political-system-immune-to-radical-non-violent-revolts-think-again/

Zaher Yahya posted on Huffington Post an article (with slight editing) that is a general “refresher” post on the topic:

“The Arab Spring has been described and associated with a variety of symbolic designations.

At times, the term describes the series of protests that have swept across the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region. It may also indicate a person’s political position on the wide and highly polarized spectrum.

The term ‘Arab Spring’ has even been criticized by some who support the pro-democracy (or anti-regime) protests, citing this description as being Orientalist and therefore inappropriate.

The ‘Arab Spring’  (protests and upheaval), which started on December 2010, has become a brand for the region, and has motivated and catalyzed many popular protest movements around the world.

International media generally refers to the term as a unified concept, largely citing its contagious aspects as well as the key links between the countries involved.

We now know that the Arab Spring will not be an easy ride for the countries that it has affected, though it cannot be denied that the region has been marked by a political paradigm shift.

People in the MENA region have:

1. Denounced the long-accepted principle that unelected officials and family dynasties can cling to power for decades without consequence.

2. People have broken the long-standing barriers of fear regarding corruption and intimidation,

3. People are adjusting to the ideological diversity of their societies (though many still have much to learn on this front).

For these reasons, I tend to be optimistic about the Arab Spring despite much rhetoric about it becoming an Arab “Winter.”

Having lived through the global financial crisis that has affected people of all walks of life, I view the Arab Spring as being related to these events that shook the world economy in 2007.

Are you surprised that I find a relation may exist between these two events, both vast and far-reaching, but seemingly distinct? It may appear a tad philosophical, but the answer lies with Nassim Taleb.

Nassim Taleb (see note 2) lays the foundations  in his two books Randomness (2001) and Black Swan (2007) for his theories about uncertainty, randomness and Black Swan events.

Black Swan theory describes unpredicted major-impact events that effectively appear sensible in hindsight.

Taleb theory is framed in a financial context, (many experts contend that Taleb forecasted the financial meltdown of 2007), and describes the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s as one of these Black Swan moments.

Black Swan moments are characterized as being rare, high-impact and paradoxically unpredictable occurrences at the time of their occurrence. Most of us would assume black swans don’t exist, simply because we were only accustomed to seeing white swans in pictures and videos…

In the terms of the financial crisis, speculators assumed there is only one way for the markets to go; asset values would rise indefinitely with no limit to the amount of debt people could incur.

It has become clear afterward that the reality on the ground was different of what was written on their balance sheets and portfolios bottom lines.

The impact of the debt crisis was colossal and wide-spread that no expert envisaged at the time, with many talking about the failure of capitalism as a result. This global crash has really shattered the image and ultimate authority of the dictators of the finance sector (i.e. investment banks and hedge funds).

The Arab spring proved as difficult to predict as the financial meltdown showing economists, intelligence agencies, policy makers and analysts clueless about their own business, simply because they have never considered a Black Swan moment for the MENA region.

The Arab Spring was triggered by what could initially have been interpreted as an isolated event, spread surprisingly fast over a vast region, and led to major and unexpected developments.

In the same way, norms of the banking system that was held for generations collapsed with stunning speed and magnitude, the image and privilege of Arab dictators were shattered by popular revolts in a movement that took the world by surprise.

A Black Swan moment was never considered in the experts’ minds to apply to the Arab States: many Arab dictators held a seemingly unshakable iron grip on power and ruled undeterred for up to four decades, all while preparing their sons to someday take the reins after them, unshaken by popular and economic conditions in their country.

So the public witnessed only their moukhabarat (secret service agents) running the show, as well as the brutal backstage of the regime if you were unlucky enough to pay them a visit.

Years of tradition made this construction of power a social norm, a backbone of society so persevering it was often assumed (and reasonable at the time) to be unshakable.

And this is exactly what Nassim Taleb focuses on, exactly on the things we don’t know rather than the things we think we do.

A small exception to a rule (events in the tails of the normal graph) in the future can have the ability to trigger large-scale change and dismantle norms, theories and paradigms that have been accepted for years.

The colossal impact of the Arab Spring across the region was beyond anyone’s realm of expectations – either idealistic or highly calculated.

In the world of risk management, this event appeared highly unlikely: The probability of such events spreading across such a vast region were not on the minds of political forecasters, in the same way so many bankers did not fathom their long-standing stability could be shattered so suddenly.

In hindsight, the Arab Spring may now appear to have been predictable.

How could we have assumed that despite torture, censorship, abuse, brutality, corruption, unemployment and poverty, regimes would remain sustainable?

Whatever your opinion of the Arab Spring, and whatever term you choose to designate it, what started in December 2010 has proven itself a Black Swan moment of the Middle East and North Africa, one that is far from over, and whose impact will perhaps take years to fully assess.

Note 1Michelle Ghoussoub, Blogger at Lebanon Spring, edited Yahya article.  Follow Zaher Yahya on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheZako

Note 2: Nassim Taleb is a renowned Lebanese-American statistician, best-selling author and former Wall Street trader. His books Fooled by Randomness (2001) and Black Swan (2007) brought him to fame, with the latter described by The Sunday Times as “one of the twelve most influential books since World War II”.

Note 3: Opinion experts would like us to believe that the uprising were not expected by the US. Evidences are pointing that what was unexpected is the development, steadfastness and far-reaching movement of the Arab people to get away with their long established indignities and humiliation by usurping oligarchies.

Note 4: What is of most importance is to study how the colonial powers and Saudi Kingdom, and monarchic regimes went about taming this mass upheaval and re-instituting dictators power in the MENA region. Only the fomenting of the extremist religious movements were the major barriers in resuming these mass upheaval.

Book review of Genevieve Chauvel

Note: If you missed Part 1, go to this link https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2021/03/03/most-beloved-wife-of-prophet-muhammad-aicha/

Shortly after his return to Medina, Muhammad suffered from terrible headaches for a month; he asked Abu Bakr to preach in his place when he was bedridden.  The Prophet dies on June 8, 632; he was 63 years old.

Aicha was apprehensive that her father might succeed to the Prophet with the subsequent responsibilities, and asked Omar to preach instead, since he had a loud voice and a large body. Muhammad got irate for Aicha involvement in altering his decision, and demanded that Abu Baker resume the preaching.

Omar would not believe that the Prophet could die and threatened anyone who says so; then Abu Bakr told the congregation “Muslims, those among you who adore Muhammad, Muhammad is dead.  Those who adore God, God is living”.

Ali was to wash the body and arrange for the funeral. The Companions elected Abu Bakr Caliph in the absence of Ali who was the closest member in the prophet’s “House”.

Abu Bakr reminded the Muslims what the Prophet told him once: “All prophets were buried at the place of their death”; and thus Muhammad was buried in Aicha’s bedroom.  Aicha replaced the bed on top of the burying ground and continued sleeping there.

Abu Bakr would Not distribute the Prophet’s inheritance to anyone of his wives or family members because Muhammad has told him that prophets’ belonging went to charities. 

Fatima died 6 months later as Mohammad has predicted, aggrieved and desperate.

Under Abu Bakr, Aicha, aided by Zayd ibn Thabit, got the huge responsibility of gathering and collecting all the parchments and written verses and the early oral verses of the Koran and then sorting them, verifying their authenticity, correcting and compiling them.

Aichi was not yet twenty years old.  Abu Bakr died within two years and was also buried in Aicha’s bedroom next to the Prophet. 

At the time of his death, Khalid ibn Al Walid had vanquished the Byzantine Emperor at Yarmuk and was advancing toward Damascus. (This Khalid committed mass massacres in Damascus for 3 days and nights, and for no sane reason)

Omar was selected by Abu Bakr to be the next Caliph. Omar extended Islam to Persia by a victory in Qadissiya and toward Egypt. 

Omar was assassinated by a Christian slave while praying in the Mosque in Medina; Omar also asked permission of Aicha to be buried in her bedroom.  By then, Aicha was the ultimate interpreter of the Koran and had issued 2,210 Hadiths and was the expert in women’s legal right or “Fiqh Al Nisaa”.

On his deathbed, Omar appointed a Council of five Companions from the tribes of Quraish (excluding the Ansar leaders) to elect the next Caliph.  Uthman ibn Affan was selected and Aicha had misgivings on how he might manipulate the masses of documents collected on the verses of Islam.  Omar left the documents with his daughter Afsa to hand over to the next Caliph.

Uthman ended up exercising nepotism and appointing relatives as governors and civil servants in high offices and he built a palace and lived luxuriously with 500 serfs maintaining the palace and organizing the feasts. 

The new Caliph appointed Jewish scholars to select and revise the documents collected by Aisha and published a new version of the Koran, the one being read and accepted.

Aicha got wind of the alterations to the parchments and came out of her house carrying the sandals and shirts and hair of the prophet and shouted at the caliph: “The Prophet’s belongings had not had time to deteriorate and you started to turn your back on his teachings”.

(My conjecture is that Uthman hired scholar Jews to select and re-edit the parchments to match the messages in their Bible, and its is this Koran that is currently adopted, except the version disseminated by the Wahhabi in the Saudi Kingdom. Uthman destroyed many documents that the new Islamic empire needed to woe, especially in matters of imposing taxes, and delivering a patriarchal overtone to the Koran. So far, no original documents have been made public to study their validity. Mind you that the original documents had no punctuation or any kinds of signs or complicated embellishment you see in current versions…The documents/verses could be read as Kerouac “On the Road” or Schelinger “Catcher in the rye”, and were ripe for interpretations)

Aicha had a copy of all the documents and she rewrote her version of the Koran. (There is no information of what happened to these copies)

A large dissatisfied mob of Muslims, who were manipulated by “extremists” in Basra (Iraq), marched on Medina. Aicha had premonition that the arriving mob is bad news and got permission from Uthman to leave for pilgrimage with the harem.  The mob entered the palace of Uthman burned it asunder and stabbed and beat the Caliph to death. (Probably the invading “mob” had wind of Uthman tampering with the Koran and disseminating luxury attitudes and practices that did Not match the conservative understanding of Islam).

Ali was elected Caliph but refrained to give the revenge for the murder of the Caliph Uthman a priority. His lukewarm behavior prompted Aicha to action and she started delivering speeches in Mecca to the effect that the punishment of the leaders of assassins should be carried out first thing first. 

Her brother-in-law Zubair and another Companion Talhat excited Aicha to lead a contingent of 3,000 fighters to Basra.

Ali was on his way to Damascus to fight Moawiya, the governor of Syria, and stopped at Kufa to recruit more fighters and had to challenge Aicha before resuming his campaign. 

Aicha, Zobair and Talhat managed to recruit an army of 30,000 men against 20,000 with Ali. 

The battle of the “Camel”, the first among the Muslims, left 15,000 victims and injured among the Muslim fighters which affected Aicha for the remainder of her life.

Talhat and Zubair died in the battle. Aicha was riding hidden in a palanquin and exhorting her army to fight. Ali ordered his officer to cut the hand of the camel guide so that the camel could be moved from the center of the battle field; guides took the relay and 72 camel guides left theirs hands on the rope before the camel’s hamstrings were cut and was brought down and the battle cry and symbol of “The Mother of the Believer” finally relinquishing its effect on the troops.

Ali permitted Aicha to return to her home in Medina and she was escorted as a Queen. One of Muawiya’s delegates told Aicha that they wished she died in the battle so that the allies of Moawiya would have had an excellent excuse to fight Ali.

Aicha spent the remaining of her life in her house, receiving scholars and students who regarded her as the main resource for correct interpretations of the religious verses and taking notes of her experiences.

Aicha was initially the only virgin in the extended harem, and whatever she knew of love making was of the initiation of Muhammad. 

A specific revelation forbade Muhammad’s wives to remarry and also to remain in their homes and to be covered completely and wear the “niqab” on their face when stepping outside their doors or meeting males.

The effects of the assassination of Uthman didn’t end up there.  Muawiya raised the same reason of avenging Uthman to engage Ali in a terrible battle at Seffine in Syria: the bloodied shirt of Uthman hanging in the Mosque of Madina demanded retribution and the Arabs coined the dictum “the Shirt of Uthman” to convey the meaning that the reason offered is but an excuse for the power struggle.  

There were no victors in this battle that was leaning toward Ali army, and a large contingent of Ali’s army dissented because Ali agreed to arbitrage. These dissenters were labeled Al Khawarij and were led by Abdullah ibn Wahab (A coincidence? The actual Saudi Monarchy sect is founded on a Wahhabi preacher): they went on assassination rampage against the leading followers of both Ali and Muawiya.

The Khawarij failed to assassinate Muawiya (just injured) but killed Ali in Kufa.  Ali refused to name anyone to succeed him as Caliph and said to his followers that he would not disagree with anyone they select.

Aicha was to say “this is typical Ali’s ambiguity” as she forecasted the worst to the unity of the “Umma” or Nation of Islam.

Muawiya was elected Caliph and the power became hereditary and the period is known as the Umayyad (the most powerful tribe of Quraish) reign in Damascus, which lasted for a century before the Abbasid (The house of Abbass, the Uncle of Muhammad) succeeded in taking power in Baghdad for two centuries. 

The occupied Central Asian people converted Sunni sects and their tribes were to dominate the political and religious landscape for over 10 centuries. 

Muawiya sent assassins to ged rid of any potential leaders related to the Prophet , but spared Aisha.

Aicha lived to experience the death of many of her male family members. 

Hassan, the son of Ali, was assassinated by his wife enticing Hassan to wear the poisoned dress given to him as a gift by Muawiya.  Muawiya then slaughtered Hassan’s wife to hide his schemes with her.

Notes:

  1. The Prophet had two sons who died before the age of two.  Ali, his nephew who married his youngest daughter Fatima, was the only male in his “House”.  Muhammad appointed Ali to read the religious messages in meetings where the Prophet could not be present.  Ali and Abu Bakr were the most learned males, among the early Companions, on Islam, but Aicha was the best and she was present during many revelations of “Archangel Gabriel” in her house.
  2. Ali was the most qualified to be the Imam of Islam, but since there was yet no separation between the political and religious functions, then Ali had to seek power as Caliph.  Ali lacked the political acumen and the qualities of a government leader because he was constantly plagued with ambiguities as a result of his vast religious knowledge and his apprehension to err in his decisions. Schism developed during his short five years reign and the Shia sects (the followers of Ali’s second son Hussein) emerged as a counterpart to the Sunni sect representing the legitimate Muslims.
  3. The Prophet Muhammad was highly literate https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/the-parson-and-the-prophet-book-review/

adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

October 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Blog Stats

  • 1,482,115 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 811 other followers

%d bloggers like this: