Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Caliph Abu Bakr

“Why I was not asked to vote?”

A young man took the podium and talked. He said:

You the immigrants (converts to Islam who moved from Mecca to Medina); it is true that you were the first to embrace Islam.  But everyone later received the same privilege. 

After the Prophet death (632 AC) you have designated a man among you (first caliph Abu Bakr) to become the first successor; we, the common Moslems, were not consulted.

Again, you the elite immigrants have met in council (Shawra) and designated the second Caliph (Omar bin al Khattab) and we were not asked our opinion. 

You voted for the third Caliph (Othman Bin Affan) without our input.

You didn’t like Othman after 13 years of ruling us, and you assassinated him. 

You again designated Ali bin Abi Taleb for fourth caliph and the common Moslems were not invited to extend their opinions and preferences. 

Now you don’t like Ali.  What are you reproaching him for? Why have you decided to fight him by the sword? 

Has he done any reprehensible acts?  Is his election illegal, illicit or fraudulent?

Tell us why you want us to start a civil war (fitna)? You have got to surely convince us to join the battle. 

Tell us what it is all about? Why are you fighting?”

These are not current statements of a Moslem, Sunni or Shia or of another Islam sect. They were pronounced by a simple Moslem 1,400 years ago, during the first Islam civil war called the Battle of the Camel.

Aicha emulated the same tactics as the Prophet did before any military excursion: She negotiated with notables in Basra, explained the reasons of her dangerous move (it was to be the first civil war in Islam) and she opened free discussions for people to express their opinions in the mosque.

Mosques were the proper locations for open discussions under the protection of Allah.

Since time immemorial, the most common form of electing leaders is the peer council forum, (or Shawra in Islam) in political and professional voting systems.

It took the American revolution over 6 decades before attempting a modified form of universal voting system during President Andrew Jackson.

Pragmatically, the peer format is still practiced in the most democratic and developed States. It is the peer council that select the candidate, finance and organize political campaigns.

Even today, most political parties put forth the ideology that peer systems are the most viable systems in order to select experienced and reliable candidates who proved to be consistent and have conforming attitudes to the status quo.

Most political leaders who managed to succeed in their revolutions were convinced that no power can rely on the common people to snatch, sustain and consolidate institutions.

Peasants were historically catalogue as the most conservative and retrograde of citizens. The core members, and professional intelligentsia were considered to be the backbone for any renewal.

The leaders relied on a circle of experienced and professional activist and manipulators to organize, lead and control the movement of the masses.

The rhetoric and speeches of the political leaders fool the crowd into believing that they are the real power and that what is being done in their name is what’s best for them and for the nation.

May be peer councils is the case pragmatically, but universal voting systems, supported by a fair election law, have this major benefit of short-cutting the advent of virulent, violent and bloody insurgency movements.

Societies need a large span of peaceful continuity and stability in the laws in order to consolidate legitimacy and strengthen the institutions and to insure steady development.

The fact is that the developed superpower colonial States have devised a couple of Default political systems for the developing countries to emulate. For example, Democracy is in and Liberty is out. Free trades is in and self sufficiency is out… Otherwise, all hell of State supported media will come down on these retrograde political systems

Why Islam clerics engage in falsehoods? On miracles stories, the Coran, Prophet, language…?

Why Islam imams, clerics, sheikhs, Wali Fakih, Mufti…disseminate falsehoods based on stories (hadith, of what Muhammad said or did or discussed or behaved…) and engage in the culture of ignorance, and insist on substituting the reflective mind to miraculous events related to the education of the Prophet, the state of the Arabs before the advent of Islam, how the Coran was written, the Arabic language…?

This post targets Islam political exigencies in disseminating religious falsehoods, but most of the processes are valid to other religions, and particularly to Christianity and Judaism, and every sects branching off.

The stories in the “hadith” were specifically meant to empowering and consolidating the rule of the standing caliphs, monarchs, emirs…Unfortunately, the debates and extremist positions are specifically extracted from what was reported in the Hadith, and almost never from the verses of the main book of the Coran.

After Muhammad died, scores of tribes defected from the community of believers in Medina and dissented. The first Caliph Abu Bakr waged relentless battles and used all kinds of means for two years to bring these tribes back into Islam.  The most potent mean was to disseminate the belief that everything that was done or written emanated from the “Only God”.  Just after Muhammad died, Abu Bakr’s daughter Aicha (the most beloved wife of the prophet and the most versed in Islamic laws) asked her father to deliver this critical statement: “Muhammad was human and he died, but God Almighty is eternal…”

Here are a sample of falsehoods, and the list can run for several pages:

The Prophet Muhammad was very literate and could speak and write in more than one language and was exposed to many cultures and the various religious sects (Christian, Jewish, and mostly Christian-Jewish sects banned by the Empire of Byzantium and labelled heretics) that were prevalent in the Arabic Peninsula, Syria, and Iraq.  Why Islam would like the Moslems to believe that Muhammad was totally illiterate?  Is illiteracy one of the good miracles that Arabs should expect in their lives and see as good omen to the appearance of their Prophet?

Islam mainstream was made to believe that the culture of the Arabs in the Arabic Peninsula was totally of an ignorant tribal society (Jahiliyya) and didn’t learn to read or write…Fact is, even the poorest people in Mecca could read and write and the their poorer captives in the battle of Badr were to teach the Moslems in Medina, because they could not afford to pay for their release.

Before Islam, there were over 100 tribes who were Christians or Jewish or basically “heretic” Christian-Jewish sects.   The best epic poems, at least 8 of them, were written in gold ink on the curtains of the Kaaba, and many of these poems surpassed the epic poems of Greeks and Romans.  One of the greatest poet was Omro2 al Kaiss who was a Christian…

Writing on papers and papyrus was widespread in the Arabic Peninsula, and the Arabic language was already an established dialect of Aramaic, spoken in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine.  What is actually meant by Ummi (Ignorant) is not being illiterate, but lacking a unified written Holy Book among the polytheist tribes to refer to it for moral conduct…

For example, in 1926, the late Egyptian author Tah Hussein published “On poetry in Jahilyya” (the pre-Islamic period in the Arabic Peninsula.)

“On poetry in Jahilyya” Hussein claimed that his critique is Cartesian; which means a rational method requiring the author to “forget” or set aside all that he knew on a subject matter and then, starts with a clean sheet re-studying the topic from a rational and scientific perspective. (Obviously, the sentence “forgetting what we knew” cannot be feasible; saying that an author has to do his best to starting with a neutral position might seem more accurate, but it is not:  How can you get interested in a topic if you are essentially neutral about it?)

In one of the chapters of this monumental manuscript, Hussein proposed several views.

First, Hussein claimed that Abraham is a fictional character (but he failed to back up this contention) in his drive to discrediting many religions meddling in literature, which obscured and prevented serious investigations for the development of the Arabic language and literature: religions asserted facts that are principally myths in nature.

For example, Islam (submission to Allah), by claiming Abraham as the founder of Jewish and Islam religions, was a mythical story adopted by the Prophet Muhammad to uniting Jewish and Christian sects into one comprehensive and common denominator system of belief.

Hussein might not have known then that:

1. Muhammad’s father was a convert to one of the “heretic” Christian-Jewish sects in Mecca (“heretic” was a label extended by the orthodox Byzantium Church, and the Patriarch of this sect was a close relative to Muhammad;

2. Muhammad joined his Patriarch uncle once a year, and for an entire month of fasting, prayer, and meditation;

3. Muhammad was versed and immersed in the belief system and the stories of his uncle’s sect.  The bible of this sect was the “Hebrew Testament” and the verses of the Coran during Muhammad stay in Mecca were transliteration of this bible into the Arabic dialect of the main and most powerful tribe of Quraich.

Second, Hussein proposed that the Prophet Muhammad read his verses in seven Arabic dialects corresponding to the main Arabic tribes in the Arabic Peninsula. (The Coran was finally codified during the third Caliph Othman bin Affan and written into the Quraichi tribe dialect.)

Third, Hussein claimed that it is not true that Islam was the first monolithic religion that the Arabic Peninsula experienced.

Fourth, Hussein denounced the zeal of claiming that the genealogy of the Prophet (the successive clans and tribes) must be the best among the tribes.

There are more propositions which incited the ire of the clerics in Al Azhar who took Hussein to court.  Hussein didn’t hesitate to cancelling this “controversial” chapter from his next versions titled “On Jahilkiyya literature”.  Actually, the press coverage of the proceedings had disseminated the views of Hussein extensively among the intelligentsia in Egypt and the Arab World.

What was striking in these court proceedings is that the prosecutor basically defended the book in a 40-page investigation; the investigation was balanced and rational and Hussein’s book was not condemned.  That was Egypt between the two world wars; a period of enlightenment that the Lebanese immigrants participated mightily in promoting freedom of speech and opinions in dailies and magazines.

It is well-known that the close scripts to the Prophet had their own version of the Coran and that the third caliph ordered all the other versions to be destroyed, as the Christian Church did by adopting only four version of the New Testament…

Muhammad used to revisit the Surats at every Ramadan period and reorder the verses in each Surat. Abu Bakr assembled the Coran assisted by Aicha, the second caliph Omar reassemble the Coran…Where are all those original and genuine versions of the Coran? Aicha had written thousand of verses on goat thin skins in order to last forever, where are there?

Many of Islam clerics earned high scientific diplomas, but they seem to project to mainstream Moslems that their only scholarly study is the Coran and the Hadith, which are all that Moslem need to know and study…

Mainstream Islam falsehoods are political in nature. Why clerics engage in falsehoods on miracles stories, the Coran, Prophet, language…?

Again, the stories in the “hadith” were specifically meant to empowering and consolidating the rule of caliphs, monarchs, emors…This is true in electing the president of the USA (follow the religious overtone of the US presidential campaign…)

Note 1:  Tah Hussein was blind by birth and is dubbed “Dean of Arab literature”. He continued his education in France and received a doctoral on his thesis related to Ibn Khaldoun (Ibn Khaldoun lived in the 15th century Tunisia and is known as the founder of sociology or ethnography). Hussein divorced his Egyptian wife and married a French woman Suzanne.

Headdress (June 16, 2009)


            Versatility and creativity in women headgears and hair fashions are the sure sign of a rebellious spirit among women.  When uniformity in hair design and headdress are witnessed in a society then the system is veering toward a one-directional path in religious beliefs, ideological indoctrination, or political structure. 

            During the Arab Islamic civilization that spanned from 640 to 1400 al kinds of hair fashion and headgears were designed and adopted.  The western fashion didn’t catch up until the last three centuries and most of the styles are varieties on what have been used many centuries ago.

            The grand daughter of Caliph Ali Sukayna refused to wear the veil; she adopted a special hair fashion that even men emulated. Caliph Omar Abdel Aziz had to whip men using Sukayna’s style and shaved their head.  Sukayna refused to keep distant from male society and conversed with poets and entertained erudite in her cultural salon. She denied her husbands (five in total and descendent of noble families) marrying another wife, having extra-marital relations, or even forbidding her to meet with her woman friend.

            The grand daughter of Caliph Abu Bakr Aicha Bint Talhat was very beautiful and refused to wear any kind of veil saying: “God distinguished me from the other women with beauty. I would like men to notice and recognize my superiority.”  Aicha toured the Kaaba without any veil and the governor of Mecca changed the schedule of prayer to suit Aicha.  The governor was sacked but Aicha couldn’t care less.

            In fact, in all civilizations only rich women could afford to wear veil or fashionable headdress.  Working women in the field or active securing a living for her family could not be encumbered with redundant headgears. Veil and “designer” headgears were the domain of the super class in social hierarchy. Clothing and headgear were codified and regulated at all periods so that every class would remain within its limit of fashion.

            Olayya, the sister of Caliph Haroun Al Rasheed had a mark on her forehead; she wore a bandana to cover the spot; bandana became the rage. Women loved turban and imposed that style most of the time regardless of the reticence of the clergy.  Actually, headdresses were more targeted than other garments. The Mamelouk Sultan Qayitbey interdicted women of Cairo to wearing bonnets exhibiting coq crests in 1471; women rebelled and preferred to go out head naked.

            During the reign of the Moslem Mogul Genghis Khan exuberant hair fashion reached the zenith.  The more the number of fine plaits (reaching over 40 plaits) the higher was the rank of women; the longer the length of the plaits (reaching the small of the back) the nobler was the woman.  Only princesses were permitted to wear hats and then covered by colorful veil.  The other women of various ranks wore scarf of white gaze or flowery.  In the 13th century, princesses imposed on elegant women to stick feathers on their hair and then covered by veils (chechias).

            Mini skirts were the fashion at a period; shirts with extra large sleeves (for example as the musketeers are shown in movies) were predominant in Egypt in 1390; the vice-Sultan regulated the size of the sleeves; when the Sultan returned from his trip then women returned to their preferred fashion adding more tissues to their sleeves.  The more tissue entered in clothing the higher the sign of rich status.

            Wearing veil can sometimes send a strong message of revolt in political direction. For example, in Tunis of 1975, a woman professor of philosophy wore the veil (Hijab) to teaching in class as a political stand against President Bourghiba’s laws discouraging women to wearing head covering.  Moslem women were expressing the desire to advance Islam values after the ideological defeats of western capitalism and Marxism. The veil was a counterattack on cultural aggressions by the western civilizations.

            The more women care for elegance the healthier is society in cultural diversity and freedom of expression. A European lady was touring Egypt in mini skirt and very short sleeves; she complained of mosquitoes to an acerbic Dutch priest; he replied “I certainly cannot complain as much as you do. The airport surface for mosquitoes in my case is far reduced”.  Man also created varieties in headgears; mainly for protecting their skulls in battles; frightful and ugly metal helmets protected of a few injuries but never of concussions. Women had to face dangerous situations after their men returned from wars.




February 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,516,183 hits

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

Join 822 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: