A Historical Overview of the Emergence and Development of the Earthly Religions of the Muhammadans:

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

INTRODCUTION: our research methodology – the Quran has no different layers/aspects of meanings – the scientific methodology to understand the Quran – the problematic aspect of researching books of traditions.

A Preliminary CHAPTER: What is Islam and its history and application in the era of Muhammad – what is Islam – the definition of Islam and belief – the definition of polytheism and disbelief in the Quran – Islam as God's religion to all humanity – Paradise is for every good believer among human beings – the one content of all celestial messages – God's religion is Islam – history of Islam within ancient nations – the Islamic monotheistic religion of Abraham – Arab tribes – Abraham's progeny among Arabs and Israelites and keeping Abraham's religion – Muhammad as a follower of Abraham's religion and not as a founder of a new religion – Abraham in the Quran – the Quranic command to adhere to Abraham's religion – an overview of the Qorayish tribe and the fabrication of earthly, man-made religions – firstly: how Arabs have distorted the Islamic, monotheistic Abraham's religion before the revelation of God's final message of the Quran – secondly: how Qorayish has established its earthly, man-made religion by distorting Abraham's religion before the revelation of the Quran – thirdly: Qorayish and the establishment of earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans after the revelation of the Quran – fourthly, How Qorayish opposed the Quranic reform of the Islamic Abraham's religion – the struggle of Qorayish against early believers during Muhammad's lifetime – how Qorayish, led by the Umayyads, persecuted early believers in Mecca and chased them in Yathreb – how Islam was applied within the Quran-based Yathreb city-state led by Muhammad for ten years (622 – 632 A.D.): introduction – the role of the Quranic revelation in guiding Muhammad's actions and in bridging the gap between Islam and the religious behavior of the early believers during Muhammad's lifetime – features of the Yathreb city-state: the best possible human application of Islam – the gap between Quranic sharia legislations and their application during the era of Muhammad.          

CHAPTER I: The establishment of contradictions between Islam and the Muhammadans during the era of the corrupt four pre-Umayyad caliphs (11 – 40 A.H./ 632 – 661 A.D.) – the beliefs map of people between Muhammad's era and the era of the corrupt four pre-Umayyad caliphs: introduction – a brief overview of the era of the corrupt four pre-Umayyad caliphs – the most dangerous types of the so-called companions: – (A) the Meccans of Qorayish "the freed ones" and their Umayyad leaders – (B) opportunist and hypocritical desert-Arabs and Bedouins – (C) groups of those with weak belief – (D) the unknown group of those adamant in hypocrisy – the influence of the struggle between Qorayish and desert-Arabs on establishing the contradictions between Islam and the Muhammadans during the era of the corrupt four pre-Umayyad caliphs: introduction – the secret role of the hidden, lurking forces in formulating the policies of the corrupt four pre-Umayyad caliphs and its influence in paving the way for establishing the earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans that contradict Islam – a brief overview of the stages of renegades' war, Arab conquests, and civil war – the movement of the renegades – four dangerous escalations resulting from the renegades' war and the conquests – the major immigrant companions and the possibility of their being spies working for the Umayyads – the conflict over spoils and the outbreak of the civil war among the companions planned by the Umayyads – Those cursed desert-Arabs! Those cursed Umayyads! – conclusion.       

CHAPTER II: Contradictions between Islam and the Muhammadans are completed during the Umayyad caliphate (41 – 132 A.H./ 661 – 750 A.D.) – an overview of the Umayyad caliphs – general features of the Umayyad caliphate – allowing bloodshed, promiscuity, and immorality – an overview of how the Umayyads manipulated Islamic rituals - how the Umayyad undermined Islam – how the Umayyads manipulated prayers to serve their purposes – building the so-called Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and performing pilgrimage there instead of the Kaaba – the fabrication of hadiths and the beginning of earthly, man-made religious legislations during the Umayyad Era – invention of hadiths is the first step in the emergence of the earthly, man-made religions during the Umayyad Era – the nature of the contradictory earthly, man-made religions during the Umayyad Era – the beginning of Sunnite fiqh legislations during the Umayyad Era – the influence of Arab conquests on the intellectual and religious trends – on the threshold of the Abbasid Era.

CHAPTER III: The development of the earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans during the Abbasid Era (132 – 658 A.H./ 750 – 1258 A.D.) – an overview of the Abbasid Era – the division of the Abbasid Era – comparing between  the Umayyad caliphate and the Abbasid caliphate –  the Abbasid caliphs – the main differences between the Umayyad caliphate and the Abbasid caliphate – the Abbasid clergymen: how the caliph Abou Jaffer Al-Mansour established the Abbasid caliphate clergymen – comparing between  the Abbasid caliphs Al-Saffah and Al-Mansour – Al-Mansour and the bases of the Abbasid clergymen: fabrication of hadiths and visions/dreams – clergymen of Al-Mansour reached the mainstream culture of the masses – the influence of the Abbasid clergymen on the revival of the religion of ascetics – the return of asceticism and ascetics – the boycott of Abbasids as the main ritual of ascetics – ascetics established their religion based on fabricated tales – the beginning of inventing stories by ascetics about miracles – how ascetics criticized the Abbasids – how ascetics invented visions/dreams – the influence of Abbasid clergymen on creating the religion of Weepers – the influence of Abbasid clergymen on deifying caliphs during the reign of weak caliphs – the earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans complete their development during the Abbasid Era – the development of the earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans from mere doctrines into full-fledged religions – an overview of the Sunnite religion – the Shiite religion – the Sufi religion (Sufism) – the struggle between the Ibn Hanbal doctrine followers and Al-Mu'tazala thinkers during the Abbasid Era – the military struggle and mutual propaganda between the Sunnites and the Shiites during the Abbasid Era – the Shiite states that were enemies to the Abbasids during the Second Abbasid Era –  the fabrication of the Sunnite Sufism to replace the Shiite religion in Egypt – an overview of the Sufi-Sunnite religion: its start and dominance – realistic examples from history of the earthly, man-made religions during the Abbasid Era.     

CHAPTER IV: The Dominance of the Sunnite Sufism during the Mameluke Era (648 – 921 A.H./1250 – 1517 A.D.) – an overview of the Mameluke Era – introduction – firstly: steps of establishing firmly the Mameluke State in Egypt – Mameluke sultans and how authority was typically inherited: Mamelukes and the art of intrigues and schemes – an overview of the Mameluke religion of Sunnite Sufism – how Sunnite fiqh submitted to the Mameluke religion of Sunnite Sufism – the influence of Sufism on the impoverishment of fiqh schools and intellectual life in general – how Sunnite fiqh has been influenced by Sufism – theoretical fiqh – fiqh of preaching – the submission of Sunnite fiqh scholars to Sunnite Sufism – the persecution inflicted on Ibn Taymiyya during the Mameluke Era.

CHAPTER V: The struggle among the earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans during the Ottoman caliphate and the dominance of the Sunnite Sufism – a general overview of the Ottoman caliphate – different views regarding the Ottoman caliphate – the establishment and development of the Ottoman caliphate – a brief historical overview of the expansion of the Ottoman Empire – the Ottoman caliphate of 'Islam' and the Muhammadans in a general overview – the struggle between the Sunnite Sufi Ottoman Empire and the Shiite Safavid Empire in Iran – the political nature of the Ottoman rule – features of Sunnite Sufism during the Ottoman Era – the influence of the Sunnite-Shiite conflict on the collapse of the Mameluke rule and bringing the Ottomans in Egypt – the emergence of Ismail the Safavid, the Shiite Sufi ruler, as a danger threatening both the Mamelukes and the Ottomans – How the Mameluke sultan Al-Ghoury allied himself to the Shiite Sufi ruler Ismail the Safavid, and the influence of such alliance on the collapse of the Mameluke rule – how Ismail the Safavid schemed and plotted against the Ottoman sultan Selim after the death of the Mameluke sultan Al-Ghoury.    

CONCLUSION: The moral lesson drawn from the complicated relation among Turkey of the Ottomans, Iran of the Safavids, and Egypt of the Mamelukes.  

INTRODCUTION

 European Christianity has been based on oppressing, military attacking, and committing aggression against others; this is exemplified by aggressions committed by the Christian Romans, the Spanish, the Americans, and the Serbians and Croatians in modern times. This European application of Christianity contradicts the Egyptian application of it; the Coptic Orthodox Christianity of Egypt is based on bearing patiently with injustices and submission to the unjust ones without ever revolting against them unless when injustices may go too far. Thus, the human application of the principles of both Christianity and Islam is changed as per the dominant culture of a given society or country; hence, we see features of Europe (i.e., seeking dominance, invasion, and money) in European Christianity, whereas the features of Egyptian Christianity are derived from the agricultural nature of Egypt and its peace-loving dwellers of the Nile Valley. Likewise, the Egyptian 'Islam' differs a great dealt from the application of 'Islam'  by desert-dwellers and Bedouins who are violent by nature and live in, e.g., Arabia, Algeria, and Afghanistan. The Iranian application of 'Islam' is influenced by the dominant culture of Persian mythology and tenets that are repeated within new appellations in the Shiite religion. Consequently, the different applications, patterns, and readings of Christianity in many eras and locations (colored by nature and culture) are repeated within Islam by the Muhammadans. The only difference now is that people in the West have cleared the name of Christianity of crimes perpetrated by the vast majority of those who claimed to be Christians throughout the past centuries till the crimes committed in the middle of the 20^th century; i.e., from the Roman times till the times of the Americans and Serbs. Yet, the west people do not hesitate to make Islam responsible for the heinous crimes perpetrated by Wahabi terrorist organizations whose members are few thousands, and thus are nothing in comparison to 1.5 billion of the Muslims on the planet, whom we call the Muhammadans. The Wahabi ideology of wickedness is the one responsible for most of the terrorist crimes worldwide, and this evil religion of Satan, Wahabism, is spread and protected against criticism worldwide by the powerful and rich KSA, under the pretext of proselytizing 'Islam' and under the guise that Wahabism were 'real' Islam! Wahabi terrorism is partially a reaction to terrorism practiced for centuries by European Christian colonizers of Arab countries. The USA is partially responsible for Wahabi terrorism; the 'Christian' USA made use of Wahabi extremists within the war against communism in Afghanistan. Thus, the Americans allied themselves with Wahabi devils to combat the communist regimes (in Russia and elsewhere), and then, the Wahabis have turned against the USA now. This political manipulation of the Wahabi devilish religion that contradicts Islam in every aspect has incited Wahabi terrorism now linked falsely to Islam in worldwide media. It is unjust to make Islam responsible for atrocities of Wahabi terrorists funded by the KSA by making worldwide media call such Wahabi terrorists as 'Islamists' and their wicked agenda as 'Islamism'. We have spent more than 30 years of our life refuting the myth of ascribing Wahabi notions and terrorism to Islam (i.e., the Quran), using Quranic proofs and historical evidence within our scientific research. It is indeed a pleasure to us to summarize these intellectual endeavors of three decades in this book that you are reading now. The preliminary chapter of this book tackles what real Islam (Quranism) is, in a simple way to introduce the idea how Islam contradicts the earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans, especially the Sunnite Wahabi religion of terrorism.                      

Our research methodology:

Firstly: we assert the following points:

1- We have written a lot about showing the contradiction between the Quran (i.e., the Only Book in Islam) and the books sanctified by the  Muhammadans, and this contradiction is reflected in human rights, relations with others, etc.  

2- The Quranic sharia legislations precede their era in asserting (in the 7th century A.D.) freedom, direct democracy, human rights, women's rights, citizenship rights, and tolerance, and this contradicted the dominant culture of tyranny and injustices of the Middle-Ages in Arabia and later on in the East of the Muhammadans and the Christian West. Both sides fought one another many times during the Middle-Ages, and each had warring doctrines and internal sects and groups that fought against one another within an atmosphere of religious mythology, theocracies, and doctrinal conflicts. This is why imams and clergymen of Muhammadans rejected the essence of Islam (i.e., the Quran) and invented their fiqh (i.e., jurisprudence) to fit the dominant culture of hegemony, tyranny, violence, and corruption. They deliberately misinterpreted the Quranic verses and invented and fabricated 'revelations' they ascribed forcibly to religion, naming them as fiqh laws and hadiths ascribed to God, to Muhammad, and to Sufi, Sunnite, and Shiites 'holy' imams. These earthly, ma-made religions were forged and adulterated ones that falsely raise the banner/label of Islam but in fact they carry the flavor of the bad features and aspects of the Middle-Ages culture and its clergymen: tyranny, corruption, violence, and enslavement.          

3- The Europeans have liberated themselves from the dominant Middle-Ages culture and they have followed the path of human rights and democracy. Egypt in the 19^th century was influenced by this European renaissance and introduced secular reform by following the footsteps of the West; yet, when Wahabism emerged in the Najd region in Arabia, resulting in the establishment of the very first Saudi state in the 18^th century, the inevitable conflict occurred between Egypt of the renaissance and the Wahabi Saudi state that insisted to make the Muhammadans return by force to the Middle-Ages culture of aggression, violence, and bloodshed. The Egyptian army defeated Saudi troops and made the first Saudi state collapse in 1818 A.D. Within the rule of the king Muhammad Ali Pacha and his sons, who were his successors to the throne, Egypt began its route of renaissance, secularism, and reform; yet, the political, international, regional factors and conditions aborted this renaissance and helped in the establishment of the third current Saudi state in 1932 A.D., and oil has been discovered in the KSA which allied itself to the USA. Within the power of both Saudi oil and American dollars, Wahabism spread all over the world as if it were Islam, as Wahabis have hijacked the name of Islam; this resulted in millions of victims who paid the heavy price since the emergence of Wahabism till the present day. The first and biggest victim is Islam itself, of course, whose name is hijacked by Wahabi terrorists and criminals. Because of the Saudi/Wahabi authority and dominance worldwide, any Muslim thinkers who question, refute, and undermine Wahabism, by showing how it contradicts the Quran, are severely persecuted.        

4- Higher values and principles of the West are exactly the ones mentioned in the Quranic text. This fact was first mentioned by the Egyptian reformist thinker Muhammad Abdou (who died in 1905 A.D.) who headed Al-Azhar, when he visited Europe and lived for a while in France. M. Abdou discovered that the higher values of the European civilization match the higher values in the Quran (the only source of Islam). These Quranic higher values have been rejected by the Muhammadans for centuries as we see in their history, culture, and behavior/deeds. M. Abdou said his famous phrase: (In Europe, I have found Islam but no Muslims). M. Abdou meant to day that he found Islamic/Quranic values in the West culture, whereas the Muhammadans in Egypt and in the Arab world were very far from the essence of Islam (i.e., the Quran) and its higher values, though they label themselves as 'Muslims'. The same phrase of M. Abdou occurs to our mind as we live as a political asylee here in the USA since 2001, enjoying my freedom of thought and my religious freedom after 25 years of being persecuted inside Egypt by its president, government, and Al-Azhar institution as well as by the terrorist MB members and Salafists who are both Wahabis. The fiercest among our foes have been the MB members, who hated very much our reformist views and intellectual endeavors to reform the Muhammadans peacefully using the Quran (the Quranism theory: Quran is the only source of Islam). This persecution was inflicted on our person and on others who hold different view than those of the terrorist MB organization that spread only the earthly, man-made religion called Wahabism, which is the new name of the extremist Sunnite Ibn Hanbal doctrine. This religious persecution contradicts Islam (i.e., Qurnaism) and the higher Quranic values that include absolute religious freedom.         

5- Scientifically, methodologically, and based on thorough research, we must put a clear barrier to differentiate between Islam (i.e., Qurnaism) and the Wahabi man-made religion; Wahabism is the cause of most terrorism worldwide: in both Arab world and in the West. The methodology adopted in this book that you are reading now is based on getting to know Islam through understanding the Quranic text, and then, we objectively research the history of the Muhammadans from the era of the Qorayish caliphs to that of the Ottoman caliphs in this PART ONE of the book. PART TWO of the book tackles the emergence and spread of the Wahabi religion that falsely and forcibly carry the name/label of Islam.   

6- There is a certain method of understanding the Quran and another one to understand history and heritage of the Muhammadans and their man-made, earthly religions with their  sharia/fiqh legislations. Let us provide below this brief overview for further explanation.

Secondly: the Quran has no different layers/aspects of meanings:

1- The totally wrong method adopted by theological studies at Al-Azhar institution to understand the Quran is by using terminology of heritage books, fatwas, hadiths, and narratives of ancient authors of the Middle-Ages. Of course, every past era has its different sets of terms, and this Azharite method leads to misunderstanding the Quran because of so many contradictions and discrepancies in terminology sets of every school of thought and every fiqh of different doctrines, etc. Sadly and illogically, the ancient fiqh scholars (and Azharite clergymen after them) justify these contradictions and discrepancies resulting from this erroneous approach to the Quranic text by asserting a phrase presumably uttered by the fourth caliph, Ali Ibn Abou Talib, which is as follows: (the Quran has different layers of meanings). This means that any Azharite fiqh scholars/researchers of today would easily choose views or proofs from ancient books as per their whims to support their viewpoints, while focusing on certain decontextualized Quranic verses to serve their purposes while disregarding Quranic verses that refute their viewpoints in their research topic, while quoting the silly phrase that some Sunnite fiqh scholars and historians falsely attribute to Ali. We personally are quite sure that Ali had no time or brains to say such an illogical, heretic phrase insulting to the Quran, as he was busy with political unrest and civil war.     

2- This fiqh phrase is insulting to the Quran; the Quranic text can NEVER have a view and its opposite view simultaneously about the same issue so that one might quote verses supporting one view and another person might quote verses supporting the opposite view within the same topic.

3- This illogical view ascribed falsely to Ali contradicts what God says in the Quran about the Quran itself as the Book containing the Final Message from God to humanity. God describes the Quranic verses as precise (see 11:1), and this means that each verse has a definite, direct, straightforward meaning, without twisting or roundabout manner of expression (see 39:28, 18:1, 6:126, and 6:153). The Quran is a Book with no contradictions at all; see 4:82.  

4- If the Quran contain no contradictory verses and notions, how come that fiqh scholars quote verses that apparently support their views and refute those of other scholars? The answer is simple; the methodology they adopt in understanding the Quran using Sunnite, Sufi, or Shiite sets of terminology (that differ from one era to another and in many cases from one Middle-Ages author to another!)and this leads a scholar to choose decontextualized Quranic verses (and phrases from inside long Quranic verses) and to deliberately misinterpret them and twist their meanings whimsically to serve their biases and purposes/interests within the topic at hand. This is how theologians and scholars who hold different views and debate with one another quote verses to 'support' discrepancies and contradictory opinions and misuse the Quran under the pretext of the phrase ascribed falsely to Ali.  

The scientific methodology to understand the Quran:

1- We, a Quranist Muslim thinker and researcher, adopt the scientific and academic methodology of research to understand the Quran; this way, we are 100% percent sure that the Quran contains no contradictions at all. 

2- The scientific methodology imposes on researchers that they are not to begin their research by personal biases and prejudice and that if they are researching a certain book, they must adhere to the set of terminology found in that book as well as its notions and concepts. The reason: the terminology used by the authors of books are like a contract or an agreement made between them and the readers; they are to stick to them to understand the pattern of ideas and facts of the book at hand and the topic of research. This is the core of the scientific methodology of research within books and sources authored by any persons. This very scientific methodology of research must be adopted when we research and ponder on the Quranic text.

3- God commands believers in the Quran to ponder its verses; see 47:24, 4:82, and 23:68. The scientific methodology of pondering the Quran is to make any Quranic verse your imam; you must follow it directly without any prejudices or prior views you are trying to prove. Do not use or adopt any other notions, rules, or concepts from outside the Quranic text; approach God's verses as objectively and neutrally as possible in order to get to know the pure Quranic view of any given topic or issue. Researchers must gather and collect all the verses related to the topic at hand, and then, they must decide which are the definitive verses and which are the similar verses that assert the same facts (in detail) of the definitive ones (which are more concise and brief). This shows that the Quran is a Book that has concise, brief verses that are detailed in other verses by the Omniscient God: "We have given them a Book, which We detailed with knowledge - guidance and mercy for people who believe." (7:52).  

4- Hence, following the Azharite corrupt method of using concepts and terminology of centuries-old books leads researchers to select decontextualized Quranic verses (of phrases of long verses) whimsically to distort meanings and support any biased views which will be against Quranic facts; this method contradicts the Quran and the scientific method of research, and it is the cause of the emergence of so many doctrines that argue against one another in useless debates and conflicts. Thus, the only scientific method of research to understand the Quran is using its own set of terminology while seeking guidance from God and seeking the Quranic Truth, even if it contradicts common religious views. As a Quranist researcher, we assert here that we have discovered that Quranic terms or terminology contradicts those of books of fiqh, hadiths, heritage, history, and traditions. It is unjust to use sets of terminology of such Middle-Ages authors to understand the Quran; this is against the scientific research methodology as well. We have followed the objective scientific research methodology within our pondering the Quran for more than 30 years and within our study of books of traditions, and we provide below brief examples of the contradictions and differences between Quranic terminology and sets of terminology in Middle-Ages books of traditions.

1- The Arabic/Quranic word for "religion" originally means (the path). Linguistically, this path might be a tangible, physical one or a figurative one, a straight one or a twisted one. In the figurative sense, the path/religion is one's relation with God. The word path/religion in the physical sense of (route) is used in this verse within the self-defense fighting in Yathreb: "It is not advisable for the believers to march out altogether. Of every division that marches out, let a group march out first, to gain information about the route, and to notify their people when they have returned to them, that they may beware." (9:122). It is silly that Sunnites imagine that this verse might indicate 'companions' leaving Muhammad in Yathreb to get educated about religion/faith outside Yathreb; polytheism resided in other cities, while Islam is in Yathreb. Yet, Azharite traditional books make this verse means (let a group remain behind, to gain knowledge of the religion)! Besides, Sunnite clergymen and theologian assume that the term ''knowledge'' is confined to theological branches; yet, in the Quran, it means (2) to get knowledge of the Quran, and (2) to research and use one's mental faculties to study the physical, natural world.

2- The Arabic term "Sunna" means legislations and issuing laws, and in the Quran, it means ONLY Quranic legislations and laws, even regarding things related to Muhammad (see 33:38) and this Quranic term is ascribed ONLY in all verses to God, whereas Muhammad is a role-model and an example to follow (see 33:21). The term Sunna, ascribed always to God, has another meaning in the Quran; i.e., God's way/method in dealing with polytheists by punishing and tormenting them (see 33:62, 35:43, and 48:23). In the books of the Sunnite religion, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam (i.e., Quranism), the term ''Sunna'' refers only to the so-called hadiths fabricated and falsely attributed to Muhammad so many decades after his death and written down more than 200 years after his death. We have talked a lot about this in other writings of ours.  

3- The traditional term "companions" for Sunnites means those 'Muslim' men and women surrounding Muhammad during his lifetime in Mecca and in Yathreb, including his friends, and they are deified as saints! The Quranic term "companion(s)"/"friend(s)" means simply anyone who was contemporary and near someone else in the same era and location. The Quran repeats the fact that Muhammad was a friend/companion to the polytheists; see 53:2, 34:46, and 81:22. 

4- The term "Naskh" in the Quran means to assert, write, and repeat, whereas in the Sunnite books and terminology, it means to delete, replace, and omit.

5- The Arabic/Quranic verb "to rule" in the Quranic text means to judge (as in arbitration) and to issue judgments or verdicts in courts, whereas the silly Sunnite scholars in their books make this verb refer to political rule or theocracy! 

6- The Quranic phrase "those of authority among you" does NOT refer to rulers or governors at all as Sunnite scholars claim; rather, it refers to those with expertise in certain fields who are consulted for the benefit of a given nation or community; see 4:59 and 4:83. 

7- The Quranic terms "limits/rules" means God's sharia laws and legislations, but the Sunnite fiqh, these terms means corporeal punishments and penalties!

8- The Quranic term "hated" refers to the strictly forbidden and prohibited deeds (e.g., murder, fornication, disbelief, and immorality). Yet, in Sunnite books, the same term is used to indicate permissible items or deeds that one is preferably to avoid!

9- The Quranic term "loved" refers to duties and obligations ordained by God, imposed on pious believers; e.g., see 39:7, whereas the same term for Sunnites refer to any permissible items which are OK to discard and not to perform as they are not obligatory!

10- The term (Taazeer) in the Sunnite books means public humiliation and penalties exacted on 'sinners' by fiqh scholars, but this term and its derivation in the Quranic text mean to support God and His messenger; see 48:9, 5:12, and 5:12.  

 There are so many other examples that show that the Sunnite books contradict the Quran in many issues such as concepts of faith, belief, polytheism, disbelief, Shura consultation, and stances regarding women, the People of the Book, human rights, higher values, etc. We have given details of these aspects in our previous writings to prove how Middle-Ages Sunnites distorted meanings of Quranic verses and disregarded many Quranic sharia laws and legislations and the Quranic methodology of stories of ancient nations. In fact, these Sunnites have established ma-made laws and legislations that contradict the Quranic ones, and in order to add sham and fake credibility to their fabrications, they have ascribed them falsely to Muhammad and to God under the label (Sunna hadiths), which is the basis for the emergence of terrorists of our era like Osama Bin Laden, Omar Abdel-Rahman, Al-Zawahiri, etc.    

The problematic aspect of researching books of traditions:

1- The major problem of the so-called 'Islamic' studies of Sunnite books is how to deal with sources; most researchers mix between the absolute facts of the Quranic Truth and narratives/hadiths in Sunnite books. By the way. Hadiths when they were oral traditions fabricated by many men before they were written down in the Abbasid Era were only called (narratives). The term itself implies that such history might be true or false, and consequently doubted and never 100% ascertained to be true, and therefore, they are part of history and NOT of religion. Yet, the unjust fabricators of hadiths invented series of narrators (i.e., Isnad) to stop people casting on their lies and falsehoods and to lend sham credibility or authenticity on their narratives as if they were uttered by Muhammad; yet, many scholars in later eras cast doubt on such narrators and their honesty and memory. Thus, all hadiths are doubted or verified based on whims of scholars within certain doctrines, and those authors vied for undermining hadiths of the foes of the other doctrines. Eventually, we conclude that all hadiths are never 100% certain as part of history, and they are NEVER part of Islam, as religion must be based only on the Quranic Truth from God. Thus, faith and beliefs cannot be based on mere oral narratives. It is noteworthy that imams of fiqh and hadiths who lived in the First Abbasid Era, more than 200 years after Muhammad's death, never ascribed hadiths to Muhammad directly; rather, they were keen on memorizing the series of narrators to assert that these man-made narratives might be true or false, as fabrications of this type were so many by different men in many decades and locations, and in many cases, when series of narrators were not found or verified, the passive voice is used in phrases like: (it was said that the Prophet said that...). Within the era of imitation and intellectual stagnation in the 7^th century A.H. onwards (i.e., within the Mameluke and the Ottoman eras: 1250-1850), fiqh scholars never resorted to innovation; rather, they kept studying, summarizing, interpreting, and explaining books of ancient authors, who became revered and sanctified as demi-gods, and their views became sacrosanct despite so many discrepancies and contradictions. It was prohibited at the time to question, refute, or disagree with such views of Abbasid-Era authors. Within such regressive eras of blind imitation, the fake narratives/hadiths about Muhammad gradually became part and parcel of religion, within the absence of critical mind and within stagnant intellectual life; people no longer care even about series of narrators and began to write/say: (The prophet said that...). The era of blind imitation and stagnation has ended when M. Abdou (1849-1905), head of Al-Azhar, began an age of intellectual renaissance regarding religious thought, and he travelled to Tunisia and Algeria, among other countries, to spread his enlightened thought. Of course, this enlightenment in religious thought in Egypt was directly linked to liberal atmosphere and political movements inside Egypt and the Arab world at the time. It was very much hoped that such new trends of thought on all levels would bear fruit and evolve into full-fledged reform and renaissance that would make the Muhammadans return to real Islam (i.e., the Quran) and to become Muslims. Yet, such intellectual endeavors were aborted when the KSA emerged with its cursed Wahabism that revived the worst Sunnite/Salafist doctrine of backwardness, terrorism, violence, obscurantism, extremism, and bigotry: the Ibn Hanbal doctrine. The Saudi oil revenues helped to spread Wahabism worldwide labeled as 'Islam', as if it were Islam, though it contradicts the Quran in almost everything. The spread of Wahabism has been aided and supported by local, regional, and international conditions, and Wahabism now dominates most of the Muhammadans. This resulted in accusing Islam of being the cause of terrorism and backwardness. This is what Arabs suffer now as they need immediate religious reform, before other types of reform (political, legislative, etc.). Among the features of such Wahabi backwardness that dominates the Arab world now is to revive the Ottoman-Era ways of thinking: the same era when M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab lived in Najd, Arabia. We allude here to the fact that no one at the time (and now) would even care to mention the so-called series of narrators of hadiths; the Wahabi clergymen would say/write directly: (The Prophet said that...). This is silly; as if the writer/preacher was sitting with Muhammad moments ago! No one now would dare to say that such narratives are relative and might be true or false, and therefore, never to be deemed as part of the religion of Islam. Sadly, most Muhammadans now assume that such contradictory narratives/hadiths are part of religion, and they forget that Islam is ONLY the Quran. The hadiths/narratives were fabricated to reflect the dominant culture of certain eras and certain authors in the Middle-Ages, when they were authored and written down in books. Thus, the Al-Bokhary book reflects ONLY the mentality of the author named Al-Bokhary and his era. Likewise, our writings (of Dr. A. S. Mansour) reflect our culture, mentality, and era. Eventually, such Sunnite writings are part of human intellectual history and heritage, but NOT a part of Islam, and the Sunnite man-made earthly religion is ascribed falsely to God and to Islam, though all Sunnite notions and hadiths contradict the Quran (the only complete source of Islam).                            

2- According to the above plight, we suffer from perpetual mix between Quranic facts and the so-called hadiths (attributed forcibly and falsely to Muhammad decades after his death) and fiqh notions. Thus, traditional Sunnite scholars kept for centuries writing their balderdash while discarding and disregarding the Quranic facts; they mixed between the Absolute Quranic Truth and notions/narratives in heritage books, which are sanctified by them as though they could never contain errors, lies, or falsehoods. A worst crime is to make history (a relative field) as part of religion (which is ONLY the absolute Quranic verses). We must remember that any researcher of history bears in mind that historical (long and short, simple and complicated) accounts are relative, whether the historians were contemporary to the events they write about or copy from ancient historians. Another plight is that many ignoramuses author books on Muslim studies without being well-informed within specialized fields of academic studies; they do not even know about scientific research methodology concerning history. This results in the catastrophe of dealing with historical narratives as if they were like Quranic facts of Islam!             

3- Ignoramuses take from such heritage books of traditions whimsically to serve their purposes, while overlooking and disregarding the fact that such books reflect the dominant culture and mentality of the Middle-Ages authors, and such books must NEVER be part of Islam. Such books may be good for studying history, and NOT the religion of Islam, and this study of history must follow the scientific research methodology as we have explained in many of our books that we have taught to our Azharite students at Al-Azhar University (now published on our website). This methodology is used to check historical accounts and narratives to accept them or not, and to examine their similarities, discrepancies, contradictions, intricate details, prejudices and biases of historians, authenticity, (il)logicality, veracity, sets of terminology, etc. Eventually, the credibility of researchers of history depends on how honest, objective, and neutral they are and how competent in research methodology and critical thinking they are deemed to be. Any findings in that respect are, of course, personal points of view and NEVER absolute fact regarding history. Absolute facts are exclusively found in the Quran. all narratives and accounts of history are relative and never infallible; they are never 100% true, because they are human writings ascribed to names of writers/authors. The problem is that Sunnites deify and sanctify their ancient imams and authors like Al-Bokhary (a supreme deity to the Sunnites) and some historians and fiqh scholars. The Only Book we must honor and revere is the Quran, as it is God's Word and never authored by mortals; it is never to be made equal to books written by people. May God come to the aid and help of all of us.

Dr. A. S. Mansour

July, 2006

Springfield, VA, the USA

CHAPTER I: The Establishment of Contradictions between Islam and the Muhammadans during the Era of the Corrupt Four Pre-Umayyad Caliphs (11 – 40 A.H./ 632 – 661 A.D.)

The beliefs map of people between Muhammad's era and the era of the corrupt four pre-Umayyad caliphs: introduction:

1- After the death of Muhammad, the powerful leaders of Qorayish who bowed before the wind dominated over the scene once again. Their being defeated shortly before Muhammad's death made them fail to retrieve Mecca within their control and they pretended to convert to the new religion. Once Muhammad died, they allied themselves to other leaders of Qorayish who immigrated to Yathreb in order to restore the stature and dominance of the Qorayish tribe over Arabia but this time in the name of Islam. Such alliance caused the marginalization of the original dwellers of Yathreb. These Qorayish leaders engaged into the renegades' war against some desert-Arabs and Bedouins who revolted against the hegemony of Qorayish and rejected 'Islam'. After quelling this revolt and forcing the desert-Arabs and Bedouins to return to 'Islam', the Qorayish tribe directed and channeled the energy and bellicose nature of most Arabs toward the Arab conquests. Later on, the struggle for loot and power caused divisions and turmoil that resulted eventually to the first major Arab civil war (battles of Mu'aweiya vs. Ali), whose outcome was the establishment of the tyrannical Umayyad caliphate and dynasty, whose era witnessed the second major Arab civil war when Yazeed Ibn Mu'aweiya succeeded his father, the first Umayyad caliph Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan, to the throne and he quelled more rebels and revolts.        

2- To revert to disbelief and polytheism after any prophet's death is NOT uncommon within the history of all prophets. For instance, during the ministry of Jesus, he faced the cruel and stubborn Jewish hierarchy of clergymen in Palestine who conspired to have him killed, but God has saved; see 4:157 (contrary to the Christians' false narrative of crucifixion). Thus, the penultimate prophet of all God's prophets who emerged before Muhammad (i.e., Jesus) faced cruel, stubborn opposition; Christian traditions contain stories of some disciples who betrayed Jesus and those who denied and disowned him; this has been followed by the deification of Jesus by Paul. The Jewish enemies of Jesus had no military power as they submitted to the Romans. On the contrary, fighting and military might was how Arabian tribes dealt with one another and Qorayish was the wealthiest, mightiest, most powerful tribe that controlled religious life in Arabia. Qorayish leaders persecuted the early believers and Muhammad and attempted to assassinate him, but he was saved by God. the Qorayish leaders kept waging incessant wars against the Yathreb city-state to annihilate the early believers, but this resulted only in more people knowing about the Quran and converted to Islam. This made more tribesmen convinced that it is absurd and silly to worship pagan idols/deities and to submit to Qorayish that was defeated by the Muslims of Yathreb; the idols did not save Qorayish, and its trade caravans of winter and summer journeys were in danger. This drove leaders of Qorayish to feign a conversion to Islam and to adhere to peaceful behavior. This thin veneer of peace hided inner trends that waited eagerly the death of Muhammad to come to the fore and disturb this peace. Such trends managed to crush any rebels within the renegades' war and to mobilize most Arabs within the Arab conquests led by Qorayish.   

3- This is the difference between the gradual change of faith without fighting once Jesus died (a natural death) and the radical, violent, immediate change of faith once Muhammad died: the Israelites lived in Palestine while submitting to the military power of the Romans, and the deification of Jesus spread within a relatively peaceful environment, and Christians later on submitted to Arab conquerors of the Levant among other regions, whereas the belligerent Arabs were used to raiding, looting, and enslaving before Islam, and they continued such crimes after Muhammad's death in the name of 'jihad'. The roots of such radical, immediate change emerged during the era of the corrupt four pre-Umayyad caliphs who are still (among other figures of the so-called companions who were contemporaries of Muhammad) deified and sanctified by most Muhammadans.  

A brief overview of the era of the corrupt four pre-Umayyad caliphs:

1- The society of Yathreb comprised its original dwellers (mainly tribesmen of the two main tribes: Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj) and immigrants from Mecca and other regions. When Muhammad led the Yathreb city-state, he made immigrants and the original dwellers as brethren. Once Muhammad died, the original dwellers of Yathreb gathered in the Thaqeefa council to discuss choosing a successor (or caliph in Arabic) to lead the Yathreb city-state. The main spokesman in such a council was Saad Ibn Eibada and the Yathreb dwellers supported him to lead the Yathreb city-state, but while Ali prepared the dead body of Muhammad for burial, Abou Bakr and Omar (among other Meccan immigrants of Qorayish in Yathreb) hurried to join the Thaqeefa council and they took advantage of the old rivalry between the two main tribes, Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj, to declare that Arabia would never submit unless to the Qorayish tribe. Eventually, the Thaqeefa council resulted in choosing Abou Bakr as caliph because he was the eldest of the companions of Muhammad and who was supposedly the nearest one to him.     

2- Within the caliphate of Abou Bakr (11-13 A.H./632-634 A.D.), the Qorayish troops managed to crush the rebellion of desert-Arabs and Bedouins who refused to submit to Qorayish that restored its hegemony and dominance and declared defiantly their rejection of 'Islam' and the caliph Abou Bakr. After quelling such rebellion (a.k.a. the renegades' war), the belligerent desert-Arabs and Bedouins were mobilized by Qorayish within the Arab conquests that invaded Iraq and the Levant and defied the two prominent powers at the time: the Persians and the Byzantines. Abou Bakr died suddenly and mysteriously during such military endeavors.     

3- Before his death in Yathreb, Abou Bakr is purportedly said to have chosen Omar Ibn Al-Khattab as his successor, and his caliphate lasted about ten years (634-644 A.D.), during which Arab conquests of the region that came to be known later on as the Middle East continued. Omar was allegedly firm and fair (with Arabs only), but he committed many injustices against peoples of the conquered countries as he confiscated their assets and money, enslaved their progeny and women, and imposed heavy taxes and tributes. The Persian soldier Piruz Nahavandi (or Abou Lo'lo'a Al-Majousi in Arabic) assassinated Omar, and while dying, he commanded six of the Qorayish immigrants to Yathreb (Othman, Ali, Talha, Al-Zubayr, Saad Ibn Abou Waqqas, and Abdul-Rahman Ibn Awf) to choose one among themselves to succeed him within the supervision of his son, Abdullah Ibn Omar. Most views and votes were divided between Othman and Ali, but the Umayyad influence and conspiracy led to the choice of Othman, who belonged to the Umayyad faction of Qorayish, instead of Ali who belonged to the Hashemite faction of Qorayish.    

4- The caliphate of Othman Ibn Affan lasted about twelve years (644-656 A.D.), and he continued Arab conquests in the East. Because of his weak personality, the Umayyads controlled him and confiscated wealth ad money that came from the conquered nations to the Treasury of the caliphate. Bedouins and desert-Arabs felt betrayed by Qorayish as they receive very little though such countries were conquered by their blood and swords; they revolted against Othman, and they sieged his house for a while till they managed to assassinate him. Those rebels appointed Ali as caliph without the agreement of Qorayish.     

5- The caliphate of Ali Ibn Abou Talib lasted about five years (565-661 A.D.) which was also the duration of the first major Arab civil war (when the Umayyad leader Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan revolted against him). This civil war ended when some supporters of Ali deserted him and some others turned against him until one of them assassinated him.

6- The eldest son of Ali, Hassan, was chosen by many people as caliph after the assassination of his father, but he realized that he was too weak to face Mu'aweiya and he publicly ceded all power and authority to him. This paved the scene for Mu'aweiya to establish the Umayyad caliphate which was based on injustices and monarchy as the throne was inherited within one dynasty. 

7- We provide in the points below a brief explanation of how the Muhammadans ended up submitting to the rule of the Umayyads who were the arch-enemies of the early believers and haters of the Quran.

The beliefs map:

1- The era of the corrupt, sinful four pre-Umayyad caliphs has established the earliest contradiction between Islam and the Muhammadans in terms of faith/belief and sharia laws; soon enough, this has led to the emergence of the earthly, man-made religions whose authors claim that their books/narratives were divine revelation, though they are in fact devilish revelations. The false claim that such books of fiqh and hadiths are part of 'divine' revelation is a lame pretext to stop anyone from criticizing such books and from showing how they contradict Quranic verses in every respect. This entails a detailed explanation, using the Quran and history, to shed light on the so-called companions of Muhammad, who were the social and political powers around him in the Yathreb city-state that were even more active after he died. Of course, however deified, venerated, and sanctified they are now by Sunnites, those companions were never a group of angels; rather, they were mortal human beings who were liable to error. Muhammad was liable to make mistakes and he has been reproached and rebuked in the Quran; other non-prophets at the time in Arabia were mortal who erred and committed mistakes; those who deny this fact are Sunnite polytheists who deify historical figures as 'saints'/gods.        

2- The Quranic Chapter Nine contain the verses revealed shortly before Muhammad's death. Hence, it contains the beliefs map of the dwellers of the Yathreb city-state within the last year of Muhammad's life. The Quranic Chapter Nine begins with the divine announcement of disowning the Meccan aggressive polytheists of Qorayish who never respect neither kinship nor treaty with the early believers as they were addicted to aggression and violence. They have driven Muhammad and the early believers to get out of Mecca and to immigrate to Yathreb. Eventually, when Muhammad entered Mecca peacefully (i.e., without fighting) with his army, he pardoned the aggressors who promised never to repeat their aggression as per treaties made at this day when Muhammad entered Mecca. Yet, some of them violated and breached such peace treaties and went on with their aggression. God has given such aggressors the duration of the four sacred months as a chance to repent and to adhere to peace; if they continued aggression after this period of time, believers had the right to fight back and to prevent the aggressors from entering into the Sacred Kaaba Mosque. This is a very brief idea of the verses 9:1-28. The Quranic Chapter Nine is the only Quranic chapter that does not begin with the phrase (In the Name of God, the Dominant, the Compassionate), and it adopts a severe tone of denouncing the aggression of those violent polytheists and urging believers to fight back within self-defense if aggression would not stop. 

3- When we contemplate 9:1-28, we cannot help but notice that these verses tackle ONLY the descriptions of the Meccan leaders of Qorayish, as they were the imams/leaders of polytheism/disbelief (in terms of aggressive behavior and violence), and as they were the ones to initiate aggression for years while assuming to have the right to control pilgrimage as they took care of the Kaaba and pilgrims. They were also the only ones who have interests to keep by corrupting pilgrimage after Muhammad and early believers controlled Mecca as part of the rule of the Yathreb city-state. Those Qorayish polytheists fought pilgrims and peaceful early believers inside and around Mecca.     

4- What we assert here is conclusions drawn by methodically reading the content of the verses 9:1-28 while seeking to understand them within the context of other Quranic verses about the aggression committed by the Meccan polytheists of Qorayish. As some of the early believers were relatives of those polytheists, they allied themselves with them, whereas others among the early believers were too reluctant to engage into self-defense to make the aggression stop. Hence, we read severe rebuke from God addressed to such reluctant people, who were happy to restore good relations with their Qorayish tribesmen and relatives as feelings of tribalism overpowered them and made them forget their belonging to Islam. There are verses that reproach and threaten them that they are deemed as aggressive polytheists if they keep their alliance with aggressors who attacked early believers inside Mecca and the Sacred Kaaba Mosque after it was Muhammad's responsibility to protect and secure pilgrims and pilgrimage as well as the Kaaba.     

5- Middle-Ages historians (during the Abbasid Era and other eras) never cared to write in their books about these grave events in the Quranic Chapter Nine. The reason: the verses expose their ancestors as a corrupt group of people. Hence, tens of Quranic verses talking about hypocrites and polytheists among dwellers of Yathreb and Mecca were not tackled by Middle-Ages authors for centuries in their historical accounts of events that occurred during Muhammad's lifetime. Thus, we do not find Abbasid authors whose writings would tell us about the deeds and names of those imams/leaders of polytheism and disbelief, nor about those hypocrites who engaged into rumormongering, nor the reluctant ones, and nor about those who vacillated between belief and disbelief mentioned without names in many Quranic verses that tell us about companions of Muhammad. These verses mortify the narrators of the Abbasid Era who hated to expose their ancestors and this prevented their commenting on certain Quranic verses; eventually, this is understandably expected as it is human to err; after all, who would like to spread bad news and disgraceful details about one's ancestors? This is expected naturally within an Arab culture whose people bragged of ancestry and took pride in stature, tribe, and families. Their corrupt religiosity and their distortion of Abraham's religion strengthened such bragging, and within the Quran, they are severely rebuked a lot and curse by God. Yet, the Sunnite religion authors turned these ancestors (i.e., the so-called companions) and their progeny into infallible deities or demi-gods. Thus, no Sunnite historians wrote much details about hypocrites and disbelievers among the companions and their historical background. Of course, this means that Arab readers of this book that you read now are thoroughly shocked when we, Dr. A. S. Mansour, demonstrate Quranic facts derived from Quranic verses and their objective contexts, within the special Quranic terminology, that show that those mortal gods (i.e., companions) are fallible and include hypocrites, disbelievers, etc.             

6- The methodology of the Quranic stories is to focus on the moral lessons and never to care to mention details like names of persons, era, localities, etc. so that the stories aim at preaching, away from restraints of such details. Historians intentionally disregarded providing background (names, events, etc.) for Quranic verses tackling Muhammad's story and era. This is why there is no mentioning Meccan leaders' aggression against early believers after Meccans submitted to Muhammad shortly after his death, as per the Quranic Chapter Nine. Yet, we are to believe Quranic facts and stories whether historians and authors tackled their historical details or not. 

7- As per the Quran, the Meccan Qorayish leaders 'converted to Islam (i.e., adhered to peace) after most years of Muhammad's ministry; even after Muhammad entered into Mecca peacefully without fighting, they revolted against him and the early believers by breaching the peace treaty, as we have read in 9:1-28. This was done shortly before Muhammad's death; it is hardly expected that these Meccan Qorayish people were pacific group of 'pure angels' after Muhammad's death. They had not forgotten their old ways and they sought revenge against Islam and Muslims by first feigning to convert. 

8- We talk here specifically about the Umayyads, who were a prominent faction of Qorayish, as the arch-enemies of Islam who overtly converted after years of fighting it to manipulate it after Muhammad's death to form an Arab empire after unifying men Arabia under banners of Islam to conquer and invade other countries. Such Arab conquests contradict the Quran that clearly shows that fighting must be ONLY for the purpose of self-defense against aggression. The Arab conquests and invasion led to the emergence of an Arab empire led by Qorayish (i.e., ruled by caliphs of Qorayish: the Umayyads and then the Abbasids) from the borders between France and Spain to the borders of China.  

9- Within the second half of the Quranic Chapter 9 (and within certain verses of the Quranic Chapters 4, 5, 63, 59, 33, and 58 revealed before the Quranic Chapter 9), we find the focus is on hypocrites, who were disbelievers and feigned conversion to Islam, and their conspiracies. Those hypocrites had exposed themselves by their words and deeds and conspiracies. There was another type of hypocrites who were adamant in hypocrisy and concealed their stance and their disbelief very well indeed in order to deceive Muhammad and early believers. Muhammad was no mind-reader; he could not know what was inside their mind and hearts. Those who were adamant in hypocrisy are mentioned in the Quranic Chapter 9 without names of course, and God has promised two types of severe torment during worldly existence and then eternal torment in Hell in the Hereafter. This means they died without repentance. God has urged hypocrites (who exposed themselves by their deeds and words) to repent in 4:145-155 and 9:74. In 9:80 and 63:1-6, God predicts that those who were adamant in hypocrisy will never repent and will die as hypocrites, and they will never be pardoned by God even if Muhammad asked for pardon for their sake, because they refused to repent. These Quranic predictions indicate clearly that after Muhammad's death, those who were adamant in hypocrisy will spread corruption on earth while feeling safe regarding the fact that the Quran will no longer expose them as was the case during Muhammad's lifetime.

10- Apart from exposed hypocrites and those who were adamant in hypocrisy and concealed their disbelief in Yathreb, there were companions there who betrayed and conspired against Muhammad; see 4:80-89 and 4:105-110, and they include those who harmed him with their tongues and deeds and those who were fear-mongers as their heart were diseased with doubt and hatred; see 33:18-25, 33:53, 33:57, 33:60, 9:61. Of course, among the Yathreb dwellers were those believers who mixed good deeds with bad ones and had fluctuating stances, and their fate in the Hereafter (in Hell or in Paradise) is decided by God on the Last Day. Another type of the Yathreb dwellers were those pious forerunners with their deep faith and good deeds, who never sought superiority or corruption on earth; see 28:83. This last category of people are never mentioned in history books; thus, we do not know their names, because historians never care except for tyrants and despots who committed massacres among leaders, sultans, and caliphs. 

11- Away from Yathreb, desert-Arabs and Bedouins are mentioned in the Quran as divided into two types: those adamant in disbelief and hypocrisy and those who were real believers; see 9:97-99. Some desert-Arabs and Bedouins were arch-enemies of the early believers and raided and attacked Yathreb many times after visiting it to know the weak points before attacking them by night while contacting hypocrites inside Yathreb of course. God has imposed on them to settle in Yathreb while enjoying political and religious freedom within peace (i.e., never to raise arms) like the rest of hypocrites; see 4:88-91. Shortly before Muhammad's death, desert-Arabs and Bedouins within borders of Yathreb were ready to seize any chance to raid the city, and God has commanded Muhammad and the early believers to face them firmly if raids occurred; see 9:123.   

12- Conspiracies and intrigues of hypocrites inside Yathreb were under control to a certain extent, as the Quranic sharia provided for them absolute freedom regarding their deeds and words as long as they were peaceful and never turn violent. Thus, hypocrites never committed military aggression against the Yathreb city-state, because hypocrites were a minority that would hate to create enmities among their tribes and relatives and that would retain their atmosphere of doubt, caution, and mistrust within their dealings with believers and outright polytheists. This is why their alliance with aggressive Meccan polytheists who attacked Yathreb was never loyal, overt, or steady; the Quran describes in many verses how hypocrites feared the believers and when conspiracies were foiled or exposed, they would swear to God they were not to blame and would offer excuses for being reluctant to participate in self-defense military endeavors  (see 63:2, 9:56-57, 9:62, 9:74, and 9:94-96).

13- The danger or threat posed by desert-Arabs and Bedouins at the time was because they were not under control; they entered Yathreb by day as if they were Muslims, but they were hypocrites and disbelievers who spied on Muhammad and the early believers for the sake of conveying information to their allies among the Meccan polytheistic aggressors. This is why God has commanded them to settle inside Yathreb if they were believers to enjoy safety and to ensure they would adhere to peace; see 9:73, 66:9, and 4:88-91. Hence, once Muhammad died, desert-Arabs and Bedouins were the first ones to declare their forsaking Islam and returned to their old ways of raiding and looting.

14- As per Sunnite terms, all such figures were 'companions' who were contemporaries of Muhammad and saw him and supposedly converted to the new faith, regardless of their real stances vis-à-vis Islam. Their stances varied (for or against Islam) as per the Quranic verses to which we referred in the above points. Thus, there were true believers and there were those who only sought spoils; see 48:10-25. Eventually, God has promised Paradise for those true, sincere, believers and worshippers who were around Muhammad at the time; see 48:29. This means that not all contemporaries of Muhammad or 'companions' will be among the Paradise dwellers.   

  This is the beliefs map of the so-called companions during Muhammad's lifetime during the revelation of the Quran.

The most dangerous types of the so-called companions:

(A) the Meccans of Qorayish "the freed ones" and their Umayyad leaders:

1- Each of them has spent most of his lifetime within enmity toward Islam and suddenly converted to it shortly before Muhammad's death just in time to protect their political and financial interests. This short duration of their peace with Muhammad, and getting to know what Islam is, is hardly expected to make them real Muslims who would forget their long years of animosity toward and fighting against Islam, especially after Muhammad's death. They in fact sought revenge against Muhammad and the Hashemites who killed many Umayyads within the battle of Badr and made them lose their stature and power, as their former slaves were free men and real Muslims, unlike their former masters who were defeated and crestfallen polytheists.   

2- Proof: the Meccans of Qorayish and their Umayyad leaders persecuted men like Ibn Masood and Ammar Ibn Yasser twice: when they were among weak believers in Mecca and during the caliphate of Othman (who was an Umayyad man) who was controlled by the Umayyads. When Ibn Masood and Ammar Ibn Yasser protested against the corruption of Othman instigated by the Umayyads, both men were persecuted, tortured, and humiliated by Othman, among other protestors including Abou Zar Al-Ghifary. This means that the Meccans of Qorayish and their Umayyad leaders felt like taking revenge and changing the new conditions to restore the old system as per their mentalities, until they engaged into civil war against Ali and managed to establish the Umayyad caliphate that made them kings ruling an Arab empire.    

(B) opportunist and hypocritical desert-Arabs and Bedouins: those could never live without raiding and looting, and they could not be made to submit to a central state unless with sheer, brutal military force, as they never heed any treaties.

(C) known groups of hypocrites among the Yathreb dwellers: the Quran has exposed them, and they sighed in relief once Muhammad died and the Quranic revelation stopped; they hated Islam and Muslims very much; see 3:118-21 and they used to feign to enter into a pledge with Muhammad and then lie to him, ridicule him, and conspire against him; see 4:81, 47:16, and 47:26-30.  

(D) groups of those with weak belief: God describes them as traitors and usurers and warned them against Hell torment in the Hereafter and worldly torment as their penalty inflicted on them by God. These groups include those who were reluctant to participate in self-defense military jihad, those who spread rumors, those who allied themselves to polytheistic aggressors and to hypocrites, those who molested and harassed women in Yathreb, and those believers who befriended hypocrites though they never knew the deep-seated hatred inside hypocrites toward Islam (see 2:278-284, 3:100, 3:118-112, 3:130, 30:176, 3:179-184, 4:77-85, 4:88, 4:95-97, 4:105-115, 4:140, 4:144, 8:20-27, 8:45-51, 9:13, 9:23, 9:38, 947, 33:18, 33:32, 33:53, 33:60, and 33:69, to name but few examples).

(F) the unknown groups of those adamant in hypocrisy: they were the most dangerous enemies of Islam and the early believers: they were secret groups who are not described as immigrants nor supporters, but merely as among the Yathreb dwellers; this means that those hypocrites included men from both groups (i.e., immigrants & supporters), and we would like readers to reflect deeply on this verse: "Among the Desert-Arabs around you there are some hypocrites, and among the inhabitants of Yathreb too. They have become adamant in hypocrisy. You do not know them, but We know them. We will punish them twice; then they will be returned to a severe torment." (9:101). This means that those hypocrites include some of the original dwellers of Yathreb and some of those who immigrated to it and settled there still even after Muhammad's death. They lived around Muhammad in the Yathreb city-state and he never knew that they were hypocrites. They remained in Yathreb after they sighed in relief that the Quran will no longer expose their hypocrisy and hatred after the death of Muhammad. Hence, it is expected that they would readily act against Islam and Muslims while feeling safe as their intrigues and conspiracies would not be exposed. Besides, they were somehow trusted by naïve Arabs because of the fact that they lived around Muhammad and close to him inside Yathreb for a while, and he never knew their hypocrisy, animosity, plots, and bad deeds. Hence, once Muhammad died, they developed their hypocrisy and conspiracies the more until the flagrant contradiction between the Quran and Arabs has been established by the crimes called Arab conquests led by Qorayish and whose fruits where harvested by the Umayyads eventually. We have nothing but Sunnite books to shed light on those who were adamant in hypocrisy and who were very close to Muhammad while deceiving him and they ruled Arabia as caliphs and conquered other countries while being controlled all the time by Abou Sufyan: the leader of the Umayyads.            

The influence of the struggle between Qorayish and desert-Arabs on establishing the contradictions between Islam and the Muhammadans during the era of the corrupt four pre-Umayyad caliphs: introduction:

The secret role of the hidden, lurking forces in formulating the policies of the corrupt four pre-Umayyad caliphs and its influence in paving the way for establishing the earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans that contradict Islam:

1- We have concluded that once Muhammad died and the Quranic revelation stopped, opposition powers that were latent came to the fore in Arabia, especially by the hypocrites and the Umayyads; God has commanded that such enemies be fought; see 9:73 and 66:9. Hence, after tackling the beliefs map of the so-called companions as per the Quranic verses, we expect that conditions in Arabia worsened once Muhammad died and hypocrites were safe from being exposed by the Quranic revelation.  

2- It is noteworthy that the Quranic attack against hypocrites is stronger within the last verses revealed shortly before Muhammad's death. This is a clear warning from God, indicating that hypocrisy will never end, as Satan never tenders his resignation and Arabs were never turned into 'infallible pure angels' once Muhammad died. Hence, Arab military conquests and civil wars indicate clearly that the latent opposition powers came to the fore suddenly and channeled Arabs into a path that contradicts the Quran; i.e., the same path they used to follow: raiding, looting, enslaving, etc. but this time outside Arabia. This path they were forced to leave because of Islam made them hate the Quranic verses of God, as we have read in the Quran.    

3- The latent opposition powers came to the fore suddenly during the era of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs who initiated military conquests at the time when the Persian empire and the Byzantines witnessed weakness, decadence, and affluence. Arab conquerors managed to put an end to the Persian empire and to invade many countries controlled previously by the Byzantines (including our beloved Egypt) in record time by means of Arab troops consisting mainly of desert-Arabs and Bedouins. This has been a radical change in world history that still has its influence until now. This means that the latent opposition powers inside Arabia led Arabs and controlled the four pre-Umayyad caliphs in relation to foreign policy that shook the Ancient World by Arab conquests that took people by surprise as an Arab empire emerged while ascribing crimes of conquests to Islam and disregarding Quranic facts, teachings, and tenets, especially, peace, justice, and never to practice compulsion in religion; see 47:9, 47:16, and 47:26-32.

4- Qorayish led desert-Arabs and Bedouins as early as the caliphate of Abou Bakr by imposing on them the obligation of paying zakat/alms money to the State Treasury, unlike the case with the Yathreb city-state that made this as a voluntary good deed as per Quranic teachings in the Quranic Chapters 2.57, 47, 64, and 73; for instance: "Who is he who will offer God a generous loan, so He will multiply it for him manifold?..." (2:245); "Here you are, being called to spend in the cause of God. Among you are those who withhold; but whoever withholds is withholding against his own soul. God is the Rich, while you are the needy. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people, and they will not be like you." (47:38). Hence, this is a voluntary deed between man and God; hypocrites who never believed in the Last Day were reluctant to pay some money for the self-defense jihad (and never participated in such endeavors) and were punished by God Who commanded Muhammad never to take money from them and never to allow them to participate in fighting for the sake of Allah later on, as being deprived from such honor has been their penalty: "What prevents the acceptance of their contributions is nothing but the fact that they disbelieved in God and His Messenger, and that they do not approach the prayer except lazily, and that they do not spend except grudgingly." (9:54); "If God brings you back to a party of them, and they ask your permission to go out, say, "You will not go out with me, ever, nor will you ever fight enemies with me. You were content to sit back the first time, so sit back with those who stay behind." You are never to pray over anyone of them who dies, nor are you to stand at his graveside. They rejected God and His Messenger, and died while they were sinners. Do not let their possessions and their children impress you. God desires to torment them through them in this world, and their souls expire while they are disbelievers." (9:83-85).

5- Yathreb was the target for disbelievers among the aggressive Bedouins and desert-Arabs who roamed and lived in the desert and specialized in raids, and this drove Muhammad to send reconnoiters and troops to prevent raids and sieges, and hypocrites were reluctant to join such self-defense endeavors: "It is not advisable for the believers to march out altogether. Of every division that marches out, let a group remain behind, to gain understanding of the religion, and to notify their people when they have returned to them, that they may beware. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who attack you, and let them find severity in you, and know that God is with the righteous." (9:122-123).  

6- Arabia witnessed fragile, temporary truce shortly before Muhammad's death when Arabs (Bedouins, dwellers of cities, Meccans, and other tribes and the People of the Book) entered into peace in multitudes (see 110:1-3). This truce ended by Qorayish abruptly when its leaders provoked the belligerent Bedouins and desert-Arabs by imposing payment of Zakat as an obligatory duty regulated by the State. This coercion and embezzlement naturally caused the renegades' war, planned by the Umayyad leaders. Bedouins and desert-Arabs announced they forsook Islam as a reaction to the hegemony of Qorayish that returned with a vengeance, and many hypocrites among them attacked Yathreb; the renegades' war included several tribes all over Arabia, within the conspiracies and intrigues of the Umayyads.      

7- The leaders among the Meccan Umayyad faction of Qorayish were the biggest beneficiaries of such renegades'' war of rebels they instigated and initiated so as to allow the latent Qorayish power to move and lead Arabs once again; it is noteworthy that Arab leaders who led the troops to quell rebels were those who 'converted' recently to Islam shortly before Muhammad's death.   

8- Thus, the Qorayish tribe managed to make Arabs submit totally to it gradually, especially after the Qorayish leaders made pacts with defeated rebels and renegades who declared their 'return' to Islam to make them engage into military endeavors of Arab conquests under the pretext of propagating Islam outside Arabia.  

9- Even if we suppose that the four pre-Umayyad caliphs (Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali) had good intentions (this is doubted very much by us, of course), they were minorities who could not have stopped the ambitions to Qorayish that aimed to form an Arab empire and mobilized desert-Arabs who were very eager to return to looting and raiding; directing their belligerence outside Arabia seemed the best solution to stop their troublemaking and raids that threatened the newly formed unity of Arabia under Qorayish, as they might have rebelled more often than not and their defeat was costly. Hence, within such circumstances, the four men who were the pre-Umayyad caliphs (who were men of Qorayish, by the way) and other hypocrites readily agreed to initiate the Arab conquests.   

10- Using the Quran as a criterion, we maintain that the Arab conquests are the deeds indicating rejection of Islam (i.e., the Quran itself) and manipulating its name to unify murders and thieves under one banner to occupy and invade other countries. This has tarnished and distorted the Quranic sharia laws and the meaning of jihad (military self-defense endeavors for God's sake to stop religious persecution and any aggression). Conflicts about distribution of spoils led to rebellions and the first major Arab civil war, resulting in the division of Muhammadans into Shiites and Sunnites until this very moment, within the emerged earthly religions of Shiites, Sunnites, Sufi Sunnites, and Sufi Shiites, and their subsumed  doctrines and trends.      

11- Sadly, Arabs disregarded the Quranic warning against division in religion as such division is an indicator of polytheism and disbelief (see 30:31-32, 3:19, 3:103, 3:105, 6:153, and 6:159). Hence, this division caused the emergence of the man-made, fabricated, earthly religions of the Muhammadans that hijack the name of Islam and tarnish its reputation while contradicting its Quranic sharia.

12- Divisions within sects and doctrines inside the man-made, fabricated, earthly religions of the Muhammadans are signs of disbelief and polytheism as each one has its own mortal deities or imams/saints whose writings are deemed as 'holy' books. Of course, polytheism in the sense of committing violence and aggression is manifested as the Muhammadans fought one another after fighting and invading lands of other peaceful nations (while committing crimes of looting, enslaving, raping, sabotage, etc.) for the sake of material possessions. Such divisions in politics led to religious rifts and divisions that increased the gap (or abyss) between the Quran and the Muhammadans within basic contradictions that cannot be reconciled with Islam at all. Such abyss has begun as early as the period of reign of the four pre-Umayyads caliphs manipulated and controlled by Qorayish.     

13- The four pre-Umayyads caliphs (Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali) were sinners and corrupt men, but they were relatively less evil in comparison to Umayyads and Abbasid caliphs. Historians among the Sunnites deem these four men as 'wise caliphs' (and deified saints) because they did not establish hereditary monarchy of dynasties of tyrants who ruled for centuries later on. Sunnite historians assume that the Umayyad caliph Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz as the fifth 'wise' caliph as he was a just ruler (his caliphate lasted two years and some months as he was killed by poison, and he was an exception to the otherwise tyrannical Umayyad caliphs), despite the fact that he emerged 50 years after the assassination of Ali.    

14- Hence, three major events within overt and secret political trends shaped the features of the era of the four pre-Umayyads caliphs: renegades' war, Arab conquests, and the first major civil war (Mu'aweiya vs. Ali). Such turmoil within turbulent times led to unprecedented divisions in politics and religion that caused the emergence of the earthly religions of the Muhammadans. 

 We re-emphasize the following points.

1- Before the advent of Islam (i.e., the Quran), Arabs in Arabia for centuries lived on incessant raids on other tribes and caravans, while leaving winter and summer trade caravans of Qorayish pass deserts of Arabia in peace in return for placing their pagan idols inside the Sacred Kaaba Mosque in Mecca, where Qorayish fully controls pilgrimage and gain lots of money part from stature, power, and authority all over Arabia. Thus, they enjoyed security and prosperity while other Arabian tribes and Bedouins lived in hunger and fear  (see 106:1-4, 29:67, and 28:57).

2- Qorayish Umayyad leaders fought Islam from the very start of the ministry of Muhammad, and within the margin of such struggle, some desert-Arabs and Bedouins converted to Islam. This led believing and disbelieving Arabs to realize the futility of the worship of pagan idols that never protected Qorayish against Muhammad and the Yathreb dwellers and how the Qorayish tribesmen deceived them by these myths for their financial interests assured by their manipulated and control of pilgrimage. Hence, Arabs outside Qorayish realized that how beneficial it was to liberate themselves from the hegemony of Qorayish. For sure, clergymen of all eras make money and live off the ignorance of people; this is why they hate enlightenment and putting inherited rigid dogmas to question.       

3- The emergence of Islam and its spread peacefully within Arabia led inevitably to exposing Qorayish and to undermining its authority and stature; desert-Arabs and Bedouins dared to raid its trade caravans, and this made leaders of Qorayish realize that their financial interests entails 'converting' to Islam so that they pave their route step by step later on to restore their hegemony over Arabia. This is part of the reasons they left Muhammad enter peacefully into Mecca with his troops after a period of truce.     

4- As per the Quranic Chapter 9, the Qorayish imams/leaders of disbelief/polytheism inside Mecca rebelled against Muhammad but they were forced to adhere to peace shortly before Muhammad's death; Arabs enjoyed temporary peace and autonomous rule within each tribe without interference from Qorayish. Zakat money was collected from those who can afford and distributed among the poor, without coercion or compulsion, but voluntarily; zakat sharia laws never include taking alms money by force and even those hypocrites who paid reluctantly were punished by not receiving their donations; see 9:54. Hence, Arabs for the first time but temporarily felt the good, unprecedented change of conditions because of values like equality among all human beings (see 49:13), justice, charity, and peace. The superiority of Qorayish turned out to be fake: this is a new idea that Arabs learned at the time during the ministry of Muhammad. Sadly, such Quranic values, morals, and teachings were disregarded by Qorayish leaders, especially the Umayyads, who plotted and masterminded the renegades' war, the Arab conquests, and then the civil war to overthrow Ali to establish the Umayyads caliphate.      

5- The latent opposition power active under the surface was the Qorayish faction of the Umayyads, among others, who controlled and masterminded everything while placing Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali on the top as façade. The devilish Umayyad plot took years and many steps to yield the result of establishing an Umayyad dynasty ruling an Arab empire. The Umayyads prevented any of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs from leaving their thrones to their progeny. The Umayyads planned the institution of Ali as caliph using the power of desert-Arabs and Bedouins despite the old enemy between them and the Umayyads. The Umayyads' plan included to drive those belligerent desert-Arabs and Bedouins to rebel against Ali as he purportedly desired to leave the throne to his eldest son after his death, and this was hardly acceptable at the time. Hence, this made the Umayyads succeed in the last phase of their plan by initiating civil war against Ali (after the phases of renegades' war and the Arab conquests), and all such phases and steps led to the emergence of the Umayyad dynasty.      

A brief overview of the stages of renegades' war, Arab conquests, and civil war: the movement of the renegades:

   Muhammad died after a brief period of illness, and once Abou Bakr was chosen as caliph, the Qorayish hegemony was restored gradually as immigrants in Yathreb from Qorayish allied themselves to Meccans who converted recently, and this caused other non-Qorayish Arabs to feel resentful as this ushered new circumstances and new changes. Rebellious Arabs who forsook Islam for political reasons assumed that prophethood was seen to be confined to Qorayish and this led Musaylimah the Liar to claim himself as a new prophet from valley called Hanifa (the same place in Najd from which the Wahabi call was initiated!). Musaylimah even sent a letter to Muhammad in his death bed to inform him that he was a new prophet! (see history of Al-Tabari, part 3, p. 146). other renegades' movements emerged from the tribes of Assad and Tayy led by a man named Talha; the desert-Arabs around Yathreb readily revolted and attacked Yathreb and this led Abou Bakr to organize troops to defend it (see history of Ibn Katheer, the Beirut edition, part 6, p. 311-312). The Umayyads understood that such rebellions were a reaction against the restoration of the Qorayish hegemony and domination over Arabia, and they led Meccan and Yathreb troops that crushed and quelled rebels. This led to internal developments within Yathreb as the new capital of Arabs, and the idea of unifying all Arabs under the banner of Islam to be mobilized into the Arab conquests was initiated by the Umayyads.         

The movement of the renegades led to the Arab conquests:

 The threat of renegades posed to all Arabs while Muhammad was in his death bed and immediately after his death gave to Qorayish ta sort of 'green-light' to 'declare marshal laws'; we mean the so-called Thaqeefa council to choose Abou Bakr hastily as a leader/ruler/caliph within exceptional circumstances while making Arabs swear allegiance to him as they did with Muhammad under a tree. Within such council held in Yathreb but prepared by the Qorayish leaders (especially the Umayyads), the representatives of Qorayish (including immigrants) were hostile toward the original Yathreb dwellers who were called the supporters whose leader Saad Ibn Eibada was banished and assassinated later on (see Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra by Ibn Saad who died in 222 A.H., part 3, p. 145, the 1968 Cairo edition). The Umayyads planned that Abou Bakr be appointed caliph and NOT Ali who was Muhammad's paternal uncle's son and close friend and the husband of Muhammad's daughter Fatima. The Umayyads deliberately disregarded Ali in the Thaqeefa council despite their shared ancestry with him (the great founding grandfather: Abd-Manaf). The reason: the Umayyads in particular and the Qorayish tribesmen in general hated Ali because he killed their chieftains and leaders in the battle of Badr. Another reason was that Qorayish chiefs aimed to install caliphs/leaders fully controlled by them; they saved Ali to the last (after three caliphs enabling Qorayish to restore its hegemony and domination and to initiate the Arab conquests) so that they would plan civil war led by Mu'aweiya against him and to prevent his leaving the throne to his sons, grandsons of Muhammad, as this would prevent Umayyads from achieving their dreams of ruling and Arab empire within a dynasty carrying the name of their household. Abou Bakr felt the urge to compliment his new allies, the Umayyads, by appointing the Umayyad young man Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan as the military leader of the troops to crush rebels within renegades' war. Omar made the two brothers Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan and Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan governors of the Levant region after it was conquered. When Yazeed Ibn Abou Sufyan died, Omar made Mu'aweiya the governor of the whole of the Levant region. Omar was an agent of the Umayyads and this applies to Abou Bakr and Othman as well. Omar dismissed and appointed several governors in many regions but he kept Mu'aweiya all the time as the governor of the Levant. This gave Mu'aweiya the chance to pave his way for 20 years to establish the Umayyad state first in the Levant, making Damascus its capital. In fact, the Levant was loved and coveted very much by Mu'aweiya and the rest of the Umayyads who led the Qorayish winter and summer trade caravans between the Levant and Yemen and who made a pact with the Kalb tribe (originally from Yemen) that controlled trade routes within the southern area of the Levant. This made the Umayyads initiate the Arab conquests by annexing the Levant and then Iraq to guarantee the Qorayish domination over the trade routes. This means that when desert-Arabs raided the Qorayish trade caravans, this drove the Qorayish leaders to feign a conversion to Islam to ensure the safety and security of its caravans. Yet, once Muhammad died, Qorayish mobilized the same desert-Arabs to initiate the Arab conquests of Iraq and the Levant to control eastern trade within the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea Levantine coast. Within the caliphate of Abou Bakr, the Qorayish tribe managed in Mecca and Yathreb to quell the rebels of the renegades' war and channeled the belligerence of desert-Arabs and Bedouins, who love looting and raids, into the Arab conquests outside Arabia to divert them from any possible revolts within such lucrative alliance. This means that the greed for loot made desert-Arabs and Bedouins readily agree to be led by the Qorayish military leaders, especially the Umayyads, and to forget the past enmity only temporarily. Within such exceptional circumstances of military conquests, Abou Bakr died mysteriously (possibly by being poisoned); this means that his reign was a mere phase among many phases of the Umayyad long-term plan. Within the Umayyad supervision, Omar was chosen hastily as caliph/ruler within the same conditions and swearing allegiance done with him in the same way when Abou Bakr was chosen before him. the Arab conquests went on, and Omar was assassinated and his Persian assassin committed suicide. Within the same conditions and swearing allegiance hastily, the Umayyad Othman was chosen by the Umayyads to succeed Omar; this helped the Umayyads to control the rule affairs the more, as Othman had a weak personality and was dominated by them. Othman was chosen hastily though most Arabs desired that Ali would be Omar's successor. But this was prevented so as not to spoil the grand scheme of the Umayyads who hated Ali; besides, Ali was hated by most hypocrites. The shrewd Umayyads and hypocrites, when the right moment came, let the rebels who sieged the house of the corrupt and weak Othman assassinate him and allowed Ali to be chosen as caliph/successor to begin the last phase of the long-term plan; i.e., to initiate civil war against Ali so that Mu'aweiya would step in and establish the Umayyad caliphate.                                       

Four dangerous escalations resulting from the renegades' war and the conquests:

 These new powers made the Muhammadans enter into four dangerous escalations that contradict Islam; we detail them as follows.

A) The appointment of a ruler for the rest of his lifetime, while he would be surrounded with a circle of consultants, contradicts the Islamic direct democracy of Shura consultation in the Quran which does not include appointing a ruler for a lifetime. Swearing allegiance to a military leader to engage into self-defense fighting for God's sake was distorted by making allegiance turn into swearing fealty/allegiance to a tyrannical ruler.

B) Self-defense military endeavors (i.e., jihad for God's sake, as per the Quran, to stop aggression and religious persecution) was turned into military aggression to annex lands and invade and occupy countries to form an empire, after forcing people to choose among three options: conversion, paying tributes/taxes, or being fought to death! Hence, Arabs disregarded intentionally the Quranic basic rules in the Quranic Chapter Two: "And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors." (2:190); "There shall be no compulsion in religion..." (2:256). The Umayyads easily managed to convince most Arabs of the erroneous idea to propagate and spread religion with the sword and they named this crime as jihad. Desert-Arabs and Bedouins welcomed this faulty idea as they used to raid and loot as a way to earn their living before Islam; it was easy for them to re-engage into the same lifestyle under a false religious pretext to justify their crimes and to use Islam as a façade to cover their greed and their scramble for loot. This made them follow their whims of belligerence and getting spoils while easing their conscience with the myth that they will enter Paradise however bad their deeds would be. This type of devotion helped Arabs to defeat the two most powerful entities in the Ancient World at the time: the Persians and the Byzantines. The swords of Arab fighters under the Qorayish  leadership opened for them the riches, treasures, and treasuries of many countries: Persia, Egypt, North Africa, the Levant, Iraq, etc.

C) Renegades' war was the first step to reject the essence of Quran/Islam, which is peaceful dealing with others, and this metamorphosed soon enough to the two types of polytheism/disbelief combined together: in terms of violent, aggressive behavior of the Arab conquests and in terms of faith/belief by rejecting Quranic sharia laws and replacing them with man-made fiqh laws and hadiths, among other similarly false narratives and faulty notions to justify the crimes of conquests by the lame pretext that non-Muslims who never fought Arabian tribes were 'infidels' who deserve to be invaded, enslaved, and forced to pay taxes/tributes.  

D) civil wars that followed the establishment of the Arab empire indicates clearly that money (or Mammon) is the real deity for such Arabs who participated in the Arab conquests that aimed at nothing but wealth. This led soon enough into divisions among the Muhammadans, and each warring party invented and fabricated oral hadiths ascribed falsely to Muhammad after his death. This false Satanist revelations began early as mere oral traditions that have become the foundations of the earthly religions of the Muhammadans later on. Hence, Arab conquests wronged and oppressed millions of people within conquered nations by severe and many injustices and wronged Islam and tarnished its name, as its banners were used to mobilize Arabs into the military endeavors for loot and invasions.     

The major immigrant companions and the possibility of their being spies and agents working for the Umayyads:

1- As per the Quran, Muhammad never committed military aggression against peaceful people; he only engaged into military self-defense jihad with the early believers against aggressors who fought against the Yathreb city-state. History asserts that Muhammad might have sent epistles to rulers around Arabia to urge them to let their nations know about Islam; he never thought about conquering other nations at all nor about waging wars of aggression. Thus, the companions who surrounded Muhammad (e.g., Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, Ali, Al-Zubayr, Talha, and Abdul-Rahman Ibn Awf) disregarded intentionally the Quranic teachings (see 2:190 and 2:256) when they participated in Arab conquests.

2- This means that it is most likely that such names (among so many other names of 'companions') were among hypocrites who were adamant in hypocrisy and they deceived and betrayed Muhammad who never knew their true stances against Islam despite their being so close to him in Yathreb. They were similar to dormant cells or secret agents planted by the Qorayish leaders inside the Yathreb city-state who would move and act in the right time take advantage of Islam to serve their interests and harvest the ripe fruits once Muhammad is dead.

3- The above hypothesis is never excluded in light of this Quranic description of Qorayish tribesmen and chieftains in this verse that was revealed in Mecca: "They planned their cunning plans, but their plans are known to God, even if their plans can eliminate mountains." (14:46). Hence, our hypothesis is never excluded in light of critical reading of events of history: we know that the Umayyads had won all cards of the game eventually, after long years of showing animosity and hostility to the Quran and Muhammad and fighting Islam. The Qorayish leaders would not have dared to assassinate Muhammad when he resided in Mecca so as not to lose the alliance between Abbas and Abou Sufyan, the two leaders of the progeny/factions of Abd-Manaf (i.e., the Umayyads and the Hashemites). The solution chosen by the shrewd Umayyads in their cunning plans that can eliminate mountains was to drive Muhammad and the early believers to immigrate and settle elsewhere; once they settled in Yathreb, the Umayyads sent their spies and agents to surround Muhammad there. the Umayyads waited to see of the 'movement' of Muhammad would succeed or not, and if proven successful, they would take advantage of it later on to form an Arab empire. This is what occurred; we make conclusions based on the historical fact that the Umayyads were the winners in all steps/phases within the period of the four appointed caliphs (about 40 years) that culminated in the establishment of the Umayyad caliphate and empire.       

The conflict over spoils and the outbreak of the civil war among the companions planned by the Umayyads:

  We trace in the points below the Umayyad scheme that resulted eventually in the collapse of the system of choosing a caliph by people (within the period of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs) in order to establish the hereditary kingdom/monarchy of the Umayyad caliphate 

1- Once Muhammad died, the Umayyads began very early to prevent the supporters (i.e., the name given to the original Yathreb dwellers who supported and welcomed immigrants and Muhammad) from influencing the political circle. The Umayyads kept close relations with the three caliphs Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman (the latter was an Umayyad man) and they took great care to save Ali (the youngest among the four caliphs) for the last phase in their plan (to cause a civil war to break out to their advantage). Hence. The Umayyad scheme had phases chronologically ordered as follows: provoking the renegades' war, mobilizing Arabs for the Arab conquests, and igniting the civil war on purpose against Ali shortly after appointing him as caliph. Such scheme aimed at establishing the Umayyad dynasty ruling over an Umayyad empire.     

2- The conquest of the Levant was made easy through the Umayyads and their close ties with the Kalb tribe that controlled trade route leading to the Levant and through the experience of the Umayyads in the winter and summer journeys of the Qorayish trade caravans. Even Abou Sufyan (the father of Mu'aweiya) despite his old age participated in the decisive battle of Yarmouk that ended in the Arab victory over the Byzantines who ruled the Levant before the Arab conquests and Mu'aweiya was appointed as the governor of the Levant for 20 years; he focused on consolidating his rule there by marrying Maysoon, the daughter of the chieftain of the Kalb tribe, and she bore him a son, whose name was Yazeed. Thus, Mu'aweiya guaranteed for himself that swords of the Kalb tribe would support him when he proclaim himself a caliph and rebel against Ali later on. The same applies to the Levantine people who loved and blindly obeyed Mu'aweiya and he taught them 'Islam' in a distorted way that would serve the Umayyad purposes.   

3- After the assassination of Omar, people saw that Ali deserved to be chosen as caliph, but the Umayyads forced their man, Othman, as caliph. This lead to a division among the companions, as some supported Othman and some supported Ali. Thus, the Umayyads ruled the Muhammadans behind curtains during the caliphate of Othman.   

4- Othman was 70 years old when he was chosen as caliph; his weak character and his leniency allowed his paternal uncle's son, the Umayyad leader Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam, to control him totally. Marwan was the scribe of Othman and holder of his seal; he controlled all affairs of the caliphate to serve the Umayyads. The other Umayyad leaders controlled the conquered countries and their governors, and they bribed some senior companions with assets and money to win them to the side of the Umayyads. When some other companions (e.g., Ibn Masood, Ammar Ibn Yasser, and Abou Zar Al-Ghifary) protested outspoken against this corruption, they were punished and persecuted.      

5- Othman was the penultimate step in the ladder that led his relatives, the Umayyads, to monopolizing authority (the ultimate step was igniting an Arab civil war against the Hashemite man, Ali, when he was chosen as caliph). Thus, the Umayyads ignited a revolt against Othman by persecuting some men and favoring others with wealth, so that rebels would assassinate Othman. This was easily done as the Umayyads relied on the belligerence and violent nature of armed desert-Arabs and Bedouins.  

6- The Umayyads controlled fully the Treasury of the State during the reign of Othman as well as all treasures and spoils yielded by the Arab conquests. Desert-Arabs and Bedouins at first controlled the fertile lands in the area between the region of Najd and Iraq conquered by their swords, while leaving the Umayyads control the Levant, Egypt, North Africa, Iraq, and Persia. Yet, the Umayyads coveted control of these fertile lands and called it (the orchard of Qorayish) and insisted on this not for the sake of hegemony and money but to incite Arabs to revolt against Othman as part of the grand Umayyad scheme to create an Umayyad dynasty later on. The dispute and revolt increased by two leaders: (1) Abdullah Ibn Saba (one of the founders of the Shiite religion and a Yemenite former Jew who overtly 'converted' to Islam) who raised the motto of allying oneself to Ali Ibn Abou Talib and supported the rebels, and (2) Kaab Al-Ahbar (a Yemenite former Jewish rabbi who overtly 'converted' to Islam) who allied himself to Othman and the Umayyads during this revolt (see history of Al-Tabari, 4^th edition, Cairo, Egypt, reviewed by Abou Jaffer M. Ibn Jarir (224-310 A.H.) and edited by M. Abou Al-Fadl Ibrahim, part 4, p. 191, 202, 255, 283, 317, 326, 330, 340, 349, 493, and 500). The revolt ended by rebels sieging the house of Othman in Yathreb for days before they assassinated him and appointed Ali as the new caliph.          

7- When Othman was sieged, Ali tried to interfere as a mediator to restore peace within any agreement that might be reached, and his endeavors were about to bear fruits if it had not been for the scheme of Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam. When this scheme was exposed, Othman refused to dismiss him and adamantly refused to leave his position as caliph, as if he insisted on getting killed by the rebels who sieged his house. Shortly before Othman was assassinated, Marwan fled from the house, leaving the old Othman facing his fate. It is said that rebels murdered him when he was lone, reading from a copy of the Quran. During this sieged and before the assassination, Mu'aweiya who governed the Levant refused to help the caliph Othman in his ordeal, though he could have helped him. This means he let him die so that events would lead to the final phase of the Umayyad scheme: rebellion and civil war against Ali, resulting in an Umayyad caliphate. Mu'aweiya waited till Othman was assassinated by the rebels and cared only to retrieve the blood-soaked garment of Othman to raise it like a flag in the Damascus mosque, calling for revenge against the new caliph, Ali, accused by Mu'aweiya as the one to incite the murder of Othman to replace him as caliph.     

8- The new caliph, Ali, had to be prepared to fight the rebellious Mu'aweiya and his troops. The Umayyads had prepared a cruel surprise for Ali; i.e., Ali's closest friends and senior companions (and among the earliest men to 'convert' to Islam) Talha and Al-Zubayr forsook him suddenly and they joined Aisha, widow of Prophet Muhammad, and her troops that fought against Ali. Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam helped incite this major Arab civil war with all his endeavors, causing Ali and his troops to fight that of Aisha and others in the battle of the Camel. Marwan himself fought in the troops against Ali. The Umayyads revenged themselves at last by killing Talha and Al-Zubayr during this battle. The senior companions left to be annihilated by the Umayyads at that point after this battle was Ali and his supporters. Ali's supporters included many desert-Arabs and Bedouins.  

9- After weakening and sapping the military energy of Ali and his troops in the battle of the Camel, Mu'aweiya who claimed himself as caliph prepared his troops for a decisive battle under the pretext to avenge the murdered Othman who was an Umayyad man. This battle of Siffein would have resulted in the victory of Ali if it had not been for the scheme of the shrewd leader Amr Ibn Al-As, the chief ally of Mu'aweiya, who advised Mu'aweiya to make his soldiers raise copies of the Quran on their spears to demand the arbitration using the Quran instead of incessant fighting. At first, Ali refused such suggestion because he knew it was a ploy for deception because the Umayyad troops were about to be defeated. Yet, Ali's soldiers among the desert-Arabs and Bedouins forced Ali to accept the proposed arbitration and to stop fighting; they threatened him that if he did not agree to their demand, they would capture him and sent him as prisoner to Mu'aweiya his enemy! The desert-Arabs and Bedouins in Ali's troops forced him to choose Abou Moussa Al-Ashaary as his representative in arbitration, and this weak, simple man was not as shrewd and cunning as Ibn Al-As, the representative of Mu'aweiya in this arbitration. Thus, the arbitration failed as Ibn Al-As deceived Al-Ashaary. The desert-Arabs and Bedouins among the troops of Ali realized that Ali was right to refuse arbitration in the first place, and they felt deceived, but instead of obeying Ali, they rebelled against him and called themselves as (Al-Khawarij) [i.e., literally, ''rebels'' or those who turned against someone after supporting him earlier]. Al-Khawarij mobilized their own troops and fought Ali until they assassinated him, and they continued their rebellions against the Umayyads caliphate for decades.       

Those cursed Bedouins and desert-Arabs!

1- Reading history of Ali in authoritative historical sources, we cannot help but feel astonished by the adamant stubbornness of Bedouins and desert-Arabs within the troops of Ali, during the civil war, who refused to support him when he needed them and who readily disobeyed him and rebelled against him when he commanded them. They were the cause of his failure in general and of turning the victory which was about to be achieved during the battle of Siffein into defeat.

2- The only reason behind this strange stance of Bedouins and desert-Arabs (who vacillated and fluctuated between supporting Ali and disobeying him) is that they hated the Qorayish tribe very much and Ali belonged to this tribe after all. They saw that they were pawns under Qorayish in the struggle between the two wings/factions of Qorayish: the Umayyads led by Mu'aweiya and the Hashemites led by Ali. This is why they had chosen to get rid of the dominance of Qorayish altogether by joining Al-Khawarij. In order to make themselves as peers of Qorayish, Al-Khawarij increased their religiosity and ostentatious 'pious' behavior as they increased their prayers and Quran recited daily, etc., and yet, they massacred great numbers of the Muhammadans for decades to come. Thus, Al-Khawarij invented an earthly religion based on superficial religiosity and extremism leading to terrorism, bloodbaths, and massacres, driven by their deep-seated hatred and envy toward Qorayish. Not all Bedouins and desert-Arabs joined Al-Khawarij group, as some of them and their tribes decided to be subordinates of the Umayyads; for instance, the Qahtanite, Yemenite Kalb tribe located near the Levant supported the Umayyads. Most of Al-Khawarij group of rebels were from the Adnanite tribes and also some of the tribes that originally came from Yemen that lived in the Najd region.      

3- Within this struggle against Qorayish, Bedouins and desert-Arabs were at first disbelievers who fought against island, and then, they embraced Islam/peace shortly before the death of Muhammad. They were renegades who forsook Islam (during the reign of Abou Bakr), but they were defeated and quelled in the renegades' war to return to 'Islam' and to the subordination under Qorayish so that they participate in Arab conquests led by Qorayish (especially the Umayyads, during the reign of Omar). During the reign of Othman, they rebelled against him and they joined forces of Ali during his reign before they turned against him eventually. Hence, the fickle Bedouins and desert-Arabs changed their stances several times within the duration of less than 30 years: from Muhammad's death (c. 11 A.H./632 A.D.) to the assassination of Ali by Al-Khawarij in (40 A.H./661 A.D.). Thus, they changed their stances within becoming disbelievers, new converts, renegades, Arab conquests soldiers, rebels against Othman, supporters of Ali, Al-Khawarij rebels against Ali, and then rebels for decades against the Umayyads.     

4- The rebels named Al-Khawarij organized their movement within extreme violence using a fake religious façade; this is why they pretended to accept Islam/peace enthusiastically at first shortly before the death of Muhammad, and then joined the renegades and the Arab conquests later on under the banner of 'jihad' for victory, spoils, and martyrdom/Paradise under the pretext of 'serving' and propagating Islam. They joined the rebels against Othman under the banner of justice, but they intimidated and forced Ali to accept arbitration, and when they felt deceived by this ploy, they rebelled against Ali for his accepting the arbitration, calling him an 'infidel', and they assassinated him eventually.     

Those cursed Umayyads!

   Within the same duration of time, the Umayyads changed their stances many times to serve their purposes and interests as they sought to retain wealth, authority, and power. They were the arch-enemies of Islam in Mecca, and felt they must 'convert', and rebelled against Muhammad before they were forced to adhere to peace until he died, and they became military leaders for Arabs and consultants for caliphs About Bakr and Omar, because the Umayyads had their military experience and prowess and good relations and pacts formed during the trade caravans journeys of summer and winter with the tribe of Kalb that controlled trade routes leading to the Levant. Thus, the Umayyads led Arabs to the crime called the Arab conquests, and they became rulers/governors of the conquered countries before the Umayyad caliphate (i.e., during the reign of caliphs Omar and Othman). When Othman, an Umayyad man, became caliph, the Umayyads controlled and manipulated him fully until he was assassinated, and they masterminded revolts against the caliph Ali and spent five years in the first major Arab civil war until the Umayyad caliphate/dynasty was established. Those were the ''companions'' who are now deified and sanctified as infallible saints/gods in the earthly Sunnite religion of Satan!

Conclusion: 

1- Islam has not ended despite the above points; it remains until the end of days preserved by God in the Quran: God's Word and the only source of Islam.

2- We have asserted that Muhammad's application of the Quran (i.e., Islam) was the best possible human application within the Yathreb city-state and it managed to spread peace among belligerent and bellicose Arabs until Muhammad death. Yet, most people in Arabia, especially Bedouins and desert-Arabs at the time did not believe in the Quran in terms of their minds/hearts; otherwise, they would not have submitted to Qorayish and its evil scheme of Arab conquests that included crimes like looting, raiding, massacring, raping, sabotage, etc. 

3- Thus, Muhammad's application of Islam within the Yathreb city-state was like a parentheses in the context of the locality and era of his life. At the time, Arabia and the Ancient World knew nothing but the dominant culture of tyranny, corruption, enslavement, invasions, and worship of Mammon (i.e., money); this applies at the time to Qorayish, the Persians, Byzantines, the Chinese, etc. The best achievement by Muhammad is that he managed  temporarily (until his death) to get Arabs of Arabia out of the quagmire of typical violence and belligerence. This dominant culture resurfaced with a vengeance once Muhammad died, as Arabia was led and ruled by the criminal leaders of Qorayish who are now deified and sanctified as infallible saints/gods in the earthly Sunnite religion of Satan!

4- Hence, hatching plots and conspiracies has been the only currency within the dominant culture of corruption and tyranny in the seventh century Arabia, where there were two types of men after Muhammad's death: desert-Arabs or Bedouins easily manipulated and controlled and shred, evil merchants and leaders of Qorayish who were masters and manipulators by nature. Between both types of men, events of the history of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs and the Umayyad caliphs took place. 

CHAPTER II: Contradictions between Islam and the Muhammadans Are Completed during the Umayyad Caliphate (41 – 132 A.H./ 661 – 750 A.D.)

An overview of the Umayyad caliphs:

Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan (661 – 680 A.D.):

 After the assassination of Ali, his eldest son, Hassan, was chosen initially as caliph, and his followers (among desert-Arabs and Bedouins) swore fealty/allegiance to him, but he found with them the same hardships faced by his father, and he realized that he could not face Mu'aweiya; Hassan made a peace agreement with Mu'aweiya to cede caliphate to him and to make the choice of caliphs later on based on Shura (i.e., consultation) among Muslims. Mu'aweiya went to Kufa, the Iraqi city that was the capital of Ali within his reign, and Hassan and his brother Hussein (sons of Ali and Fatima, daughter of Prophet Muhammad) swore fealty/allegiance to Mu'aweiya there in 40 A.H./661 A.D. Mu'aweiya established the Umayyad caliphate and dynasty and he was the very first real politician in terms of pragmatic politics, as he spared no means to reach his goals; he was shrewd, cunning, patient, firm while dealing with his foes, but he also had acumen and wisdom to tolerate and pardon men at certain occasions to win their trust and loyalty and to win many men to his side; he was a good negotiator who turned many of his foes into allies and friends and made many agreements to win over many tribes to his side. This is why when he rejected Shura/consultation and turned caliphate into hereditary kingdom as the throne would be confined to the Umayyad dynasty among his sons, most leaders and chieftains of tribes agreed with him. Even when his governors were given leeway to be so cruel and to terrorize and intimidate the rebels among his subjects, once they stopped their rebellion and sought the aid of Mu'aweiya, he would pardon them and win them to his side. Shortly before his death, Mu'aweiya made sure that people swore fealty/allegiance to his son and successor, Yazeed Ibn Mu'aweiya, especially the tribe of Kalb of the mother of Yazeed. Hussein Ibn Ali Ibn Abou Talib along with Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubayr and other senior companions' sons, whose fathers were the supporters and the immigrants in the former Yathreb city-state, refused to swear fealty to Yazeed. Mu'aweiya died and left this problem to his son and successor, Yazeed.      

Yazeed Ibn Mu'aweiya (680 – 683 A.D.):

 Once enthroned, he had no self-imposed mission but to force Hussein Ibn Ali to swear fealty and allegiance to him. Hussein was residing at the time in Yathreb with his sons and the sons of his late elder brother, Hassan, who was murdered with poison within a conspiracy plotted by Mu'aweiya, and the with the rest of this branch of the Hashemites that came to be known as the Alawites (i.e., the progeny of Ali) and the progeny of the sons of Abou Talib, their grandfather. At the same time, people of Iraq sent Hussein messages inviting him to come to Iraq so that they would help him to become a caliph. Once Hussein reached the Iraqi city of Karbala with his wives and sons, the Umayyad army there massacred all of them, except for one son of Hussein; namely, Ali Zayn Al-Abdeen, who was an ill adolescent at the time. The massacre of Hussein and his family members in Karbala caused the dwellers of Yathreb to rebel against the caliph Yazeed, who sent them an army that defeated and crushed them; the soldiers of this army kept sabotaging, raiding, and looting Yathreb, massacring men, and raping women for three days. Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubayr seized this chance to proclaim himself as caliph in Mecca. The same army of Yazeed was commanded by him to go to Mecca to crush the rebellious movement of Ibn Al-Zubayr. This Umayyad army sieged Mecca and attacked the city with catapults, and this caused the destruction and burning down of the Kaaba. Ibn Al-Zubayr left the Kaaba to burn down to slander the Umayyads and accuse them of intentionally destroying the Sacred Kaaba Mosque. A battle ensued, during which the caliph Yazeed died suddenly, after leaving a written will and testament to make his son, Mu'aweiya Ibn Yazeed, as his successor to the throne. The fury of the masses against the Umayyads increased, and matters worsened as Mu'aweiya II was enthroned briefly in 62 A.H./683 A.D., but he was weak and of sickly condition and very religious; this is why he refused to rule and ceded the throne without appointing a successor.        

The year of unrest for the Umayyads (684 A.D.):

 This year of turmoil caused by Ibn Al-Zubayr who had many supporters in many countries who desired to get rid of the Umayyad governors and the Umayyad rule: Egypt, Iraq, and Hejaz. Among those who joined the revolt of Ibn Al-Zubayr was the chieftain of the Qais tribes, Al-Dahhak Ibn Qais Al-Fahry who was the former ally of the Umayyads. The rebellious movement of Al-Mukhtar Ibn Obayd Al-Thaqafi emerged and mobilized huge troops of desert-Arabs, but its loyalty fluctuated between Ibn Al-Zubayr and Mohamed Ibn Al-Hanafiyya, a grandchild of Ali. This leader, Al-Mukhtar, seized the chance of this turmoil to assassinate the Umayyad governor of Iraq responsible for the Karbala massacre, Abdullah Ibn Ziyad, and he occupied and ruled Iraq for a while, and he put to death all men who participated in the Karbala massacre. This year of turmoil ended when the Umayyad dynasty members agreed within the Gabia conference to choose Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam as caliph.       

Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam (684 – 685 A.D.):

 He was the agent of his paternal uncle's son, Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan, who controlled the caliph Othman and who incited the revolt against him led to his assassination, and he served the caliph Mu'aweiya. After Mu'aweiya Ibn Yazeed ceded the throne, Marwan was the eldest leader left among the Umayyads, and after his being appointed as caliph he regained the loyalty and alliance of many tribes, especially the Kalb tribe, and he defeated the Qais tribe that supported Ibn Al-Zubayr in the Levant in a battle, and he killed their leader Al-Dahhak Ibn Qais Al-Fahry. Thus, the Umayyads retrieved their rule over the Levant and over Egypt when Marwan defeated its governor who was appointed by Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubayr. Marwan died before he could defeat Musaab Ibn Al-Zubayr who was the governor of Iraq loyal to his brother Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubayr, leaving this mission to his successor, the caliph Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan.    

Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan (685 – 705 A.D./ 65 – 86 A.H.):

 This powerful caliph settled the affairs and rule of the Umayyad caliph; he re-established it once more after it was about to get lost, and thus, he is considered by historians as the second founder of the Umayyad dynasty after Mu'aweiya. He defeated and killed Musaab Ibn Al-Zubayr who was the governor of Iraq and defeated and killed Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubayr inside Mecca. His power was confirmed when he appointed a strong governor in Iraq – the center of all opposition movements against the Umayyads – who was Al-Hajaj Ibn Youssef, the blood-thirsty governor who forced Iraqis to submit using his savagery and brutality. Soon enough, Abdul-Malik continued the Arab conquests westward and eastward, and he introduced some reforms, thus leaving to his son and successor, Al-Waleed Ibn Abdul-Malik (86 – 96 A.H./ 705 – 725 A.D.), a caliphate that enjoyed stability. The caliph Al-Waleed continued the Arab conquests till India and borders of China and he conquered the Iberian peninsula (Andalusia). His brother and successor, Suleiman Ibn Abdul-Malik (96 – 99 A.H./ 715 – 727 A.D.), attempted to conquer Constantinople and he appointed his paternal uncle's son, Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, as his successor, who ruled for about three years (99 – 101 A.H./ 717 – 720 A.D.). In fact, Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz remains the most famous Arab ruler (and Umayyad caliph) known for his piety and justice; he was assassinated by poison, and he was succeeded by Yazeed Ibn Abdul-Malik (101 – 105 A.H./ 720 -724 A.D.) who was a foil or a contrast to Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, because he was an immoral, promiscuous man who committed grave injustices and died as a young man. This caliph was succeeded by his brother Hisham Ibn Abdul-Malik (105 – 125 A.H. / 724 – 743 A.D.) who was the last strong and powerful Umayyad caliph. When he died, he was succeeded by weak caliphs who were in incessant disputes with everyone, and tribes manipulated and controlled those caliphs until the Umayyad caliphate ended in 132 A.H./ 750 A.D., only seven years after the death of the caliph Hisham Ibn Abdul-Malik.            

General features of the Umayyad caliphate:

 Arabian tribes were the only military power within the political sense during the Umayyad caliphate. Tribes were divided into two groups as per their stance regarding the Umayyads: (1) Al-Khawarij who rebelled against the Umayyad caliphate and sapped its energy until it collapsed and who indiscriminately massacred so many people among the Muhammadans after declaring them as 'infidels' while they raided cities while raising the motto/banner of (there is no rule except God's); yet, Al-Khawarij fighters always kept their peace treaties with the People of the Book (Jews + Christians), and (2) tribes that served the Umayyad caliphate and joined their troops to conquer other countries and fought enemies of the State as well among rebels and opposition figures. The Yemenite Qahtany tribes rebelled against the Umayyads who favored (within nepotism) the northern Adnanite Qais tribes. Some of the Yemenite Qahtany tribes allied themselves to Persian rebels who raised the motto (contentment is fulfilled by a ruler of the household of prophet Muhammad) within a secret-at-first call and military movement to topple the Umayyads, and this movement was led by Abou Moslem Al-Khorasany who helped the Abbasids establish their Abbasid caliphate. Those Arabian tribes which allied themselves to the Umayyads fought most of the time against the rebels: Shiites, Alawites, Al-Khawarij, Persians, Copts of Egypt, Amazigh/Berber of north Africa, and the Yemenite Qahtany tribes that turned against the Umayyads. Such endeavors were of no avail; as enemies of the Umayyad caliphate caused its downfall soon enough in 132 A.H. / 750 A.D. At the time, the Arab empire reached its largest expansion: from borders of China in the East to borders between Iberia and France in the West, and from walls of Constantinople in the north to the borders of Sahara in the south. Hence, the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea became for a while Arabian lakes. The Umayyad caliphate lasted less than a century; it was relentless in external conquests and in fighting rebels and foes inside its lands; its collapse was a direct result when its foes and enemies joined hands to bring about its downfall. People supported this downfall as everyone sought revenge against the Umayyads for their grave injustices and numerous massacres; the Umayyads massacred Hussein and his family and progeny in Karbala, thus dealing a fatal blow to their foes the Hashemites. The Umayyads quelled the Yathreb dwellers and other 'companions' of Muhammad when they destroyed the city and massacred its men and raped its women for three days. The Umayyads never hesitated to attack Mecca and destroy the Kaaba itself by burning it down with fireballs thrown by catapults when they sieged the city to crush the rebels under Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubayr who proclaimed himself as caliph. Many of the extremists among the Umayyad dynasty and their crones and leaders never hesitated to put to death innocent men for mere suspicion; such crimes were perpetrated by leaders like Ziyad Ibn Abeeh, Khaled Al-Qasry, and Al-Hajaj Ibn Youssef.                  

Allowing bloodshed, promiscuity, and immorality:

 The Umayyad earthly religion allowed the savage, powerful Umayyad caliphs and their governors absolute freedom to commit bloodshed and cause many bloodbaths! They ascribed their crimes to God and to Islam! Al-Hajaj used to swear by God's Name that anyone who dares to disobey him will get killed at once (see history of Ibn Al-Atheer, biography of Al-Hajaj, in deaths of 95 A.H.). many Umayyad caliphs were accused of immorality, promiscuity, and discarding prayers, and this applies to Yazeed Ibn Mu'aweiya who committed three major grave sins: the Karbala massacre, the Yathreb massacre, and the siege of Mecca that destroyed the Kaaba. The leader of rebels in Yathreb at the time was the pious man Abdullah Ibn Hanzala who delivered as speech before the battle of Al-Harrah (in 63 A.H.), describing Yazeed as incestuous man who drank wine and never prayed and therefore must be killed (see Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra by Ibn Saad part 5, p. 47, and Al-Muntazim by Ibn Al-Jawzy, part 66, p. 19). After this battle that ended in the defeat of the Yathreb dwellers and the murder of this leader Ibn Hanzala, Yathreb was sabotaged and its dwellers raped and killed for three days. The same accusation leveled at the Umayyads was repeated during the reign of Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan; within the battle of Deir Al-Jamajim (literally, the house of skulls, as pyramids of skulls of dead men of the rebels filled the battlefield), Saeed Ibn Jubayr allegedly said that the Umayyads must be fought for their grave injustices, rejection of Islam, and discarding prayers (see Ibn Saad, part 6, p. 185). Yazeed Ibn Abdul-Malik in his earthly Umayyad religion kept his promiscuous lifestyle and excessive drinking until he died in the prime of his youth. The same promiscuity was a feature of the caliphs Yazeed Ibn Mu'aweiya and Al-Waleed Ibn Yazeed Ibn Abdul-Malik. Ibn Katheer mentions in his history book (part 3, p. 10) that the caliph Hisham Ibn Abdul-Malik desired to prepare Al-Waleed as his successor and forced him to give up wine by appointing him as the prince of pilgrimage in 116 A.H., but Al-Waleed brought along his hunting hounds, musical instruments, and wine bottles, intending to drink with his friends within a tent to be pitched on top of the Kaaba! But once he entered Mecca, he feared people might scold or even kill him for such sacrilege and he did not do it. Once enthroned as caliph, Al-Waleedwas described by many of his detractors that he was a sodomizer who desired and raped many of his step-brothers, as per words of his brother, the prince Suleiman, who also said that Al-Waleed tried to convince him to have sex with him! Al-Waleed used to declare his atheism and rejection of the Quran in public, while getting busy in gambling and excessive wine drinking, as well as getting as many women in bed as possible. It was rumored that when he read the Quranic verse 14:15, he threw arrows at the Quran copy he read, and he yelled the following line of verse that he composed: (You are threatening me with warning about stubborn tyrants! I am Al-Waleed, a stubborn tyrant! Go to your God in the Day of Resurrection, if it comes, to complain that I pierced you with my arrows!) (Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra, part 5/47 and 6/185, ''Al-Muntazim'' by Ibn Al-Jawzy: 7/236-248, and History of Ibn Katheer: 4/486). Yazeed Ibn Al-Waleed, the paternal uncle's son of the immoral caliph Al-Waleed, killed this caliph after rebelling against him and usurped the throne.                  

An overview of how the Umayyads manipulated Islamic rituals: how the Umayyad undermined Islam:

1- Fighting within Islam is ONLY for the purposes of self-defense against aggressors; this Quranic rule was disregarded by Qorayish that turned fighting into Arab conquests and invasion under the banner of Islam, the religion hated and undermined by them. The Umayyad hatred toward Islam and rejecting it had varying degrees within their dynasty. Al-Waleed rejected Islam flagrantly and in public in the way we have explained above, but some other caliphs like Abdul-Malik showed this implicitly when he was enthroned as caliph and stopped his pious lifestyle of long hours of worship known about him, while vowing never to read the Quran again for the rest of his lifetime, and his policies led to many bloodbaths and violation of treated; his speech delivered in Yathreb, the center of rebellion, in 75 A.H. expressed his defiance of the Lord God when he said that anyone advising him to fear God in piety will be put to death at once! And he said he was not as weak as Othman, nor as tolerant as Mu'aweiya, and nor as foolish as Yazeed (see History of Caliphs by Al-Siyouti, p.347-348, the Cairo edition). This means that Abdul-Malik was among the corrupters on Earth who intentionally disregarded this verse to defy Allah: "And when he is told, "Beware of God," his pride leads him to more sin. Hell is enough for him-a dreadful abode." (2:206).      

2- The Umayyads manifested their deep-seated hatred toward Islam by (1) massacring many people of Yathreb and even grandsons of those who participated in the battle of Badr that witnessed the defeat of the Umayyads, and (2) destroying Yathreb and the Kaaba during their siege of Mecca.

3- The governors appointed by the Umayyads competed in undermining Islam and everything stood for it at the time to please caliphs. For instance, Al-Hajaj threatened once to remove certain verses from the Quran to please the caliph Abdul-Malik (see history of Ibn Al-Atheer, biography of Al-Hajaj, in deaths of 95 A.H.). another example is Khaled Al-Qasry the governor of Mecca and Hejaz in 89 A.H., who got nearer to his Umayyad masters and the caliph Hisham by making imams in all mosques and in the Sacred Kaaba Mosque curse Ali in all sermons; this governor declared in public that living caliphs are better than dead prophets/messengers of God! (see history of Ibn Al-Atheer, biography of Al-Qasry, in deaths of 126 A.H.). This means that he desired that people must know that he preferred the caliph Hisham to prophet Muhammad! Al-Qasry never cared about the sanctity of the Kaaba and threatened the Meccans of death by crucifixion if they dared to speak ill of the Umayyads and of demolishing their houses if they received as guests any rebels who fled the fury of the Umayyads and desired to hide in the sanctuary/haven of the Sacred Kaaba Mosque. because of his loyalty and services, the caliph Hisham rewarded Al-Qasry by appointing him as the governor of Iraq for 14 years (106 – 120 A.H.). It is noteworthy that the mother of Al-Qasry was a Christian religious woman, and when he built her a chapel inside his palace as there were no churches in the city where he ruled, some Arabs blamed him, but he nonchalantly said that may God curse his mother's religion if it produced more wickedness than the Arabs' religion, and this means that he never embraced Islam or in fact any other religion except the worship of Mammon (i.e., money) (see history of Al-Tabari, part 6, p. 440 of 89 A.H. and p. 464 of 91 A.H.).

How the Umayyads manipulated prayers to serve their purposes:

1- Many Umayyads were too lazy and reluctant to perform prayers and this caused the belated performance of Friday congregational prayers that they attended obligatorily, and they manipulated the Friday sermons for the purposes of political propaganda and to make people, who converted recently to 'Islam', curse Ali as part of the rituals, as was the case with people of Harran who prayed without cursing Ali and the Umayyads taught them that no prayers deemed acceptable by God without cursing Ali! These people of Harran kept this 'ritual' until the first year of the Abbasid caliphate; see Moroj Al-Dhahab by Al-Masoody, part 2, p 193. Hence, the Umayyads has invented this bad habit of turning sermons into tools for political propaganda; this lasted within all the centuries of caliphs and sultans until the end of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 A.D.; the established sultans/caliphs asserted their sovereignty by making people supplicate God for their sake every Friday congregational prayers and to curse their enemies and foes, and this bad habit of turning Friday sermons into political propaganda still lingers until now in most mosques of the Muhammadans now.            

2- Friday sermons in real Islam is only reciting some Quranic verses; this was done by Muhammad, and Sunnites never narrate any Friday sermons by him because of this undeniable fact, though he was the imam of hundreds of Friday congregational prayers in the Yathreb city-state. The Umayyads where the first ones who introduced this bad habit by taking advantage of the obligatory Friday congregational prayers and sermons in political propaganda and attacking the Alawites. This political manipulation of Friday sermons is still in use within countries of the Muhammadans now. Muhammad's Friday sermons were only reciting some Quranic verses; this is why fabricators and inventors of hadiths ascribed falsely to Muhammad never dared to fabricate sermons ascribed to him. Islam (i.e., the Quran) entails devoting acts of worship entirely to God and never to manipulate religion (and rituals, worship, mosques, etc.) for the sake of worldly gains. Yet, since the Umayyad Era onwards, Friday congregational prayers and sermons are being used within political manipulation (i.e., propaganda, praying for rulers, and invoking God's curses and wrath on rulers' foes), and this is a basic ritual in all mosques (past and present) within a city/country ruled by a tyrant who would be keen to have his name glorified by the masses. Caliphs made people pledge fealty to them inside mosques, and such political manipulation of mosques is part and parcel of the Shiite and Sunnite religions, despite their other big differences and unsettled disputes. Of course, this is sheer polytheism; God is the Only One to be remembered, glorified, and revered inside mosques.      

3- The Umayyad political propaganda in Friday sermons caused the Friday noon prayers to be lost; in some cases, the sermons were too long until the time of afternoon prayers would come! Those who dared to protest this were either put to death of publicly humiliated and disgraced. In about 90 A.H., a Levantine fiqh scholar was beheaded when he protested in public against this delay in the presence of the caliph Al-Waleed Ibn Abdul-Malik in the Damascus mosque (see History of Deaths by Al-Safadi, 14/15).

4- Al-Hajaj was a powerful, extremist governor and vizier who committed many massacres and bloodbaths, but he was very eloquent in his speeches and sermons; he used to deliver very long sermons until afternoon prayers time would come, thus deliberately making people miss the noon prayers! He was the governor of Hejaz and then of Iraq, serving Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan and his sons. When Al-Hajaj ruled Hejaz, he delivered very long sermons inside the Sacred Kaaba Mosque and noon prayers were performed belatedly. Abdullah Ibn Omar Ibn Al-Khattab stopped praying behind Al-Hajaj as imam because of this sacrilege. Ibn Saad the historian (see Ibn Saad, part 4, p.110 and 117) writes that one sermon of Al-Hajaj in Mecca lasted till sunset! People got very bored and restless, and Abdullah Ibn Omar shouted at him to remind him of missed prayers, and people were afraid that he might be put to death by Al-Hajaj, who felt mortified as people grew angry and descended the pulpit to lead the congregational prayers as their imam. Abdullah Ibn Omar advised Al-Hajaj in public on that day to perform noon prayers first before the sermon, not vice versa as required, so that he would talk nonsense endlessly as much as he pleased without making people miss the Friday noon prayers. Because he embarrassed Al-Hajaj in public, Abdullah Ibn Omar was assassinated later on by an anonymous man who pierced his body inside the Sacred Kaaba Mosque with a spear that had poison on its head.    

Building the so-called Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and performing pilgrimage there instead of the Kaaba:

1- It is very wrong to assume that God's verses about harmful mosques built by hypocrites in Yathreb (see 9:107-110) is mere history that is never repeated. In fact, the number of harmful mosques that cause harm to people has increased ever since until now worldwide, in contrast to the role of mosques that should be safe havens for piety, monotheism, and devotion in the worship of Allah. We refer readers to our two articles in English about harmful mosques of our era (http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=16843/ http://www.ahl-alquran.com/English/show_article.php?main_id=15492). Harmful mosques combine between (1) spreading notions of polytheism/disbelief in terms of the heart/mind that make people deify/sanctify items, mortals, and mausoleums (as was the case with mosques of Qorayish; see 72:18-23), and (2) spreading disbelief in terms of behavior by inciting and committing aggression and acts of violence (also as was the case with  Qorayish that intimidated early believers and prevented them by force from entering the Sacred Kaaba Mosque and other mosques; see 2:114). Of course, Qorayish combined both types of harm and polytheism (in terms of behavior and beliefs) by manipulating and controlling the Sacred Kaaba Mosque; see 9:17-18.        

2- The pre-Umayyad and the Umayyads caliphs (who were all of Qorayish, of course) increased the number of harmful mosques, after they felt safe that after the death of Muhammad in Yathreb, no more Quranic verse will descend to expose them. Hence, they committed the heinous crimes within the Arab conquests: invading, sabotaging, massacring, looting, enslaving, raping, etc., while being keen on building small and grand mosques everywhere and keeping the habit of praying the five times even during aggressive wars and civil wars; they even turned mosques into battlefields and centers for political propaganda and inciting against others.

3- The five daily prayers with their timings were known before the Quran was revealed, as part of the rituals of the religion of Abraham that include prayers, fasting, pilgrimage, and glorification of the Lord within piety and monotheism, reflected in peaceful behavior and justice as well as dedicating one's acts of worship only to God, while never to worship/deify things, creatures, or mortals beside God. Qorayish tribesmen had retained the overt shape and rituals of prayers but lost and wasted it by being impious as they committed heinous crimes and grave sins and injustices through their control of the Kaaba and pilgrimage, especially when they placed pagan idols/gods around the Kaaba to please Arabian tribes and when they persecuted Muhammad and the early believers; thus, they had lost the fruits of their prayers that never led to peace and piety; this verse applies to them: "But they were succeeded by generations who lost the prayers and followed their appetites. They will meet perdition." (19:59).     

4- Committing injustices while ostentatiously performing prayers is sheer hypocrisy that makes prayers as justification to being among the unjust ones who commit evil deeds, crimes, aggression, and acts of violence instead of making prayers lead to piety as the supreme purpose of all acts of worship in Islam. After most of the Qorayish tribesmen feigned to convert and followed peace shortly before the death of Muhammad, the Qorayish tribe retrieved its hegemony and control, and its evil and mischief returned with a vengeance within the era of the pre-Umayyad caliphs by mobilizing Arabs into the Arab  conquests and inciting the first and second major Arab civil wars (i.e., Mu'aweiya vs. Ali and Yazeed vs. Hussein, respectively). Within such decades of atrocities, the Qorayish tribe retained regular and superficial performance of prayers even during battles of conquests. It is noteworthy that the governors of a conquered countries and the military leaders who invaded them were called "the prince of prayers'', and they would be higher in rank than tax-collectors and the supreme judges. Sadly, they taught new converts how to pray without focusing on attaining piety; the terrorists among the Muhammadans of today pray regularly while committing many atrocities and massacres and shouting (Allahu Akbar!) which means "Allah is the Greatest" and should be said before prayers. We tackle below another crime of Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan who built the so-called Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem as an alternative to the Kaaba.    

Abdul-Malik and building the so-called Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem:

1- The Kaaba was insulted and burned down in the worst act of sacrilege within a political dispute of men of Qorayish (i.e., the troops of Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubayr and the Umayyad troops). Ibn Al-Zubayr manipulated the pilgrimage season to increase his anti-Umayyad propaganda and to proclaim himself as caliph; the Levantine pilgrims returned home with heads filled with ideas against the Umayyads whose capital was Damascus. The Umayyad caliph Abdul-Malik feared that the Levantine people would forsake him and withdraw their support to join forces of Ibn Al-Zubayr; hence, he build the so-called Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, while claiming that pilgrimage must be performed in this mosque as if it were the one mentioned in 17:1 as the Farthest Mosque (which is, in fact, Mount Al-Tur in Sinai, Egypt, where Moses received the Torah tablets and Muhammad received the Quran from Gabriel into his heart within the Night-Journey: the Night of Decree). The caliph made his official hadith-narrators (hired and paid by him to spread oral traditions invented by them and ascribed falsely to Muhammad after his death) to spread hadiths about how this Jerusalem mosque was a 'holy' site and where Muhammad landed during the Night-Journey mentioned in 17:1. New converts in the Levant had remnants of their old religions (i.e., Judaism and Christianity) and they located for the caliph the supposed site of the so-called temple of Solomon near the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. This myth of a mosque in Jerusalem existing during Muhammad's lifetime is refuted by the historical fact that when the caliph Omar conquered and invaded Jerusalem, there was no mosques there at all; Omar prayed outdoors near the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Yet, Abdul-Malik and his oral narrators/fabricators managed to pass off his fake Aqsa mosque as if it were a 'holy' site.              

2- In his book of history titled "Al-Bidaya wi Al-Nihaya", the Levantine historian Ibn Katheer describes the building of this fake mosque of Abdul-Malik in Jerusalem in the events of 66 A.H. He mentions that Abdul-Malik began to build this Jerusalem mosque in 66 A.H. and ending it in 73 A.H., and the reason behind this was that the rebel Ibn Al-Zubayr ruled and controlled Mecca and seized the opportunity of the pilgrimage reason to vilify, asperse, and insult the Umayyads in his sermons, especially the caliph and his father, while inventing hadiths that Muhammad had cursed the Umayyads! The Levantine pilgrims were convinced by his argument. This made the caliph stop the Levantine people from traveling to pilgrimage, and they were so unhappy and furious. In order to please and distract them, he built this Jerusalem mosque and made them circle the dome of the rock instead of the Kaaba and then to slaughter sacrificial animals and shave their heads. This plan intended to distract people from listening to Ibn Al-Zubayr. This entailed hadith-narrators to invent hadiths about Muhammad visiting Jerusalem during the Night-Journey and how he blessed the location of the dome of the rock and the Aqsa mosque, and as if he flew up to the heavens from this rock! Abdul-Malik spent huge sums of money to build this magnificent richly furnished mosque using the best builders within the Umayyad empire, who used the most expensive building materials, ceramics, incense, frankincense, amber, rosewater, saffron, lamps of gold, Persian carpets, gold and silver chains, and encrusted precious stones, mosaïque, grand gates, domes, etc., with the total cost of 600.000 bags of gold dinars, and he hired servants to care for the mosque and its visitors/pilgrims. People felt infatuated with this Aqsa mosque whose incenses were smelled for days on end, admiring its great inside and outside decorations and ornaments; people of the Levant forgot all about Kaaba and pilgrimage to it and came from every city to perform pilgrimage to Jerusalem instead. They invented other myths about this mosque, such as calling the gate to heaven, marking locations on which Muhammad presumably had trodden, and calling a certain valley in Jerusalem as the valley of Hell-Fire. Ibn Katheer mentioned that people still revered this place built in the 1^st century A.H. as 'holy' grounds until his era (i.e., the 8^th century A.H.). It is very shocking to us that this myth lingers until the 21^st century! Ibn Al-Katheer mentions that the Abbasid caliph Abou Jaffer Al-Mansour visited Jerusalem in 140 A.H., and he saw that the Aqsa mosque lay in ruins; he commanded that his soldiers would take off the encrusted gold of the domes and exterior design to sell them and spend the money on rejuvenating the mosque, and he commanded the builders to lessen its length and height and to increase its width. Until now, this myth invented by the Umayyads lingers still among the Muhammadans who assume that this Jerusalem mosque is the third holiest site to them after the Kaaba and the Yathreb mosque with the Satanist mausoleum!

Al-Waleed Ibn Abdul-Malik and building the so-called Yathreb mosque (and mausoleum of Muhammad) in 88 A.H.:

1- After the caliph Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan had built the Jerusalem Aqsa mosque to replace the Kaaba and pilgrimage to it, his son and successor the caliph Al-Waleed Ibn Abdul-Malik committed a similar crime/sin as he built the so-called Yathreb mosque ascribed to Muhammad as the second holiest site and sanctuary after the Sacred Kaaba Mosque within the earthly religions of the Muhammadans (thus, making the Jerusalem mosque as the third holiest site). Al-Waleed did not intend to turn this Yathreb mosque into a second 'holiest' ground, and the notion was never known at the time; this myth began as Al-Waleed made his men widen the Yathreb mosque by demolishing chambers of the wives of Muhammad (decades after their death) among other houses. Since traditions have it that Muhammad was buried in the chamber of his wife, Aisha, decades later, people who deified Muhammad chose a location at random inside the widened mosque to build a mausoleum where supposedly the chamber of Aisha was located, and they performed pilgrimage to this mausoleum and worshiped at it! The Muhammadans assume that their immortal deity named 'Muhammad' is still alive beneath this mausoleum and responds to those who greet and praise him! they assume he reviews himself (with no aides or secretaries!) good and bad deeds of his 'Umma'/nation until the end of days! This is sheer madness and one of the most insulting myths of the Sunnites!        

2- Al-Tabari in his history book mentions in the events of 88 A.H. that the caliph Al-Waleed demolished the Yathreb mosque and houses around it, along with the chambers where Muhammad's wives used to live, in order to rebuild, rejuvenate, and widen it (200 arms X 200 arms). Al-Waleed send his envoys to the governor of Yathreb at the time, Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, to undertake this mission and to pay compensation money for those people whose houses will be demolished. Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz negotiated the compensation money with these people until they were satisfied, and the notables among the Yathreb dwellers oversaw the construction work performed by builders from Yathreb only at first, then the caliph sent 100 builders along with mosaïque and 100.000 bags of gold pieces. Of course, neither Al-Waleed nor Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz built any mausoleum inside the Yathreb mosque richly furnished and decorated by them. Yet, they unintentionally made people get infatuated by the magnificence of the mosque and to ascribe it decades later to Muhammad as a second 'holiest' site after the Kaaba and others invented hadiths about this to make Yathreb a holy ground and its people as a source of fiqh legislations! Thus, the Umayyad Era witnessed the spread of oral traditions and fiqh legislations of the earthly religions that contradict the Quran and have been written down later on during the Abbasid Era.           

The fabrication of hadiths and the beginning of earthly, man-made religious legislations during the Umayyad Era:

Introduction: the Arab conquests are the roots of all evils:

1- We still suffer in today's world the evils of Arabs conquests that has led to the man-made Sunnite sharia laws of terrorism, massacres, and aggression that contradict the Quranic higher values that include peace, justice, charity, freedom, dignity, and prohibition of transgression, injustices, acts of violence, and aggression: "God commands justice, and goodness, and generosity towards relatives. And He forbids immorality, and injustice, and oppression. He advises you, so that you may take heed." (16:90). The crimes of the Arab conquests entailed the invention of legislations and laws that allow declaring others as 'infidels' who deserve to be fought and murdered, their countries to be invaded and conquered, their money, assets, lands, possessions to be confiscated, and their children and women to be raped and/or enslaved. This is the history of Arab conquests within all types of caliphs from Qorayish: the pre-Umayyads, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, and the Fatimids, and then other caliphs away from Qorayish tribesmen who followed their footsteps. The Arab conquests have led to the emergence of Sunnite fiqh books of legislations and laws to justify grave injustices.    

2- God in the Quranic sharia legislations prohibits aggression and fighting peaceful people who never commit aggression against believers in a Quran-based country, as fighting is allowed ONLY in cases of self-defense for God's sake to ward off and deter aggressors and to make them stop their aggression and/or religious persecution. Peaceful non-Muslims are to be treated kindly and fairly: "As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable." (60:8); "And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors." (2:190).

3- The Qorayish caliphs (from Abou Bakr and other after him) disbelieved in Quranic legislations in 60:8 & 2:190 when they declared peaceful non-violent people of other countries as 'infidels' who deserve to be fought, robbed, invaded, conquered, and ruled by Arabs. About Bakr invented a devilish ploy never known before during the lifetime of Muhammad and never used by him or by his foes: to send troops and armies with a written threat to nations whose countries were coveted by Arabs to force them to choose either to convert, to pat tributes/taxes to keep their religion, or to be massacred. Within the three 'options', Arabs aimed to invade and rule the coveted country anyway! Abou Bakr and the companions with him disbelieved in this Quranic rule "There shall be no compulsion in religion..." (2:256) and disbelieved in this Quranic verse addressed to Muhammad: "Had your Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Will you compel people to become believers?" (10:99). How come that Abou Bakr and other caliphs dared to force and coerce people to convert?! Within the Abbasid Era, such aggression has been 'justified' by inventing the hadith of (I was commanded to fight human beings until they convert and testify that.....).   

4- This ploy of declaring people as 'infidels' invented by Qorayish and Abou Bakr achieved for Arabs their desire to raid, loot, enslave, etc. within using a quasi-religious pretext. Yet, Qorayish had a bitter taste of its own medicine when rebellious and belligerent Bedouins and desert-Arabs declared the Qorayish leaders/imams/caliphs as infidels and they assassinated Othman and Ali; they went to an extreme of declaring anyone who would not agree with them as 'infidels' who deserve to be robbed and discriminately massacred, and their women raped and/or enslaved, within the motto (there is no rule except God's). This went on within the decades of the Umayyad Era.   

5- The notion of declaring others as 'infidels' who deserve to be robbed and discriminately massacred, and their women raped and/or enslaved is the basis of all evils within the history of the Qorayish caliphs and of the emergence of Sunnite sharia laws of Satan that cause Wahabi Sunnite terrorism in our era worldwide.

Invention of hadiths is the first step in the emergence of the earthly, man-made religions during the Umayyad Era:

1- Political struggles entailed quasi-religious justification to 'legitimize' violations of Quranic teachings; this justification is never found in the Quran, and texts/narratives had to be invented and concocted under the name of hadiths/sayings ascribed falsely to Muhammad after his death. Another justification is to fabricate a false notion about Fate (i.e., every injustices and massacres are predestined and preordained! This is called fatalism). We will comment on this erroneous view of Fate later on in this book. We briefly assert here that the domain of fabrication of hadiths was activated by some companions and Abou Hurayrah was on top of this list and so was some men of the next generations like Al-Awzaay; all of them were hired and paid by the Umayyads. Such oral traditions called hadiths have been deemed (until now by the Muhammadans) as part of divine revelation within Islam! By ascribing lies and falsehoods to Muhammad and by imposing fatalism on Arabs, the Umayyads has invented an earthly religion that came to be known officially (within the Abbasid Era) as the Sunnite religion, and as a reaction, their foes, the Shiites, have invented their own hadiths and narratives apart from their own faith tenets/notions that have emerged before the Umayyad Era.           

2- The military, political struggle during the Umayyad Era turned soon enough into a struggle between two earthly religions of the Sunnites and the Shiites. This has been accentuated within the second major civil wars (i.e., Yazeed vs. Hussein and then Abdul-Malik vs. Ibn Al-Zubayr) that took place within the period (61 – 73 A.H.) and caused a weakness within the Umayyad dynasty, and this made Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubayr proclaim himself a caliph and controlled most countries and regions. The powerful Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam and his son Abdul-Malik re-established the strength of the Umayyad caliphate and Ibn Al-Zubayr was killed in 73 A.H. Within such turmoil, the rebellious movement of the adventurous man Al-Mukhtar Ibn Obayd Al-Thaqafi emerged; he was at first an agent obsequiously serving the Umayyads, but he was tempted to seize the chance of their weakness to raise the motto/banner of avenging the murder of Hussein to gather Shiites around him; for a while, he joined Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubayr but turned against him, and he was eventually murdered by Musaab Ibn Al-Zubayr in 67 A.H. We focus here on the fact that vile, mean adventurer Al-Mukhtar made use of the earthly Shiite mottoes and mobilized men to fight under such Shiite mottoes, and he gave the title (Al-Mehdi) or ''the guided imam'' to M. Ibn Ali Ibn Al-Hanafiyya, a progeny of Ali Ibn Abou Talib, and he provided a throne for him to incite soldiers to fight for his sake. This myth of an imam called Mehdi is still part and parcel of the Sunnite, Sufi, and Shiite mythologies. Another myth invited by Al-Mukhtar is ascribing to God his military endeavors; he coined the term (God's troops) to describe his army of soldiers; this is reminiscent of the Shiite militants of Hezbollah (i.e., the party of Allah or allies of Allah!) who are now in Lebanon. The history book titled "Al-Muntazim" (part 6, about events of 66 A.H.) by Ibn Al-Jawzy tells us that Al-Mukhtar was an active hadith-inventing machine and invented so many 'prediction' hadiths to support his stances and views, and he killed men who refuted or refused to believe in his invented hadiths such as M. Ibn Ammar Ibn Yasser. As a reaction, enemies of Al-Mukhtar invented their own hadiths to contradict his hadiths and prove him a liar. All of them forgot the Quranic fact that Muhammad never knew or talked about the future or the metaphysical realm of the unknown.                     

3- Within "Al-Muntazim" (part 6, about events of 93 A.H.) by Ibn Al-Jawzy, we read about the governor of Yathreb, Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz who became a caliph later on, had to obey the written decree of the caliph Al-Waleed one winter by flogging Khobayb Ibn Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubayr 50 or 100 lashes and to pour very cold water on his naked body while he was tied to a mosque gate and left until he died. The reason was that Khobayb intentionally invented a hadith ascribed falsely to Muhammad to undermine and insult the Umayyad caliphs who are the progeny of Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam.   

Fabricating hadiths for or against the Umayyads:

1- Those who served the Umayyads by justifying their heinous crimes and grave injustices within their earthly religion are judges, religious scholars, orators, and narrators who specialized in fabricating narratives/hadiths that are part of the pro-Umayyad propaganda. Those agents/narrators serving the Umayyads were handsomely paid within official high-stature posts. Among the most famous narrators and scholars was Al-Awzaay who served the Umayyads and later on the Abbasids; he was the one who issued a fatwa for the caliph Hisham Ibn Abdul-Malik to murder Ghilan Al-Dimishqi the leader of the Qadariyya group of theologians who asserted that humans possess free will (unlike fatalism of the Umayyads) who insulted the Umayyads in public.    

2- Corrupt scholars not only justified injustices of the Umayyads, but also committed the crime of intentionally corrupting some caliphs; for instance, the young Umayyad prince, Yazeed Ibn Abdul-Malik, was at first very pious and loved to talk to scholars and theologians, and he was greatly influenced by the justice of his predecessor the caliph Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz. As per history of Ibn Katheer (part 9, p. 259), when Yazeed Ibn Abdul-Malik was enthroned, he announced he would follow the footsteps of the just caliph Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz and to prevent all injustices, to the consternation of his Umayyad relatives who left him do this for just 40 days; they had to bring him 40 fiqh scholars asserting, using a false hadith, that caliphs are never judged on the Last Day and they are exempted from entering into Hell, and thus, they are allowed to do whatever they like! This myth caused Yazeed Ibn Abdul-Malik to be an immoral, promiscuous, tyrannical caliph who committed many grave injustices.   

3- Political struggles caused fabrication of hadiths to flourish under the auspices of two Jewish Yemenite men who feigned a conversion to Islam in order to deceive the Muhammadans: Kaab Al-Ahbar who sided with the Umayyads and his friend Abdullah Ibn Saba who sided with the Shiites, foes of the Umayyads. In fact, both men have authored hundreds of hadiths to support views of both sides and ascribed such falsehoods to Muhammad after his death.  

4- Kaab Al-Ahbar claimed his knowing details about the divine metaphysical realm of the unknown and that he had vast knowledge of the Torah and other celestial books given by God to ancient prophets; people at the time believed his lies. Kaab Al-Ahbar befriended Abou Hurayrah who allied himself to the Umayyads, and both men engaged into oral narration of hadiths and narratives within pro-Umayyad propaganda within Arabia and elsewhere. They have fabricated hadiths praising the Umayyads, and they had several preachers under them (paid by the Umayyads) to spread and propagate such pro-Umayyad hadiths in short sermons after the daily prayers in almost all mosques. Abou Hurayrah (supposedly a contemporary of Muhammad) narrated hadiths concocted by Kaab Al-Ahbar though this Jewish man never saw Muhammad and 'converted' during the caliphate of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab. Among the pro-Umayyad preachers was Al-Awzaay who served the Umayyads within the last decade of their rule (and then served the Abbasids) by inventing more stories, narratives, and hadiths. 

5- On the other hand, the Shiites and other opposition groups who hated the Umayyads invented hadiths that expose and undermine them and incite others to rebel against them. These hadiths include slandering the promiscuous, unjust Umayyad caliphs and telling stories to prove their tyranny and likening them to Moses' Pharaoh. Such hadiths were written down and propagated especially by the Abbasids later on and quoted by historians and scholars of the Abbasid Era like Ibn Katheer.

6- Among the hadiths invented by the Shiites is a laughter-inducing one about Muhammad seeing Mu'aweiya carrying his son, Yazeed, and saying that a man among the Paradise dwellers is carrying a man among the Hell-dwellers! The Quran asserts that Muhammad never knew about the future or the metaphysical realm; besides, Mu'aweiya as the Damascus-based governor of the Levant married Maysoon, daughter of the chieftain of the Kalb tribe and the mother of Yazeed, three decades after Muhammad's death.    

7- The Shiite followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba believed in the myth invented by him earlier that the deified Ali is not actually dead and he lives somewhere at present, to return shortly before the end of days to spread peace and justice on Earth. This has been the seed that has germinated the myth of (the waited Mehdi) or ''the guided one'' among the descendants of Ali and Fatima: a main Shiite notion that has been crystalized during the Abbasid Era and later on adopted by the Sufis and Sunnites. We are to bear in mind that Sunnite, Shiite, and Sufi religions with their appellations and doctrines took form and written down during the Abbasid Era, not within the troubled Umayyad Era of oral traditions, civil wars, instability, and turmoil. M. Ibn Al-Hanafiyya was the deified imam, among other imams of the Shiite group called the Kaysanites, who later on helped establish the Abbasid caliphate.     

8- Al-Khawarij fighters were victims of hadiths fabricated to attack and undermine them, collected later on by the historian Al-Malty during the Abbasid Era in a book titled "Al-Tanbeeh wi Al-Rad". Among such hadiths is the one by Abou Hurayrah about those who read the Quran by their mouths and never their hearts and get out of religion as easily and quickly as an arrow thrown from a bow. The same hadith is mentioned by Ibn Al-Atheer in his history book when he mentions the story of Ali during the battle of Nahrawan being warned against Al-Khawarij, by this hadith of prediction, who will rebel against him soon. We remind readers here that the Quran asserts that Muhammad never knew about the future or the metaphysical realm at all; he could not have possibly talked about rebel Bedouins. Al-Khawarij never invented hadiths because they were uncouth, ignorant, belligerent men with hardly the cultural level and intellectual faculties or cunning necessary to indulge in such propaganda based on fabricating hadiths. Yet, Al-Khawarij men were practically the first ones to begin bloodbaths and massacres of innocent, peaceful ones in the name of religion (after declaring those who would not join them as 'infidels' and therefore deserve to be put to death!) and under the pretext of revolting against unjust rulers. This is their main legislation in their earthly religion applied mercilessly by their swords throughout the Umayyad Era. Within the Abbasid Era, Al-Khawarij group waned as they were weakened by incessant revolts against the Umayyads and by internal disputes among their leaders; their insurgences and revolts dwindled with the passage of time, and desert-Arabs and Bedouins were not of much consequence during the Abbasid Era of large cities of civilized life introduced by the influence of non-Arabs, especially the Persians. Yet, within the Abbasid Era, some desert-Arabs and Bedouins continued their belligerence by joining the destructive and savage  Zanj revolt and the revolt of the Qarmatians. The massacres and savagery are also repeated by Wahabis among the desert-Arabs in the 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th centuries; Wahabism has originated in the Najd region, and so were the Qarmatians and Al-Khawarij who originally came from the Najd region and expanded outside it.        

The nature of the contradictory earthly, man-made religions during the Umayyad Era:

Extremism in notions and application:

1- The Umayyad Era witnessed the rise of the extremist religious ideas and notions within the earthly religions of Shiites and Sunnites. One story in authoritative history books asserts that some Shiites led by Abdullah Ibn Saba deified Ali during his lifetime within the civil war, and Ali punished them by burning them alive. Al-Khawarij, within their extremist notion of declaring all those who would not join them as 'infidels', massacred all peaceful, innocent people who never got involved in politics and the civil war, within their raids for loot and spoils.     

2- The Umayyads, on their part, went to extremes such as destroying the Kaaba and omitting sacrilege in Mecca and massacring the Yathreb dwellers and anyone related to the household of Muhammad and his 'companions'; in fact, the Umayyads and their cronies and allies put people to death based on mere aroused suspicions, as was the way of the governor and vizier Al-Hajaj Ibn Youssef. The Umayyads ascribed their crimes to God's Will and predestined commands within the faulty philosophy of fatalism.     

Simplicity and lack of intellectual theorization:

1- Extremist views and patterns of behavior within the political struggles between Sunnites and Shiites lacked the stabilized periods of time to allow theories to crystalize or to write down anything; ideas were simple and spread orally, and the Umayyads were Arabs who never cared except for Arab tribes and they despised non-Arabs among the conquered nations. Non-Arabs before and after the Arab conquests cared for civilization, culture, and writing down books of literature and history, whereas Arabs during the Umayyad Era, were never keen on writing down anything and they memorized oral poetry; any religious 'knowledge' were mere chattering focused on oral narratives of events and hadiths ascribed to Muhammad falsely and history of Arab in general narrated in parties of merry-making. Besides, the Umayyad caliphs (especially those who founded it firmly like Mu'aweiya, Marwan, and Abdul-Malik) spent their rein in quelling revolts and civil strife, and therefore had no time for worldly or 'religious' knowledge – even if we suppose they desired to make knowledge flourish in books to be written upon their commands. Other immoral, promiscuous caliphs never cared for knowledge at all, and the Umayyads in general focused mainly on Arab conquests east and west and to quell and crush revolts of Alawites, Shiites, Berbers, Copts, and Al-Khawarij. The Umayyads had other troubles which consisted of rivalries among tribes within an atmosphere of tribalism, as the Umayyads favored (within nepotism) some tribes among their allies over some others. Hence, within the short duration of the Umayyad caliphate that knew nothing but bloodshed, there was hardly any time to settle down and write down anything at all.     

2- The short duration of the Umayyad caliphate was filled with many external and internal events and turmoil, and its Arab tribal Bedouin culture never allowed any intellectual development; this is why intellectual theorization of the Sunnite and Shiite religions did not occur during the Umayyad Era despite the spread of Shiite and Sunnite oral narratives/hadiths/notions invented within the political and military struggle between the Umayyads and their enemies.     

3- Thus, religious life during the Umayyad Era was simple and uncomplicated, and it was confined to add the religious nature or religiosity to dominant views, practices, and deeds. Thus, religiosity was manipulated to justify political views, for instance, and no one at the time thought about theorizing and explaining this in short or long books; the Umayyads focused only within oral propaganda of their official narrators who invented hadiths, and their Shiite foes invented other hadiths to support their political stances. Hence, the Sunnite and Shiite religions did not crystalize their forms until the authors of the Abbasid Era came along to write down and record all rituals, notions, sects, theories, doctrines, etc. of both religions. Hence, all Shiite revolts and quest for establishing a Shiite caliphate were based on such books that preserved the early Shiite history of resistance and Shiite practices and rituals.    

The beginning of Sunnite fiqh legislations during the Umayyad Era:

1- The worst and most dangerous phenomenon within the topic of the earthly religions that emerged orally at first during the Umayyad Era is ascribing stories/hadiths and narratives that 'interpret' the Quran to Muhammad. Such oral accounts of the earthly religions are deemed by polytheists as part of the divine revelation of Islam; no one dared to criticize or protest against such a flagrant lie as inventors of hadiths had ascribed them to Muhammad and the narrators were protected by the Umayyads. Such oral narratives and fiqh legislations were written down during the Abbasid Era and tool the name of the Sunnite religion.   

2- The Sunnite sharia legislations had branched into several schools or doctrines during the Abbasid Era, but four doctrines only remain until today: the Malik doctrine in Yathreb, the Abou Hanifa doctrine in Iraq, the Al-Shafei doctrine in Iraq and Egypt, and the Ibn Hanbal doctrine; the last one is the most extremist, fanatical, bigoted, and violent Sunnite doctrine whose fiqh metamorphosed into the Wahabism of our era.

3- The Sunnite religion in particular, with its fiqh and sharia legislations and its false and fabricated ever-increasing hadiths, has aborted within the Second Abbasid Era the real intellectual and scientific movement (within fields of chemistry, music, geometry, philosophy, algebra, medicine, etc.) initiated and flourished by non-Arabs of the conquered countries who translated books of the Greek civilization and built on their branches of knowledge within more books written in Arabic that added to human knowledge later on. The ones who aborted such intellectual and scientific movement were the Sunnite Hanbali clergymen, imams, and sheikhs.

The influence of Arab conquests on the intellectual and religious trends:

1- The crime known as the Arab conquests that resulted into an Arab empire falsely carrying the name of Islam is the key to understand the historical background to the Sunnite religion and its sharia laws and fiqh. 

2- Arabs were too busy with conquests and political and military struggles, within the pre-Umayyad era and the Umayyad caliphate, to write down anything related to religion or history. As a nation, the Arabs had no written civilization before the Quranic revelation and they had nothing but oral traditions. In contrast, several nations conquered by Arabs had centuries-old civilizations and written heritage; yet, they were treated by the Umayyads as second-class citizens or rather like servants and slaves owned by Arabs; they paid heavy taxes/tributes to Arabs whether they converted to 'Islam' or not.     

3- The Umayyad Era was filled with conquests, civil strife, revolts, intrigues, political schemes, etc., and within such an atmosphere, a new generation of non-Arabs among the conquered nations served Arabs (and some of the so-called 'companions') and learned the Arab religion and the Arabic tongue. This generation who had civilizational heritage and a certain background of cultural knowledge memorized the oral stories and narratives of Arabs (including the hadiths ascribed falsely to Muhammad) so that being religious would be their way to climb the social ladder and be distinguished from their Arab masters – even some of them went into extremes of religiosity and became ascetics who renounced material possessions of the world that caused Arabs to fight and massacre one another.    

4- Those cultured non-Arabs led the intellectual life of oral traditions and invention of hadiths within the last decades of the Umayyad Era, especially after the death of many 'companions' who were children  when Muhammad died; for instance, Anas Ibn Malik who served inside the house of Muhammad died in Basra, Iraq, in 92 A.H. at the age of ninety-nine. Other men of the same generation died in the period between 86 and 99 A.H., and many of them (and non-Arabs who served them) authored many hadiths, especially the one about putting to death those who change their religion and forsook 'Islam'. More details on that false hadith are found in our book titled "The Penalty of Apostasy", found in English on this link: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=91  

5- Ibn Al-Jawzy mentions in his book Al-Muntazim (part 6, p. 319-320) that one narrator mentions that when the generation of those who witnessed Muhammad as children before his death, knowledge of hadiths and fiqh legislations in most countries and cities were controlled by non-Arabs who learned Arabic and converted, and each city/region bragged of its famous fiqh scholar.

6- This story of Ibn Al-Jawzy mentions names of some famous fiqh scholars (of non-Arab origin) of Iraq, Yathreb, and the Levant while disregarding those of Egypt, but Ibn Al-Jawzy asserts that they learned from their Arab masters and tutors in the fields of fiqh and hadiths. It is noteworthy that Ibn Al-Jawzy, out of envy, belittles their ijtihad in fiqh notions and hadiths they narrated, as he was an Arab and they were of non-Arab origin; racism (favoring Arabs and hating non-Arabs) still lingered within the era when Ibn Al-Jawzy lived. Another reason for the envy of Ibn Al-Jawzy was his never reaching the fame and stature of such fiqh scholars and that he opposed many of their ideas because of the extremist Ibn Hanbal doctrine he followed.

7- What is never mentioned by Ibn Al-Jawzy (and others) is the fact that such 'scholars' were no scholars at all as they never wrote any books and never theorized anything; they merely improvised, concocted, and fabricated hadiths (ascribed to Muhammad decades after his death) as oral narrators in mosques and made their personal views as fiqh notions to gain leadership, stature, and authority among the masses who were infatuated by their asceticism in contrast to the Umayyads and their enemies who fought and massacred one another for the sake of worldly possessions and transient glory.

On the threshold of the Abbasid Era.

1- The Abbasid dynasty reached power by the swords of 1) the Persians who followed the leader Abou Moslem Al-Khorasany 2) the Qahtanite Arab tribes. This made the 'Muslims' of non-Arab origin deem themselves as superior to Arabs and some Persians became chauvinists; some non-Arabs undermined Arabs and Islam itself, and some among the cultural elite and scribes of governmental diwans during the Abbasid Era were known for their atheism and ridiculing religion. Abbasid caliphs never persecuted those atheists and disbelievers as long as their loyalty was 100% dedicated to the caliphate; otherwise, those 'apostates' or 'infidels' (even if they were 'religious' and 'pious' persons among Sunnite or Shiite/Alawites rebels) were accused of rejecting 'Islam' and put to death as the penalty of apostasy in the Sunnite religion. This penalty to get rid of foes and enemies of the Abbasids has been fabricated by Sunnite scholars of fiqh as we have explained in our previous writings, especially our book titled "The Penalty of Apostasy" and our book titled "Hisbah: A Historical Overview", found in English on this link: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=99           

2- The Abbasid Era witnessed the writing down of most of the oral traditions, narratives, and hadiths and simple/naïve notions of fiqh, while increasing all these branches of 'knowledge' within more complication, complexity, and variations. The hadith-making machines produced endless hadiths written down by many authors and fiqh has comprised many sub-branches. The traces and the influence of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian riverside civilizations are undeniable in such books; many of their mythologies have been revived while taking Arab and 'Islamized' form within the eclectic nature and diversity of the Abbasid Era that subsumed the ancient civilizations of conquered nations. This made these books contradict the essence of Islam (i.e., the Quran).    

3- Such developments in thought and in the intellectual, cultural life influenced Arabia itself; a Yathreb-based school of fiqh was established and took pride in Malik, the founder of the doctrine carrying his name that was the first school whose followers invented hadiths and ascribed them falsely to Muhammad after his death, and different schools in major cities within the Arab empire resulted into the crystallization of the earthly Sunnite religion and its fiqh and sharia laws later on.

4- Life grew complicated within the Abbasid Era within riverside environments in Egypt, Iraq, and the Levant. Even some people of the conquered nations who decided to live in Arabia changed, developed, and elevated the lifestyle there, especially in Mecca and Yathreb. Of course, desert environments in particular are closed and based on imitation, traditions, tribalism, and limited lifestyle and activities, and desert-Arabs hate development and change. The most important cities in Arabia were Mecca and Yathreb, which were like two oases within the Arabian desert, with a modicum of development and civilization. This is because of the universality of pilgrimage to Mecca, where the Sacred Kaaba Mosque is located. As for Yathreb, it was no longer a capital for any state of the Muhammadans since the assassination of Othman, since capitals were Kufa, Damascus, and then Baghdad. This made the Yathreb dwellers lament that Yathreb was no longer in the limelight in terms of power, authority, wealth, making of history, and intellectual movements, because history was being made in Egypt, the Levant, and Iraq. The Yathreb-dwellers had nothing left but to dwell on their glorious past when it was the city-state led by Muhammad and a center of power, wealth, and control during the reign of the caliphs Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman, where senior 'companions' of Muhammad lived once. Thus, the Yathreb dwellers specialized in orally narrating and inventing stories about Muhammad and his so-called companions who were their ancestors, and such narratives were written during the Abbasid Era along with hadiths ascribe falsely to Muhammad to form what has come to be known as the Sunnite religion.           

5- This environment of nostalgia in Yathreb led its dwellers to ascribe themselves to the lifetime of Muhammad, but they faced the problem of facing new developments and influences coming from riverside environments that have centuries-old civilizations: Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Persia. Thus, many inveterate liars in Yathreb (who had no civilization to allow theorization of any kind) made their ijtihad by ascribing their views/phrases/practices to Muhammad and senior companions who lived once in Yathreb, while calling such views/phrases/practices as 'traditions' of Muhammad's lifetime. Those Yathreb men did not ascribe their views to themselves so as not to be criticized or persecuted. This is the same methodology of Malik whose school in Hejaz opposed ijtihad within fiqh (or that one ascribe views to oneself, and therefore making them not compulsory); Malik insisted on following his hadiths only, and he never wrote them down, but his disciples did, during the Abbasid Era, in several versions of the book called (Al-Mowata'). This is in contrast to the Abou Hanifa school of thought, in Iraq, of ijtihad and intellectual endeavors ascribed to the thinker and not to Islam itself. It is noteworthy that Abou Haifa, who rejected all hadiths, never authored any books; yet. his disciples formed a doctrine using his name and authored their own books.       

6- Sadly, the ever-increasing hadiths dominated Iraq and Asian regions during the Abbasid Era; this state of affairs began by Al-Shafei, who died in 204 A.H. and who, in our opinion, the real founder of the Sunnite religion and its fiqh in his seminal book titled (Al-Um) and he elaborates further his Sunnite methodology in another book titled (Al-Resala). Political and military conditions caused the erroneous thought of Al-Shafei to spread; when the armed revolts of Persians were brutally quelled, Persian clergymen of Mazdakism and Zoroastrianism resorted to peaceful resistance against Arab military invasion and invasion of Arab culture and religion by joining scholars of hadiths who invented so many of hadiths. This field of hadiths was financed and sponsored by the Abbasids caliphs to consolidate their theocratic sovereignty and 'call'.  It is ironic that when armed rebellions of Persians were crushed brutally, Persian cultural elite members converted to the religion of the Sunnite hadiths in multitudes and bought with their money loyalty to certain Arabian tribes to make themselves under the protection of such tribes. This is why the Second Abbasid Era witnessed the prominence of the Ibn Hanbal school/doctrine scholars, though Ibn Hanbal was or Persian origin and so were other known authors of hadiths: Al-Bokhary, Moslem, Ibn Maja, Al-Nisaa'i, Al-Tirmizy, etc. Those men established firmly the Sunnite religion with its two main branches: hadiths and fiqh. Decades later, those Persian clergymen and authors has become the infallible gods of the Sunnite religion. In the next CHAPTER III, we tackle the Abbasid Era of the development and crystallization of the earthly religions of Sufis, Sunnites, and Shiites.       

CHAPTER III: The Development of the Earthly, Man-Made Religions of the Muhammadans during the Abbasid Era (132 – 658 A.H./ 750 – 1258 A.D.)

An overview of the Abbasid Era: The division of the Abbasid Era:

 Because of the long duration of the Abbasid Era (about five centuries), historians divide it into two eras: the First Abbasid Era (132 – 232 A.H./ 750 – 847 A.D.) and the Second Abbasid Era (232 – 685 A.H./ 847 – 1258 A.D.). 

Comparing between  the Umayyad caliphate and the Abbasid caliphate:

 The Mongols and the Tartars destroyed the Abbasid caliphate five centuries after its emergence, but the Abbasid caliphate continued nominally in the Mameluke Era in Egypt when first the sultan Beibars hosted the remnants of the Abbasid dynasty in Cairo in order to provide Sunnite-Sufi religious authority and legitimacy to the Mameluke state, which in its turn made to collapse by the Ottoman caliph/sultan Selim I who invaded Egypt in 921 A.H./ 1517 A.D. and he carried the last Abbasid honorary 'caliph' from Cairo to Istanbul, in Turkey. The Ottoman caliphate lasted among the Muhammadans until its abolishment in 1924 A.D.    

The Abbasid caliphs:

 Their number is 37 caliphs, 9 caliphs of the First Abbasid Era of strength and power as powerful caliphs dominated almost all matters and issues of rule, at varying degrees, and the rest emerged during the Second Abbasid Era of weakness, as they were weak caliphs who were controlled by their Turkish military leaders and other tribal military powers coming from the East like the Buyids and the Seljuks. In some cases, caliphs tried to impose their role and control by enlisting the help of local powers, as done by the caliph Al-Mo'tadid (279 – 289 A.H./ 892 – 902 A.D.) and his successors until the Mongols and the Tartars invaded Iraq and destroyed the Abbasid caliphate.   

The major Abbasid caliphs:

  Al-Saffah was the very first Abbasid caliph who ruled for four years (750 – 754 A.D.); this title in Arabic means (the murderer), and this caliphs' real name was Abdullah Ibn M. Ibn Ali Ibn Abdullah Ibn Abbas Ibn Abdul-Mutalib. This great grandfather, Abbas Ibn Abdul-Mutalib, was the paternal uncle of Prophet Muhammad. When Al-Saffah died, he left the mission of firmly establishing and stabilizing the Abbasid caliphate to his elder brother and successor, Abou Jaffer Al-Mansour who ruled for more than twenty years (754 – 775 A.D.). The caliph Al-Mansour built the capital city, Baghdad, and he confiscated all power and authority after he assassinated the Persian leader who led the rebellion against the Umayyads and helped the Abbasids in their endeavors to establish their caliphate, Abou Moslem Al-Khorasany. Al-Mansour chased and massacred the rebels who revolted against the burgeoning Abbasid caliphate among the Persians and the Alawites, and he put peaceful opposition figures to death. Al-Mehdi, the son and successor of Al-Mansour ruled for ten years (775 – 785 A.D.), and he continued chasing peaceful opposition figures, deemed as heretics and apostates, to put them to death under the sham 'religious legitimacy' and  pretext of the so-called penalty of apostasy, thus confirming the theocratic nature of the Sunnite Abbasid caliphate. The theocratic features included the fact that Al-Mansur called his son Al-Mehdi, a religious title which refers to the Sufi, Shiite, and Sunnite myth of (the waited guided imam) who would spread justice on Earth. This provided a fake 'religious legitimacy' for the caliph Al-Mehdi to chase and murder his political foes after accusing them of being 'infidels' and 'apostates'. Al-Mehdi was known for chasing 'infidels' and 'apostates' to put them to death in the name of sharia laws. This is NOT Islamic sharia laws, but those of the earthly religion that came to be known later on as Sunnite religion of the Abbasid caliphate. Al-Hadi succeeded his father, Al-Mehdi, but he was poisoned to death one year later by his mother, Queen Al-Khayzuran, who ruled behind curtains and her son desired to curtail her powers and stop her interference. Queen Al-Khayzuran appointed her second son, Harun Al-Rasheed, as caliph. During his reign (786 – 809 A.D.), Al-Rasheed made the Abbasid caliphate reach its zenith and power. The two sons of Al-Rasheed, Al-Amin and Al-Maamoun, fought one another as the elder brother, Al-Amin, who ruled for four years, desired to remove his younger brother, Al-Maamoun, from being the crown-prince. Al-Maamoun defeated and killed his brother in 813 A.D., and he ruled for twenty years, and his reign is known for being open to philosophies of the East and the West; he built the House of Wisdom to contain books of philosophy translated into Arabic. The caliph Al-Motassim (833 – 842 A.D.) succeeded Al-Maamoun, and he was not as cultured or lover of philosophy like him, but he began the first step of the catastrophe for which later Abbasid caliphs paid a heavy price; namely, buying so many Turkish male adolescents who were trained in warfare to be enslaved soldiers and to depend on their military troops to manage affairs of the caliphate and rule. The Turkish military leaders controlled weak caliphs like Al-Wathiq (842 – 847 A.D.) and Al-Motawakil (847 – 861 A.D.), and the reign of the latter marks the commencement of the Second Abbasid Era (847 – 1258 A.D.) of weak caliphs as the Abbasid political regime lost its power, but it retained its 'spiritual' authority as a symbol standing for the Sunnite religion. This element of theocracy is the main difference between the Umayyad caliphate and the Abbasid caliphate.                  

The main differences between the Umayyad caliphate and the Abbasid caliphate:

1- Both of the Umayyads and Abbasids belong to one forefather, Abd-Manaf, but their dynasties differ a great deal because of the earlier missions assigned to both households before the advent of Islam (the Quran). The Umayyads specialized in political life, trade, and waging war as they led the winter and summer journeys trade caravans, whereas the Abbasids served the Kaaba, pilgrimage, and pilgrims and thus traded with religious notions in the name of the Kaaba and pilgrimage to make money. This is why Abbas Ibn Abdul-Mutalib hated Islam and Muhammad and allied himself to Abou Sufyan the Umayyad leader (and father of Mu'aweiya) who waged wars against the Yathreb city-state. Yet, for the sake of preserving their financial interests, both Abou Sufyan and Abbas 'converted' to Islam shortly before the death of Muhammad. Hence, the Umayyad caliphate was nearer to a secular tyrannical state in our modern age, whereas the Abbasid caliphate evolved gradually into a full-fledged theocracy within its long duration and other circumstances of location, times, various sociocultural factors, and power centers, apart from other external factors. These factors crystalized the diversified Abbasid society that assimilated different races and witnessed the struggles among the earthly religions of the Muhammadans that are united, despite their political and religious differences, in contradicting the Quran. As for locational, geographical factors, Iraq, after it was the center of resisting and rebelling against the Umayyads, became the center of the Abbasid rule, as the newly built city of Baghdad replaced Damascus, one of the most ancient cities in the world. The influence of the Levantine and the Byzantine culture was replaced by the influence of the Persian culture, as the Abbasids focused on the influences of the East instead of those of North Africa, Europe, and the Mediterranean Sea. Thus, the three main overlapping, complicated features of difference between the Umayyad and the Abbasid caliphates are the area of the empire, power centers that controlled rule, and the stance of each caliphate regarding manipulation of religion.          

2- The Umayyad caliphate lasted or a short duration (about 90 years) and focused on expansionist conquests westward and eastward and on crushing rebellions and revolts. The Abbasid caliphate inherited such vast Arab empire but could not retain its borders despite the long duration of the Abbasid state (five centuries). Until the last Umayyad caliph, the Umayyads controlled fully all matters and affairs of this vast Arab empire; no governors ever attempted to rule separately away from the Umayyad caliphate or within being subordinate to it, unlike the case with the weak Abbasid caliphs, and things were totally different in the case of the Abbasids, as per the following points.

A) The Abbasids committed massacres to annihilate the Umayyad dynasty members, but the only survivor was a young prince called Abdul-Rahman, a grandson of the caliph Hisham Ibn Abdul-Malik, fled to Andalusia and established a flourishing Umayyad state there in 138 A.H., and he died in 170 A.H.; he was called Abdul-Rahman Al-Dakhil and his title was Saqr Qorayish (i.e., the vulture of Qorayish), as the Abbasid caliph Al-Mansour his foe named him after he could not defeat him and he thanked the Lord that there is a sea (i.e., the Mediterranean Sea) between them. The Umayyad state in the Iberian Peninsula (i.e., Andalusia) (756 – 1031 A.D.) was a great civilization than influenced Europe. After the collapse of the Umayyad rule in Andalusia, separate emirates and city-states emerged that fought one another until the fall of Granada and the end of the Nasrid dynasty, and the Spanish and Portuguese committed massacres against Arabs and Jews.     

B) In the margin of the struggle between the Abbasids and the Alawites, the Idrisids were the first ones to establish their independent kingdom in Morocco (788 – 985 A.D.), and Marrakech was their capital. The Abbasid caliphs failed to defeat the Idrisids, and they had to allow independent rule for the Aghlabids (800 – 909 A.D.) in Tunisia within subordination to the Abbasids. The Shiites of the Ismaili sect (i.e., Ismailism) toppled the Aghlabids and established their Fatimid Shiite caliphate in Tunisia in 909 A.D. and conquered North Africa and Egypt, and this ushered a new phase for the region. The Fatimids built the city of Cairo as a new capital for them in Egypt as they lost interest in their North African origin. This led to the emergence of a new theocratic state of the Al-Moravid dynasty in Morocco and parts of Andalusia (1056 – 1147 A.D.), and it was engaged into many struggled until it was toppled and succeeded by theAl-Mohad caliphate (1130 – 1269 A.D.) in North Africa and parts of Andalusia.       

C) The era of independent rulers in Egypt within subordination to the Abbasids (i.e., by paying annual large sum of money) began by Ahmad Ibn Tulun the founder of the Tulunid state (866 – 905 A.D.) who annexed Syria to his rule, and so did the state of the Ikhshidids (935 – 969 A.D.) that ended after the Fatimids conquered Egypt peacefully in 969 A.D. Saladin toppled the Fatimids and established the Ayyubid state in 1171 A.D. in Egypt and the Levant (and Hejaz and parts of Yemen and Iraq) within nominal subordination to the Abbasids, but the Ayyubid state ended in 1250 A.D. when the reign of the Mameluke sultans began. The Mameluke Era ended when the Ottomans conquered Egypt in 1517 A.D. Ten years after the rise of the Mameluke sultanate in Egypt, the Mongols and the Tartars ended the Abbasid dynasty in Baghdad, Iraq, in 1258 A.D. and massacred most dwellers of Iraq and the Levant, but the Mamelukes managed to defeat them in the Ain Jalut battle. The Mameluke sultans hosted the remaining members of the Abbasid dynasty in Cairo to add a sort of legitimacy to their rule in Egypt, the Levant, and Hejaz, until the Ottoman caliphate was established.    

D) In the East, things were more complicated, as many revolts and rebellions took place by the Persians, quelled and crushed at first by caliphs of the First Abbasid Era, but many military leaders ruled independently within their established kingdoms. Many soldiers, slaves, and merchants came to Baghdad (the major and most important capital city at the time in the Ancient World) from Asia and Europe: Turks,Daylamites, Caucasians, and other tribes, and many military leaders and their soldiers controlled sultans and caliphs within the Second Abbasid Era. Among the independent kingdoms subordinate to the Abbasids were the Tahirid dynasty (820 – 872 A.D.) in Khorasan and the Samanid dynasty (874 – 999 A.D.), but the dynasties that ruled independently from the Abbasids and never linked themselves to Baghdad were the Ghurid dynasty (962 -1136 A.D.) and the Ghaznavid dynasty (1148 – 1215 A.D.).    

3- The Umayyad dynasty (because of its short duration) never witnessed any such separations within its provinces by ambitious governors who sought to rule independently, because it depended solely on Arabs within its military forces; the Umayyads were biased for the Arab race and against other non-Arab races. In contrast, the Abbasids depended on non-Arabs within its military forces, and this factor increased the weakness of the Abbasids and encouraged separatists to rule some provinces independently. We briefly trace this as follows: the Abbasid caliphate was established mainly by the rebellious Persian troops helped by Qahtanite tribes who hated the Umayyads who manipulated them. The strong, powerful Abbasid caliphs were keen on striking a balance between Arab and Persian soldiers and maintain the competition among them for the benefit of the caliphate. At the time, during the First Abbasid Era, caliphs managed everything themselves while viziers were only the executive authority. Even when the caliph Harun Al-Rasheed deputized the Barmaky family of viziers to manage rule on his behalf and saw their authority and power rising above his own, he massacred and incarcerated them and ruled alone as before. The weakness of the Abbasids began as Al-Rasheed, typically like his predecessors, made his successor his son Al-Amin, whose mother was Queen Zubayda the Hashemite of the Abbasid dynasty, and the successor of his son was another son, Al-Maamoun, whose mother was a Persian slave. Al-Amin was a very weak caliph whose homosexual debauchery and promiscuous lifestyle of luxury and excessive wine-drinking made Arab military leaders control him and they found the chance to attempt to get rid of the Persian authority forever. Al-Amin was convinced by them to remove his brother, Al-Maamoun, from his post as a crown-prince and successor to the throne, and the latter had to resort to Persian military leaders to protect his rights. A civil war ensued between the two brothers, or rather between the Arab troops and the Persian ones. The latter won, and Al-Maamoun was enthroned after Al-Amin was assassinated. The authority and power of Arab military leaders were lost, while those of Persian military leaders grew; some of them ruled far-away provinces in the East independently like the Tahirid dynasty (820 – 872 A.D.) in Khorasan. The caliph Al-Motassim tried to balance the existence of powerful Persians by buying Turkish slaves and training them in warfare to form additional military troops. Those Turks were savage, uncouth, and primitive and made the people of Baghdad suffer, yet, the number of Turks increased, until the caliph Al-Motawakil (847 – 861 A.D.) removed all Arabs and Persians from the military troops to make them consist exclusively of Turkish leaders and soldiers. This allowed the Turks to control the caliph, the caliphate affairs and rule, and many provinces; they even assassinated, dethroned, and appointed caliphs as they saw fit for their purposes. Some Turkish governors ruled provinces independently like the Tulunids and the Ikhshidids in Egypt. When the Turkish leaders grew weaker as they struggled against one another, the Persian Shiite tribes of the Daylamites, led by the Buyyids, controlled the Abbasid caliphs for more than a century (334 – 447 A.D.), and then, the Sunnite Turkish Seljuks controlled most of the Eastern regions of the Abbasid caliphate along with Iraq, Asia Minor, and the Levant. The Seljuk empire (1038 – 1157 A.D.) included the dynasties of Tughril Beg, Malik Shah I, and Alp Sungur. Typically,  the Turkish Seljuks grew weak and they competed in buying slaves to train them in warfare; distinguished, outstanding slaves were promoted to be military leaders, orAtabegs, and many of those leaders ruled major cities in Iraq and the Levant, while carrying the honorary Turkish title of Atabeg (i.e., noble leader who wasa governor of a nation or province who was subordinate to a monarch). Those Atabegs, with the passage of time, seized the chance of the weakness of their Seljuk masters to rule independently and form their own dynasties in major cities; e.g., Damascus, Aleppo, Mosul, and Sinjar. Some Arabian tribes seized the chance of the weakness of the Abbasids to raid and loot caravans of pilgrims and to establish their own states; e.g., the Zanj movement and the Qarmatians. Eventually, the Hamadanids managed to establish their own state in Mosul and Aleppo, and they fought against the Byzantines who seized the chance of the weakness of the Abbasids to try to restore the Levantine region. The crusaders seized the chance of the weakness of the local Atabegs and the Seljuks and established their kingdoms in the Levant (especially Jerusalem) and Asia Minor. Despite the various separatist movements, the Abbasid caliphate remained still officially and formally and its caliph had spiritual authority and religious legitimacy, until the Mongols and the tartars invaded Iraq and destroyed Baghdad and the Abbasid caliphate and dynasty, whose surviving members lived in the Mameluke capital in Egypt: Cairo.                                       

The Abbasid clergymen: how the caliph Abou Jaffer Al-Mansour established the Abbasid caliphate clergymen:

Introduction:

1- This spiritual authority and religious legitimacy were among of the main features of the Abbasid caliphate and never known during the short duration of the Umayyad caliphate. The Umayyad caliphs were Arabs and biased for the Arab race, and they did not resort to religious manipulation in the way the Abbasids did with acumen and astuteness. This tradition of the Abbasids (of manipulating) began with their forefather Abbas and his son Abdullah who invented many hadiths as if to 'interpret' the Quran. the progeny of Abdullah Ibn Abbas inherited such tradition and 'knowledge' and used it to serve their political ambition and to confirm their sovereignty as caliphs; e.g., they made themselves as 'guardians' of religion and manipulated he name of Islam to combine religious and political authority within theocratic rule based on the Sunnite religion that evolved and crystalized for five centuries under their protection.      

2- Of course, this occurred gradually; the most powerful of Abbasid caliphs had not the religious authority enjoyed by weak caliphs later on, despite the fact that weak caliphs led a promiscuous lifestyle and drank wine and were manipulated by non-Arab military leaders. This means that the Abbasid caliphate had a certain 'sanctity' more than any caliphs themselves. 

Comparing between the Abbasid caliphs Al-Saffah and Al-Mansour:

1- The first Abbasid caliph carried this title denoting terrorism: Al-Saffah in Arabic means (the murderer), because he brutally massacred so many people and was a blood-thirsty ruler like the Umayyad caliphs who preceded him. In the book of history titled (Nihayat Al-Arrab) (part 22, p. 58) by the historian Shehab Eddine Al-Nuweiry, we read within the events of 132 A.H. (when the Abbasid caliph was established) the story of how the caliph Al-Saffah appointed his brother, Yahya, as the governor of Mosul, whose dwellers were rebellious and refused to obey their former governor and caused him to flee the city. This former governor of Mosul wrote to Al-Saffah about this rebellion, and the caliph sent his brother Yahya there with troops of 12 thousand men. Once he reached the palace of the governor in Mosul, and he found no resistance from its inhabitants, he unceremoniously put twelve men of the dwellers of the city to death for no reason. This caused residents of Mosul to  get prepared for fighting and they carried arms. Yahya declared that anyone entering into the grand mosque would be safe; but once groups of men entered into the mosque, the troops of Yahya massacred all of them, and then, they massacred about 20 thousand men on that day in the city streets, and massacred women and children for three days, who kept weeping loudly and disturbed his sleep, after commanding the 4000 black  soldiers (i.e., Zanj) to rape them! A few days after such heinous crimes, a woman attempted to kill Yahya when he was riding his horse, but his soldiers arrested her and she rebuked him as a Hashemite Abbasid for allowing black slaves to rape free Muslim women. Yahya sent her to her home in peace after pardoning her for attempting to murder him; he gathered all black soldiers as if to reward them with spoils, but he made the other soldiers massacre all of them! Yahya was admired very much by his brother Al-Saffah because he reneged on his promises and massacred the innocent ones in the grand mosque, then women and children, then the Zanj soldiers by ruse and deceit. This means that Al-Saffah imitated the Umayyads in their massacres and brutal, savage force as well as violation of agreements and bias against non-Arabs and for Arabs as a race.                  

2- The successor of Al-Saffah, the caliph Al-Mansour, imitated the heinous deeds of his predecessor, but he provided a sham religious pretexts by fatwas tailored specially for him and catered for his taste issued by fiqh scholars paid by him. Abou Hanifa at the time was the most famous fiqh scholars; he joined the revolt against the Umayyads and was persecuted by them; the Abbasids appreciated him at first  for his jihad for their sake and drew him nearer to them in their retinue, but he refused to take money or gifts from them for his fatwas. When the people of Mosul revolted again and Al-Mansour quelled their revolt, he made an agreement with them that if they ever rebel again, he would massacre them all to finish them off. When they rebelled yet again in 148 A.H., Al-Mansour asked his scholars to issue a fatwa regarding the rebels, and they told him to either pardon them or to massacre them, but Abou Hanifa refused to flatter and deceive him, and he told him that such agreement is null and void as the defeated people of Mosul signed it reluctantly while being threatened to be put to death (History of Ibn Al-Atheer part 5, p. 217, and "Manaqib Abou Hanifa" (N.B.: Manaqib in Arabic means hagiography or miracles and praises of saints) by Ibn Al-Barazy, part 2, p. 17). Abou Hanifa who frequently opposed views of Al-Mansour and refused to follow his whims was incarcerated and tortured until he was put to death in his prison-cell by poison. This violent fate of Abou Hanifa made his two favorite disciples Abou Al-Hassan Al-Shaybany and Abou Youssef serve the Abbasid caliphs so faithfully, as Al-Mansour made the system of forcing all scholars and clergymen to be under the service and control of the Abbasid caliphate.                

3- The caliph Al-Mansour was the real founder of the Abbasid caliphate and in his speech/sermon as a new caliph, he said to people that he was the embodiment of God's sovereignty on Earth who was guided by Him wisely to rule them and to do whatever he liked (History of Al-Tabari, part 9, p. 297). This means that he was the first one to declare theocracy or what was in Europe known as the divine right of kings within the Middle-Ages. Within such theocracy, rulers did not derive their authority from people/subjects but directly from God, and they cannot be questioned by people on Earth, but only by God on the Last Day. Hence, Al-Mansour turned the Abbasid caliphate into a Sunnite theocracy and later on, the Shiite Fatimid caliphate imitated him and deified the Fatimid rulers in Egypt while controlling fully all of its scholars and clergymen.

4- The Umayyad caliphs never assumed theocratic or worldly titles; they were just political and military rulers. In contrast, the Abbasids assumed theocratic or religious titles to link themselves to God, the only exception was the first Abbasid caliph, Al-Saffah, who massacred the Umayyad dynasty member among many other people who reeled against him. The second Abbasid caliph, Al-Mansour (the victorious), gave himself this title to denote his being victorious all the time as he crushed his foes and enemies. The third Abbasid caliph, Al-Mehdi, was titled as such to denote his being 'guided' by God, as per Shiite and Sunnite myth of an imam called Al-Mehdi to emerge one day! The other caliphs took religious titles and their first names were also not used at all: Al-Hadi (the guiding one), Al-Rasheed (the guided one with true reasoning), Al-Amin (the trustworthy), and Al-Maamoun (the one who provides security and peace). Weak caliphs linked themselves to God by adding His Name (Allah) to their names (this is utter blasphemy in our view): Al-Motassim Billah (the one seeking God's aid), Al-Wathiq Billah (the one who trusts God), Al-Motawakil Billah (the one who relies on God), Al-Mostaeen Billah (the one seek God's aid), Al-Mohtadi Billah (the one guided by God), Al-Mo'tadid Billah (the one relying on God), etc. This habit is repeated within the rest of Abbasid caliphs even within those who resided in the Mameluke Cairo after the invasion of Baghdad by the Mongols and the Tartars. This has been the theocratic environment in which the earthly, man-made Sunnite Shiite, and Sufi religions of the Muhammadans flourished and crystalized with the passage of time.         

 Al-Mansour and the bases of the Abbasid clergymen:

Fabrication of hadiths:

1- We tackle later on in this book the various tools/means that helped establish the earthly, man-made Sunnite Shiite, and Sufi religions of the Muhammadans, including the Satanist tool of fabricating hadiths. We briefly show here how Al-Mansour played a role in fabrication of hadiths to reinforce his theocratic rule; he and his clergymen and scholars invented hadiths ascribed to Abdullah Ibn Abbas, the forefather of Abbasids, who was turned by them, decades after his death, into a brilliant, famous scholar of fiqh and hadith-narrator!

2- Within the last decade of the Umayyad rule, Al-Mansour was a known hadith-narrator who had other narrators working under him to spread hadiths, and one of them died in 262 A.H. and was lauded by Ibn Al-Jawzy as one of the 'companions' of Al-Mansour who propagated hadiths (Al-Muntazim by Ibn Al-Jawzy, part 12, deaths of the year 262 A.H.)

3- Thus, before becoming a caliph, Al-Mansour had his group of men paid by him to fabricate and orally spread hadiths, and Al-Aamash was one of the prominent ones among them, and they served the Abbasid caliphs after the death of Al-Mansour by inventing pro-Abbasid hadiths, as per Ibn Al-Jawzy, who mentions a hadith by Al-Aamash who said that that Prophet Muhammad said that caliphs will include Al-Saffah, Al-Mansour, and Al-Mehdi! 

Fabrication of visions/dreams:

1- Al-Mansour invented the notion of the fabrication of visions/dreams as sources of hadiths and divine commands to man! This consolidated both the religious and political authority of the Abbasids and the evolving and crystallization of the earthly religions of the Muhammadans whose hadiths make the miserable Arabs and Muhammadans of today lose this world and the next.  

2- Ibn Al-Jawzy mentions that Al-Mansour made his oral narrators and clergymen spread a vision/dream he allegedly had that the soul of Muhammad and the souls of a host of companions (including Abdullah Ibn Abbas and three of the pre-Umayyad caliphs) appeared to him beside the Kaaba to predict that Al-Mansour and his progeny will reign of 'Muslims' until the end of days! This is very silly, and Al-Mansour in such a lie did not mention his paternal uncle's son (Abdullah Ibn Ali) who revolted against him as he sought the throne, but Al-Mansour defeated and put him to death after making a peace treaty with him!

Clergymen of Al-Mansour reached the mainstream culture of the masses:

1- We mean to refer here to the fact that the halo portrayed by clergymen about Al-Mansour after his death by spreading rumors about him as a saint with true visions. Such nonsense helped to establish further the political role of the Abbasid clergymen to serve the caliphs of theocratic Abbasid rule.

2- Ibn Al-Jawzy mentions examples of this idea of Al-Mansour as a saint as part of the dominant culture of his era in the 6^th century A.H., 400 years after the death of Al-Mansour; he writes that Al-Mansour had a magical mirror to know the future and consult devils and angels, who told him he will defeat the rebels led by the Alawite M. Ibn Al-Hanafiyya. This is silly because this defeat was predicted by all based on the number of troops and the amount of power, allies, and money that Al-Mansour had, and he did not need this mythical justification. Yet, official clergymen serving the Abbasids insisted on creating this halo of Al-Mansour as a God-chosen saintly figure, even after his death, and the influence of such myths lasted for centuries.

3- Ibn Al-Jawzy mentions in his book "Al-Muntazim" (part 7, p. 136) this story within an imaginary series of narrators as if this would be convincing to his readers; he mentioned that the mother of Al-Mansour had a dream when she was pregnant before giving birth to him; she saw a huge lion getting out of her womb, and other lions kneeled before him in submission!

4- The Persian Mages, charlatans, and worshippers of stars had their share in spreading visions, predictions, narratives, etc. about Al-Mansour related to prediction of his being a caliph, his feats and exploits, his reigning over Persia, etc.  

The influence of the Abbasid clergymen on the revival of the religion of ascetics:

Introduction:

1- Al-Mansour's stature within the Abbasid caliphate is like the one of Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan within the Umayyad caliphate; both men were narrators of hadiths and specialized in the so-called fiqh, and both used brutal force, savagery, and massacres to confirm the bases of their respective caliphates. Both reneged on their promises and agreements and acted treacherously with their nearest kin and with others. For instance, Abdul-Malik put to death his successor and paternal uncle's son, Amr Ibn Saeed, so that he would make his own son as his successor to the throne. Al-Mansour threatened his paternal uncle's son, Eissa Ibn Moussa, to put him to death if he would not cede his right as a successor to the throne to the son of Al-Mansour, Al-Mehdi. All the Umayyad caliphs after Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan were from his progeny with the exception of the last one, Marwan Ibn Mohamed Ibn Marwan (nicknamed the jack-ass). All the Abbasid caliphs after Al-Mansour were from his progeny. The main difference between the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates is that the latter was theocratic and had its own official clergymen serving it within the earthly Sunnite religion to justify and legitimize all crimes and grave injustices. Abdul-Malik in his first sermon as caliph warned people that if anyone would tell him to fear God in piety, he would put him to death immediately. This means that Abdul-Malik resorted to brutal force and disregarded the Quran and never used it to justify his sins/crimes. In contrast, Ibn Al-Jawzy mentions (Al-Muntazim, part 7, p. 341) that Al-Mansour was delivering a sermon, and a common man told him to fear God in piety, and Al-Mansour talked to him calmly while asserting that he as caliph observed piety in the fear of the Lord, then he resumed his sermon very calmly as if he were reading it from a paper.       

2- We quote the following from Al-Muntazim (part 7, p. 339) by Ibn Al-Jawzy. Within the last decade of the Umayyad rule, injustices increased and the main victims were the Hashemites, including a scholar of fiqh named Abdullah Ibn M. Ibn Ali Ibn Abdullah Ibn Abbas the Hashemite who led a secret movement that raised the motto (contentment is fulfilled by a ruler of the household of prophet Muhammad) and spread the hadiths about the myth of the waited imam Al-Mehdi who will restore justice and put an end to the Umayyads and their injustices. This secret movement managed to gather supporters (who assumed that the secret leader was among the progeny of Ali and Fatima) and to destroy the Umayyad dynasty. The cultural elite members, including Abou Hanifa, supported this movement as they dreamt of justice. This dream turned into a hellish nightmare that shocked everyone to the core. Abdullah Ibn M. Ibn Ali Ibn Abdullah Ibn Abbas the Hashemite became Al-Mansour, the second Abbasid caliph. Al-Saffah, the very first Abbasid caliph, committed many massacres to annihilate rebels, opposition figures, and the Umayyad household members. Al-Mansour continued the bloodshed (as he murdered hundreds of thousands of people) while resorting to quasi-religious Sunnite justifications to deceive people; his deception continued as he named his son as Al-Mehdi as if his son were the fulfillment of hadiths predicating such a myth. A fiqh scholar from Africa who was a companion to Al-Mansour as a young man, was received in the palace in Baghdad, and this old friend reproached Al-Mansour for gathering corrupt, hypocritical, flattering clergymen around him. Thus, those gullible ones who believed in the myth of Al-Mehdi were shocked thoroughly as they witness the brutal force and injustices of the first and second Abbasid caliphs and that the revolt they supported was never pertaining to anyone among the Alawites. Some scholars of fiqh were shocked the more as Al-Mansour and his clique invented hundreds of hadiths to justify injustices and oppression and that he assassinated Abou Hanifa inside his prison cell because Abou Hanifa refused to flatter and gratify him like the rest of hypocritical clergymen and scholars. This state of affairs during the Abbasid Era revived the old earthly religion of asceticism; we tackle this in detail below.

Firstly: the return of asceticism and ascetics:

1- There is nothing called asceticism in the Quran/Islam. The Quran calls us to enjoy permissible items in life without excesses and without prohibiting anything made permissible by the Lord God. Muhammad's lifetime and era never witnessed asceticism or monasticism, unlike the Levantine and Iraqi Christian monks who renounced the world as a passive, silent reaction against the Persian and Byzantine injustices.   

2- The cultural elite among non-Arabs within the countries conquered by Arabs hoped to see the new rulers uphold justice within their new religion, but they felt frustrated as Arabs turned out to be more unjust than the Persians and Byzantines. Frustration increased as those Arabs engaged into a civil war that led to more turmoil and the emergence of Al-Khawarij who killed innocent, peaceful people indiscriminately (like terrorists of the terrorism of today's modern world). People felt shocked that the Umayyad tyranny followed the footsteps of the Persians and Byzantines and deal with people as 'subjects' or 'objects' owned by savage, brutal caliphs who massacred any rebels including the Yathreb dwellers and Hussein Ibn Ali and his household, and they even destroyed the Kaaba and they brutally quelled the armed rebellions of the Berbers, the Copts, and the Persians.    

3- Revolts of the Alawites were quelled and crushed, beginning with Hussein in Karbala massacre in 61 A.H., his grandson Ali Zayn Al-Abedeen in 122 A.H., and the latter's son in 125 A.H. Fiqh scholars emerged in their armed revolts – especially the Persians – while carrying the banner of upholding justice, but the Umayyads (and their vizier and governor Al-Hajaj Ibn Youssef) quelled and crushed these armed revolts in 84 A.H. in Deir Al-Jamajim (literally, the house of skulls, as pyramids of skulls of dead men of the rebels filled the battlefield). Another revolt in Khorasan, Persia, raised the banner of fighting vice and injustice and enjoining righteousness, but it was crushed and quelled by the Umayyads in 128 A.H. Hence, the cultural elite members of non-Arabs revived asceticism and monastic lifestyle like their forefathers during the Byzantine and Persian occupations.   

Secondly: the Abbasids and the lost hopes caused the revival of the religion of ascetics:

1- A false hope filled souls of people by the hadiths of the Al-Mehdi myth whose reign of justice will spread all over the world as injustices would vanish; such hadiths were used to make people support the secret Abbasid movement that raised the motto (contentment is fulfilled by a ruler of the household of prophet Muhammad), assuming that Al-Mehdi's age was drawing nearer as he would be among the a progeny of Ali and Fatima. This secret movement was joined by so many people who never saw its Abbasid leader as they joined the Persian troops of Abou Moslem Al-Khorasany to destroy the unjust Umayyad caliphate; hence, the Abbasid caliphate was established in 132 A.H.   

2- Most people in 132 A.H. were thoroughly shocked and surprised as the first Abbasid caliph managed to deceive them to get their support allegedly for an imam/leader who was one of the progeny of Ali and Fatima. The greater shock still was that the Abbasids were more violent and brutal than the Umayyads; the Abbasids massacres those who helped them to reach the throne so as not to share power with anyone; e.g., Abou Moslem Al-Khorasany was put to death, his followers chased and massacred, and all rebels in all Arab and Persian tribes were quelled and crushed. The Abbasids persecuted and tortured Alawites who were suspects as would-be rebels; all rimes of Abbasids were 'justified' and 'legitimized' by corrupt fatwas of official clergymen and fiqh scholars loyal to the Abbasid dynasty; people were shocked to the core as their revered imam and scholar Abou Hanifa was incarcerated, tortured, and poisoned by the caliph Al-Mansour.      

3- Hence, the frustration and shock of the cultural elite members were because of a more unjust rule of the Abbasids who issued corrupt fatwas and invented false hadiths to justify their crimes and grave injustices; this made some people renounce the world out of despair and vented their frustrated hopes in narratives of their own imagination and went to extremes within ascetic lifestyles.    

Thirdly: the boycott of Abbasids as the main ritual of ascetics:

1- To convert to the ascetic religion, one began with boycotting the Abbasid caliphate and its posts; the caliphate need those pious cultural elite members to appoint them as judges, but ascetics among them adamantly refused and prohibited assuming any posts to serve the unjust Abbasids. This anti-Abbasid propaganda by the ascetics led non-ascetics like Abou Hanifa to refuse to be appointed as the supreme judge of Baghdad, and this led to his persecution, incarceration, and death by poison by Al-Mansour. Ascetics refused to be appointed as judges and they feared the persecution of the Abbasids, and as per Ibn Al-Jawzy the historian, the leader of ascetics, Sufyan Al-Thawry, fled to Mecca so as not avoid the possible persecution of the Abbasids; he was very much afraid when he heard that the Abbasid caliph was coming to Mecca to perform pilgrimage, and his fears were not allayed even when he heard that the caliph died in his way before reaching Mecca. An Abbasid governor of Egypt commanded the ascetic Abou Zaraa (who died in 153 A.H.) to accept being appointed as a judge or be put to death, and this ascetic asked for permission to meet with his relatives and promised to come to the governor the very next day. Indeed, he went to the governor while wearing his shroud and declaring his being ready to die like the magicians killed by Moses' Pharaoh; the governor was touched and set Abou Zaraa free. Another ascetic, Othman Ibn Talha, lived in Yathreb and was forced by the Abbasid governor to be appointed as judge under the threat of being flogged to death when the caliph Al-Mehdi visited Yathreb in 160 A.H., this ascetic man begged him to allow him to leave his post, and he refused to take his salary for the months during which he worked as a judge.                  

2- Those ascetics who were forced to accept to be appointed as judges and did not resist were despised, ridiculed, and shunned by other ascetics; this occurred to the judge Shureik Al-Nakhay who was ridiculed in the street, as he went out of the house of the Barmaky vizier, by Abou Hashem the ascetic who accused Shureik Al-Nakhay of missing the route to the Lord because he accepted work as judge within the Abbasid rule.   

Fourthly: ascetics established their religion based on fabricated tales:

1- Ascetics who boycotted the Abbasid rule and realm of the overt world were ushered to enter into an imaginary realm of endless fabricated narratives that glorify themselves (stories like Buddha who renounced wealth for wisdom and asceticism), and such stories were repeated about many ascetics; for instance, Ibn Al-Jawzy mentions the ascetic man Ibrahim Ibn Adham (who died in 160 A.H.) who left his father the rich sultan (and his servants, possessions, etc.) within a fishing trip as he responded to a mysterious call, and he deserted all that to live in the wilderness as a ascetic man who renounced the world and spoke nothing but pearls of wisdom. This story is a lie because this man never had any ancestry among the Qorayish sultans/caliphs at all. This ascetic man became a 'sultan' in the imaginary realm of asceticism.   

2- The same story is repeated with slight variations about other ascetic men; for instance, Hameed Ibn Jabir (who died in 151 A.H.) allegedly received a call while walking alone in the desert to renounce his wealth and trade (donating all of it to the poor) and to forsake the company of people because their adoration of the material possessions, and he lived alone in a cave inside a mountain till he died. 

3- Another story is about Shaqeeq Al-Balkhy (died in 153 A.H.) who renounced the world and donated his wealth to the poor, thus feeding 300 villages, and he wandered through the deserts and villages. The ascetics, when mocked by Abbasids and their men, used to announce that they renounced the transient glory of this mundane world to seek eternal glory that lasts in this world and the next and exceeds worldly glory of any men.    

4- Such mythical stories were the tools to vent frustrations and crushed hopes of the oppressed ones; the orators and oral narrators fed such myths to the gullible masses who believed them to relieve their sense of feeling frustrated, deprived, and oppressed. The Abbasid circle of affluent ones kept amassing and hoarding money, and the ascetic men despised money and authored within their imaginary kingdom/realm stories of miracles that were very much appreciated and admired by the gullible masses. For instance, the ascetic man Ibrahim Ibn Adham told this story about himself: a slave was sent to him from his rich brothers with a horse and a bag of ten thousand dirhams to feed his hungry followers, but Ibrahim Ibn Adham set the slave free and bestowed on him this large sum and the horse! We tend to think that this is a myth; he should have fed his hungry followers, of course! Such stories reflect the mentality of deprivation of ascetics.      

Fifthly: the beginning of inventing stories by ascetics about miracles:

1- Some ascetic men who refuse to accept money told miraculous stories about themselves: in the biography of Abou Zaraa, we read that he was rebuked by one of his followers because Abou Zaraa lived in abject poverty but refused to pray for God to grant him money, but Abou Zaraa implored the Almighty to turn a pebble on the ground into a piece of gold, and this miraculously occurred, but Abou Zaraa gave this piece of gold to his follower to spend on himself, as Abou Zaraa vowed never to use or own money because he despised it.      

2- The same myth is found with a slight variation in the biography of the ascetic man Abdul-Aziz Al-Raseeby (who died in 150 A.H.) who implored God to give them gold to help with it his poor friend who had many children, and the sky miraculously rained gold pieces for a minute, and Al-Raseeby never took any of them, leaving the gold pieces to his friend and other people to collect.     

3- Ascetics spread the notion that their real realm/kingdom is the Hereafter, in contrast to the transient realm of the physical world left by them for the Abbasids to enjoy. This, of course, relieved the inferiority complex inside those ascetic men, asserted by myths about miracles they allegedly worked. For instance, there is a story about the ascetic man named Al-Ajely, spread by his followers, that when he died in 165 A.H., as they were burying him, they found inside his tomb many basil stems of sweet scent, and the poor people who took some of it found that the basil never withered, but when a rich prince took some of the basil stems, they withered at once. Of course, this fake story never mention the location/city of this event nor the name of the prince.      

Sixthly: how ascetics criticized the Abbasids:

1- The real religion of the Abbasids was the worship of money/Mammon. This is why many of the myths invented by the ascetics included implied criticism of the Abbasid caliphs and their  circles, retinue members, cronies, governors, courtiers, etc. who were greedy and amassed immense wealth and were still hungry for more. The caliph Al-Mansour was very stingy and hoarded treasures inside his palaces, and the reaction of ascetic men to this was to despise and hate money that drove people to struggle against one another and kill one another for the sake of transient glory of this physical, material world.       

2- Many narratives and poetry lines that have been composed by the ascetic men directly criticize Al-Mansour in particular and such stories are mentioned in history books, especially when Al-Mansour built Baghdad as the greatest Arab city and named his palace there as the "palace of immortality". The ascetic poet Abou Hashem ridiculed Al-Mansour or assuming immorality in this transient, fleeting world, and when some monuments built by the Abbasid caliphs later on collapsed, some ascetic men wrote poetry lines on the walls of these ruins to make people draw the moral lessons from those who lived luxuriously to be fatten their bodies to be eaten by worms in marble tombs. 

Seventhly: how ascetics invented visions/dreams:

 Many ascetic men invented visions to heap praise on themselves and their sheikhs/imams to spread news of their piety; this is sheer hypocrisy. They would claim they saw their dead sheikhs/imams enjoying the bliss of Paradise, talk to angels, and send greetings to their still-alive followers on earth, as they were drawn nearer to God! such nonsense is refuted by the Quranic fact that no one enters into Hell or Paradise BEFORE the Judgment Day. 

Lastly:

 The dangerous element of inventing dreams/visions is that such nonsense provided a backdrop for inventing the earthly, man-made Sufi religion of polytheism later on in the 3^rd century A.H., though it is a peaceful and non-violent religion, unlike the case with the Sunnite and Shiite religions. The Sunnite religion has been invented by the Abbasids by their false hadiths and the fabricated biography of Muhammad to legitimize and justify bloodshed and other crimes: looting, rape, enslavement, invasion, etc. Soon enough, the Shiite Sufism and Sunnite Sufism have emerged. The history book titled (l-Muntazim) by Ibn Al-Jawzy is filled with dreams/visions and so are his other books, even the one about the life of his sheikh/imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal; this means that dreams/visions of myths were believed by the masses at the time who believed false hadiths ascribed to Muhammad centuries after his death.  

The influence of Abbasid clergymen on creating the religion of Weepers:

Introduction: let us weep and then laugh!

1- The religion of ascetics, revived as a reaction to the injustices, bloodshed, and affluence of the Abbasids who were supported by hypocritical official clergymen and fiqh scholars, resulted in the emergence of the movement of Weepers, whose religion consisted mainly of one ritual: to weep and cry individually or in groups, and this religion was based on the invention of dreams/visions to face false hadiths invented by the Abbasids and their coterie of corrupt clergymen. As far as we know, to make weeping a religious ritual was something foreign within the Arab culture, socially and religiously. This strange religion of Weepers might harken back to non-Arab cultures and their religious traditions, and this is why it vanished and died out soon as it did not suit the Arab environment; nothing remains of this strange religion of Weepers  but few lines of history about the Abbasid Era.

2- We know from the Quran that the pious, righteous ones sometimes wept as they heard the Quran or any other Scripture of the Lord and some early believers wept for being too poor to participate in self-defense endeavors within the Yathreb city-state. The Quran mentions lack of weeping within disbelievers who laughed and ridiculed the Quran. "These are some of the prophets God has blessed, from the descendants of Adam, and from those We carried with Noah, and from the descendants of Abraham and Israel, and from those We guided and selected. Whenever the revelations of the Dominant Lord are recited to them, they would fall down, prostrating and weeping." (19:58); "And when they hear what was revealed to the messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears, as they recognize the truth in it. They say, "Our Lord, we have believed, so count us among the witnesses."" (5:83); "Say, "Believe in it, or do not believe." Those who were given knowledge before it, when it is recited to them, they fall to their chins, prostrating. And they say, "Glory to our Lord. The promise of our Lord is fulfilled." And they fall to their chins, weeping, and it adds to their humility." (17:107-109); "Do you marvel at this discourse? And laugh, and do not weep?" (53:59-60); "There is no blame on the weak, nor on the sick, nor on those who have nothing to give, provided they are true to God and His Messenger. In no way can the righteous be blamed. God is Forgiving and Merciful. Nor on those who approach you, wishing to ride with you, and you said, "I have nothing to carry you on." So they went away, with their eyes overflowing with tears, sorrowing for not finding the means to spend." (9:91-92).

3- Weeping in these verses was something temporary in certain situations, and NEVER a religious ritual base on myths and visions/dreams. Another example was of Joseph's brothers who feigned weeping to deceive Jacob: "And they came to their father in the evening weeping." (12:16). We provide an overview of this strange religion of Weepers below.

Firstly: the emergence of the religion of weepers from the one of ascetics during the reign of Al-Mansour:

1- Of course, the inferiority complex and the feelings of frustration and depravation that led them to renounce the realities of the world made them also feel keenly their abject poetry as they needed food, clothes, etc., and within their miserable, despicable conditions, they never forgot the dominance and injustices of rulers. The dreams/visions and stories of miracles were never enough to relieve their suffering; they had to engage into rituals of group or individual sessions of long hours of weeping to vent all negative feelings caused by aborted hopes in  sad reality. This was their religion of weeping during the reign of the caliph Al-Mansour.      

2- Hence, weeping of the ascetic Weepers was a main feature within the rituals of asceticism during the reign of the caliph Al-Mansour; for instance, Ibn Al-Jawzy writes about the famous Weeper Ibn Abjar (who died in 150 A.H.) who led a group of followers who used to cry and weep in groups on a daily basis. 

Secondly: features of the weeping ritual:

Weeping and crying all one's lifetime:

  Some of the ascetic Weepers would be easily made to weep by trivial matters; for instance, Ibn Al-Jawzy writes that Ibn Al-Hassan (who died in 149 A.H.) kept weeping for 40 years because after eating one day, he used a tool pertaining to his neighbor (without permission) to wash his hands. This means that weeping for long durations daily was like a psychological cure/treatment for these frustrated ascetics who turned this strange habit into a religious ritual. 

Weeping all night while praying:

 Some ascetic men like Hisham Ibn Hassan (who died in 147 A.H.) would weep all night long for the rest of his lifetime, and his neighbors never knew the reason (or the sins expatiated that way!) as he talked to no one at all until he died.

Weeping till going blind as a form of jihad!:

 Some ascetic men kept weeping for the rest of their lifetimes until they went blind and so thin such as Al-Hassan Ibn Yazeed (who died in 149 A.H.) and Hisham Ibn Abou Abdullah (who died in 153 A.H.). An ascetic woman named Obayda daughter of Abou Kilab (who died in 163 A.H.) kept weeping on a daily basis for 40 years until she lost her eyesight. 

Weeping in groups like congregational prayers: let us all weep and cry!:

1- As weeping turned into a religious ritual for ascetics, with its special timings like prayers, they invented the habit of doing it in groups at certain days. One ascetic man named Ashaath (who died in 151 A.H.) kept weeping with his followers between the dawn prayers to the noon prayers, then between the noon prayers to the afternoon prayers, and then between the afternoon prayers to the sunset prayers, stopping only to perform congregational prayers. Before each of them returned home, they vowed to keep weeping individually till daybreak.

2- Some Weepers would weep only at home along with his family members who would weep with them at certain times, as done by Al-Hassan Ibn Saleh (who died in 169 A.H.) and Ibn Malik (who died in 146 A.H.).

Bragging of long durations of weeping: weeping hypocritically while seeking fame:

1- To weep out of fear of the Lord in piety is OK, provided that this is not done hypocritically before others. The ascetic Weepers were hypocrites who sought fame by weeping in public and inventing dreams/visions and stories of miracles to make people admire and revere them, as persons who belonged to the metaphysical realm in this world and the next, and hate the Abbasids who owned the transient material realm. This fame for Weepers made historians write about them, as history never cares for the masses unless they reach a certain level of fame.

2- As Weepers sought fame and prominence at any cost, some of the distinguished themselves using various ways. One of them, Waheeb Ibn Al-Ward (who died in 153 A.H.) vowed never to smile or laugh and his pillow was always wet with tears, and later on, he vowed never to eat fruits but to consume only uncooked beans and seeds.

3- Al-Ajely (who died in 165 A.H.) vowed never to laugh or smile, and he kept screaming all night long and weeping all day long until extreme fatigue caused his premature death. 

4- Rabah of the Qais tribe (who died in 146 A.H.) would make his followers accompany him (to narrate to people what he did?) to the cemetery to weep in groups and he would scram loudly until he would faint, and when recovered, he would go on weeping as usual with the same vigor.

5- Al-Khawwas (who died in 162 A.H.) used to weep while roaming the streets with his bag, till his white beard was wet, while addressing God to hasten his death as he longed to see Him.

6- Another Weeper named Otba (who died in 167 A.H.) used to drown the voices of preachers who delivered sermons by his screams and weeping, making no one hear a single word, and before his death he closed down his ascetic room, Spartanly furnished, where he used to weep alone, while making his followers vow never to open it until after his death. When he traveled to the Levant and died there, his followers opened his room to find a torture tool made of iron that he used to mortify his body! This means he intended to make them narrate this story about him after his death!  

7- The Weeper Ibn Saleh (who died in 160 A.H.) was a guest at the house of one of his friends, but when he kept screaming and weeping all night long, the people of the household could not sleep! At daybreak, he kept screaming at people to wake up to perform the dawn prayers, and this way, he knew his story would be repeated by the masses who were attentive to his weird ways so that his name would be mentioned in history books.    

8- Another Weeper named Saeed (who died in 171 A.H.) kept weeping all day and all night long, while praying, eating, drinking, talking to friends, etc. especially when large gatherings would be held to allow people to hear sermons and speeches delivered by Sufyan Al-Thawry, the leader/imam of ascetics.

Echoes and reverberations of the weepers' movement:

1- The movement of Weepers ended and became mere lines in history books, side by side with names of caliphs, viziers, rebels, and notable ones. The negative influence of the movement of Weepers is the fabrication of historical narratives by narrators in mosques who admired the Weepers and ascetics; their fake stories and dreams were taken as historical facts by some historians, and this reflects the mentality of the gullible masses of this era who believed in such nonsense as much as they believed in falsehoods, myths, and hadiths of the man-made, earthly Sunnite and Shiite religions crystalized in the Abbasid Era.  

2- Thus, stories in history books about ascetic men and Weepers (their deeds, dreams, and miracles) are not to be taken as facts, but as mere myths and folklore fabricated at the time and admired by the masses, preachers, and historians.

3- We quote few examples of the so many fake stories below.

3/1: A narrative asserts that the caliph Al-Mansour, shortly before his death, found on the walls of his palace some lines of poetry followed by written sighs of pain, composed by an anonymous man, reminding the caliph that amassed wealth and treasures will avail him nothing in the Afterlife, as his time of death draws nearer and people would be relieved from his injustices forever.

3/2: Several narratives about ascetics and Weepers warn and preach Al-Mansour inside his palace in the presence of his courtiers and retinue members, till he would weep in agony and feel remorse. This is unbelievable; these made-up stories were a tool to revenge themselves against the mighty, brutal caliph and to elevate the stature of Weepers among the masses. 

3/3: The worst result of the stories fabricated by ascetics and the movement of Weepers is their tarnishing the reputation of some scholars who willingly accepted to work as judges or supreme judges during the Abbasid Era, like the just and fair judge Shureik Al-Nakhay who saved many innocent men from the Abbasid injustices until the caliph had to give him the sake as he never obeyed viziers and retinue members at all nor served their whims. Weepers and ascetics followed their whims in their made-up stories as they praised to the sky the affluent fiqh scholar Abdullah Ibn Mubarak because he used to provide food for them and spent money on them; even the hypocritical ascetic leader Sufyan Al-Thawry told this scholar that he was the supreme scholar of the West and the East provinces!      

Lastly: let us laugh!:

1- We end our talking of the silly groups of Weepers by providing this laughter-inducing story mentioned by Ibn Al-Jawzy in his book (Al-Muntazim), our primary reference from which we quote information about the Weepers.  

2- Ibn Al-Jawzy mentions that the ascetic Weeper Ataa Ibn Yassar and his brother Suleiman traveled to Yathreb accompanied with a large party of friends, and Suleiman and the others left Ataa alone in the tavern room, praying, and they went shopping. A very pretty woman suddenly entered into the room of Ataa, and he thought at first that she came to beg for money or food; after he finished prayers, he asked her about what she needed. She told him she was a widow and desired to have sex with him as she was very much aroused and on heat! Ataa refused adamantly and told her to void Hell-Fire and to repent, but she tried to seduce him by touching and groping him. Ataa wept, reminded her of Hell, and told her to leave the room, but she was astonished to see him weeping and she wept with him. They kept weeping together until his brother and the rest of their friends came to find them in that state; the friends and the brother kept weeping without even asking about what happened. Seeing this, the woman stopped weeping and left the room. The story never tells us if this woman left the room as a repentant person, if she felt angry for not being satisfied by such a mad man, if she cursed her misfortune, or if she felt like running away from this madhouse. We will never know! 

Reference:

 The information quoted here about the ascetics and the weepers are from "Al-Muntazim" by the historian and fiqh and hadiths scholar Ibn Al-Jawzy: part 7, p. 85, 90, 136, 155, 188, 197, 204, 218, 219, 227, 268, 279, 291, 319, 323, and 327, and part 8, p. 77, 97, 98, 109, 117, 119, 125, 150, 172, 173, 186, 200, 259, 268, 280, and 338.

The influence of Abbasid clergymen on deifying caliphs during the reign of weak caliphs:

The Abbasid clergymen grew too powerful during the Second Abbasid Era:

1- We have mentioned above that the caliph Al-Mansour in his first sermon as a new caliph said to people that he was the embodiment of God's sovereignty on Earth who was guided by Him wisely to rule them and to do whatever he liked (History of Al-Tabari, part 9, p. 297). This means that he was the first one to declare theocracy or what was in Europe known as the divine right of kings within the Middle-Ages. Within such theocracy, rulers did not derive their authority from people/subjects but directly from God, and they cannot be questioned by people on Earth, but only by God on the Last Day. We have also mentioned before that Al-Mansour played a role in establishing the Abbasid political clergymen who invented hadiths, visions/dreams, and false revelation from God! Hadiths later on multiplied like cancerous cells, asserting that the Abbasid caliphate will go on existing until the end of days! This was one of the main features of the Abbasid religion.   

2- With the passage of time, the earthly religions of Sunnites, Shiites, and Sufis have been crystallized and developed to take their full-fledged forms during the Second Abbasid Era, and the number of deified imams/authors/sheikhs/saints increased along with the so-called 'holy' descendants of the household of Muhammad among the progeny of his Hashemite relatives and the progeny of Ali and Fatima. The gullible masses who deified Sufi mob as saints also deified the Abbasid caliphs.  

3- Strangely, within the reign of weak Abbasid caliphs, the Abbasid official clergymen and fiqh scholars attained more stature, control, and wealth, and the Abbasid caliphate never lost its spiritual and quasi-religious authority in Baghdad and elsewhere, despite the fact that weak caliphs lost political and military influence as they were controlled by military leaders and powerful viziers. 

4- The Shiite Buyyid sultans controlled the Abbasid caliphate for more than a century (334 – 447 A.H.), as they needed the spiritual authority of the Abbasid throne to rule within its name. This spiritual theocratic authority of the Abbasids continued when the extremist Sunnite Turkish Seljuks ruled large terrains in the Middle-East and in Persia (1038 – 1157 A.D.) also using the spiritual authority of the Abbasid throne to rule within its name.

5- Hence, the system of political power established by Al-Mansour dwindled and the Abbasid religious theocratic authority of powerful clergymen grew stronger; let us prove this by citing two incidents of history below, which took place during the powerful Buyyid sultan Adad Al-Dawla and the reign of the powerful Seljuk sultan Tughril-Beg.

Scene I:Time: 369 A.H., Place: the Abbasid palace in Baghdad, Main Figures: the Buyyid sultan and the weak Abbasid caliph Al-Taa'ie Li-Allah, Other Figures: attendants of both the sultan and the caliph, Topic: the Buyid sultan requested from the Abbasid caliph to grant him a title to increase his power, within a formal ceremony attended by clergymen who performed rituals that show the Abbasid caliph as a deified, worshipped figure, Source: (Al-Muntazim) by Ibn A-Jawzy, part 14, events of 369 A.H.:

  After the Buyid sultan requested to be granted a new title, he was made to sit down on a settee in the middle of the Holy Chamber of the Abbasid Royal Court, wearing a gold crown encrusted with precious stones, surrounded by 100 attendants who carry their swords and finest garments. He was commanded to hold a scepter in one hand while touching the Othman copy of the Quran, and to carry the sword of Muhammad by his other hand. Notables, retinue members, judges, the supreme judges, representatives of the Abbasids and the Alawites, and courtiers were then allowed to enter into the place, and the Buyyid sultan kissed the ground and prostrated before the feet of the Abbasid caliph after removing the curtain that separated him from the caliph. One of the Persian attendants of the Buyyid sultan felt angry as prostration is only before the Lord God, but the Buyyid sultan ignored him as another attendant reminded the sultan that the caliph is the shadow of the Lord God on Earth. The sultan then kissed the bare right and left feet of the Abbasid caliph, then the caliph commanded the sultan to sit down again, but he demurred politely, but the  caliph insisted until the sultan obeyed him. The caliph announced to all people gathered that he bestowed on the Buyyid sultan the title he deserved and he deputized him to rule in his name. One vizier of the caliph gave the sultan a richly embroidered expensive garment along with a fine sword that was put earlier on a cushion of silk. The Buyyid sultan and his procession moved through the streets of Baghdad in celebration, and the masses shouted his name and hailed him as their leader.       

Scene II:Time: 449 A.H., Place: the Abbasid palace in Baghdad, Main Figures: the Seljuk sultan and the weak Abbasid caliph Al-Qayyim Bi-Allah, Other Figures: attendants of both the sultan and the caliph, Topic: the Seljuk sultan requested from the Abbasid caliph to grant him a deputization to rule in his name, within a formal ceremony attended by clergymen who performed rituals that show the Abbasid caliph as a deified, worshipped figure, Source: (Al-Muntazim) by Ibn A-Jawzy, part 16, events of 449 A.H.:

   The Seljuk sultan desired to get more authority deputized to him by the Abbasid caliph, and to attend the ceremony in the Abbasid palace within the Holy Chamber of the Abbasid Royal Court, he embarked with his attendants into his ship into the river, preceded by musicians who played their musical instruments. Upon reaching the shore, he led his procession on the back of a huge elephant, while his attendants rode on horseback. Once the Seljuk sultan entered the palace, he was led into the Holy Chamber of the Abbasid Royal Court, and all of the Baghdad notables, retinue members, judges, the supreme judges, representatives of the Abbasids and the Alawites, and courtiers entered to salute him. The sultan was carried by strong slaves on a howdah, and the curtain separating him from the Abbasid caliph was removed after the sultan left his sword and regalia inside the howdah; the sultan kissed the ground under the feet of the caliph and prostrated before him, and once given the permission to speak, he requested to be deputized to rule certain regions within more authority granted to him by the Abbasid caliph. The Abbasid caliph spoke to the gathered people, proclaiming that he, the shadow of God on Earth, would grant the Seljuk sultan his wishes, along with a gold crown studded with precious stones, a golden scepter, and seven colored garments of the finest silk. After wearing the crown, the sultan could not kneel again before the Abbasid caliph, who told the sultan that he did not have to kneel again before him. Music played again and celebration began in the palace and in the streets of Baghdad.          

The earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans complete their development during the Abbasid Era:

Introduction:

1- Features of the theocracy were completed within the Abbasid caliphate; the Abbasids began their secret movement to topple by military force the Umayyads and mobilized the masses to join their troops under the motto (contentment is fulfilled by a ruler of the household of prophet Muhammad) as if the mythical figure of Al-Mehdi (who should be among the progeny of Ali and Fatima) had appeared but hidden somewhere as per hadiths invented by the Shiites and adopted and propagated by the Abbasids; the masses who suffered grave injustices of the Umayyads believed that a salvation of some sort was drawing near within a coming caliphate of justice, but their hopes were dashed and the harsh reality of the Abbasid caliphate dispelled any illusions. The Abbasids continued to employ narrators and scholars of hadiths and fiqh to invent hadiths to praise the Abbasid caliphate while predicting their rule and mentioning some of them by name! Al-Siyouti in his book titled (History of Caliphs, p. 30-37) mentions many hadiths of this type and so does Ibn Al-Jawzy in (Al-Muntazim, part 7, p. 335); as if Muhammad were predicting the rise of the Abbasids to power! All of them forgot the Quranic fact that Muhammad never knew or talked about the future or the metaphysical realm of the unknown, as per these Quranic  verses: 6:50, 7:188, and 46:9. 

2- Abdullah Ibn Abbas – grandfather of the Abbasids – was an eleven-year-old child when Muhammad died; he lived with his father, Abbas, Muhammad's paternal uncle who hated and fought Islam and early Muslims. Abdullah Ibn Abbas saw Muhammad for the very first and last one when Muhammad entered into Mecca shortly before his death, and Abbas 'converted' to Islam along with his son. Muhammad returned to Yathreb and died there, while Abbas and his sons, including Abdullah, moved to Yathreb months before Muhammad's death, and they attended his funeral and burial. Hence, Abdullah Ibn Abbas was NEVER on speaking terms with Muhammad; yet, inventors of hadiths make Abdullah Ibn Abbas as among 'grand' senior companions who narrated hundreds of thousands of hadiths ascribed to Muhammad! Of course, those fabricators of hadiths aimed to please the Abbasid caliphs by making their grandfather, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, as a narrator of hadiths, especially ones predicting the rise of Abbasids to power and that they would rule until the end of days; and there is a myth that Hulago of the Mongols desired to prevent that such prediction would come true, and he put the Abbasid dynasty members to death (yet, some managed to flee to Cairo, Egypt) after destroying and invading Baghdad, and he never dared to attack the city unless after a Persian astronomer asserted to him that he would be victorious! (Jawami' Al-Tareekh by Al-Hamazany, Cairo edition, Egypt, 1960, p. 278-280, translated into Arabic by Sadiq Nashaat et al.). It is noteworthy that Sunnite hadiths scholars in the Mameluke Egypt – after the collapse of the Abbasid caliphate – including Ibn Al-Jawzy who died in 751 A.H. have written in their books that Abdullah Ibn Abbas could never have 'heard' more than 20 hadiths (see Al-Wabil A-Sayyib Min Al-Kalam Al-Tayyib, p. 77, Cairo edition, Egypt, 1952 & Al-Muntazim by Ibn Al-Jawzy). 

3- Within this Abbasid theocracy, the Sunnite, Shiite, and Sufi trends have become full-fledged religions influenced by a cultural climate of diversity as conquered nations had centuries-old civilizations, sources, and roots; writing down books of fiqh, hadiths, philosophy, science, etc. began along with translating into Arabic knowledge from other past civilizations in all literary, scientific, and philosophical fields.    

The development of the earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans from mere doctrines into full-fledged religions:

1- The three earthly Sunnite, Shiite, and Sufi religions were at first trends, sects, and doctrines, and many of them emerged for purely political reasons or linked to some political movements within the typical dominant culture of the Middle-Ages of manipulating religion and distorting it to serve any political ends.

2- Some trends (like Al-Mu'tazala group, who appellation in Arabic literally means: those who withdrew away from the mainstream thinking) emerged without ascribing lies to God, to Islam, or to Muhammad, but once members of this group meddled in the political affairs, they caused their trend to disappear abruptly. Some other trends began as philosophical schools or fiqh schools that never interfered in the political scene, but they were later on subdivided and branched into other smaller trends within endless intellectual, philosophical, and fiqh debates. Some political movements that sought power like Al-Khawarij died out gradually when its energy was sapped after decades-long military struggle against the Umayyads and then the early decades of the Abbasid Era. The cultural, intellectual climate of the Abbasid Era managed to obliterate ideas of Al-Khawarij from the collective mind; they are mere history now. Some religious trends died out as its followers died or joined other trends/sects and some 'moderate' peaceful sects had many books in its heritage and managed to exist until the present now, like the Shiite Abady sect in Oman and some areas in North Africa.     

3- Thus, three earthly Sunnite, Shiite, and Sufi religions have been crystalized and developed as the main religions during the Abbasid Era, and they still subsume various trends and sects, and their dead imams/authors/sheikhs/saints are still deified beings for hundreds of millions of the Muhammadans in our modern world today. 

An overview of the Sunnite religion:

 The main gods/deities/authors of the Sunnite religion and its hadiths and fiqh are Abou Hanifa (who died in 150 A.H.), Malik (who died in 179 A.H.), Al-Shafei (who died in 204 A.H.), Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (who died in 241 A.H.), Al-Bokhary (who died in 256 A.H.), and Moslem (who died in 261 A.H.). The original meaning of the Quranic term "Sunna" is sharia of the Lord God; the polytheistic Sunnites have turned this term into a political one denoting anything pertaining/ascribed to Muhammad and his lifetime. This term was used orally at first by the anti-Umayyad political discourse, but the Abbasids used it to denote its own formulated religions of hadiths as opposed to the Shiite foes and their religion and its power-seeking discourse. Within the Second Abbasid Era, the terms ''Sunna'' and ''Sunnite'' came to mean the official religion of the Abbasid caliphate. We provide a very brief overview of these changes to the term "Sunna".         

1- The original meaning of the Quranic term "Sunna" is the way/method/sharia of the Lord God and it is always ascribed to God in Quranic verses; e.g., 33:38. This Quranic terms also denotes how God has punished and smitten ancient nations of disbelievers who rejected signs and miracles they witnessed worked by prophets sent to them to prove that they were truly sent by the Lord God the Creator.

2- The term "Sunna" (literally in Arabic means way/method/law) was used within the Umayyad Era by political foes who opposed the Umayyads as they insisted that the Umayyad caliphs should have followed way/method/Sunna of Prophet Muhammad when he led the Yathreb city-state with justice. This was the very first time the term "Sunna" was used in a political sense, instead of the religious one. 

3- When the Shiite Kaysanites created their secret movement to topple the Umayyad dynasty by spreading a rumor about the unknown waited Al-Mehdi imam (from the progeny of Fatima and Ali) hidden somewhere and troops must join him to make him enthroned to rule justly under the motto (contentment is fulfilled by a ruler of the household of prophet Muhammad), the Abbasids adopted the same motto and propagated hadiths concocted to serve this purpose, and when the revolting people supported troops of Abou Moslem Al-Khorasany (managed and commanded by the Abbasids secretly), they were shocked to the core to see the newly enthroned caliph as Al-Saffah of the Abbasid Hashemite household and not from the Alawites. This caused former supporters of the revolt to topple the Umayyads to oppose the Abbasids and their supporters, as they expected a caliph from the progeny of Ali Ibn Abou Talib (the current supreme Shiite deity) and Fatima, the  daughter of Muhammad. Hence, the term "Shiites" (as was the case during the Umayyad Era) denotes those supporters of the Alawites, while supporters of the Abbasids revived the term "companions" which denote contemporaries of Muhammad to assert that the progeny of Abbas (one of the paternal uncles of Muhammad) were the ones fit to rule. Once Al-Mansour, the second Abbasid caliph, was enthroned, he fought the Alawites in Hejaz and Iraq, and he managed to quell the revolt of M. Al-Nafs Al-Zakiyya and his brother Ibrahim, who both were among the descendants of Ali and Fatima. Other Abbasid caliphs adopted the term "Sunna" ascribed to Muhammad as the name of their formal, official religion of their theocratic rule, whereas the term "Shiites" was used to denote their foes the Alawites (and the two Arabic derogatory terms ''Rafida''/''Rawafid'' which literally mean "the rejecters") who rebelled many times against the Abbasid caliphate. The Abbasid caliph Al-Motawakil hated very much Shiites, Sufis, and Al-Mu'tazala group, and thus, he officially proclaimed that the Sunnite religion is the religion of the Abbasid caliphate, and he sent his Sunnite preachers everywhere to chase away preachers of the Shiite, Sufi, and Al-Mu'tazala ideas and to impose and preach the Sunnite religion within all provinces under the Abbasid rule.           

4- Sunnite fiqh scholars who invented narratives/hadiths ascribed to Muhammad were ridiculed and criticized by the Al-Mu'tazala group of thinkers and the Arab philosophers who were well-versed in Greek/Hellenistic philosophy books (translated into Arabic) during the First Abbasid Era. The derogatory term used by them to mock Sunnites was "the stuffers", denoting that they stuff their minds with mythical, illogical, and nonsensical narratives instead of using their minds and logical reasoning to interpret the Quranic text. Sunnite scholars hated philosophers, especially Al-Mu'tazala thinkers, as they could not argue with them at all. Sadly, the Abbasids supported the Sunnite fiqh scholars and narrators/fabricators of hadiths and made them dominate the cultural and religious scene, and this gained momentum when Abou Hassan Al-Ashaary deserted Al-Mu'tazala and joined the Sunnite scholars. This means that the term ''Sunna'' at this point in time denoted the trend of the religious conservatives who assume that the only authoritative fiqh schools to follow were those of the four imams/saints/deities Abou Hanifa, Al-Shafei, Malik, and Ibn Hanbal, who lived within the era of fiqh intellectual ijtihad. Ironically, with that established, and after the death of the thinker-cum-scholar Al-Ashaary, Sunnite fiqh scholars hated theological philosophy (a.k.a. Kalam branches of philosophy) and argued against it to the extent of prohibiting it in the second half of the second Abbasid Era. Thus, fiqh scholars from this point on stopped ijtihad (innovative, creative thinking) as they imitated and repeated views held by the four imams/saints within their doctrines and the thousands of hadiths invented decades ago and assumed to be true.

5- Yet, within the branch of 'knowledge' labeled as hadiths books, we see the overlapping between hadiths and fiqh views/fatwas in many parts and chapters of Sunnite books; many scholars tried to sort and sift through hadiths to remove doubted, fabricated ones based on different criteria; yet, such endeavors to exclude and include hadiths (and their series of narrators) resulted in increasing the number of hadiths! Fiqh and hadiths scholars typically differed and disputed over most issues and matters and some invented hadiths to support their views! The Sunnite hadith-making machines never stopped until near the end of the Mameluke Era! Let alone the countless hadiths of Shiites and Sufis!    

6- This was paralleled to the branch of 'knowledge' named as Quranic sciences; i.e., to distort meanings of Quranic verses as per political and religious whims of rulers and clergymen. This coincided with the emergence of the faulty notion of "Naskh"; i.e., that hadiths ascribed to Muhammad replace/supplant Quranic sharia laws! The cognates and derivations of the term "Naskh" in the Quran means to assert and confirm, and NOT to omit, replace, or delete. This notion has been initiated by Al-Shafei, and the Abbasid official faith scholars and clergymen used it to undermine and discard the Quranic sharia legislations to make their invented hadiths, fiqh rules, and fatwas replace them!

The Shiite religion:

1- The derivations and cognates of the term (Shiite); i.e., group(s)/ party(ies) in Arabic, come in the Quran in different contexts as follows:

1/1: To denote any groups in general (see 6:65, 28:4, and 28:4), as warring groups or divided/oppressed castes within a society. Or group of people of one religion like Abraham and Noah; see 37:79-83.

1/2: To denote divisions within man-made religions as people dispute and differ over almost everything after rejecting the Divine Scripture descended from Heaven; see 15:10-11 and 19:68-69.

1/3: To denote religious groups who reject the Quranic Truth, as God warns true believers against divisions in religion; see 6:159 and 30:31-32.

1/4: To denote the spread of something among groups, like those who loved to see the sin of fornication spread among the believers in the Yathreb society; see 24:19.

2- The Shiite group as a political term has been established since the first major Arab civil war (Mu'aweiya vs. Ali), and it continue to exist throughout the Umayyad Era as it was used by rebels and oppositional figures (e.g., Al-Zubayr, Abbas, and Ammar Ibn Yasser) who assumed that Ali and his children were the 'legitimate' rulers/caliphs. As early as during the caliphate of Ali, the founder of the Shiite religion the Jewish Yemenite clergymen Abdullah Ibn Saba was the first one to deify Ali. Shiite sects and doctrines increased and multiplied throughout the Abbasid Era, each complete with its own hadiths ascribed to Muhammad, 'holy' books, different rituals, and sanctified imams, authors, and leaders.  

3- The Ismaili Shiite sect that branched from the Shiite sect of holy imams managed to establish the Fatimid rule in North Africa, Egypt, and the Levant (and parts of Iraq) for more than 200 years (909 – 1171 A.D.). The Fatimids were about to crush the Abbasid caliphate at one point. The Fatimids built Cairo and Al-Azhar; Fatimid mosques and other monuments and buildings are still there in Cairo. The Shiite religion managed to establish mobile states like the Zanj  rebellion (of black slaves) in southern Iraq and the Qarmatians in Iraq and the Levant, who were mostly desert-Arabs.     

The Sufi religion (Sufism):

1- Sufism has always reflected the religiosity of masses oppressed and ruled by caliphs and their imposed religions; Sufism has revived the centuries-old notions of sanctifying and deifying things (mausoleums, items of nature, creatures, relics, etc.) and mortals (dead or alive sheikhs, saints, imams, etc.) under the pretext of divine love/passion and pantheism (i.e., God resides in nature and human mortals, or that the universe itself is God). 

2- Sufism began, on the margin of Shiite religion, with deifying and sanctifying the household of Ali, but early Sufis, albeit peaceful, were persecuted because of the Shiite-Sunnite armed struggles. Gradually, Sufism separated itself from the Shiite religion and Sufis shunned political life for centuries at first. Sufi hypocritical sheikhs within the last decades of the Second Abbasid Era specialized in flattering and heaping praise on rulers and governors to ease persecution inflicted on Sufi sheikhs and their followers. Gradually, this persecution ended, especially that Sufism dominated the Mameluke Era as the official, formal religion of the Mameluke sultanate that ruled Egypt, the Levant, and Hejaz. The Sunnite Hanbali extremist used to persecute Sufis for centuries during the Second Abbasid Era. Within the Mameluke Era, Sufi sheikhs as the official clergymen of the Mameluke sultans persecuted the Hanbali imams, especially Ibn Taymiyya. We provide more details in the points below.   

The struggle between the Ibn Hanbali scholars and Al-Mu'tazala thinkers during the Abbasid Era:

Introduction: the conflict between the Sunnite extremists (of the Ibn Hanbal doctrine) and the (secular philosophers) Al-Mu'tazala:

1- As a theocracy, the Abbasid caliphate had its own hired official obsequious clergymen, scholars, and sheikhs who serve the Abbasids by providing fatwas to support their quelling all opposition movements and rebels. If any scholars would refuse to 'cooperate' and serve the Abbasid caliphate, they were persecuted; this occurred at varying degrees with Abou Hanifa, Malik, Al-Shafei, and Ibn Hanbal.  

2- The Abbasid caliphate commissioned translators to translate into Arabic gems of philosophical wisdom and literature from the Greek, Indian, and Syriac languages (among others), and this led to a revival of old schools of Greek philosophy in cities like Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, Gundeshapur, and Harran. This resulted in the trend of those philosophers, poets, and literati who renounced religion altogether and embraced atheism, but they were never penalized by the theocratic Abbasids who even employed some of them in the governmental posts; yet the political enemies and foes of the Abbasids who were put to death were accused of sedition and apostasy.   

3- Of course, it is expected that ultra-conservative fiqh scholars would reject this trend of philosophers who were influenced by the Greek and Western/Christian philosophers. Traditional fiqh scholars and theologians hated very much Al-Mu'tazala thinkers who were well-versed in philosophy and criticized the dominant religiosity in an intellectual way that challenged religious conservatism.   

4- The Abbasid caliph Al-Maamoun (813 – 833 A.D.) admired very much Al-Mu'tazala trend, as he loved philosophy very much and spent his time discussing issues with Al-Mu'tazala thinkers. Soon enough, he was convinced by a strange view adopted by Al-Mu'tazala thinkers: that the Quran has been created by God. Al-Maamoun felt offended very much that conservative theologians and hadiths and fiqh scholars rejected this notion foreign to Islam. One unknown man among the hadiths scholars resisted and opposed this view outspokenly; he asserted that the Quran is not to be described unless by being God's Word, and nothing more, and he suffered the persecution inflicted by the caliph but never adopted the caliph's view; this obscure man was thus catapulted into fame: he was the imam of Persian origin named Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, whose view was asserted by the famous historian M. Ibn Saad and the fiqh scholar M. Ibn Nooh. Al-Maamoun insisted on imposing his view, using his political power as caliph, on all Sunnite clergymen, fiqh scholars, theologians, and hadiths scholars. This marked the beginning of the plight of Sunnite scholars, as most of them had to declare their adopting the view of the caliphs, under the threat and pressure of being persecuted. Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Nooh were imprisoned as they insisted to reject the view of Al-Maamoun. On his death bed, Al-Maamoun wrote his will and testament that his successor, Al-Motassim, must continue imposing the view that the Quran has been created. Fearing that the credibility and stature of the Abbasid caliphate would be compromised, Al-Motassim commanded the flogging of Ibn Hanbal in his prison cell in 218 A.H., until he was released in 220 A.H. All people admired him for his unrelenting stance against the Abbasid heretic view of the Quran. The Hanbali scholars sang his praises after his death and admired his plight, deemed as striving for God's sake; they spread the idea that their grand imam/deity Ibn Hanbal suffered intense pains in his body (because of being flogged in prison) for the rest of his lifetime; Ibn Hanbal died in 241 A.H. (Manaqib Ibn Hanbal, by Ibn Al-Jawzy, Al-Muntazim by Ibn Al-Jawzy, part 11, p. 43, and History of Al-Tabari, part 8, p. 631-645). The word Manaqib means miracles and praises of saints    

The ordeal of Ibn Nasr Al-Khozaay:

 The plight of Ibn Hanbal resulted in mutual hostility and severing all relations between the Abbasid caliphate and the conservative Hanbali fiqh scholars, and the latter made use of their stature among common people to control streets of Baghdad and to incite sedition and rebellion against the Abbasids. This led to general unrest and insurgences led by extremists scholars who assured people of 'religious' legitimacy of their rebellions, based on this silly hadith of changing vice by force. The Hanbali imams formed a sort of rudimentary religious police that roamed streets of Baghdad. Once enthroned, the caliph Al-Wathiq who cared for medicine, philosophy, and other sciences managed to quell such disruption in the streets of Baghdad by arresting, crucifying, and beheading the Hanbali leader Ibn Nasr Al-Khozaay on 231 A.H. (History of Al-Tabari, part 9, p. 135-140, Al-Muntazim, part 11, p. 165). The ordeal of Ibn Nasr Al-Khozaay led to the spread of the false hadith of changing vice by force. The stature and influence of the Hanbali doctrine scholars diminished as Sufism dominated the masses, within the religious notion of never protesting against anything in life, as everything is preordained by Fate. In our modern era, the Hanbali false hadith of changing vice by force is adopted by Wahabi clergymen and terrorists to intimidate people.

The Ibn Hanbal Sunnite doctrine became the official religion of the Abbasid caliphate during the reign of the caliph Al-Motawakil:

The persecution of the leaders of other earthly religions:   

1- When Al-Mu'tazala influence dominated the Abbasid caliphate, the powerful vizier Ibn Al-Zayyat (of the Al-Mu'tazala group) dominated the affairs of the caliphate and controlled the crown-prince of the caliph Al-Wathiq (who, after being enthroned, is named Al-Motawakil). Ibn Al-Zayyat attempted to intimidate the crown-prince to cede his position to the son of Al-Wathiq. When Al-Wathiq died suddenly, Al-Motawakil was enthroned in 232 A.H./847 A.D., and he put Ibn Al-Zayyat to death. Al-Motawakil ended the influence of the Al-Mu'tazala and drew the Hanbali scholars nearer to him and to his palace court. Al-Motawakil received Ibn Hanbal and gave him generous gifts, and he sent many of the Hanbali scholars to all Abbasid provinces to preach their religion, and this mobilized the masses to be under the command of the Hanbali scholars.    

2- The aloof Al-Mu'tazala group thinkers never contacted common people; they were content to be nearer to Abbasid caliphs and to control them sometimes, but the influence of the Hanbali scholars was different; they controlled the caliphate, the masses, and the streets, and this pleased and appealed to the extremist fanatical caliph Al-Motawakil. This drove Al-Motawakil to inflict persecution on many people; he gave the sack to Arab and Persian soldiers as he favored the Turks, and he persecuted Jews and Christians by imposing on them a certain dress code; in addition, he persecuted Shiites and demolished their 'holy' mausoleum in Karbala, and he put to trial Sufi pioneers (this included the known ordeal of Semnoon the Sufi sheikh). Al-Motawakil persecuted his elder son as he favored his second son Al-Moataz, the son of his favorite concubine Qabeeha; this drove the eldest son to assassinate his father so as to be enthroned as caliph who took the title of Al-Montasser (History of Al-Tabari, part 9, p. 161, and Al-Muntazim, part 11).    

3- When the Hanbali scholars dominated the streets of Baghdad, they persecuted their foes Al-Mu'tazala, and they made sure no disciples would ever exist to follow Al-Mu'tazala thinkers: Al-Jahiz (who died in 255 A.H.), Al-Alaaf (who died in 235 A.H.), Ibn Yassar Al-Nizam (who died in 231 A.H.), and Al-Jabaa'i (who died in 303 A.H.). The former disciple of Al-Mu'tazala, Abou Al-Hassan Al-Ashaary (who died in 246 A.H.), joined the Hanbali scholars to cope with his era and he was made into a great imam after his death. The caliph Al-Qadir crushed Al-Mu'tazala trend totally when he was enthroned in 381 A.H. The Hanbali scholars focused on rumormongering against Al-Mu'tazala thinkers and they declared them as 'infidels' and 'apostates' as part of the dominant religion at the time, and this climate influenced Al-Qadir (who died in 422 A.H.) and the Hanbali scholar and historian Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdadi (who died in 436 A.H.) who declared Al-Mu'tazala thinkers as 'infidels' and 'apostates' as he wrote their biographies. Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdadi in his book titled "History of Baghdad" heaped praise on Al-Qadir as he defended the Hanbali religion, thought at the time to be 'true' Islam, by force and by a short book he penned himself. This Hanbali caliph was 'rewarded' by the Hanbali scholars in later eras who authored a hadith in which Muhammad is made to appear to predict his assuming the caliphate throne for 40 years! (History of Baghdad, by Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdadi, part 4, p. 37-38).     

4- Indeed, the Hanbali scholars terrorized, persecuted, and intimidated the imams of the Sunnite religion who followed the other three main doctrines if they disagree with them; for instance, Al-Tabari in his old age (who was indeed more knowledgeable than Ibn Hanbal) rejected their notion of the Throne of the Lord God, and the Hanbali followers upon orders of their scholars sieged his house and never had mercy for him despite his pleading for pardon as he apologized for them, and they put him to death by demolishing his house on his head, and he died under the debris, and the Hanbali followers prevented anyone giving him a proper burial! The Abbasid caliph could not save Al-Tabari (see Al-Wafi by Al-Safadi, part 2, p. 284).   

Al-Mu'tazala thinkers leave the arena early:

1- Al-Mu'tazala thinkers were engrossed in the political life and were keen on maintaining control of the Abbasid caliphate, and this brought much hatred against them incited by the Hanbali scholars who invented so many false hadiths and issued fiqh fatwas spread by their preachers, orators, and narrators to the effect that philosophizing is a grave sin. The masses believed such nonsense as the Hanbali scholars dominated the streets of Baghdad. The unjust grand vizier Ibn Al-Zayyat used to torture his foes to death (especially Hanbali scholars) in a dungeon that contain cells made of iron, and when Al-Motawakil was dominated by the Hanbali scholars, they incited him to torture Ibn Al-Zayyat in the same dungeon until Ibn Al-Zayyat himself died of severe torture.  

2- Al-Mu'tazala thinkers inevitably had to leave the arena early in their struggle against the Sunnite religion, not only because they disdainfully refused to contact and educate the common people and let the Hanbali ignoramuses control the streets of Baghdad, but also because they never invented hadiths attributed to Muhammad nor an earthly religion of any type; they never ascribed their views to God as divine revelation. Thus, the ideas of Al-Mu'tazala never moved out of private meetings of sharing knowledge among the limited members/philosophers of Al-Mu'tazala group. Al-Mu'tazala thinkers never preached their notion in mosques or elsewhere; in contrast, Sufis, Sunnites, and Shiites spread their falsehoods by ascribing them to divine revelation attributed to Muhammad or to God, and within visions/dreams, while imposing on people to believe such nonsense as part of Islam, not mere views that might be adopted or rejected as per personal whims.     

3- Hence, Al-Mu'tazala group consisted of a limited number of very cultured philosophers who formed a closed circle; in contrast, any ignoramuses could join the clergymen of Sufis, Sunnites, and Shiites by merely wearing a certain attire and repeating certain narratives to win the masses to their side. This led to the spread and continuity of the three earthly religions of the Muhammadans despite the incessant conflicts among the clergymen of each of them.     

4- When the trend of Al-Mu'tazala ended, the Sunnite religion kept struggling against the Sufi and Shiite ones – until now in our modern era, causing bloodshed and wreaking havoc worldwide. The three earthly religions of the Muhammadans share things in common; they deify Muhammad among other mortals: imams/saints as well as mausoleums, and each earthly religion has its 'holy' tomes/volumes/books. The Abbasid Era ended centuries ago, but its imams and authors are still deified and sanctified until now: Malik, Al-Shafei, Ibn Hanbal, Al-Bokhary, Al-Ghazaly, Jaffer Al-Sadiq, Al-Kulayni, etc.       

5- Countries worldwide move ahead and make advances on all levels, whereas Sunnites in the Arab world still deify and sanctify these Abbasid deities!  

The military struggle and mutual propaganda between the Sunnites and the Shiites during the Abbasid Era:

Firstly: during the First Abbasid Era (132 – 232 A.H.):

1- The Alawites and Shiites kept the military struggle against the Umayyad rule, and each side had men who authored oral narratives and hadiths as part of propaganda war. Abou Hurayrah was known for his siding with the Umayyads; he even invented many hadiths to belittle Ali and to praise Mu'aweiya! In contrast, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, the foe of Abou Hurayrah, defended the Alawites against the Umayyads and supporters of Al-Zubayr. The Alawites authored hadiths to praise Ali and his progeny and called them (the household of Muhammad). Hadiths of both sides were mere oral narratives, written down only during the Abbasid Era, as the Abbasids adopted the Sunnite religion officially and the number of Sunnite hadiths increased exponentially, and the same applies to Shiite and Sufi hadiths as well.   

2- The Shiite secret movement (that spread the notion of Al-Mehdi as forthcoming caliph) managed to topple the Umayyad caliphate in 132 A.H., but the secret leaders of the movement turned out to be Abbasids and not Alawites. This led Alawites, led by M. Al-Nafs Al-Zakiyya, to raise arms and revolt against the Abbasids. The Abbasids manage to assassinate M. Al-Nafs Al-Zakiyya and to imprison his followers among the senior Alawites in 145 A.H. The armed struggle between the Alawites and the Abbasids went on in Hejaz region, led by Hussein Ibn Ali (who was among the descendants of Hussein who was murdered in Karbala massacre), but the Abbasids defeated him in the battle of Fakh, during the reign of Al-Hadi in 169 A.H. The only two survivors among the men massacred in Fakh were two brothers; the first one was Yahya Ibn Abdullah who fled to the region of the Daylamites in Middle Asia and revolted against Harun Al-Rasheed; this caliph deceived him by assuring him of security, but he promptly imprisoned him and put him to death. The second brother was Idris Ibn Abdullah who fled to Egypt in 172 A.H., and then to Morocco, where he revolted against Harun Al-Rasheed; this caliph sent a spy who poisoned this man in Morocco in 177 A.H. Yet, his concubine was pregnant, and the Berbers waited until she gave birth to a son, and they named him Idris, hailing him as caliph by pledging fealty to them. This is how the state of the Idrisids came into being in Morocco. Shiites and Alawites made other revolts like the one led by M. Al-Dibaj, the son of Jaffer Al-Sadiq, and before it, the caliph Harun Al-Rasheed murdered another son of Jaffer Al-Sadiq, namely Moussa Al-Kadhim, in 179 A.H., based on mere suspicions. The Idrisids were precursors to the Shiite Fatimid caliphate in Tunis and Morocco that later on annexed Egypt, the Levant, and some regions of Iraq in the 4^th century A.H.          

3- Within such military struggles between the Sunnite Abbasids and the  Shiite Alawites, in Middle Asia and North Africa, propaganda wars in both sides were waged by inventing hadiths. After two centuries of the death of Abou Hurayrah, the Abbasids used his name to pass of hundreds of fabricated hadiths as 'true, authentic' ones, and the same occurred to the name of Abdullah Ibn Abbas, the forefather of the Abbasids. Ironically, neither Abou Hurayrah nor Abdullah Ibn Abbas saw Muhammad except when they were children, but Abbasids used their names after their death to create sham credibility to the Sunnite hadiths invented during the Abbasid Era. During the First Abbasid Era, imams of fiqh who expressed views/fatwas that differed from the ones adopted and spread by the Abbasids through their official clergymen were persecuted (as was the case with Malik and Al-Shafei) or imprisoned and assassinated (as was the case with Abou Hanifa). The two disciples of Abou Hanifa, namely, Abou Youssef and Abou Al-Hassan, served the Abbasids and were handsomely rewarded by them; both fiqh scholars established the Abou Hanifa school/doctrine of fiqh to obsequiously please the Abbasids, and they changed and disregarded much of the views  of their independent tutor Abou Hanifa. We must bear in mind that the Abbasid Era witnessed the writing down of books pertaining to the Sunnite religion to face the Shiite one and its books. Both religions have been fashioned in the midst of cultural climate that was influenced by translated books of the Greeks and the Eastern culture into Arabic.       

4- Shiites were mostly very clever to infiltrate the Sunnite religion by using names of dead imams/narrators to spread Shiite hadiths inside the Sunnite canon of hadiths; this topic is very lengthy and beyond the scope of the book you are reading now here. This Shiite hadiths interpolated into the Sunnite canon resulted in the emergence of new trends that overtly had nothing to do with the Shiite religion, and soon enough, they were separated from it after gathering considerable followers. These trends include Sufism.

5- Al-Mu'tazala trend was also at first born out of the Shiite religion and it opposed the Umayyads. The appellation of Al-Mu'tazala thinkers means literally in Arabic (those who withdrew away from the mainstream thinking). Hence, the coterie of Al-Mu'tazala rejected the Shiite religion and the Sunnite one and adored philosophy, and this drove them later on to be antagonistic against all views adopted by the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates and by the masses in the society. The Shiites were derogatively called by Sunnites of the authority and the dominant culture as rejecters (or in Arabic: ''Rafida''/''Rawafid'') and this term along with Al-Mu'tazala symbolized the disdainful look of Sunnite toward those who reject the Sunnite religion. It is noteworthy that during the last decade of the Umayyad Era, Abou Hanifa was a leader among the Al-Mu'tazala group; he never believed in the so-called hadiths, and he hated narrators of hadiths and deemed them as inveterate liars; his enmity toward and disputes with Al-Awzaay and Abbasid official fiqh scholars and clergymen were known to all his contemporaries. This is why we say that disciples of Abou Hanifa betrayed his school of thought to gain stature and wealth from the Abbasid caliphs they served. Anyway, Al-Mu'tazala thinkers (though they dominated and controlled the caliphs Al-Maamoun and Al-Motassim) left the political scene very early after being chased away by the Hanbali scholars who dominated the political scene and the official religious sphere, while Shiites infiltrated the covert, secret religious sphere in regions dominated by Sunnites, and there was also room for the Sufi religion that emerged in the 3^rd century A.H.        

Secondly: during the Second Abbasid Era (232 – 658 A.H.):

 The Second Abbasid Era witnessed the weakness of caliphs who were dominated and controlled by non-Arab military leaders coming from Middle Asia with their huge troops to Baghdad seeking power, authority and control, after being mere slaves bought and trained in warfare by previous caliphs; the Abbasid caliphate at the time became merely a symbol which stood for the Sunnite religion. The Second Abbasid Era began by the reign of Al-Motawakil (232 – 247 A.H.), the worst caliph as far as fanaticism and extremism are concerned. Al-Motawakil made the fatal mistake of disbanding all Arab and Persian soldiers and military leaders and he replaced them with Turkish soldiers and military leaders, who controlled the Abbasid caliphate for a century (232 – 334 A.H.). The Buyyids controlled the Abbasid caliphate for more than a century (334 – 447 A.H.), and though the Buyyids were Shiites, they submitted to the Sunnite caliphate that became a symbol and an emblem with spiritual authority that lent some sort of a quasi-religious and political legitimacy for rule at the time. The Seljuks (whose reign and dynasty existed during 329 – 552 A.H.) controlled the Abbasid caliphate after the Buyyids grew weak. The Seljuks were extremist, fanatical Sunnites; they persecuted the European pilgrims who came to Jerusalem, and this incited the European fanatics to mobilize people within crusades to invade the Levant and establish kingdoms in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq, after defeating the Seljuks in these regions. The Abbasid caliphs were too weak (and were engrossed in a promiscuous lifestyle) to participate in the military struggle against the crusaders; jihad against them was undertaken by other Sunnite states (independent but loyal to the Abbasids) that rose and collapsed as others inherited them. This began with the Atabegs in the Levant and Iraq, who succeeded the Seljuks, then Emad-Eddine of the dynasty of the Zengids in Mosul fought bravely against the crusaders and his fame grew (he originally served the Seljuk sultan M. Ibn Malik Shah, but after the collapse of the Seljuks, the Zengid dynasty ruled instead. Emad-Eddine was succeeded by his son Noor-Eddine and he continued his military jihad against the crusaders. One of his military leaders, Salah-Eddine (or Saladin), grew in fame and military prowess, and he established the Ayyubid dynasty after the Zengids collapsed. Saladin invaded and annexed Egypt after he destroyed the Fatimid caliphate there. The military slaves (i.e., the Mamelukes) of the Ayyubids inherited their state after destroying the Ayyubid dynasty. The Mamelukes ended the crusaders' presence in the Levant forever.                

The Shiite states that were enemies to the Abbasids during the Second Abbasid Era:

1- Within the First Abbasid Era, the Shiites establish the state of the Idrisids in Morocco, and the Abbasids helped establish the state of the Aghlabids in Tunisia to stop the spread of the Shiite influence elsewhere, especially in Egypt. 

2- In the early decades of the Second Abbasid Era, two independent states were established in Egypt and the Levant but remained loyal to the Abbasids in Baghdad. They were the states of the Tulunids (254 – 292 A.H.) and of the Ikhshidids (323 – 334 A.H.).

3- The Shiite Fatimids, who managed to establish their caliphate in Tunisia in 296 A.H. when led by Obayd-Allah Al-Mehdi, desired to annex Egypt, and they took advantage of the deterioration of the conditions there during the Ikhshidid rule to conquer Egypt peacefully; they built Cairo and Al-Azhar in 358 A.H./ 972 A.D.  

4- The Shiite-Sunnite religious conflict took a different turn when the Fatimid caliphate was established in Egypt, the Levant, and parts of Iraq. The Fatimid military leader Al-Basasiri who served the Fatimid caliph Al-Mustansir managed even to invade some districts of Baghdad in 450 A.H. and made the preachers of the Friday sermons pray and implore God for the sake of Al-Mustansir.  

5- The Fatimids persecuted Sunnites; crucifixion and the capital punishment was the penalty for declaring one's Sunnite faith in public (especially by praising Abou Bakr and Omar). Al-Makrizi the historian mentions many occurrences of this nature in his book titled (Al-Khetat). When the Abbasids caliphs grew weak, their powerful viziers controlled them. It was laughable to combine the deification of Fatimid caliphs and their being too weak and controlled by their viziers. 

6- The military and political struggle of the Fatimids against the Sunnites and crusaders brought about the downfall of the Fatimid caliphate. The two powerful viziers during the reign of the weak Fatimid caliph Al-Aadid, Sha-wer and Dirgham, struggled against one another, and this resulted in the burning down of the district of Al-Fustat in Cairo. Crusaders and the Zengids (who ruled parts of the Levant) competed for annexing Egypt by controlling the weak Fatimid caliph. Noor-Eddine sent his military leaders – Shirkoh and Saladin – to save Egypt from a possibly imminent invasion by the crusaders; Shirkoh became a powerful vizier who controlled the weak Fatimid caliph for the sake of the Sunnite Zengid dynasty that was loyal to the Abbasids. Once Shirkoh died, Saladin assassinated the weak Fatimid caliph, Al-Aadid, and imprisoned his children. Saladin ruled Egypt and the Levant as he established the Ayyubid dynasty (567 – 648 A.H.), and he abolished the mention of the Fatimids from Friday sermons (replacing them with the Abbasids who formed a spiritual authority and legitimacy needed by Saladin).

7- Before the collapse of the Fatimids, it caused the emergence of a subversive Hashasheen group that terrorized people for about 150 years: the founder of this group of assassins was Al-Hassan Al-Sabah in Alamut (near the Caspian Sea). Al-Hassan Al-Sabah was in Egypt when the Fatimid caliph Al-Mustansir died in 487 A.H. The powerful grand vizier, Al-Afdal, interfered to make the crown-prince the younger son Al-Musta'li instead of the elder brother Nizar, as per Shiite Fatimid traditions that the first-born should be the crown-prince to succeed his father. As a result, the Fatimids were divided into the Nizariyya opposition group (led by Al-Hassan Al-Sabah) who fought the group of supporters of Al-Musta'li. Later on, Al-Hassan Al-Sabah left Egypt and made his soldiers control Alamut and he trained them there to be suicide assassins (the Hashasheen group: named as such because they often smoked hash) who were sent to murder his foes among sultans, caliphs, governors, viziers, fiqh scholars, and crusaders. The Hashasheen assassins spread terror among Arabs and crusaders alike, until Hulago (military leader of the Mongols and the Tartars) massacred them on his way to Baghdad. A very known story is that Saladin woke up one day to find a dagger under his bed pillow as a threat from the Hashasheen group of assassins. Because they were famous as hired terrorists who made many suicide operations and political assassinations for money, the crusaders have in their languages the terms (assassin and assassination) derived from the Arabic word ''Hashasheen'', which literally means "those who smoke hash". 

The fabrication of the Sunnite Sufism to replace the Shiite religion in Egypt:

1- Saladin had to face Shiite religion and the Shiite Sufism intellectually after he put an end to the Fatimid caliphate politically. This intellectual war of ideas was won by Saladin who supervised the of the Sunnite Sufism to face the Sufi and Shiite religions.      

2- All of the states of the Abbasids, Seljuks, Ayyubids, Mamelukes, and Ottomans collapsed, but the Sunnite Sufism remains until now as the religion of the vast majority of the Muhammadans, since the era when Saladin (who died in 589 A.H.) managed to create and spread it.

3- Before tackling Sunnite Sufism and the political scene of its emergence and propagation, we provide below a brief overview of the Sufi religion itself and how Sufis linked themselves to the Sunnite religion.

An overview of the Sufi-Sunnite religion: its start and dominance:

Introduction:

1- The Sunnite religion has emerged and has been crystalized within the reign of caliphs who were descendants of the Qorayish tribe; it reflects dominance, hegemony, rule, and authoritarianism. The Sunnite religion has emerged and has been crystalized as an expression of the nationalist Persian culture, as Persians hated very much caliphs of the Arab conquests (Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman, as well as the Umayyads) and anyone sided with them and anyone who were foes of Ali (who is the supreme Shiite deity). Later on, in the 3^rd century A.H., the Sufi religion has emerged as a reflection of the tenets of the masses who were formerly among the People of the Book before their conversation to 'Islam'; they used to deify and sanctify mortals, items/things, relics, and mausoleums by attributing to them God-like qualities and epithets (e.g., miracles, intercessions, mediations, dominance over the universe, and omniscience). In order to make the masses worship and venerate their saints/deities, Sufi sheikhs made their pantheon of saints to include the main mortal deities of the Sunnite and Shiite religion: the so-called companions of Muhammad and the household members of Muhammad. Soon enough, Sufis have included their own saints in this pantheon by making them as descendants of Alawites (i.e., among the progeny of Ali and Fatima, who was Muhammad's daughter).   

2- We have published online our encyclopedia of Sufism of the Mameluke Era in Egypt; we quote from it some indications about Sufism and its development.  

Firstly: Sufism contradicts Islam:

1- The difference in the source of legislation: within Islam, the only source of sharia legislation is the Quran, God's Word, for all believers, including Muhammad who was the first Muslim. As for Sufism, Sufi sheikhs issue sharia legislations for their followers and disciples as per their whims, tastes, and desires, while claiming to receive special 'divine' revelation directly from God. This contradicts the Quranic fact that there is not any revelation from God after the Quranic revelation ended as the perfected religion: "...Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved Islam as a religion for you..." (5:3). Sufi sheikhs would claim omniscience, knowledge of the metaphysical realm, working miracles, intercession, etc. and indirectly ask their followers and disciples to worship, venerate, and deify them and to ask their aid during their lifetime and after they die! Real believers must never seek aid except from God; it is polytheism to ask aid from Muhammad, and any other mortals, as this is a sin of deifying human beings beside God.     

2- The basic difference is deifying Sufi sheikhs (while alive and after their death) as saints: within Islam, Allah is the only Omnificent, Dominant Lord, but the self-deified Sufi sheikhs attribute to themselves God-like qualities and ask others to worship them; this is utter polytheism and disbelief. 

3- The pivotal point of difference between Islam and Sufism: the basic tenet of Islam is the testimony of (There is no God but Allah). God does NOT resemble anything or anyone: "...There is nothing like Him..." (42:11); "Say, "He is God, the One.God, the Absolute. He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is nothing comparable to Him."" (112:1-4). This means that God's names, epithets, and qualities should never be used to describe any mortals. As for the basic Sufi tenet, it is (nothing exists but God); this is pantheism or that God is nature or the universe itself, and this means that the Creator and the creatures overlap and that Sufi sheikhs must feel and declare this hidden 'truth' that God manifested Himself or resides in him. This is sheer polytheism and self-deification denounced and refuted in the Quran.  

Sufism and the Sunnite religion are against the Quran:

1- Sufism, asceticism, and mysticism are never mentioned in the Quran; yet, monasticism is mentioned negatively as something never authorized by God (see 57:27). This verse sheds negative light on Sufis who link their earthly religion to asceticism, monasticism, and mysticism.   

2- Sufi sheikhs who invented hundreds of thousands of hadiths ascribed falsely to Muhammad never dared to include the word (Sufism) and its cognates in such hadiths; everyone knew that this term was never known in the 7^th century Arabia. The only poly Sufis had to use was to refer to ascetics in such hadiths as (the poor ones), as poverty, for sure, has existed in all eras; this would give a false impression that prototypes of 'Sufis' might have existed in Muhammad's lifetime in Arabia; Sufism predates Islam but it existed in other civilizations, and never in Arabia at all; Sufism that ascribes itself forcibly to Islam emerged only in the 3^rd century A.H.  

3- The term (Sufism) is mentioned for the first time in Arab heritage in a book by Al-Mu'tazala thinker Al-Jahiz, who died in 255 A.H., titled "Al-Bayan and Al-Tabyeen".

4- Ibn Khaldoun, in his seminal book titled "The Introduction", rightly mentions that Sufism is ''a newly invented branch of knowledge in religion'', but he is in the wrong the assume that the Sufi mythology of personal tastes, whims, and desires would be deemed as a branch of knowledge; this is not to mention that Sufism is a new religion that emerged in the 3^rd century A.H.    

Two types of Sufism:

1- There are two types of Sufism: religious and philosophical. Religious Sufism contradicts Islam (i.e., the Quran) as deification and sanctification are due only to Allah; otherwise, it is sheer polytheism to sanctify, venerate, and deify mortals and creatures. Philosophical Sufism is not less polytheistic that the other type; it supports religious Sufism by 'proving' and arguing for Sufi tenets of disbelief that include the following: unity of existence, God is the universe itself, and God manifests Himself in human beings.   

2- Because Sufism is a new religion, it has introduced new terminology never known before by the Muhammadans in their religious culture; e.g., Sufi miracles, Sufi disciple, Sufi status/stature, Sufi trance, Sufi intoxication, Sufi taste, Sufi manifestation, Sufi unveiling of secrets, Sufi witness, Sufi spiritual retreat, the Sufi truth, Sufi asceticism, Sufi orders, Sufi saints, Sufi realm, Sufi illumination, Sufi union/communion, Sufi unity, and Sufi hierarchy. Of course, the meanings of such terms differ from one Sufi book/author to another, and common words that denoted ordinary things were adopted within a new semantic level of meanings by Sufi sheikhs.    

3- The topics of both religious and philosophical Sufism contradict Islam (i.e., the Quran) by assuming that the Creator and His creatures overlap as one unit, that Sufi saints might fly up to the realms of heavens to see and hold a conversation with God, that God resides in nature or creatures or that He is the universe itself, and that Sufi saints are part of the Lord God (i.e., self-deification by claiming that God resides in their bodies).  

4- All Sufi orders and sheikhs/authors share many notions in common, but they differ in the degree of being outspoken about it in their books, or hypocritically concealing their ideas except for their loyal, close disciples and expressing this using highly figurative symbolic language in their books. This applies to the early decades of Sufism and within the eras when it was powerful and dominating as the official religion of the State.

How the Sunnite Sufism emerged and dominated:

1- Turkish military leaders controlled the Abbasid caliphate for a century (232 -334 A.H.) since the reign of Al-Motawakil who persecuted Persians/Shiites. The Hanbali scholars (who are extremist fanatical Sunnites) dominated the streets of Baghdad and persecuted Shiites, Sufis, and Al-Mu'tazala thinkers and all those who oppose Hanbali views/fatwas. At the same time, ascribing falsehoods to God and to Muhammad in the name of hadiths increased; books of the Sunnite religion increased exponentially and views/hadiths in them have been ascribed falsely to Muhammad two centuries after his death, a crime committed by authors of Persian origin who are in later eras (and until now!) deemed as infallible, revered, venerated deities never to be criticized or questioned so as to avoid the accusation of 'denying Sunna', a sin punishable by death in the Sunnite religion of Satan; these Persian authors include the following list: Ibn Hanbal (who died in 241 A.H.), Al-Bokhary (who died in 256 A.H.), Moslem (who died in 261 A.H.), Abou Dawood (who died in 275 A.H.), Al-Tirmizy (who died in 278 A.H.), Al-Nisaa'i (who died in 303 A.H.), and Ibn Maja (who died in 275 A.H.). By the way Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was not a fiqh scholar but merely a hadith fabricator and he did not arrange his hadiths as per branches of fiqh, unlike the case of Al-Bokhary and others. Yet, the dominance and authority of the Hanbali scholars made Ibn Hanbal after his death as an imam of a fiqh school that carried his name which later on evolved as Wahabism that brings terrorism to people now worldwide in our modern era.         

2- Sufism was at the time making its first steps; the Abbasids made trials for its deities/sheikhs to imprison them, and the ordeal/trial of Semnoon was famous at the time. The wave of arresting and incarcerating Sufi sheikhs made them practice Taqiyya (i.e., concealing their faith and pretending to be Sunnites). Yet, The Abbasid caliph Al-Moqtadir (295 – 320 A.H./ 908 – 932 A.D.) put the Sufi sheikh named Al-Halaj to death in 309 A.H., after long political debates following his imprisonment in 301 A.H. (Al-Muntazim, part 13, p. 201), because he was outspoken in declaring his self-deification and because of suspicions about him that he joined the Shiite Qarmatian rebels. Sufism began by the Sufi pioneer Maaruf Al-Karkhy was a former Christian who converted to the Shiite religion and followed the Alawites and wrote about Sufism. After his death, Al-Motawakil persecuted and arrested all Sufi pioneers like Semnoon, Zu Al-Noon Al-Masry of Egypt, and Al-Jeineid of Iraq. Persecuting masters and disciples of Sufism severely led some of them like Al-Jeineid, the master of a Sufi order, take hiding and teach Sunnite fiqh, while circulating his book on Sufism only to his very close Sufi disciples, while in his public sermons, he would assert his adherence to the Sunnite religion and the Quran, while stipulating that no true Sufis do not memorize the Quran and Sunnite hadiths. The Sufi author Al-Shaarany in his book titled (Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra) mentions that Al-Jeineid used to hold secret meetings at home with his very close Sufi disciples, after closing the door with his key and putting it under his thigh, under the pretext offered to his disciples that 'saints' like him who are closer to God could not be humiliated and denied by the masses or accused of being 'infidels' by the authority. The Sunnite Abbasid caliphs like Al-Motawakil and his successors demolished the Shiite mausoleum in Karbala and persecuted Shiites and Sufis severely, while imposing on Jews and Christians to stick to dress codes as part of their being despised and humiliated. Despite weakness of Sunnite Abbasid caliphs, they tried, imprisoned, persecuted, exiled, executed, and murdered many Sufi pioneers.            

3- The Abbasid caliphate soon enough paid a heavy price for such persecutions; during the period 334 – 447 A.H., the Shiite Buyyids, who hated the Sunnite religion, controlled and humiliated the Abbasid caliphs though they ruled in their name. Thus, no Sunnite imams/authors emerged during this period; in contrast, the Shiite Fatimids in North Africa seized the chance to conquer Egypt peacefully in 358 A.H. and built the city of Cairo and Al-Azhar institution to proselytize and preach the Shiite religion, and this enabled the Fatimids to annex the Levant without much difficulty, as the Shiite Buyyids did not protest at all and the Abbasids were too weak to oppose them. This means that the Sunnite religion was sieged by the Buyyids in Baghdad and Middle Asia and the Fatimids in Egypt, the Levant, and regions of Iraq. Sufis took advantage of the siege of the Sunnite religion and the dominance of the Shiite religion  to spread Sufism that branched in terms of theorization and philosophy and was propagates among the masses as it grew in popularity. This was called later on as the Shiite Sufism.       

4- This state of affairs changed suddenly once the Turkish Seljuks emerged, who were extremist Sunnites, during the period 329 – 552 A.H., but by the time they managed to control the Abbasid caliphate, Sufism grew too powerful to be crushed; Sunnites had to resort to a containment measure by creating what was called later on as the Sunnite Sufism.

5- The Sufi author Al-Qosheiry (c. 376 – 465 A.H.) was the advocate of the so-called 'moderate' Sufism as he followed the footsteps of Al-Jeineid in Taqiyya. In his book of apologia (i.e., in defense of Sufism) titled ''Al-Risala Al-Qosheiriyya'', he attacks Sufi rabble and mob among the masses who spread during his lifetime, in order to undermine the authority of the extremist Hanbali scholars and imams and to convince readers of Sunnite Sufism and how Sufis stick to the Sunnite tenets. In this book, Al-Qosheiry attacks self-deified Sufism who assumed that Allah is manifested in their bodies, who intentionally discarded acts of worship (prayers, fasting, etc.), and who committed sins like fornication and homosexual debaucheries as part of Sufi rituals that drew them nearer to God! Strangely, Al-Qosheiry endorses such notions and practices indirectly in other parts of his books as he defends pioneer Sufi sheikhs who declared such polytheistic notions and committed the same sins. After the death of Al-Qosheiry, many Sufi authors who claimed to be Sunnite Sufis and 'moderates' attacked their contemporaries and heaped praise on dead Sufi sheikhs/saints while endorsing all Sufi polytheistic notions indirectly on the margin, as if only those very close to the private Sufi circle would be the only ones to understand these 'refined' concepts. Ibn Al-Jawzy who lived in the 6^th century A.H. laments in his book, Al-Muntazim, how the Hanbali scholars and imams were too powerful since the era of Al-Motawakil and persecuted Sufis but lost their power gradually, and Sufi sheikhs persecuted the Hanbali scholars in the 6^th century A.H. Ibn Al-Jawzy severely attacks Sufism in his book titled (Talbis Iblis) and laments the fact that many hypocritical Hanbali scholars made peace with Sufis and Sufism institutions. This was among the many stages that resulted in the emergence of Sunnite Sufism as the dominant culture and religion.      

6- The final reconciliation between Sufism and the Sunnite religion that resulted in the emergence of Sunnite Sufism has been made by Al-Ghazaly (who died in 505 A.H.) in his many-volume seminal book titled ''Ehiaa Olom Eddine'' (i.e., literally in Arabic: Revival of Religious Sciences). Al-Ghazaly was the most famous and grandest Sufi and fiqh scholar within the Seljuk-Abbasid period; he mixes in his book Sunnite fiqh with Sufism, and he indirectly teaches readers all Sufi polytheistic notions between the lines. Al-Ghazaly in an another book titled (Mish-kat Al-Anwar) endorses the same Sufi notions of unity of the universe, God manifested in nature and man, Sufi saints fly up to heaven to meet God, etc. There were many Sufi saints/authors who followed the footsteps of Al-Ghazaly, and the last one of them was Al-Shaarany (c. 898 – 973 A.H., and thus, he lived in the 9^th century A.H./ the 16^th A.D.) in Egypt, and he lived within the last decades of the Mameluke Era and the early decades of the Ottoman Era. The Sufi books of Al-Shaarany dominated the mentality of Al-Azhar sheikhs and clergymen throughout the Ottoman. Within the era of the Sunnite Seljuk dominance, Al-Ghazaly was a leader for both Sufis and fiqh scholars at the same time, but of course, he leaned more toward Sufism and he managed to reconcile Sufism with Sunnite fiqh so that the Sunnite Sufism would emerge and Sufis would not be persecuted as was the case in previous periods. Al-Ghazaly was influenced by the Greek philosophy of illumination (i.e., as if knowledge were rays of light from the Divine to the hearts of mystics or Sufis who follow spiritual exercises to gain such knowledge). This is similar to the philosophy called new-Platonism that opposes the rationality of Aristotle. Al-Ghazaly inherited this hatred toward Aristotelian philosophy and its followers like Al-Mu'tazala; he attacks them in his writings as he calls for stopping intellectual endeavors and ijtihad thinking under the motto of nothing better or more creative could be written. This is part of his defense of Sufism. This is why his book titled "Ehiaa Olom Eddine" is deemed now as an endorsement of Sufi notions while attacking (within Taqiyya) extremist and promiscuous Sufis who denied Sunnite notions and rejected acts of worship. Sunnite Sufis celebrated Al-Ghazaly for centuries after his death and gave him the honorific title of (Hujjat ul-Islam), which means literally "Proof of Islam''; this is very insulting to God and to the Quran; s if the Quran were not enough proof of Islam as God's religion and as if Islam/Quran were defenseless and proof-less until 'proven' true only by Al-Ghazaly! This honorific title is utter blasphemy. Thus, the emergence of Sunnite Sufism was officially launched by Al-Ghazaly culturally and intellectually as the religion of the masses within the sponsorship of the Seljuks who were bent on facing Shiite Sufism. The Seljuks, and others after them (e.g., Saladin), provided the political power to protect Sunnite Sufism against Shiites and their sects (especially the Hashasheen/assassins who were the first brainwashed group of killers who suicide operations and obey their leaders blindly, while assuming they would go to Paradise after their death!).         

7- Saladin (who died in 589 A.H.) was the one who managed to manipulate Sunnite Sufism as a political tool against the Shiite religion and the Shiite Sufism more aptly than his predecessors (i.e., the Seljuks and the Zengids). This Sunnite-Shiite intellectual struggle within the early years of the Ayyubid state indicates two mysterious aspects in Saladin as a military leader. (1) The first mysterious aspect of Saladin is that he knew that intellectual war of ideas must be introduced to crush and chase away certain ideologies and impose the ideology of the state, as military and political confrontations were never enough. Thus, he knew that a previous religion would be chased away from hearts of the masses by the introduction of another religion that oppose and yet overlaps with the previous one. Strangely, no one after Saladin imitated him in his intellectual war of ideas. Mohamed Ali Pacha, governor of Egypt and later on its king and founder of a dynasty, destroyed the first Saudi kingdom in 1818 A.H. with his military troops for the sake of the Ottomans, but he disregarded the fact that the Wahabi ideology was spreading (and this resulted in the rise of the second and then the third current Saudi kingdoms). Abdel-Nasser in Egypt crushed and quelled the terrorist Wahabi MB group (established by GB and the KSA) by incarcerating its members and forcing others to choose self-exile, but he disregarded the fact that the Wahabi ideology was spreading in Egypt without being questioned or refuted, and this enabled Sadat to allow the MB members to control the religious life in Egypt since the 1970s and to manipulate it to their advantage. This query is raised: why did not the military leaders like M. Ali Pacha, Abdel-Nasser, and then the American generals of our era  reach the genius of Saladin who employed the peaceful intellectual war of ideas to defeat political foes and undermine their quasi-religious ideology? (2) The second mysterious aspect of Saladin is his leniency and tolerance toward crusaders against which he fought; for instance, he would release thousands of captured prisoners (i.e., POWs among crusaders) and this would allow them to fight him again as they re-join the crusaders' armies, and at the same time, Saladin never showed mercy or tolerance toward Sufi and Shiite extremists. When Jawhar Al-Seqilli built Cairo as the new Fatimid capital in Egypt to be a center of proselytizing the Shiite religion through Al-Azhar institution he built as well, this Fatimid leader aimed to fight the Sunnite religion and ideology within a peaceful intellectual war of ideas. After he put the last Fatimid caliph to death, Saladin closed down Al-Azhar institution and he built instead the Sufi-Sunnite institution called Khanqah Saeed Al-Suadaa; he even imported non-Egyptian Sunnite Sufis to help him in Cairo and they pleased him by inventing religious rituals that appealed to the Egyptian masses and made them forget the Shiite religion and gradually remove it from their hearts. Yet, Saladin never loved Sufism and extremist Sufi sheikhs; in 587 A.H., he put to death Al-Suhrawardi the extremist Sufi leader/sheikh who is known for his philosophy of illumination. Thus, Saladin aimed at imposing a 'moderate' form of Sunnite Sufism that would leave no room for Sufi extremists nor for Hanbali Sunnite extremists.            

8- After the death of Saladin, the 'new' religion of Sunnite Sufism was applied within the Sufi motto of combining sharia (i.e., Sunnite fiqh sharia of the four main doctrines and performing acts of worship) and the Sufi truth (i.e., all Sufi notions of polytheism and self-deification) while imposing on people never to question Sufi sheikhs/saints who claim receiving knowledge directly from God! Decades later, Sunnite fiqh scholars tolerated the sanctification of 'moderate' Sufi sheikhs as saints/allies of God; likewise, Sufi sheikhs allowed their followers to sanctify imams of the four main Sunnite doctrines and to ascribe miracles to them and heap praise and good qualities on them (or Manaqib = hagiography). Thus, Sunnite Sufis deify all Sunnite imams and all companions of Muhammad, especially Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman (hated by Shiites) along with Ali and his progeny and household members (hated by non-Sufi Sunnites).

9- Sunnite Sufism spread and dominated as the official religion since the 6^th century A.H., helped by factors such as injustices of weak rulers who fought against one another (e.g., the Seljuks and the Ayyubids), until the powerful Mameluke sultans emerged with unprecedented cruelty and injustices. The Mameluke sultans hated the Hanbali Sunnite religion as its scholars aimed to dictate their views on rulers and to dominate the masses in the streets by the sword based on the silly hadith of changing 'vice' by force. The Mameluke sultans desired to draw closer to them in their palace courts obsequious, hypocritical Sufi clergymen who would readily flatter and agree with them. Sufi clergymen served the Mameluke sultans by spreading notions of passivity, submission to tyrants, non-protest, stoicism, and acceptance of injustices and oppression as part of Fate and divine punishment for the subjects of the Mameluke sultanate. Sufi sheikhs at the time, of course, were hypocritical ones who flattered sultans and participated in propaganda for rulers and congregational supplications addressed to God to aid the sultans in all their endeavors. Sufis drew nearer to the masses by claiming they perform miracles and they receive divine words from God directly (in dreams/visions and through flying up to heaven!), and they gathered so many disciples and followers. Sufism appealed to the masses because it allows sinning within 'quasi-religious' justification; e.g., the promiscuous heterosexuals and homosexuals were happy to engage into their debaucheries and orgies than included wine drinking, while claiming that such sins were Sufi rituals and acts of worship. Sufism appealed to those who follow their whims and love singing and dancing festivities, those who love traveling to worship devotedly at mausoleums, and those who love partying and banquets to fill their bellies within merriment. Thus, the masses liked very much the revived Pharaonic religion (among other mythologies) of worshipping entombed saints/deities in the so-called holy mausoleums and venerating living 'holy' sheikhs/saints, thus ensuring their entering into Paradise merely through direct contact with this or that physical, tangible, dead or living deity. As for the cultured class of fiqh scholars, they were too weak to protest such habits and deeds, and their level of knowledge was lowered as their submission to those in power increased, as it served their purposes to weather the storm and cope with the zeitgeist.                        

10- Sufi orders: the theoretical, philosophical Sufism that was previously confined to some cultural elite members metamorphosed into ever-increasing several popular Sufi orders that appealed to the masses. These orders were based on Sufi sheikhs/saints claiming to inherit the covenant of the dead Sufi sheikhs/saints through the past eras whose alleged lineage would reach up to Ali and Fatima, then Muhammad, Gabriel, and then God! this imaginary chain was seen as the reason behind Sufi saints claiming they receive 'divine' revelations, just like the case of Sunnite series of narrators ending in Muhammad, Gabriel, and then God! This is how Sunnite and Sufi fabricators of hadiths have ascribed hadiths to God Himself. The widespread of so many Sufi orders created easily (complete with their holy saints/sheikhs and its mausoleums, rituals, festivals, etc.) made most people embrace Sunnite Sufism out of faith or out of gaining authority or engaging into moneymaking: peasants, merchants, fiqh scholars, governors, princes, rulers, sultans, the jobless, etc. Thus, Sunnite Sufism became the dominating religion practiced by most Muhammadans in many regions, and this has decreased the number of followers of the Shiite religion and non-Sunnite Sufism.         

11- Sunnite Sufism dominating and supplanting the Sunnite religion: the undeniable origin of Sufism is the Shiite religion; both religions share many things in common in terms of form and basics (e.g., deifying and sanctifying the household members of Ali and Fatima). Thus, the Shiite Sufism never added anything new to the non-Sufi Shiites and their religion. In contrast, when Sunnite Sufism dominated for centuries, it stripped the non-Sufi Sunnites and their religion of their main features. The Sunnite religion and the term (Sunna) became mere political banners held by the Mameluke sultanate that derived its political legitimacy from the presence of the remnants of the Abbasid household members among the retinue and courtiers of Mameluke sultans (after Hulago destroyed Baghdad and the Abbasid caliphate). Hence, the term (Sunna) became a mere motto to allow the Mameluke sultanate face its Shiite foes. Sufi sheikhs serving the Mameluke sultans made the Sunnite religion confined only to acts of worship and fiqh sharia, as opposed to the Sufi truth, which is the Sufi faith tenets (unity of the universe, deifying mortals and creatures, God is one with His creatures, etc.) that contradict the Quran.  of course, Sunnite fiqh imams knew that Sufi tenets contradict the four major Sunnite doctrines; Al-Shafei and Ibn Hanbal rejected Sufi ideas when Sufism was still a nascent, burgeoning religion. The Hanbali scholars during the 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th centuries A.H. fought and persecuted Sufi sheikhs and accused them of apostasy. Within the Mameluke Era, Sunnite Sufism dominated the religious life of the Muhammadans; more details about this are mentioned in CHAPTER IV of this book.              

Realistic examples from history of the earthly, man-made religions during the Abbasid Era:

Introduction:

1- What we call as earthly, man-made religions were called in the Middle-Ages theological books of the Sunnites as (creeds and doctrines), as a branch of 'religious sciences' that compare and contrast all religions and denominations with the Sunnite religion (deemed falsely as if it were Islam).   

2- The first Sunnite authors to write about (creeds and doctrines) to compare and contrast them with the Sunnite fiqh were Abou Al-Hassan Al-Ashaary (who died in 330 A.H.), Al-Malti (who died in 377 A.H.), Ibn Hazm (who died in 456 A.H.), and Al-Shahristany (who died in 548 A.H.). These authors, of course, defend and heap praises on their Sunnite religion and fiqh and criticized and ridiculed all other denominations. We hope that young Quranist researchers would verify the veracity of such authors regarding writing views of their foes.      

3- We provide below three passages exemplifying the reality of earthly, man-made religions during the Abbasid Era, and we comment on each of the three passages (about the Sufi, Shiite, and Sunnite religion) quoted from the book by the Al-Shafei doctrine scholar and hadith-narrator Al-Malti (who died in 377 A.H., in Ashkelon) titled (Al-Tanbeeh wi Al-Rad) about comparing and contrasting all creeds/doctrines (by mentioned their notions, tenets and practices known during his era) with his Sunnite religion.  

FIRSTLY: Al-Malti writes the following about the faith tenets of the Sunnite religion: (... M. Ibn Okasha said that Ibn Hammad said that ... Al-Zohary said that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon his soul, said that any man who performs complete ablution on a Friday night and pray two Raqas while reciting the Quranic Chapter 112 one thousand times, he will be visited by Prophet Muhammad in a vision while asleep. ... M. Ibn Okasha said he tried this method and he saw Prophet Muhammad in a vision and he asked him about certain branches of the faith ... Upon waking up that very night, M. Ibn Okasha repeated this method and he saw the apparition of the Holy Prophet Muhammad visiting him in his bedchamber, while filling it with intense silver light, and he was wearing .... M. Ibn Okasha asked him about all controversial issues of fiqh ... Prophet Muhammad asserted to him to accept whatever good or bad events as part of Fate preordained and predestined by the Almighty Lord Allah, and that real believers never argue about issues of religion with anyone ... and that one can put water above one's shoes instead of bare feet when performing ablution before prayers ... and that true faithful ones must perform jihad and join troops of the rulers ... and that true faithful believers must never rebel or disobey governors, rulers, and caliphs as they are enthroned by God ... and that one must never declare any followers of the religion of Prophet Muhammad as disbelievers however sinful they are and however grave their sins are ... and that no one is to slander the holy companions ... and that Abou Bakr is better than Omar, and Omar is better than Othman, and Othman is better than Ali  ...) (Al-Tanbeeh wi Al-Rad, p. 15-17).

COMMENT: Al-Malti defends her his own Sunnite religion by false hadiths, Isnad (i.e., series of narrators), and false revelations; how come that we would believe that those who would pray two Raqas while reciting the Quranic Chapter 112 one thousand times would see Muhammad in a dream? Is Muhammad eternally alive to appear at will to anyone to be asked about Sunnite tenets?! This means that Sunnite fiqh imitates Sufis who assume that dreams/visions are sources of sharia legislations, and not the Quran! It is noteworthy that Al-Malti never quotes any Quranic verses at all in his book. The roots of the Sunnite fiqh and sharia include refuting notions of Qadariyya, Shiites, Al-Mu'tazala, and Al-Khawarij. The Qadariyya group of theologians who asserted that humans possess free will and thus one bears full the consequences and responsibility for one's actions in this world and the next (as opposed to the faulty notion of fatalism imposed by the Umayyads). Al-Malti refutes the Qadariyya thinkers by asserting the Sunnite notion of total submission to all preordained fate, including injustices inflicted by rulers and caliphs; Al-Malti asserts that rulers were innocent as they were mere tools in the hands of God! this shows clearly how the Sunnite religion (created by authority and power) supports and deifies rulers and prohibits any revolts or rebellions against rulers; this is why Al-Malti attacks Al-Khawarij and Shiites and refuse to declare these who commit grave, major sins as disbelievers. Al-Malti in the same context prohibits verbally abusing companions and contemporaries of Muhammad and that the four pre-Umayyad caliphs were arranged by their 'piety' (thus, he makes Ali the lowest of them all in piety in order to spite Shiites). Al-Malti invents a Sunnite sharia legislation/law of cleaning shoes with water instead of bare feet while performing ablution! This is never mentioned in the Quran, and thus, it is a silly Sunnite notion and never part of Islam.       

SECONDLY: Al-Malti writes the following about the faith tenets of the Shiite religion and its sects, while naming them as misguided rejecters and infidels (i.e., Rawafid and Rafida): (... Those infidels and apostates among the Rafida are divided into numerous sects and each has its own holy imams ... the followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba defied Ali Ibn Abou Talib during his lifetime and he was so appalled by such polytheism that he burned them alive; yet, many followers of this sect remain until now, and still, they deify Ali as an immoral being, and they assert he never died ... another sect asserts that the immortal Ali resides in the clouds; this sect followers hail the big clouds whenever spotted by them, as if Ali is watching over them ... another sect asserts that Ali died and he was a moral and not a god, but he will be resurrected shortly before the destruction of the universe on the Last Day to kill the Anti-Christ and rule the earth justly ... another sect followers assert that Ali is immortal and he hides in a cave whose gate is guarded by a dragon and a huge lion; Ali is waiting the time to get out to lead an army of his worshippers to fight the troops of the Anti-Christ and to rule the earth justly as a sovereign, before the Day of Resurrection ... a sect is called the Qarmatians who include the Daylamites, and they assert that God is Light never to be perceived by mortals, and Ali is born out of this Light like all prophets, imams, and wise men who are granted immortality, omniscience, infallibility, and miracles, and their births are surrounded with signs in nature witnessed by people ... those holy men give lights to stars and planets in the firmament and help those who invoke them ... evil people are born of darkness and they inflict calamities, sorrow, pains, sins, and deals on people ... the followers of this sect assert that acts of worship like prayers, zakat, fasting, etc. are never obligatory for those worshipers of Light and Truth ... another sect of Shiites who are Light worshippers assumes that there is no Day of Resurrection, Hell, Paradise, nor Judgment, as for them, these Quranic notions are linked only to people lifetimes on earth: hence, hell is ailments, illnesses, hunger, pain, poverty, etc. and paradise is lush gardens, eating and drinking to please the body and the senses, having sex, good music and singing, good scents and perfumes, etc.; souls of the dead return to the Light of which they were created and their bodies turn to dust of which they were created ... Some of the follower of this Shiite sect believe in reincarnation after death ... some Shiites in their sects assume that anything related to the human body (semen, sweat, urine, feces, blood, among others) is clean, as mortals were created of Divine Light; Shiite extremists sometimes prove this notion by eating human feces in public; they befriend those who join their strange sect and fight and kill those who reject it; they also have sex with one another's wives as part of religious rituals after excessive wine-drinking sessions, and they share one another's money and possessions ... sometimes their orgies include men having sex with other men and male adolescents, and those men who play the role of women in bed are deemed by them as very deep in faith ... those Shiite men who refuse to play the role of women in bed were put to death and so are wives who refuse to copulate with other men ... when Shiites of this sect fight an enemy who defeats them, they never run away as they receive death happily, thinking they join the Divine Light in the metaphysical realm and their souls get rid of the confines of the clay of the body ... thus, they are sinners who disbelieve in the Day of Judgment ... Another Shiite sect assert reincarnation (into human bodies or higher/lower animal bodies as per one's deeds/sins, then all dead ones are given new human bodies later on) and that God manifests Himself in their bodies and in certain locations that are made holy by Shiites ... a Rafida Shiite sect of apostates assume that God has sent Gabriel at first to Ali as the Last Prophet to people, but Gabriel has made a mistake and addressed Muhammad instead, and thus, God has made Ali as vizier and caliph of Muhammad, and Ali's progeny must rule the earth ... another sect include Shiites who assume that Muhammad and Ali are both immortal prophets and their teachings must be obeyed equally and this sect defied the descendants of Ali as the true caliphs who should rule, as their souls, and the souls of prophets and imams, are created of the Divine Light ... another sect of Shiite apostates comprises the followers of the leader/imam Hisham Ibn Al-Hakam; a hadith of the Holy Prophet predicts their emergence as worshippers of Ali; but they are liars, because they are in fact atheists because Hisham Ibn Al-Hakam was an atheist who never believed in God nor in the Hereafter, and he adheres secretly, as rumors have it, to Manichaeism which is an ancient Persian religion ... Hisham Ibn Al-Hakam – may Allah curse him - assumes that the Holy Prophet Muhammad made Ali his successor/caliph and a grand imam/vizier, just like the stature of Aaron to his brother Moses, that the Holy Prophet is like a city of knowledge whose gate is Ali, and that Ali will be fought for his interpretation of the Holy Quran as much as the Meccans fought the Holy Prophet because he received the Holy Quran, because Ali is the most knowledgeable Muslim ... Shiites assume that Ali is immortal and infallible imam for all humanity and that this notion is part and parcel of Islam like acts of worship! Shiites of this sect in particular declare Sunnites as rejecters of Islam since they the day they chose Abou Bakr as caliph and this led them to misinterpret the Quran and to invent hadiths; Sunna hadiths are rejected by Shiites ... Shiites hate, disown, and curse in their religious rituals Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, Talha, Al-Zubayr, and Aisha, and they invent untrue negative stories about them, such as how Abou Bakr mistreated Fatima, wife of Ali and daughter of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and he stolen her orchard and struck her very hard, and she died of sorrow as a result ... Such fabricated stories are never believed by Sunnites who cannot imagine anyone harming Fatima ... Shiites assume that their imams are infallible and can issue religious legislations while claiming they received revelations from God; they prohibit legal things and allowed forbidden items, while they practice Taqiyya when they reside among Sunnites ... As for the Ismaili Shiites, they hate, disown, and curse in their religious rituals Abou Bakr, etc. so as to ally themselves to Ali and his descendants, and they heap praises on Ali and ascribe divine qualities to him ... the Ismaili Shiites declare those who refuse their vision of Ali as infidels and apostates, and they have 12 holy imams, and they perform the five daily prayers while including glorifying Ali ... they weep daily within rituals for the massacre of Hussein, son of Ali, in Karbala, and they pay zakat to their clergymen while wearing certain rings in their fingers like some sects of the People of the Book, and they visit mausoleums of their dead imams ... they distort meanings of many Quranic verses and introduce rituals and notions never authorized by God ... they make effigies of Abou Bakr, etc. with clothed filled with hay, and they flog and beat such effigies while verbally abusing the holy companions of the Holy Prophet; we cannot quote here such verbal abuse, of course ... the Jafferi Shiites, they are similar to the Ismaili Shiites and assume that there are no holy imams except Ali and his descendants ... the Zaidiyya Shiites specialize in fighting non-Shiites for loot, raping women, raiding, massacring men and children, burning down villages, enslaving, etc. among them was a ruler of Basra who enslaved the Arab Hashemite women and sold them in return for a dirham or two, after allowing Al-Zanj (black) soldiers to rape them for days, while in their Zaidi societies, they feign being pious and ascetic ... some of the Zaidi Shiites joined Al-Mu'tazala group of Baghdad and they assume Ali as the grand imam of all eras ...) (Al-Tanbeeh wi Al-Rad, p. 18-19, 32-34, and 156-164).

COMMENT: Al-Malti is keen to mention much details about Shiites throughout his book; he aims to ascribe promiscuity to some of their sects, and his words show he is prejudiced very much against them more than any other sects/doctrines/creeds, and this is typical in most Sunnite authors and imams. Al-Malti hates Hisham Ibn Al-Hakam and his group though they were less extremist than other Shiite groups in terms of faith notions and their non-violence, as they did not like to shed blood. The reason behind such hatred is that Hisham Ibn Al-Hakam specialized in writing books to attack 'companions' of Muhammad and to fabricate and invent false hadiths and events/narratives, thus imitating Sunnites in their ways of lending sham credibility to their stances/views. Al-Malti ascribes to Shiites the leader of Al-Zanj rebellion, though he was not a Shiite man, but a murderer who loved adventure and used the Shiite religion as a cover for his military revolt, and soon enough, he adopted Al-Khawarij ways; he even made his soldiers massacre Alawites men and rape, enslave, and sell the Alawite women for low prices. It is illogical that Al-Malti ascribe such a leader to the Zaidiyya Shiites, who were very moderate and peaceful Shiites that ascribed themselves to Zaid Ibn Ali Zayn Al-Abdeen Ibn Hussein Ibn Ali Ibn Abou Talib, who revolted against the Umayyads and was let down – as typically expected – by his Iraqi followers, and thus, his revolt failed and he was killed during the caliphate of Hisham Ibn Abdul Malik. Al-Malti mentions how Shiite tenets of his era have revived Persian ancient religion of allying oneself to the god of light/goodness (reincarnated as Ali and his household members) whose forces were in endless fight against the god of darkness/evil disowned by everyone (reincarnated as Abou Bakr, Omar, Othman, Mu'aweiya, the Umayyads, and later on, any non-Shiites at large). Persian nationalism is evident here; Persians hate Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman who made Arabs conquer, invade, and destroy the Persian empire and to treat Persians as servants and slaves. After Al-Malti mentions Shiite sects, we notice that some sects died out and some others survived until today. The surviving ones include the Twelver in Iran, Zaidiyya of Yemen, Druze in Lebanon and Palestine, and Ismaili followers of Agha Khan in India, Europe, and the USA. Some new Shiite sects have emerged such as the Nasseriyya Alawites who rule Syria now. Some new full-fledged religions were offshoots of the Shiite religion, such as Bábism and Baha'ism.

THIRDLY: Al-Malti writes the following about the Sufis while calling them "spirituals": (... Those spirituals are of various groups and types, and they are called as such because  they claim falsely that their spirits or souls fly up to the heavens to see God and Paradise ... some of them claim to copulate with houris ... some of them claim that the Love of God dominates their bodies, behaviors, desires, whims, and will, and they allow sins to themselves such as fornication, theft, and wine-drinking, as if they were beloved by God and will be forgiven anything they do ... yet, they claim they are ascetics who renounce the world and its pleasures so as not to make their hearts and minds busy with anything related to the transient realm ... it is wrong of them to prohibit permissible food items and to assume that the poor ones are more pious and loved by God than the rich people, as many rich people pay zakat/alms and help the needy within charity  ...) (Al-Tanbeeh wi Al-Rad, p.93-94).

COMMENT: Al-Malti focuses here on Shiites, Al-Mu'tazala, and Qadariyya, and we notice that he was apparently well-informed of their notions and he was keen on refuting them using his Sunnite religion. Yet, Al-Malti was not well-informed about Sufism of his era, and he calls Sufis as ''spirituals''. Al-Malti never mentions any names of famous Sufi sheikhs of his era, despite the fact that his era witnessed so many Sufi pioneers. Besides, Al-Malti mixes between asceticism and Sufism, and makes ascetic men as Sufis within one label: ''spirituals'', though there are essential differences between both groups in faith tenets, rituals, and practices. Yet, Al-Malti might be excused for his lack of sufficient knowledge about Sufism, as this earthly religion was not yet as widespread among the masses as it would be and it has not yet at this point taken the crystalized, evolved shape that emerged a century later, in contrast to the settled forms and frameworks of the Sunnite and Shiite religion at the time (among other religions). Al-Malti elsewhere in his book mentions details about some views of Al-Khawarij group but we did not quote any of such details because Al-Khawarij group was never influential at the era of Al-Malti.     

CHAPTER IV: The Dominance of the Sunnite Sufism during the Mameluke Era (648 – 921 A.H./1250 – 1517 A.D.)

An overview of the Mameluke Era:

Introduction:

  The rise of the Mameluke sultanate is a unique event in the history of the Muhammadans; as the Mamelukes were originally slaves bought and trained in warfare by the Ayyubids – their former masters – and their era began by the Queen Shagaret Al-Dor of Egypt, who was the first and last Queen or Sultana in the history of the Muhammadans. The Mameluke sultanate or caliphate would not have emerged or continued unless by the powerful Mameluke military leaders, who took advantage of the weak rulers of the Ayyubid dynasty who fought one another, and by the power of the location of Egypt in the heart of the Arab world. The Mamelukes proved their merit as they saved Egypt and the Arab world from the Mongols and the Tartars and from the crusaders, and thus, the Mameluke sultans ruled Egypt, the Levant, and Hejaz after defeating both foreign invaders and weak rulers of the Muhammadans.          

Firstly: steps of establishing firmly the Mameluke State in Egypt:

1- At first, the Mamelukes did not think of usurping power from the Ayyubids after defeating the crusaders led by King Louis IX of France who invaded Damietta in the Egyptian Delta. The Mamelukes captured the French king and preserved the throne for the Ayyubid prince Turan Shah (son of the dead sultan Najm Eddine Ayoub, who was the husband of Shagaret Al-Dor) who was in Iraq. The Mameluke leaders expected gratitude from Turan Shah, but he was ungrateful to them and he feared their being too powerful, and while this prince who imitated the unwise, junior Ayyubid princes in their recklessness planned to get rid of him to buy new Mamelukes loyal to him, the Mamelukes of his dead father preemptively assassinated him.  

2- The assassination of Turan Shah, who had no heirs, created the problem of who would succeed him to the throne. The widow of the dead sultan Najm Eddine Ayoub, Shagaret Al-Dor, was enthroned as Queen of Egypt, supported by the Mamelukes and she demanded and received the ransom to release King Louis IX of France and imposed her conditions that included to set him free only after the crusaders would leave Damietta and Egypt forever.  

3- After facing such threats, the Mameluke sultanate had to face the following problems.

* The Abbasid caliph and the 'Islamic' public opinion:

1- The Abbasid caliph at this time represented the 'Islamic' public opinion because of the centuries-old spiritual authority as a symbol standing for the Sunnite religion. The caliph Al-Mostaasim, before being put to death by Hulago in Baghdad, expressed his dissatisfaction about a woman being a sovereign; he sent a letter to the Egyptian authority asserting that if Egypt contained no men fit for rule, he would sent them a ruler. 

2- In order to avoid the criticism of the Abbasid caliph and the 'Islamic' public opinion, which might have undermined the power of Queen Shagaret Al-Dor, the Queen married the Mameluke leader Aybak, who became the sultan of Egypt, and she ruled and shared authority equally with him but behind a curtain. The Mamelukes had to be united to face other problems.

* The Egyptians, Arabs, and Shiites:

1- At first, the Egyptians did not like to be ruled by slaves who were bought by the Ayyubids, as per the historian of the Mameluke Era named Abou Al-Mahasin, who mentions that until the death of Sultan Aybak, the people in the streets ridiculed him, as he passed on horseback, as the ruler who was a former slave. Both Al-Makrizi and Abou Al-Mahasin mentions that the Mamelukes had to treat the Egyptians very harshly and cruelly at the first years of their sultanate to make them submit to their power, to the extent that both historians mentions that if crusaders were to rule Egypt, they would not humiliate and oppress Egyptians as much as those early Mameluke sultans did. 

2- The Egyptians summited to the new power through oppression and grave injustices, but this stifled sense of being unable to retaliate led many Egyptians to support some Alawites and Bedouins inside Egypt to revolt against Mameluke sultans, under the pretext that Egypt must be ruled by free Arabs and not former slaves. The leader Husn-Eddine managed temporarily during the early decades of the Mameluke Era to establish an independent Arab state in Middle Egypt and in Al-Sharqiyah Governorate, and he was supported by Bedouins. Husn-Eddine attempted to contact the Ayyubid ruler Al-Nasser in the Levant for support, as he was the enemy of the Mamelukes, but to his dismay, Al-Nasser preferred to make a peace treaty with the Mamelukes, and Husn-Eddine had to rely only on his Bedouin troops. 

3- After the Mameluke sultan Aybak got rid of the danger posed by the Ayyubids of the Levant, he was bent on imposing order internally in Egypt; he sent the powerful Mameluke leader Aqtay to fight Bedouins near the Delta city of Belbeis, and their leader, Husn-Eddine, raised the while flag and desired to negotiate peace, but Aybak pretended to believe him and he imprisoned him and his troops and put them to death. Aybak persecuted and restricted Bedouins so harshly and they felt humiliated and their numbers decreased in Egypt, as per Al-Makrizi (Al-Solok, p. 1/2/370, 372-379, 381-382, and 385-386), because the Bedouins were the only Egyptian military force at the time and the Mamelukes had to crush such a threat.

4- The Mameluke sultanate was firmly established and settled when the Mameluke sultan Qotoz defeated the Mongols and the Tartars in Ain Jalut battle, and when the Mameluke sultan Beibars defeated and crushed the remnants of the Mongols and the Tartars  and the crusaders in the Levant.  

Secondly: the Mamelukes and the Levant:

1-Of course, the emergent Mameluke State felt that the Levant must be dominated by the Mamelukes to secure their Egyptian throne; the crusaders in the Levant were eager to attempt to conquer Egypt after the end of the Ayyubids dynasty and to take revenge from the Mamelukes who defeated Louis IX in the Nile Delta. The second enemy of the Mamelukes were the remnants of the Ayyubids in Iraq and northern Levant, who were horrified to see their former slaves ruling Egypt instead of them after the assassination of Turan Shah that could never be tolerated. 

2-The third and last enemy of the Mamelukes (and indeed, of all people and races in the Arab countries) was the brutal and savage Mongols and Tartars coming from the East, who defeated, massacred, and crushed Khwarismids, the Nizariyya assassins in Alamut, the Abbasids in Baghdad and destroyed the city  in 658 A.H., and also the weak states and rulers of the Seljuks and Ayyubids in Iraq and the Levant. Hence, the emergent Mameluke State had to face many threats, especially the Mongols and the Tartars who swept the Levant and endangered Egypt. 

3-After the Mamelukes defeated and crushed the Mongols and the Tartars after chasing away all crusaders, the regions they ruled beside Egypt included the whole Levant and Iraqi lands till the River Euphrates during the reign of the sultan Beibars, who assassinated Qotoz and succeeded him to the Egyptian throne. Beibars even dominated the Armenians in Asia Minor and leveled their capital to the ground, thus expanding his dominance to more lands more than Saladin. Let us below trace steps of the Mamelukes in annexing the Levant under their rule and how they dealt with rival powers existing at the time. Let us trace the steps of the Mameluke endeavors to annex the Levant and how they deal with the powers there (N.B.: The following details are quoted from our previous book titled "The Character of Egypt after the Arab Conquest", found in English on this link: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=96).

The Ayyubids in the Levant:

1-The Ayyubids were bent on retrieving Egypt from the Mamelukes, and Al-Nasser Dawood retrieved Damascus during the reign of Queen Shagaret Al-Dor. He was the oldest of the Ayyubid dynasty at the time, and the one ruling Damascus had to secure his rule by attempting to dominate Egypt at any cost; thus, Al-Nasser Dawood allied himself to the crusaders and both fought the Mamelukes in the battle of Gaza in 548 A.H. The Mameluke troops led by Aqtay defeated Al-Nasser Dawood and the crusaders.

2-Al-Nasser Dawood did not despair; he gathered all his Ayyubid relatives and their troops in Damascus and marched toward Egypt to attempt conquering it. In the battle of Al-Salehiyya, inside today's Al-Sharqiyah Governorate, Egypt, the Mameluke troops managed to defeat troops of Al-Nasser Dawood again despite the fact that his soldiers outnumbered those of the Egyptian Mameluke army. One of the reasons of the defeat of the Ayyubid sultan was that his  own Ayyubid Mamelukes treacherously deserted him during battle and sided with their allies the Mamelukes of the Egyptian troops led by Aybak the sultan of Egypt at the time. Indeed, Aybak captured many Ayyubid dynasty princes and rulers after this battle.

3- In 649 A.H., Aqtay managed with his troops to conquer many Levantine coastal cities including Gaza and Naples; Al-Nasser Dawood had to prepare his military troops from Damascus to Gaza, and Aybak led his troops to join those of Aqtay in the Levant. After exchanging envoys between Aybak and Al-Nasser Dawood, the last Abbasid caliph sent from Baghdad a high judge/sheikh to reconcile both warring rulers within negotiations supervised by the Abbasids. Within such negotiations, the Mamelukes demanded that they would rule Egypt autonomously and without interference from anyone, especially the Ayyubids, and would rule a large part of the Levantine south and the coast cities they had conquered there. Eventually, in 651 A.H., the reconciliation agreement included that the Mamelukes would reign Egypt and the Levantine South in Palestine (including coastal cities as well as Jerusalem and Naples) and Jordan, while Al-Nasser would rule the rest of the Levant, and the Mamelukes would release all Ayyubids captured by them, in return for the pledge of Al-Nasser Dawood never to attempt to conquer Egypt and the Levantine regions under the Mameluke rule (Al-Solok byAl-Makrizi, p. 1/2/370, 372-379, 381, 382, and 385-386).

4- The most difficult, biggest test for the burgeoning, nascent Mameluke State was facing the Mongols and the Tartars.

How the Mamelukes dealt with the Mongols and the Tartars:

1-This was the real big test for the emergent powerful Mameluke State, as the Mongols and the Tartars were the biggest veritable danger that threatened the Arab world, after coming from the far east to destroy all cities and States on their way to form the Mongol Empire. Indeed, the Mongols and the Tartars destroyed and crushed the Chinese Empire, the Turkmenistan, the Khwarismids, and thus they paved their way to the Abbasid caliphate that ended as the Mongols destroyed Baghdad and massacred all its dwellers as well as the last Abbasid caliph and his progeny. The rest of the Arabs were terrorized by the brutal, savage, dehumanized Mongols and Tartars as news of destroying Iraq and massacring thousands of people there reached everyone. Hulago was the leader and ruler of the Mongols, and some Ayyubid princes in the Levant surrendered to him such as the ruler of Homs who served Hulago for a while, and so did Al-Nasser Dawood who used to rule Damascus and Hama. Even the crusaders who ruled Antioch submitted totally to Hulago, and so did the Armenians in Armenia. The Mongols and the Tartars thus dominated most of the Levant and they prepared to conquer Palestine by sending envoys of Hulago to ask the Mamelukes in Cairo to surrender and submit to them as did other rulers before them.

2-At the time, the de facto ruler as Qotoz who was the guardian/custodian of the male child, Ali Al-Mansour, that succeeded his father the assassinated Aybak. Qotoz seized the chance of such threat by Hulago and declared himself as the new sultan of Egypt after removing Ali Al-Mansour son of Aybak from the throne. He prepared huge Egyptian troops led by excellent military leaders among the Mamelukes and sent some of them, led by Beibars, to Gaza in the Levant, where Beibars defeated the garrison of the Mongols situated there.

3-Meanwhile, because Mongke Khan died, who was ruler of the Mongols, Hulago left the Levant with some troops and marched eastward to claim the throne as the legitimate successor of Mongke Khan his late brother. Hulago left the rest of the troops in the Levant led by Kitubqa to face the Egyptian Mameluke armies. The rest of the Egyptian troops were led by Qotoz from Cairo to Acre in the Levant, and Qotoz got news that Kitubqa and his troops crossed the River Jordan and marched into Galilee, and Qotoz decided to attack him soon enough by marching to the Palestinian village of Ain Jalut in the southeastern Galilee.

The battle of Ain Jalut (658 A.H./1260 A.D.):

1-Kitubqa did not know that the troops of Qotoz reached the Levant and that the Mameluke soldiers outnumbered those of the Mongols; Qotoz had hidden most of his troops within the Levantine hills, and the Mongol armies saw only the front of the Egyptian armies led by Beibars and thought them to be few in number. Hence, Kitubqa swallowed the bait and fell into the trap when he attacked with all his troops the Mameluke troops led by Beibars that lured him to come in the area of the hills, to be surprised by the huge troops led by Qotoz that surrounded the Mongols from all directions. Despite the fact that Kitubqa fought bravely and valiantly in vain, a landslide victory was achieved by the Mamelukes who crushed the Mongol troops, and this was the very first defeat in the history of the Mongols and the Tartars (Al-Solok, by Al-Makrizi, p. 1/2/414-319, 422-425, and 427-433).

2-his decisive battle was very important in world history as well; it saved Egypt and North Africa and made the Mongols retreat eastward into Persia. The Mameluke authority in Cairo and the Levant received the admiration and respect from the 'Islamic' world as the Mamelukes saved the Muhammadans in the Middle-East and North Africa by bringing about the downfall of the Mongols in this battle and later on by other means; indeed, some of the tribes of the Mongols converted to 'Islam' in Iraq and established an 'Islamic' state there. Qotoz retrieved the whole Levantine regions until the River Euphrates, and even some remaining Ayyubid princes submitted to him in respect and ruled their cities as subordinate to the Mameluke State in Cairo. Among the results of the battle of Ain Jalut was the final removal of all remnants of the crusaders from the Levant, as the victorious Mamelukes decided with resolve to rule the entire Levant after removing all sorts of the 'infidels' (i.e., non-Muhammadans) from all of the Levantine regions. Beibars assassinated Qotoz the sultan to take the throne as sultan himself, and he went on with the endeavors to remove the rest of the crusaders and the Mongols from the Levant and reigned supreme as a powerful sultan over Egypt and the Levant for a long time. Beibars gave himself the title Al-Dhahir, which means literally in English: 'the prominent one' or 'the outstanding one'.               

Al-Dhahir Beibars and the Mongols and the Tartars:

1- When Beibars asserted his full power and authority in Egypt, he conquered all Levantine cities that were ruled by Ayyubid rulers, and his troops punished the Christians that allied themselves with the Mongols like the king of Armenia and the crusader ruler of Antioch. Meanwhile, a leader of one of the Mongol tribes converted to 'Islam', and his name was Baraka Khan; he allied himself to Beibars and both cooperated in sending troops to Kaykaus I to help him restore his kingdom in Anatolia. 

2- Hulago could not take revenge from the Mamelukes despite his alliance with the Armenian and the crusaders, and he was busy by the attack against his troops led by the troops of Baraka Khan. This gave Beibars the chance to save his time and endeavors to end the presence of the crusaders in Acre (Al-Solok, by Al-Makrizi, p. 1/2/465, 473-474, 495, 497, 600, 602, 604, 607, 628, 629, and 633).

3- Indeed, the Levant was made totally free from the presence of the crusaders later on during the reign of the Mameluke sultan Al-Ashraf Khalil Ibn Qalawun. In order for Beibars to add more legitimacy to his rule and to make Egypt the leader country of the whole 'Islamic' world, he invited one of the relatives of the murdered last Abbasid caliph to come to Cairo and made him live in a palace as an honorary caliph. Later on, Beibars feared that his Abbasid 'caliph' would attempt to be a real ruler and gather support from the Egyptian people, and this led Beibars to make him never contact anyone inside his palace. Beibars decided to get rid of him in a way that would not arouse suspicions; he sent him as leader of small troops to fight the Mongols in Iraq, and such troops were defeated and this Abbasid man was killed in battle. Beibars chose another weaker Abbasid relative and made him live in a palace away from people in Cairo, and his honorary role was to lend legitimacy to all decrees of Beibars and to swear fealty to any Mameluke sultan and so did his progeny. Hence, it became a main tradition in the Mameluke Era in Cairo, Egypt, to make a descendant of the Abbasid swear fealty to every new Mameluke sultan. Hence, Cairo became the most important city in the world of the Muhammadans as the center of the 'Muslim' caliphate after Baghdad was leveled to the ground (Al-Solok, by Al-Makrizi, p. 1/2/448-449, 451, 453-457, 463-467, and 477-479).               

The Mamelukes and the crusaders:

1- The Mamelukes had excellent reputation and high stature all over the Arab world as they defeated and crushed the crusade of Louis IX in Egypt, and the firm establishment of the Mameluke State during the reign of Beibars was linked to military endeavors against the presence of the crusaders in the Levantine regions and cities.

2- Beibars simultaneously faced militarily the crusaders, the Mongols, and the Armenians. Beibars  defeated the Armenians and looted and plundered their cities to secure his rule as a sultan dominating Aleppo and the Levantine North over. He relentlessly raided and attacked crusaders in Acre so many times that he turned their lives there to a veritable unbearable hell, and he conquered Antioch and razed it to the ground after massacring all crusaders inside it. When Antioch fell into the hands of Beibars, crusaders were so frightened and fell into disorder; even the Knights Templar deserted their castles near Antioch and fled in fear (Al-Solok, by Al-Makrizi, p.1/2/483-491, 510, 513, 524-530, 533, 543, 560-564, 571, 577, 585-588, 590-595, and 618-628).

3-After the death of Beibars, his successor Qalawun the sultan continued the military efforts against the remaining crusaders in the Levant; he conquered the fortified Margat Castle in Syria (or Marqab in Arabic) and drove away its Knights Hospitaller, and then he conquered Latikia and Tripoli. When crusaders of Acre breached the truce, Qalawun decided to conquer Acre, which was the last city ruled by the crusaders in the Levant, but he died before he could do it. Upon his death-bed, he wrote his will urging his son and successor to conquer Acre. Hence, Al-Ashraf Khalil Ibn Qalawun led his troops and fought bravely until he managed to conquer Acre, and this resulted in crusaders handing over other surrendered cities to him in return for allowing them to leave the Levant in peace: Tyre, Beirut, Tarsus, Arwad, and Atlit. Hence, the Mameluke armies spent months in destroying and purifying all signs related to the crusaders from all Levantine coastal cities and the Mamelukes ruled and dominated the whole Levant, and the era crusades ended forever, which began 150 years earlier before the emergence of the Mameluke State (Al-Solok, by Al-Makrizi, p.1/3/747, 753-754, and 762-766).             

Mameluke sultans and how authority was typically inherited: Mamelukes and the art of intrigues and schemes:

 The key to understand the Mameluke personality of any sultans among the Mamelukes is equality; all Mamelukes were previously slaves brought from all over the ancient world, bought and trained as military soldiers, and the distinguished ones would have enough military prowess, political shrewdness and cunning, and leadership abilities in order to rise as leaders. Hence, military and political merits and qualities would pave their way, and no one would question their origin or race. Hence, Beibars for instance was merely a slave to his prince Al-Bunduqdar, and he had the surname of his master, thus named Beibars Al-Bunduqdary. Later on, his master freed him from slavery, and Beibars used his shrewdness, sharp intelligence, abilities, and military prowess to pave his way to become the sultan of Egypt, and his former master became merely one of his henchmen and courtier. Beibars was also very cunning and sly in planning plots, scheme, conspiracies, and intrigues apart from his excellent military traits and actions. This made him very careful and cautious regarding any plots or schemes against him by others when he was enthroned as the sultan of Egypt. Hence, intrigues, schemes, and plots were everyday life within an endless vicious circle throughout the Mameluke Era. Before giving further details about that topic, let us briefly mentioned the following notes about the policies of intrigues and scheming of the Mamelukes.    

1- The Mamelukes had much experience in the art of intrigues and plots long before the formal establishment of the Mameluke State, as the Mamelukes during serving under their Ayyubid masters learned very well how to scheme conspiracies and to plan plots and intrigues against rivals among the Mameluke military leaders and sometimes against other rulers who were enemies of their Ayyubid masters. All plots of Al-Saleh Ayoub against his enemies inside and outside Egypt were executed to perfection by his Mamelukes who were very loyal to him. later on, they planned the assassination of Turan Shah, murdered in his tower by Beibars. Later on, when Qalawun was enthroned as the Mameluke sultan of Egypt, he bought lots of Mamelukes to serve under him and made them reside in towers of the citadel in Cairo, and this provoked rivalry and hatred between these new Mamelukes of the towers and the older ones who barracks were overlooking the Nile, with intrigues all the time planned and executed to undermine each group and to get nearer to Qalawun the sultan. Such rivalry and intrigues went on during the reign of the successors of Qalawun. Indeed, details of their intrigues and schemes throughout the Mameluke Era fill many volumes of history, as Mamelukes of both groups were enthroned at different points in time, with shifting loyalties and different conspiracies.              

2- In many cases, schemes and conspiracies would end up with a Mameluke sultan assassinated, and his murderer would be enthroned as the new sultan as long as he was competent enough based on new measures set by the Mameluke State. This was like the law of the jungle; survival for the fittest and the strongest, who would then be popular and legitimate ruler who soon enough would gain trust, admiration, and loyalty of the rest of the Mameluke military leaders and the Mameluke soldiers under them. This was typical of military regimes and authority, and the rest of the Mamelukes would never obey a sultan except when he would be a victorious one in his struggles to win the throne and defeat his rivals within his military abilities and political shrewdness cunning as well as personal greatness of mind and wisdom. When such a sultan died, his son and successor would be deemed merely a transitional stage until removed or murdered by a powerful, fit, competent Mameluke leader. It is very strange to historians how each dying Mameluke sultan would imagine (or rather deceive himself) that his fellow Mameluke leaders would respect and honor his wish to make his son succeed him to the throne and would believe the flattery and hypocrisy of their vows to swear fealty to this son with solemn oaths. In most cases, this son who would be a child or an adolescent would be removed peacefully from the throne or be murdered by a powerful Mameluke leader. The case of Qalawun was different because his successor was a man with military abilities and not a child or an adolescent. Each new sultan would buy and train new Mamelukes to gain more power within using loyal followers under him, and the vicious circle of intrigues and plots would never end within all types and groups of Mamelukes who strove for more power and some coveted the throne, until the Mameluke State ended by the Ottoman conquest of Egypt. Indeed, the Mamelukes during the Ottoman Era did not stop their conspiracies and schemes for more money, authority, and power (their numbers decreased as a Mameluke would only make his military trained sons inherit his job/post, status, and possessions), but never dared to seek the throne as the Ottoman governors (who never bought any other Mamelukes in Egypt) had to serve the Ottoman sultans in Turkey who never allowed Egypt to gain autonomous rule, except to Muhammad Ali Pacha who established a dynasty as the king of Egypt but subordinate to the Ottomans, and who massacred all the Mamelukes in the citadel in Cairo in one day to get rid of them and of their troubles. We provide below a brief overview of the Mameluke State within the aspect of the art of intrigues and schemes of its rulers and sultans:

1- During the Ayyubid Era, before the Mamelukes would establish their State, the Mameluke leaders and princes participated in all the incessant disputes and conflicts among the Ayyubid dynasty members. For instance, when Saladin bought and trained his own group of Mamelukes to serve him (the Salahiyya Mamelukes; i.e., owned by Salah-Eddine/Saladin) who had special stature and more authority and power, the older group of Mamelukes owned and trained by Assad-Eddine Shirkoh (the Assadiyya Mamelukes) were marginalized, and this caused jealousy, rivalry, and resentment, but such sentiments were stifled because Saladin was a mighty, powerful sultan who would not tolerate such minor troubles while defending his State against the crusaders. Once Saladin died, his brother Al-Adil became the sultan of Egypt by siding with and enlisting the help of the Assadiyya Mamelukes and marginalizing the Salahiyya Mamelukes who grew weaker and had less power as a result. Once enthroned as the sultan of Egypt, Al-Adil bought and trained his own group named Al-Adiliyya Mamelukes and marginalized the rest. Al-Adiliyya Mamelukes later on hated his successor and son Al-Kamel as they saw him as unfit to rule, and he persecuted them and marginalized them while he bought and trained his own Al-Kameliyya Mamelukes. Those in turn hated the son and successor of  Al-Kamel, whose name was Al-Adil II, and they managed to depose him and to appoint instead Al-Saleh Ayoub, his elder brother, as the new sultan of Egypt, as they sent for him in Iraq to come to Egypt to be enthroned. In his turn, the sultan Al-Saleh Ayoub bought and trained his own Mamelukes and named them the Bahariyya Mamelukes (i.e., the River group) as they settled in their barracks on an island in the River Nile. This group of Mamelukes hated the successor of Al-Saleh Ayoub, Turan Shah, who despised and ridiculed them. Turan Shah never felt grateful for their preserving his throne for him during his absence, and as he distrusted them and feared their power and shifting loyalties, he planned to massacre them after he bought slaves to be trained as his own loyal Mamelukes, but he was assassinated by Beibars before he would kill off all the older Mamelukes. This caused the end of the Ayyubid rule in Egypt and the emergence of the Mameluke State instead. Hence, the Mamelukes, long ago before they ruled Egypt, were experts in intrigues, schemes, and conspiracies, and since they conspired to assassinate Turan Shah to rule instead, conspiracies and intrigues would go on as part of policies of any sultans during the Mameluke Era.      

2-Once in power as sultans, the greedy and powerful throne-seeking Mamelukes kept their intrigues and conspiracies as internal matters among themselves to keep the throne or to attempt to reach it and not directed to outsiders or enemies or any non-Mamelukes. Hence, once Queen Shagaret Al-Dor, Aqtay, and Beibars plotted to assassinate Turan Shah and managed to do that, it was agreed among all the Mamelukes that the Queen would be enthroned as the ruler of Egypt, because she was the widow of Al-Saleh Ayoub and the mother of his late son Khalil. When the last Abbasid caliph in Baghdad condemned and ridiculed the fact that a woman was enthroned as a ruler in Egypt, Queen Shagaret Al-Dor had to marry soon, and the two powerful Mameluke leaders who wooed her were Aqtay and Aybak. Queen Shagaret Al-Dor rejected the offer of marriage of Aqtay who was too arrogant to share power and rule with anyone, let alone a woman, and was uncouth blood-thirsty warrior who lacked etiquette. Queen Shagaret Al-Dor chose Aybak who was gentler, lenient, and romantic, as she felt she could share power alongside him when he would be the sultan of Egypt. Thus, after the wedding, the Mamelukes under Aqtay and the ones under Aybak quarreled as rivals and conspired against each other. Of course, the savage and jealous Aqtay who sought the throne at any cost wanted to prove to the Queen that she had chosen the wrong man to be her royal spouse; as a man who always attacked his foes first, he ordered his men to spread chaos in Cairo by raiding and looting, in order to show to the Queen that the new sultan cannot restore and maintain security in the capital. At the same time, Aqtay proposed to an Ayyubid princess in the Levant and he asked the Queen of Egypt to make room for her in one of her palaces because this princess would be his wife. Of course, Queen Shagaret Al-Dor felt insulted by such a request, and she and her husband, the sultan Aybak, had to conspire to murder Aqtay. Qotoz was the primary aide of Aybak, and at the same time a great friend of Beibars, and the latter was the primary aide of Aqtay. Qotoz convinced Beibars that Aqtay was to be advised by him to meet the Queen secretly in the absence of Aybak. When Aqtay entered the sultan's palace alone without his personal guards (including Beibars) that were made to remain outside, Aqtay was murdered by Qotoz and other men of Aybak, and his severed head was thrown to his guards to frighten them. Indeed, those men, along with Beibars, fled from Egypt to the Levant. Beibars vowed to murder the treacherous Qotoz himself one day. The Queen and Aybak felt that they would rule Egypt in peace after defeating their arch-enemy; yet, disputes erupted between the Queen and Aybak because she was a very ambitious woman who wanted to rule autonomously while having her husband at her beck and call, whereas Aybak desired very much to be freed from her control to monopolize all power and authority and treat her a wife inside a seraglio. Thus, estrangement occurred between the Queen and Aybak, and he moved to live in another palace in Cairo. Soon enough, Aybak announced his intention to propose to the same Ayyubid princess that Aqtay asked for her hand before; Aybak, of course, wanted to spite the Queen and gain more power by such marriage, and to spite her more, he re-married his divorcée who was his first wife, Um Ali, and the mother of his only child, Ali Al-Mansour, but the Queen made him divorce her to accept him as a husband. Queen Shagaret Al-Dor was so jealous and furious, and she used all her feminine charms to convince Aybak that she wanted to make amends and reconcile with him, and asked him in a message to spend a night of love with her. When Aybak went to the bath of the Queen's palace to bathe after sleeping with her, her male servants murdered him upon her commands in her presence. When the Mamelukes knew about the murder of Aybak, their leader and sultan, the rebelled and revolted against the Queen and insisted on appointing the child, Ali Al-Mansour, as the enthroned sultan after the death of his father. His the widow of Aybak, Um Ali, took revenge from Shagaret Al-Dor by making her female slaves beat her to death with their wooden sandals while Um Ali was watching. Qotoz was appointed by the Mamelukes as the guardian/custodian of the child Ali Al-Mansour. Several months later, Qotoz agreed with the other Mamelukes to remove the child from the throne and declared himself as the new sultan to face the threat of the Mongols. Qotoz sent for Beibars and the other fleeing Mamelukes in the Levant to come to Egypt to help in defending Egypt against the Mongols. Once victory over the Mongols was achieved, Beibars of the River Mamelukes murdered Qotoz on their way back to Cairo to revenge his murdering Aqtay. Beibars was announced as the new sultan ascending the throne of Egypt in Cairo. Beibars firmly established the power and authority of the Mameluke state in the Levant, Iraq, and Hejaz, and shortly before his death, he tried to appoint his son, Saeed Baraka, as his successor and made the other Mamelukes swear solemn oaths, within a grand feast or celebration attended by Cairene people, to support this successor whom his father, the sultan Beibars, made him marry the daughter of the most prominent and powerful Mameluke leader, Qalawun, who was appointed as vice-regent. Of course, this son of Beibars never succeeded him to the throne; all solemn oaths were made in vain as the Mamelukes would never allow any non-warrior to rule over them. Saeed Baraka was inept and unfit to rule, and he was forced to abdicated the throne and allowed his father-in-law, Qalawun, to be enthroned in 678 A.H., and Saeed Baraka was exiled to Al-Karak fortress in the Levant till he died there. Qalawun managed to establish a dynasty as his progeny ruled Egypt for more than a century (678 – 784 A.H.). The troubles of the powerful sultan Qalawun did not end by arresting the Mamelukes owned by Al-Dhahir Beibars (Al-Dhahiriyya Mamelukes) to replace them with his own Mamelukes, as other Mamelukes princes revolted against him like the Mameluke Sonqur governor of the Levant. Qalawun had to purchase and train his own group of Mamelukes loyal to him alone, and he bought so many of them to be more powerful and made them settle in special towers in the citadel of Cairo, and hence, they were names the Tower Mamelukes, who later on revolted and conspired against descendants of Qalawun (who was originally from the River Mamelukes) until one of them, Seif-Eddine Barquq, became the sultan of Egypt.       

3-Indeed, all Mameluke groups created many revolts and conspiracies against Qalawun and his decedents of sultans that ruled Egypt for more than a century, even against Al-Ashraf Khalil Ibn Qalawun who removed the remnants of crusaders from the Levant once and for all by conquering Acre, their last city there. the Mameluke prince Baydara assassinated Al-Ashraf Khalil and proclaimed himself the sultan of Egypt, but soon enough, he was arrested and killed for his crime by other Mamelukes loyal to the Qalawun household. When those Mamelukes struggled over who would be appointed as sultan, they eventually agreed to enthrone the child Muhammad Ibn Qalawun, titled Al-Nasser, while his guardian and tutor Kitubqa (or Kitubgha) would be the de facto regent or vice-sultan, and indeed, he controlled everything in the sultanate and in the palace until he removed Al-Nasser from the throne and exiled him to Al-Karak, in Jordan, and was proclaimed the new sultan in 694 A.H. A Mameluke prince named Hussam-Eddine Lajin conspired against Kitubqa; Lajin was one of the assassins of Al-Ashraf Khalil Ibn Qalawun, who disappeared and returned later on to Cairo, and after supporting Kitubqa at first to be enthroned, he defeated him in the struggle for the throne. Kitubqa feared for his life and leaned toward safety by abdicating the throne to Lajin. Lajin was later on assassinated by two small Mameluke princes who did not learn the basic tradition of respecting the elder Mamelukes, and the rest of the Mamelukes put the two murderers to death. The Mamelukes agreed on re-appointing the exiled Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun as the sultan (698 – 708 A.H.), but this young sultan was the victim of another conspiracy by the two Mamelukes controlling him, Seif-Eddine Salar and Beibars Al-Jashniker, that resulted in Beibars being enthroned as Beibars II after deposing the young sultan who fled again to Al-Karak. When Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun came of age and grew stronger, he retrieved his throne using military force as many Mamelukes supported him, especially that Beibars II was hated by the Egyptians and all soldiers, and they revolted against him many times. Al-Nasser put Beibars II and Salar to death and ruled as tyrant till his death. Hence, after so many conspiracies and plots throughout the century of the reign of the Qalawun descendants (who were originally among the River Mamelukes) in attempting many times to get the throne from them, the Tower Mamelukes archived victory over the River Mamelukes when their Barquq became the sultan of Egypt. The Tower Mamelukes never stopped their control during the one-century reign of the Qalawun descendants; after the death of Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun, eight of his children became sultans for the next 20 years (741 – 762 A.H.), and in the following 20 years, four of his grandchildren became sultans, and one of them was a one-year-old, and another one did not remain a sultan except for two months. Within such unrest and lack of stability, the main leaders and princes of the Tower Mamelukes managed to be enthroned as sultans after they controlled for a while young sultans of the progeny of Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun within so many intrigues and conspiracies that never ended, of course, during the reign of the Tower Mamelukes sultans.    

4-The reign of the Tower Mamelukes sultans lasted for more than 134 years (784 – 922 A.H.), during which 23 sultans ruled Egypt, and nine of them ruled for 103 years. The main ones among the nine powerful sultans was Barquq, Nasr-Eddine Faraj, Seif-Eddine Barsbay, Seif-Eddine Jaqmaq, Seif-Eddine Inal, Seif-Eddine Khushqadam, Qaitbay, and Al-Ashraf Qansuh Al-Ghoury. Barquq managed to establish a powerful, firm state after previous time of trouble and unrest, and he emerged victorious over so many intrigues and conspiracies that included his being deposed, but he retrieved his throne again. Before all that, the Tower Mamelukes used to control and dominate over the ruling progeny of the sultan Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun, and those Mamelukes rivaled and competed to assume the post of being vice-sultan (or vice-regent) to any child or adolescent sultan. The final dispute was between two powerful princes of the Tower Mamelukes (who were of Circassian origin) and their followers: Baraka and Barquq, and the latter defeated the former. Baraka had to swear before four high judges never to interfere in political life and leave Barquq the vice-sultan in peace as the guardian/custodian of the last child sultan of the Qalawun progeny. Soon enough, Barquq proclaimed himself as the sultan and removed the child sultan, and he arrested Baraka his rival in Alexandria, and had him murdered in his prison cell by the governor of Alexandria. When followers of Baraka revolted and demanded to avenge his murder, Barquq told them that he was surprised by his murder and allowed them to murder the governor of Alexandria to appease them. When Barquq was about to remove the descendant of Qalawun from the throne, he discovered that the public opinion in Egypt favored the Qalawun household, and they hated Beibars II for removing the legitimate sultan before. Barquq planned a cunning plot to deceive the masses who mostly believed in the Sufi myths; he bribed the Sufi sheikh/dervish Ali Al-Ruby, whom people used to deem as a 'holy' man who predicted the future, to announce that Barquq will be sultan in Ramadan 785 A.H. and this will cause the plague infesting Cairo at the time to stop and vanish, after the child-sultan would die first. Thus, Barquq had the last child-sultan, of the Qalawun progeny, murdered and buried on one day, and he appointed his adolescent brother, Amir Hajji Ibn Qalawun, as the new sultan, to be removed later on as the Cairene people swore fealty to Barquq in Ramadan of 784 A.H. as 'predicted' by the Sufi sheikh Al-Ruby who was made a saint later on (!). Soon enough, Barquq got rid of all the Mameluke princes who helped him reach the throne by having some murdered and some banished out of Egypt to avoid any further trouble and rivalries. Barquq arrested in prison the last progeny of the Abbasid dynasty, and sheikh Al-Ruby died mysteriously, and historians deduce that Barquq had him murdered as well to avoid any scandals and reproach  if the truth would be found out. The troubles of Barquq were far from ending, of course, as a Mameluke prince in the Levant, named Yalobgha the governor of Aleppo, revolted and rebelled against Barquq the sultan, who had to send troops led by Mintash, his aide Mameluke, to force Yalobgha to submit. Yet, Mintash joined forces with Yalobgha and attacked Cairo with their troops to fight Barquq, who had no troops at all in Cairo to face them, and thus had had to escape from Cairo, but was captured and sent to exile in Al-Karak. Both Mintash and Yalobgha restored the prince Amir Hajji Ibn Qalawun to the throne as the legitimate sultan. As typical and expected, disputes erupted between the two Mameluke leaders Mintash and Yalobgha, who fought against each other and Mintash defeated Yalobgha. Meanwhile Barquq left Al-Karak and prepared an army and was joined by his supporters and marched toward Cairo, where he defeated and killed Mintash in the battlefield and ascended the throne again in 797 A.H.      

5- Barquq died in 801 A.H., and his son Nasr-Eddine Faraj ascended the throne, but soon enough, he had to take hiding because of conspiracy plotted against his life, until he was restored to the throne by the Mameluke prince named Yashbak. Yet, Faraj had to abdicate the throne as two Mameluke princes revolted and rebelled against him, prince Sheikh and prince Nuruz, who both fought against each other over the throne until Nuruz was killed and Sheikh Al-Mahmoudy became the sultan, and his child Ahmad succeeded him under the guardian/custodian of Seif-Eddine Tatar, who removed him and proclaimed himself as the sultan of Egypt. Upon dying, Tatar made the Mamelukes swear fealty of his successor and son Muhammad, under the guardian/custodian of Al-Ashraf Barsbay, who in his turn removed the child sultan and appointed himself as the sultan. Again, the dying Barsbay appointed his son, Youssef,  as his successor, under the guardian/custodian of Jaqmaq, who removed him and ascended the throne instead as the new sultan. Again, the dying Jaqmaq made people swear fealty to his successor and son, Fakhr-Eddine Othman, under the guardian/custodian of Inal, who removed the child Othman and ascended the throne as the new sultan of Egypt. Thus, a period of weakness and deterioration lingered as weak sultans assumed the rule of Egypt and were constantly removed or forced to abdicate the throne, and the sultanate became unstable. It is noteworthy and funny thing to mention that at one time, one sultan (Kheir Bey) ruled for just one day in 872 A.H. The Mameluke sultanate or state flourished temporarily and gained strength when the powerful sultan Qaitbay ascended to the throne and ruled for 29 years, and when he sensed that he was about to die, he made all people and Mamelukes swear fealty to his son and successor Muhammad, who was murdered in a conspiracy later on. After a series of weak Mameluke sultans assumed the throne, another last powerful Mameluke sultan ascended the throne in 906 A.H., who was Qansuh Al-Ghoury, who ruled until he was killed as the Ottomans defeated him in the battle of Marj Dabiq, north of Aleppo, as Egypt then became part of the Ottoman Empire in 922 A.H.  

(N.B.: here ends our quoting from our book titled "The Character of Egypt after the Arab Conquest", published before in Arabic, in Cairo, Egypt, in 1984, and found in English on this link: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=96).

An overview of the Mameluke religion of Sunnite Sufism:

1- Sunnite Sufism during the Mameluke Era has combined the contradictions of the Sunnite and Sufi religions to serve Sufism that dominated hearts of the masses, higher classes, and rulers of Egypt. This new hybrid earthly religion, Sunnite Sufism, has combined the common feature of deifying and sanctifying mortals and their mausoleums (e.g., imams, saints, companions of Muhammad, household members of Muhammad and of Ali, etc.) but without verbal abuse typical of Shiites to the companions of Muhammad. Sufi Sunnites sanctified and deified the mausoleum abomination ascribed falsely to Muhammad in the Yathreb mosque, and they sanctified the Kaaba and its bricks and the so-called black stone that marked the beginning of pilgrims' circumambulation of the Kaaba. Real Islam does not include any deification or sanctification to mortals or inanimate items. As per Quranism, pilgrims are not to touch the Kaaba so as not to turn it into a pagan idol; it is a mere building of stone and bricks never to be deified and God commands people to pray in its direction (i.e., Qibla) to and to perform pilgrimage there. Sufi Sunnites inside Egypt deified and sanctified all mausoleums ascribed to saints, imams, companions, etc., and festivals/moulids celebrating these dead saints (and living self-deified Sufi sheikhs at the time who claimed to be saints!) were led by fiqh scholars and judges (who represented Sunnite religion) along with Sufi sheikhs.     

2- The authors of Sunnite Sufism in their books misinterpret on purpose a certain Quranic verse to 'prove' that worshipping and venerating saints is permissible: "Unquestionably, God's allies have nothing to fear, nor shall they grieve." (10:62). They maintain that the word ''allies'' refer to Sufi saints; they forgot the fact that the expression "God's allies" is explained directly in the very next verse: "Those who believe and are pious." (10:63); this may apply to any pious believers before and after the revelation/descent of the Quran. The Sufi Sunnite authors intentionally disregarded the fact that the Quran refutes and criticizes the polytheistic notion of taking holy allies/deities beside God, under the pretext to get nearer to God, while assuming that these entombed 'immortal' saints/gods would being harm or good and intercede on behalf of their worshippers on the Last Day. This polytheism was propagated by Arabs before Islam and the Quran condemns this; yet, the Muhammadans have revived – until now – such polytheism through Sunnite Sufism. Another reference on which Sunnite Sufi relied was a fake one: the book titled "Al-Risala" by Al-Shafei, in which he writes that the Quranic command to obey the messenger refers to hadiths ascribed to Muhammad. This contradicts the fact that such hadiths were written two centuries after Muhammad's death and have been ascribed falsely to him. This led to the fact that imams/authors of hadiths who died in the 3^rd century A.H. were deified as infallible gods; it was considered a form of apostasy to criticize Al-Bokhary book; it was recited in installments by Sufi institutions (like the Quran!) in public during Ramadan and Sufi Sunnite sheikhs would memorize passages from it without understanding them. Sadly, the sanctification of Al-Bokhary book still lingers in the Arab world until now as a result of such Sufi Sunnite rituals of the Mameluke Era. The reason of sanctifying Al-Bokhary book by the Mameluke Sufis is that Al-Bokhary has invented a hadith (among any others) that asserts the Sufi tenet of unity/union with God (and the alleged manifestation of God in human bodies) by ascribing to Him falsely that He said that those who take His allies/saints as enemies will be fought by Him. Another Al-Bokhary hadith is about how God controls senses and limbs of saints/allies.            

3- At first, the pioneer Sufi sheikhs hated all Sunnite hadiths and never attended sermons that preach hadiths, as the Sunnite religion and its fiqh scholars at the time opposed Sufism; this Sunnite hatred toward Sufism is clearly shown in the book titled (Talbis Iblis) by Ibn Al-Jawzy. Later on, when the Sunnite and Sufi religions were reconciled, this resulted in the fact that Sufi authors invented, fabricated, and spread thousands of hadiths to defend Sufi tenets and notions; this is continued by Al-Ghazaly (who died in 505 A.H.) who has reconciled the Sunnite and Sufi religions in his book titled (Ehiaa Olom Eddine), as he invented thousands of hadiths; the Sunnite author Al-Nawawi has heaped praise on this book of Al-Ghazaly and has mentioned that people treated (Ehiaa Olom Eddine) as if it were a second Quran. Another Sunnite imam named Al-Iraqi has criticized and undermined hadiths mentioned in (Ehiaa Olom Eddine) and proved their being made up and their being groundless, asserting that Al-Ghazaly fabricated them himself as such hadiths were never known or circulated before his era. Other Sufi authors followed the footsteps of Al-Ghazaly in inventing so many hadiths and the Hanbali hadith scholars criticized such phenomena, though those hadiths scholars invented their own hadiths as well. The Hanbali fiqh and hadiths scholar Ibn Al-Jawzy criticized invented hadiths in two of his books, and one of them was a six-volume book authored in 581 A.H. Other Hanbali criticizers of Sufi hadiths are Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Al-Qayyim, and Al-Siyouti, whose books refuted many Sufi hadiths. It is noteworthy that ironically, Al-Siyouti has invented hundreds of hadiths as we read in his unpublished manuscripts; Al-Siyouti has compiled all hadiths circulated in his era in two books titled (Al-Jaami Al-Kabeer) and (Al-Jaami Al-Sagheer).                  

4- Sufi pioneers began establishing their religion by claiming that God and Muhammad talk to them in dreams/visions and deeming this as 'divine' revelations; thus, they did not create series of narrators (or Isnad) to their narratives, as if 'divine' knowledge passed directly to their hearts, as per the gnostic notions and the Greek philosophical notion of illumination. Thus, Sufis would claim to meet with God and He talks to them, by saying before their narratives phrases like (God has inscribed into my heart that...); (It has been said to me in a dream that...); and (The Holy Prophet has said to me in a dream that...). The early Sufi authors and sheikhs were attacked by die-hard Sunnite scholars and imams because of such claims; yet, Al-Ghazaly filled his book with dreams/visions within which he claims that God inspired saints and prophets to do and say certain things, without mentioning the source(s) of such narratives; this means he has made up all such falsehoods. This means that Sufi authors were self-deified inveterate liars and worse than Musaylimah the Liar who claimed to be a prophet after Muhammad's death and was fought in the renegades' war. The self-deified Sufis claim that God (in visions and dreams) talks to their hearts and they would fly up to heavens to see and meet with Him as if they were part of Him or that He would be manifested inside their bodies! Al-Ghazaly in many paragraphs of his book assert this idea indirectly; this Sufi revelations (and alleged miracles) gained more fake credibility in later eras, as no one cast doubt on such narratives during the Mameluke Era, when the masses and rulers believed that madmen could hold conversation with God within trances, as if their souls/minds were gravitated toward the metaphysical realm of God. some Sunnite scholars who were influenced by Sufism imitated the Sufi narratives of dreams/visions and miracles; e.g., Al-Siyouti did not only invent hadiths, but also claimed that the apparition/soul of Muhammad visited him when he was awake to ask him about hadiths, fiqh, and interpretation of the Quran! As if Muhammad were alive and sought knowledge from Al-Siyouti! This is mentioned by Al-Shaarany in his book titled (Al-Tabakat Al-Sughra).            

5- In general, Sufi authors are of two types: one type includes those who have claimed to be 'moderates' and sought to merge Sunnite religion and Sufism by ascribing Sufi hadiths to the assumed Sunnite canon of hadiths, so that they would prevent Sunnite hadiths and fiqh scholars from criticizing Sufi notions when offered within framework of Sunnite books using highly symbolic language. The other type of Sufi authors managed to interpolate Sufi tenets of polytheism and self-deification by symbols, poetic verse, or poetic prose, such as Ibn Araby and Al-Jilani. Some of these outspoken, vociferous Sufis linked their declaration of Sufi faith tenets with declaring their disbelief in and rejection of the Quran; e.g., the Egyptian Sufi sheikh Ibn Al-Baqaqi who lived during the 9^th century A.H. was known for his promiscuity and ridiculing religion, eating food in public during the days of the fasting month of Ramadan without the presence of excuses (e.g., being ill), and standing with his feet on copies of the Quran to reach upper shelves (Al-Dorar Al-Kamina, by Ibn Hajar, part 9, p. 329). The famous Sufi sheikh Afeef Eddine Al-Tilmisani, who lived during the 7^th century A.H. and died in 690 A.H.,  is said to have uttered many blasphemies and committed sins to assert Sufi tenets and notions; he allowed his followers to fornicate with all women, even if one's sisters and mother! The Hanbali authors accused him of many things: he has claimed that he is one with God and God is manifested in him, than God is nature or the universe itself or that both (and all creatures) are part of God, that there is no barriers between the Creator and His creatures, and that God cannot exist apart from the universe! This is utter blasphemy of course; this is very insulting to God. the same claims were declared by Al-Halaj, Ibn Al-Fared, and Ibn Araby; Al-Tilmisani was a disciple of Ibn Araby. Ibn Taymiyya mentions that Al-Tilmisani drank wine in public and violated Quranic teachings and prohibitions. Al-Tilmisani recited to his disciples and common people the book titled (Fusus Al-Hukm) by Ibn Araby, people told him that this book is filled with blasphemies and many insults to God as well as polytheistic notions that contradict the Quran; yet, Al-Tilmisani told them that the Quran is filled with polytheistic notions and that true monotheism is found in Sufism! Al-Tilmisani at one time argued with a friend of his, trying to convince him that God resides in all creatures in nature, even a dead dog! The same story is repeated by Al-Biqaa'i about a Sufi sheikh in Alexandria, in the 9^th century A.H., who told his friend that God resides in all creatures in nature, even in a donkey and his dung! (History of Ibn Katheer, part 133, p. 326, Shazarat Al-Dhahab, by Ibn Emad Al-Hanbali, part 5, p. 412, Majmoat Al-Rasa'al wi Al-Masa'al, by Ibn Taymiyya, part 1, p. 145, and History of Al-Biqaa'i, a manuscript, paper no. 123).     

6- Some Sufi sheikhs during the Mameluke Era (when Sunnite Sufism was the dominant official religion) claimed to be madmen whose minds/souls were controlled by God and gravitated toward Him, as they see and meet with God in the upper metaphysical realm (as their souls fly up there, while their bodies remain on Earth!) and God talks to them in dreams! Among the 'required tools' to make people, during the Mameluke Era, believe in living Sufi saint/sheikhs was their blasphemies and insulting God and His messengers/prophets. In fact, both common people and Sunnite fiqh imams and judges sought benediction from such Sufi sheikhs. This means that pillars or representatives of the Sunnite religion within Sunnite Sufism were dominated by Sufi sheikhs. In part 2 of the printed edition in Cairo of the book titled (Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra) by the Sufi author Al-Shaarany, who lived during the 10^th century A.H. within the last decades of the Mameluke Era and the early decades of the Ottoman Era in Egypt, we find much details about such madmen among Sufi sheikhs contemporary with Al-Shaarany who brags of and takes pride in them. This means that the dominant notion at the time was to deify Sufi sheikhs/saints. Books of Al-Shaarany have influenced other generations of Sufis until recently in the 20^th century A.D. in Egypt. Al-Shaarany writes about his Sufi sheikhs/tutors, asserting that one of them, Ibrahim Al-Eiryan, used to deliver the Friday sermons naked, while uttering blasphemies and insults to God, and people felt happy to have such a 'holy' man in their midst. A Sufi sheikh named Shabaan used to deliver the Friday sermons while reciting his own poetic, rhymed prose as if it were Quranic verses, and no one dared to contradict him as peopled in him very much. A Sufi sheikh named Al-Khodary used to verbally abuse prophets/messengers of God in public, and one day, in one of his Friday sermons, he said that Iblis (i.e., Satan) is the true god and holy prophet, and when people roared at him to stop his blasphemy, he raised his sword up in the air, and this caused the frightened people to get out of the mosque!                  

7- This deterioration increased because no one enjoined righteousness nor advised against sins/vices, an Islamic duty abused by the extremist Hanbali imams who practiced compulsion in religion and adopted inquisition-like measures to interfere in the private lives of others during the Abbasid Era, while persecuting Jews, Christians, Shiites, and Sufis. The reaction of Sufis was to go to extremes in non-protest, stoicism, never to deny or reject anything in religious and social life, and accepting evil and injustices as part of Fate. When Sufism and the Sunnite religion have been reconciled and Sufis dominated for centuries, Sunnite Sufism lacks the Islamic duty of enjoining righteousness and advising against sins/vices. This also led to intellectual stagnation and no brilliant thinkers emerged; all writers imitated old traditions in all aspects and this led to backwardness and obscurantism that dominated the Ottoman Era. As a result, no senior or junior Sunnite fiqh scholars dared, during the Mameluke Era, to criticize anything related to Sunnite Sufism so as to avoid being persecuted; especially after the severe persecution of Ibn Taymiyya and his school of thought. Sufi madmen who were too much outspoken about Sufi tenets of unity of the universe and union with God (like Al-Halaj) were persecuted, imprisoned, and put to death if they did not feign madness; this was their way to get away with it within impunity, as the Mameluke authorities pardoned them due to their 'madness'. More details of this are found in out three-volume book (originally the omitted part of our PhD thesis) published in 2005, in Cairo, Egypt, by Al-Mahrousa Publishing House, titled "Religious Life in Egypt during the Mameluke Era between Islam and Sufism", published here online on our Quranism website.        

How Sunnite fiqh submitted to the Mameluke religion of Sunnite Sufism:

The influence of Sufism on the impoverishment of fiqh schools and intellectual life in general:

  The fiqh books have been the expression of the Sunnite sharia legislations, until now; what about the changes done to Sunnite fiqh within the influence of the dominant Sunnite Sufism during the Mameluke Era?

1- The branches of fiqh were negatively influenced by the intellectual stagnation and the spirit of blind imitation that dominated the Mameluke Era. Sufism led people to believe in mythology, imitate and deify old traditions, hate to use the mental faculties and reasoning, adhere to the motto (asserted by Al-Ghazaly) of nothing better or more creative could be written. This state of affairs created barriers before any ijtihad and creative thinking, perceived at the time as vices against religion and sins leading to Hell. Yet, Sufi ignoramuses were deified and their ignorance and myths were deemed a merit and a quality pertaining to sanctity and derived from God!   

2- During the Mameluke Era, no rational philosophers similar to Al-Mu'tazala emerged; authors like Al-Siyouti prohibit logic and philosophy, and books that deify and sanctify Sufi mausoleums, myths, miracles, and narratives spread and the ones that explain how to worship their 'holy' tombs. Within such intellectual stagnation, renovation and creative thinking (i.e., ijtihad) were very rare, found only in some lines by some Hanbali authors (Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Al-Qayyim, and Al-Biqaa'i), the seminal book of sociology by Ibn Khaldoun "The Introduction", and the books of the great historian Al-Makrizi.    

3- Other books of the era focus mainly on interpreting, paraphrasing,  summarizing, and commenting (in prose or verse) on books of the ancient authors of the Abbasid Era; for instance, Ibn Hajar, Al-Ainy, and Al-Qastalani wrote books to explain Al-Bokhary book. With the passage of time, imitation resulted in the intellectual stagnation as no innovative thinkers emerged in in the last decades of the Mameluke Era and throughout the Ottoman Era, until Azharite sheikhs suddenly saw Napoléon and the French troops invade Cairo, and they assumed they defend the homeland by group recital of Al-Bokhary and a Sufi prayers book titled "Dalael Al-Khayrat"!    

4- Writing within Sunnite fiqh deteriorated within such climate; the intellectual civilization of the Muhammadans (in fiqh and other fields) reached its zenith in books authored in the 3^rd and 4^th century A.H., and the curve went down gradually within the 5^th century A.H. until imitation replaced innovative thinking and stagnation was maintained by the countless sanctified myths propagated by Sunnite Sufism and prohibition of logic and rational thinking, and this is why there were no prominent or less-than-prominent books were written during the Ottoman Era.  

5- Sunnite fiqh in particular suffered deterioration; no grand imam of fiqh ever emerged in the stature of the four main Sunnite fiqh imams whose names have been given to the four main doctrines, in spite of the fact that at the time, many educational institutions dominated the Egyptian capital, with rich people sponsoring them financially and appoint clergymen in high-rank positions in them. These educational institutions never taught fiqh or anything related to the Sunnite religion; they taught only Sufi books of useless mythology, and Sufi sheikhs who controlled such schools convinced rich people who sponsor them that they will go to Paradise by their intercession! Thus, such schools and institutions made hundreds of thousands of men blindly imitate ways of the ancient scholars of fiqh, interpretation, and hadiths as well as Sufi sheikhs and write summaries and explanations to their books.

6- Within such a cultural climate, those who opposed any fiqh ideas in books written during the Abbasid Era were deemed as heretics and infidels, as authors of such books were deemed as infallible gods. Al-Bokhary book was recited in groups in installments within festivals and during Ramadan, and people used to swear by Al-Bokhary book instead of swearing by God's Holy Name. Within this cultural climate that was hostile to creative, innovative thinking, we understand the persecution of Ibn Taymiyya and his school of thought; he tried to apply ijtihad within the framework of the Sunnite religion and this shocked Sufi imams of his era who hated anything new which was never derived from Sufism.     

How Sunnite fiqh has been influenced by Sufism:

Theoretical fiqh:

 This term refers to 'classical' fiqh books influenced by the methods of Al-Shafei in his seminal book titled "Al-Um" and his short book titled "Al-Risala".

Features of the theoretical fiqh:

1- Reliance on inventing hadiths ascribed to Muhammad that carried views supported by the fiqh scholars who fabricated them without using rational thinking; of course, words and terms used in such hadiths imitate those of fiqh schools dominant at the time that reflected the mentalities of these fiqh and hadiths imams; such hadiths have nothing to do with Muhammad at all.  

2- Inventing imagined events, situations, and occurrences and providing fiqh rules or edicts/fatwas for them; this was rarely linked to real-life events witnessed by fiqh authors and writers who generalized their views and went into extremes of imagining unimaginable and illogical situations to produce more fiqh fatwas.   

Influence of the Mameluke Sunnite Sufism on theoretical fiqh:

1- Inventing imagined events, situations, and occurrences was somehow acceptable during the intellectual flourish within the First Abbasid Era, but it turned into real plight within the centuries of Sunnite Sufism and its mythology, blind imitation, and intellectual stagnation that caused obscurantism and backwardness to settle gradually and firmly.    

2- Inventing imagined events, situations, and occurrences reached an inferior level of bawdiness, silly fantasies, and laughable stories that faithfully and sincerely reflect the sick mentality of their era; we personally used to feel disgusted with such things taught to us as a secondary student in Al-Azhar: (is it Ok in times of famine to eat the cadavers inside tombs? What about the cadavers of prophets? If a man carried a jar filled with farts, would he perform ablution? If a man has two penises and had vaginal and anal sex with his wife, would he perform complete ablution twice? If a man falls from his roof accidently on a sleeping woman and he raped her, would he be sinful? What is the punishment of a man who fornicates with his mother beside the Kaaba during Ramadan?). What is more tragic is that Wahabi clergymen repeat such venomous ideas in their fatwas, especially ones related to incest, sex jihad, sexual immorality, promiscuity, and decadence of the closed societies of the Muhammadans, especially in Arabia.  

3- Within theoretical fiqh, Al-Shafei imitated his tutor, Malik, in inventing hadiths; Al-Shafei invented thousands of hadiths ascribed falsely to Muhammad with series of narrators to support his fiqh views when he was in Iraq, where he was influenced by the science of logic and some philosophies. Al-Shafei was the first one to introduce the devilish idea that hadiths supplant and replace Quranic sharia laws.  

4- Theoretical fiqh of Al-Shafei did not reflect the Iraqi and Egyptian societies where he lived; rather, it reflects his own mentality and cultural level; yet, some of his hadiths and hadiths fabricated by others reflected development in the social life of the conservative, closed society of Yathreb and the open societies of Iraq and Egypt. That many doctrines struggled and competed and aimed to undermine Shiite notions led to the fabrication of thousands of hadiths as per cultural, social, nationalistic, political, doctrinal, and tribal changes and disputes.    

5- Disputes about the fiqh controversial issues ended within the Mameluke Era of blind imitation, intellectual stagnation, ignorance, and obscurantism, as the Sunnite Sufism dominated all the religious, cultural, social, and political domains. Competition was only linked to the ability to memorize and summarize Al-Bokhary and offer commentaries to Sufi books.   

Fiqh of manipulation:

1- Fiqh scholars in Iraq specialized in this fiqh of manipulation that focused on finding ways to avoid applying Quranic sharia laws and other religious duties. Ibn Hanbal made his views into hadiths and opposed the notion of applying thinking and reasoning since 'holy' texts are there (i.e., his hadiths), as opposed to Abou Hanifa who relied on fatwas linked to real-life situations and rejected all hadiths. When the revolutionary Abou Hanifa died in 150 A.H., his disciples led by his favorite one, Abou Youssef, ascribed this type of fiqh to him, as they desired to please Abbasid caliphs (e.g., Al-Mehdi, Al-Rasheed, and Al-Maamoun) and men of the affluent classes at the time. For instance if a wealthy man desired to have sex with his wife one day during the fasting month of Ramadan, the Ibn Hanifa doctrine fiqh scholars would tell him to travel with her to find an excuse to break their fasting. Those polytheists forgot that Quranic commands and laws are means to attain piety; bypassing and circumventing them on purpose means there is no room for piety in hearts of such men.   

2- Fiqh of manipulation reflects the hypocrisy and lack of piety within the Abbasid Era; people were keen to combine religiosity or religious pretexts as a façade to hide their polytheism, promiscuity and immorality. The same superficial religiosity and veneer of sham piety that hide moral bankruptcy is revived now in our modern era by Wahabism: the last version of the Sunnite religion that carries falsely and forcibly the name of Islam. Thus, during the Abbasid Era, the promiscuity in palaces and taverns was side by side with religious trends and crowded mosques that inculcate some good ideas and mostly corrupt ones, within a backdrop of social injustice, political oppression, and theocratic caliphate that encouraged inventing of hadiths ascribed to Muhammad through using the name of the forefather of the Abbasids: Abdullah Ibn Abbas.  

3- Fiqh of manipulation to circumvent and disregard Quranic legislations was nonexistent during the Mameluke Era as it needs reasoning faculties that were lacking at the time. The last one to talk disparagingly about the fiqh of manipulation was the Hanbali fiqh scholar Ibn Al-Jawzy in the 8^th century A.H. in his book titled "Ighathat Al-Lahfan Min Makaed Al-Shaytan".   

Fiqh of preaching:

1- This type of fiqh is related to history and commenting on events, occurrences, and deeds of people to condemn and criticize and also to issue fatwas about what is permissible and what is not.  

2- This type of fiqh turns scholars unwittingly into trustworthy historians who portray faithfully the social environments with important details, and without exaggeration, that one cannot find in history books by famous historians, who typically focus on political life and color events with their own viewpoints.    

3- Fiqh of preaching aimed to reform society by condemning and commenting negatively in certain deeds that were deemed reprehensible as per fiqh fatwas. This means one can trace social changes in a given era through books of fiqh of preaching. 

4- Fiqh of preaching did not emerge in the First Abbasid Era; rather, it began with A-Ghazaly (who died in 505 A.H.) in his seminal book titled (Ehiaa Olom Eddine), and then, the Hanbali scholar Ibn Al-Jawzy (who died in 597 A.H.) dedicated one of his books to this fiqh of preaching, titled "Talbis Iblis".

5- Fiqh of preaching flourished during the Mameluke Era as some Sufi-Sunnite fiqh scholars rejected the promiscuity and moral bankruptcy that reached unprecedented levels within most people. The Moroccan Sufi Sunnite fiqh scholar Ibn Al-Haj Al-Abdary (who died in 737 A.H.) authored a three-volume book titled (Al-Madkhal) about Cairene life during the Mameluke Era; he criticizes and condemns extremist Sufis, promiscuity of women and men, laxity of some fiqh scholars, etc., describes many social details about acts of worship, Sufi festivals, trade, etc., and comments on them within reference to Sufi-Sunnite fiqh. The Hanbali fiqh scholar Ibn Al-Jawzy in the 8^th century A.H. in his book titled "Ighathat Al-Lahfan Min Makaed Al-Shaytan" mentions some social and historical denials within lots of Hanbali condemnation and preaching for the sake of reforming oneself and avoidance of sinning. Al-Shaarany in some of his books authored in the late decades of the Mameluke Era attempted to clear the name of Sufism from the moral bankruptcy, polytheism, disbelief, immorality, and promiscuity that spread during his lifetime and he heaps praises on himself and his dead Sufi tutors and sheikhs, while vilifying and condemning his rivals among Sufi sheikhs who compete with him regarding the number of disciples and the money offered to their Sufi orders in comparison to his own.          

The submission of Sunnite fiqh scholars to Sunnite Sufism:

Influence of Sunnite Sufism on the variation of fiqh scholars who fluctuated between Sunnite and Sufi religions:

Types of Sunnite Sufi sheikhs:

 Sunnite Sufism resulted in several types of books; some are pertaining only to Sufism, some only to Sunnite fiqh, and some to the Sufi-Sunnite religion. Such books filled the library of Baghdad destroyed by the Mongols and the Tartars in 658 A.H. The Mameluke Era re-wrote most of such books and wrote commentaries, explanations, and summaries of them. Any serious researchers must know the basic differences within the sets of terminology of Shiites, Sufis, and Sunnites before and after the Mameluke Era, and this must be accompanied by understanding the social and political backgrounds of such era when the real religion practiced by the Muhammadans within all aspects of life was the Sunnite Sufism. Otherwise, researchers will fail miserably to research such an era, as failures like Al-Azhar sheikhs and superficial, affluent, Westernized researchers. Serious researchers must understand that authors of books (i.e., fiqh scholars and Sufi writers) within the Sunnite Sufism are divided into four categories as follows.      

1-  Sufis who wrote about fiqh: they were originally Sufis but they were prominent in Sunnite fiqh books as they specialized in reconciling Sufism and the Sunnite religion; they even attacked some Sufi extremists in their age to defend Sufism and to make extremist Hanbali fiqh scholars stop attacking and refuting Sufism itself. Authors of this type include Al-Qosheiry (who died in 465 A.H.), Al-Ghazaly (who died in 505 A.H.), and Al-Shaarany (who died in 973 A.H.).

2- Fiqh scholars who wrote about Sufism: they were mostly judges, historians, hadiths scholars, and fiqh scholars who worked or Sufi institutions and were influenced by Sufism at varying degrees; they never criticized Sufism per se. in fact, they imitated all dominant traditions of the forefathers and ancient writers. Authors of this type include Ibn Al-Haj Al-Abdary (who died in 737 A.H.), Al-Dhahaby (who died in 747 A.H.), Al-Sobky (who died in 771 A.H.), Ibn Khaldoun (who died in 808 A.H.), Al-Makrizi (who died in 845 A.H.), Abou Al-Mahasin (who died in 874 A.H.), Ibn Hajar (who died in 852 A.H.),  Al-Ainy (who died in 855 A.H.), Al-Sakhawy (who died in 902 A.H.), and Al-Siyouti (who died in 911 A.H.). 

3- Sufi authors who hated Sunnite fiqh: they believed only in their Sufi tenets (God is the universe or nature, union with God, pantheism, self-deified saints, etc.). They expressed their tenets symbolically in verse, prose, and poetic prose, thus coining new terms; their disciples wrote books of Manaqib about them (N.B.: Manaqib in Arabic means hagiography or miracles and praises of saints). This type comprises three categories as follows.

(A) Those few ones who delved deeper within philosophical Sufism, its rules and theories, but later on, the practiced Sufi orders that spread among the masses did not provide the climate to allow similar Sufi authors to emerge, as ignorance, imitation, and obscurantism spread. This category includes Abou Madeen Al-Ghawth Al-Tilmisani (who died in 594 A.H.), Ibn Araby (who died in 638 A.H.), Ibn Al-Fared (who died in 632 A.H.), Ibn Sab'een (who died in 667 A.H.), Afeef Eddine Al-Tilmisani  (who died in 690 A.H.), Al-Qashani (who died in 735 A.H.), Ibn Ataa of Alexandria, and Al-Jeely.    

(B) Those who specialize in creating Sufi orders to attract the masses in order to make money or to achieve political purposes. This category contain those who later on became deified saints worshipped until now in Egypt: Al-Rifaai (who died in 578 A.H.), Al-Badawi (who died in 675 A.H.), Al-Disouky (who died in 676 A.H.), Al-Shazily (who died in 656 A.H.), and M. Wafa (who died in 765 A.H.). 

(C) Those who feigned madness to claim that their souls fly up to the metaphysical realm to see, meet with, and hold conversations with God while their bodies remain on Earth, thus providing pretext within dreams/visions that they received divine knowledge. Many of them were illiterate and took pride in this fact: Al-Hanafy, Al-Farghal, Al-Minoufi, Al-Khawwas, and Al-Dashtouty. Their disciples wrote books of Manaqib about them (N.B.: Manaqib in Arabic means hagiography or miracles and praises of saints). Al-Shaarany in his (Tabakat) heaps praise on his self-deified tutor Al-Khawwas, and he considered his words as holier than the Quran! Al-Sakhawy, Al-Manawi, Al-Shaarany, and Ibn Al-Zayyat authored books about locations of mausoleums of saints all over Egyptian cities and villages, complete with narratives of their miracle and acts of worship required at each of these mausoleums, as these books were like touristic guides. 

4- Fiqh scholars who hated Sufism: all of them were Hanbali scholars like Ibn Al-Jawzy (who died in 597 A.H.), Ibn Taymiyya (who died in 728 A.H.), Ibn Al-Qayyim (who died in 751 A.H.), Ibn Katheer (who died in 774 A.H.), and Al-Biqaa'i (who died in 875 A.H.). all of them rejected all Sufi tenets and notions and deemed them as polytheistic blasphemy. All of them criticized the Sufi stance of stoicism and non-protest, and this made them revive the notion of condemnation of ideas and authors. They criticized Sufis of their era but revered and honored ancient Sufis sheikhs, because they were deceived by the views of Al-Jeineid, the Sufi pioneer, who linked Sufism to Sunnite religion. Of course, these authors, shocked by ideas dominating their eras, tried hard to impose and heighten the Sunnite aspect more than the Sufi one in the religion called Sunnite Sufism, but they were persecuted; this resulted in their gaining higher social stature and more respect by many generations.        

The persecution inflicted on Ibn Taymiyya during the Mameluke Era:

1- Unlike known facts about him spread by Wahabis of today, Ibn Taymiyya adhered to Sunnite Sufism; in his books, he praises the Sufi pioneers like Al-Jeineid as allies of God, but he criticizes those extremist Sufis who invented ideas that contradict Sunnite fiqh, such as Al-Halaj who lived before him and other Sufi sheikhs in their Sufi orders who were contemporary with Ibn Taymiyya. Ibn Taymiyya believed in miracles ascribed to Sufis, but he was persecuted when he criticized and refuted views and stances of Ibn Araby (one of the major deities of the Sufi pantheon of gods) in his book titled (Fusus), as Ibn Taymiyya rejected pantheism and that God is the universe/nature. Despite his stature, Ibn Taymiyya was persecuted and taken to trial in the Mameluke court of law.     

2- This trial was held in 705 A.H. in the Levant, ruled by the Mamelukes at the time, and the sultan was Beibars Al-Jashnakir, or Beibars II, who usurped the throne from the legitimate sultan Al-Nasser M. Ibn Qalawun. The real reason behind this persecution was that Ibn Taymiyya, whose view influenced people, sided with the right of Al-Nasser M. Ibn Qalawun to restore his throne. This is why Beibars II supported the Sufi sheikhs who urged him to persecute and try Ibn Taymiyya.

3- Ibn Taymiyya was trued once more in Cairo, Egypt, and he was imprisoned in the dungeon of the citadel. Upon his trial, he was questioned only by his foes about some issues of Sunnite fiqh; Sufi sheikhs feared to allow him to talk about Ibn Araby in this public trial so as not to expose themselves. Sufi sheiks urged judges to put Ibn Taymiyya to death, but he was sentenced to prison instead. In his cell, Sufi sheikhs tried to make him sign a confession to the effect that he endorsed their Sufi tenets, in return for his release, but he adamantly refused, and this made the masses admire his stance. Sufi sheikhs urged the sultan to banish Ibn Taymiyya to Alexandria, after he was released from prison months later, hoping that his Sufi foes in that city would urge the masses to kill him. in Alexandria, Sufi sheikhs argued with him and he refuted their notions; Ibn Taymiyya urged their disciples and followers to beat him in the street to humiliate them. Once the sultan commanded that Ibn Taymiyya must return to Cairo for fear of his being murdered (so as not to turn him into a martyr in the eyes of the masses), Sufi sheikhs urged the sultan to imprison him and he took their advice.   

4- An Egyptian revolt/uprising of the Egyptian subjects dethroned Beibars II and Sufis and troops rejected this sultan and he fled from Egypt. Al-Nasser restored his throne at last, and he found that his friend Ibn Taymiyya was imprisoned. Sufi sheikhs, who rejected Al-Nasser at first to support Beibars II, arranged processions of celebrations to honor him. Al-Nasser released Ibn Taymiyya and his followers, while appointing him as his consultant; yet, Al-Nasser listened attentively to Sufi sheikhs who lied to him by asserting the rumors that Ibn Taymiyya had political ambitions and how his followers obey him blindly and how his influence over the masses was too much to be neglected. Al-Nasser lost his throne twice and was bent on never to lose it a third time; he sided with Sufi sheikhs and imprisoned his friend Ibn Taymiyya for the rest of his life because he issued a fatwa prohibiting visiting tombs and mausoleums, and this happened one year after Al-Nasser had built and inaugurated within a big festival a large Sufi institution in 725 A.H. named as Khanqah Siryaqos.      

5- During his imprisonment, Ibn Taymiyya kept praying and writing for months, and he wrote his fatwas that allow putting people to death for almost all sins committed by Sufis; Sufi sheikhs were so annoyed that they managed to prevent his getting papers and pens inside his cell, and he died out of depression in 728 A.H./ 1327 A.D., after spending two years in prison.

6- This persecution of Ibn Taymiyya made his writings field with fatwas issued to put to death anyone for trivial reasons or mistakes; we discuss this aspect in detail in PART TWO of this book that tackles how Wahabism has revived the religion of Ibn Taymiyya and has applied it with sheer brutal force – until now in the 21^st century!

The persecution of the Sunnite scholar Al-Biqaa'i:

1- Sufi sheikhs aborted the movement of the Sunnite scholar Al-Biqaa'i (who died in 875 A.H.) during the reign of the Mameluke sultan Qaitbay, about 150 years after the death of Ibn Taymiyya.

2- In fact, Al-Biqaa'i followed the footsteps of Ibn Taymiyya in adhering to Sunnite Sufism, as he sanctified Sufi pioneers but criticized self-deified Sufi extremists like Ibn Al-Araby and Ibn Al-Fared, who died 250 years before Al-Biqaa'i. Al-Biqaa'i authored two books to express his views (Tanbeeh Al-Ghaby Ila Takfeer Ibn Araby) and (Tahzeer El-Ebad Min Ahl Al-Enad Al-Qaa'ileen bil-itihad): in English, respectively: ''warning the fools so that they declare Ibn Araby as a heretic'', "warning people against stubborn adherents of unity of existence". 

3- These two books caused Sufi sheikhs to incite their followers among the masses to persecute and intimidate Al-Biqaa'i until he fled Egypt and settled in the Levant. This hatred toward Al-Biqaa'i has led people until now disregard his books; some other authors have plagiarized his ideas, but his ijtihad in interpretation that precedes his era is hardly mentioned or discussed. 

4- More details about the persecution and ordeal of both Ibn Taymiyya and Al-Biqaa'i are found within our encyclopedia on the Mameluke Sufism.

CHAPTER V: The Struggle among the Earthly, Man-Made Religions of the Muhammadans during the Ottoman Caliphate and the Dominance of the Sunnite Sufism

A general overview of the Ottoman caliphate:

Different views regarding the Ottoman caliphate:

1- Some researchers never see anything in the Ottoman caliphate but tyranny, injustice, backwardness, massacres, obscurantism, and imposed poverty and ignorance because of never contacting the outside world of non-Muhammadans. Some other researchers assert that the Ottoman caliphate stopped the Portuguese and Spanish troops from reaching Arabia, the Red Sea, and North Africa, as these troops allegedly desired to reach Jeddah to conquer Arabia and then destroy the Kaaba in Mecca and the Yathreb mosque mausoleum ascribed falsely to Muhammad.     

2- In fact, the Ottoman caliphate was not unique in tyranny, corruption, and injustices in comparison to previous caliphates and contemporary kingdoms around it that belonged wither to Europeans or to the Muhammadans. The only difference is that the Ottoman caliphate struggled many times against European powers. The Ottoman caliphate never imitated the European renaissance and reform, and this was one of the causes of its decline and weakness until European powers managed to put an end to it in 1924 A.D.    

3- Three overlapping factors of location, era, and religious influence define the view pertaining to how to judge the history of the Ottoman caliphate.

(A) As for its location, the Ottoman caliphate commenced within Asia Minor and not within the heart of the Arab world (unlike the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Fatimid caliphates). Asia Minor was the battlefield of the military struggles between the Byzantines and the Muhammadans, and this led the Ottomans in their early decades to attack Europe several times in the name of jihad and to annex lands in order to secure Asia Minor. 

(B) As for its era, the Ottoman caliphate emerged within a time when major 'old' states of the Seljuks, the Mamelukes, and the Byzantines collapsed. The Ottomans in their early decades defeated the troops of the Portuguese and Spanish, but when they grew weak, they could not face GB and France. The Ottomans could not stop European colonial powers from invading the Arab world and stealing its wealth. As Europeans had confiscated the wealth of the New World, they were bent on having their revenge against the Ottoman Turks and expelling them from Europe forever. Even Russians coveted more Ottoman lands to seek locations in warm seas and desired to free the Slavic nations in the Balkans. As the Ottomans sank in obscurantism and backwardness, the European renaissance and advancement in all fields gave the West more power and they were bent on destroying the Ottoman caliphate that had threatened Europe before and crushed the Byzantines.    

(C) As for its religious influence, the struggle between Europe and the Ottoman caliphate had its religious dimension; before the emergence of the Ottomans, crusaders had their kingdoms in Asia Minor and the Levant before being defeated and chased away by the Mamelukes, and the Muhammadans fought in Andalusia (Iberian Peninsula) and were defeated and chased away by the Spanish and the Portuguese. The Mamelukes later on were busy in their internal struggles, while the Spanish and the Portuguese fought the Muhammadans in North Africa and sought to reach India and Arabia and to negotiate with Abyssinia to prevent the Nile River from reaching Sudan and Egypt. Within this climate of many struggles, the Ottoman caliphate emerged and its expansion made Europeans lose lands in Eastern Europe, where the Byzantines were located. Thus, the Christians Europeans found themselves facing the fearful enemy of the Sufi Sunnite Ottomans who raised the banner of 'Islam' in invade European lands in the name of jihad. This is why Europe managed to take revenge and destroy the Ottoman caliphate when the Ottomans grew weak.      

4- The Ottoman caliphate lasted more than 6 centuries and its troops attacked south-east and middle of Europe to make such regions submit to 'Muslim' rule and this was unprecedented, of course. Hijacking the name of Islam, the Ottoman caliphate achieved several stunning victories that frightened Europeans and made them revive the feelings of crusades to defeat the Ottomans in some battles, until the Ottomans grew weak and the Europeans grew too powerful and put an end to the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 A.D. This struggle between the West and the Ottoman caliphate was accompanied by ideological conflict; European historians attacked the Ottoman caliphate and drew heavily on claims of racial superiority and on religious sentiments; this led them to distort history of the Ottoman caliphate, and traces of this are found in reformist authors among the intelligential and the cultural elite members in the Arab world, especially in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Tunisia, within the battle of modernization linked to being open to the West culture and to attack intellectual stagnation caused by the Ottoman caliphate with its tyranny, obscurantism, and old traditions. Within its decades of weakness, the Ottomans committed the massacres of the Armenians at the time when Church schools from the USA and France were opened in the Levant and led to the creation of a class of Westernized cultured Christian Arabs. This caused the emergence of intellectual trends of the cultural elite members who called for reform on all levels and for separating their countries from the Ottoman caliphate based on Arab nationalism. In contrast, Gamal Eddine Al-Afghani attempted to urge 'Muslims' to preserve the unity under the Ottoman caliphate, and the Ottoman sultan Abdul-Hamid II attempt to save his empire by threatening GB and France by inciting 'Muslims' of North Africa and India against them.       

   The collapse of the Ottoman caliphate did NOT end the heated intellectual debate concerning it; those who sought to revive the notion of theocratic caliphate defend the Ottoman caliphate after its collapse and find pretexts for its mistakes. In contrast, secular Arab thinkers and nationalists magnify the defects and errors of the Ottoman caliphate because of its tyranny and corruption. Both sides tend to forget that the stagnation and backwardness of the Ottomans were because of the Sunnite Sufism, assumed at the time to be 'Islam'. This is the religion learned by the Ottomans who were originally simple Turkish tribes brought to the Arab world to be trained in warfare while adopting Sunnite Sufism among other customs and ways of the Muhammadans. Yet, the Ottomans had no excuse for rejecting reform and advancement and refuting to imitate the European renaissance.    

The establishment and development of the Ottoman caliphate:

 The Steppes areas caused historical changes within an international level in Europe and the Middle East, and both the Muhammadans and Europeans paid the heavy price for it; the Mongols and the Tartars came from the Asian Steppes and attacked Europe and the Arab world, and Mongol empire caused the death of millions of people in Asia. Turkish tribes had to relocate several times to avoid the Mongols and the Tartars who attacked Asia Minor. The Ottomans belonged to a Turkish tribe that witnessed accidentally, during its mobility within Anatolia in 1232 A.D., a huge army of the Mongols led by Aqtay son of Genghis Khan fighting a weak army of the Turkish Seljuks, and they joined the Seljuk troops and made them victorious. The Seljuk sultan rewarded the Turkish tribal leader Tughril, who helped the Seljuks in this battle, by appointing him as a governor of a border province; Tughril raised the banners of jihad to raid and attack the Byzantines, whose state was on the verge of collapse, to annex more lands to himself. After he conquered the city of Eskisehir, Tughril died at the age of 93, and his son and successor Othman ruled instead in 1299 A.H., whose name gave the Ottoman caliphate its name. The Mongols – unwittingly – drove this Turkish tribe that ruled in the name of the Seljuk sultan to rule independently when they attacked the Seljuk state and caused its collapse; Othman announced his independent rule, organized his government and military forces, bought slaves to train them in warfare, got married to princesses to win their dynasties to his side, and he appointed the highly qualified and experienced leaders; e.g., the Byzantine Mikhail who rejected Christianity and converted to the religion of the Ottomans was appointed by Othman as high-rank military leader. Shortly before he died in 1326 A.D., Othman annexed more lands by fighting the Byzantines until his troops reached the Bosporus, and he wrote his will and testament to his son, Orhan, to move his tomb to Prussia inside the church of a palace (turned into a mosque later on). Thus, Othman firmly established his state with good policies that helped powerful sultans of his descendants, within fierce military nature and highly religious spirit, and within a special geographical location in the midst of political entities on the verge of collapse.                   

A brief historical overview of the expansion of the Ottoman Empire:

1- The greatest Ottoman sultans/caliphs are only ten; the first on was Othman and the last one in the list was Suleiman the Magnificent, and these ten sultans ruled for about 267 years and annexed more regions within the military conquests in Asia, Africa, and Europe while establishing political, administrative, and military systems that made them very powerful within this Ottoman empire. The rest of the 26 Ottoman sultans begin with Selim II, son of Suleiman the Magnificent, and end in Mehmet VI, and they ruled for about 357 years (1566 – 1920 A.D.), and during this period, no more expansionist endeavors were pursued and the defeats occurred as the sultans and the caliphate grew weak, and many provinces separated from the State and European colonizers in Africa and Asia put an end to the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 A.D. The reasons behind this degeneration include promiscuous, weak caliphs who never cared to develop the empire to face new conditions of the rising European powers; political life was dominated by the seraglio of the Ottoman sultans, eunuchs, military leaders of the Janissaries, and power centers. The golden era for the Ottoman empire ended when Suleiman the Magnificent died in 1566 A.D., after he made his empire reach it zenith in military and political power within more expansions. The rest of the ottoman sultans were weak, lazy, and promiscuous; they never cared about losing regions in Asia, Africa, and Europe. The Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699 was the first one to be imposed on Europe on the Ottoman State after its defeat, and other unjust treaties came along and the Ottoman empire deteriorated gradually for 150 years. The Berlin Conference of 1878 was the commencement of the downfall of the Ottomans, as their caliphate was attacked by Russia, Austria, Hungary, GB, France, and the Balkans. Abdul-Hamid II managed to control the Ottoman caliphate within harsh conditions but he was dethrone within a coup d'état in 1909, bur leaders of this coup who reached power were defeated, and this resulted in the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate after WWI, after the Armistice of Mudros in 1918 and the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920. The Turkey of today is only what remains of the Ottoman State.     

2- The Ottoman caliphate occupies a large chunk of history of the Muhammadans and Europeans, as it ruled regions in Asia, Africa, and Europe. At its early decades, the Ottoman caliphate had the strongest, most organized military troops with the best training and arms, as such troops moved through Anatolia to Europe in 1356 during the reign of Orhan to invade Greece, Peloponnese (Morea), Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Transylvania, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Albania, and Montenegro. The Ottomans even attempted to invade Vienna, the Austrian capital; this has been an unprecedented thing that an army of the Muhammadans would reach the heart of Europe. The weak Ottoman caliphate became the sick man of Europe later on, and European powers vied in distributing its regions among themselves. If it had not been for the wish of GB to allow this sick man of Europe to remain alive for a while, the Ottoman caliphate would have ended in the 19^th century instead of the 20^th century.        

The Ottoman caliphate of 'Islam' and the Muhammadans in a general overview:

 The Sufi Sunnite Ottomans fought against the Shiite Safavids of Iran, who were ruled by Shah Ismail the Safavid (1501 – 1524 A.D.) who was the real founder of the Safavid dynasty and managed to spread the Shiite religion in Iraq and eastern part of Anatolia, the original birthplace of the Ottomans. Shiites in Anatolia who joined the troops of the Safavids were called the Qizilbash, which means "the redheads". The Ottoman sultan Selim I (1512 - 1520 A.D.) decided to crush this Shiite threat, and he defeated the troops of Shah Ismail in 1514 in the battle ofChaldiran. In 1515, Selim I conquered Tabriz, the capital of the Safavids, and this drove Shah Ismail to flee and take hiding in the middle of Iran. Selim I invaded Armenia,Diyarbakır, Tbilisi, Mesopotamia until Mosul, and parts of the Levant until Al-Raqqa. This undermined the Safavid state, and Selim I returned to Istanbul to prepare for the military endeavors to invade the Arab world provinces.

The Ottoman conquest of the Levant and Egypt:

 Selim I invaded the rest of the Levantine region, and the Mameluke sultan Al-Ghoury, who ruled the Levant and Egypt, was defeated in the battle of Marj Dabiq in 1516 A.D. Selim I conquered Aleppo, Homs, Hama, Damascus, and Palestine. Selim defeated the last Mameluke sultan, the Circassian Tuman Bay, in the battle of Ridaniya in 1517 A.D./ 921 A.H. and he conquered Cairo in the same year, putting Tuman Bay to death and ending the Mameluke sultanate.    

The Ottoman conquest of Hejaz and Yemen:

 During the stay of Selim I in Cairo, he received the delegation of notables sent by the prince of Mecca, Al-Sharif Barakat, to announce their acceptance of the Ottoman rule of Hejaz region peacefully without fighting, and the son of the prince gave Selim I the keys of the Kaaba and some items allegedly owned before by Prophet Muhammad. Princes of Yemen surrendered peacefully to the Ottoman rule in the same manner; hence Egypt, the Levant, Hejaz, and Yemen were conquered by the ottomans in one year (within 1516 – 1517) and this made the Red Sea an Ottoman lake, especially when the Ottoman sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1520 – 1566 A.D.), son of Selim I, conquered Sawakin, in Sudan, and moved southward to conquer Abyssinia in 1557 A.D., seizing he chance of civil wars there. This made the Ottomans lessen the pressure of the Portuguese on coastal Arab cities and Arab merchants; the Ottomans crushed all endeavors by the Portuguese to form a Christian front to face the Ottomans in the Red Sea and Africa. Suleiman the Magnificent conquered Iraq in 1534 A.D., and then Aden, Al-Ahsa, and all of the Gulf region in Arabia; he also conquered Tripoli (i.e., Libya), Tunisia, and Algeria. This added the needed Arab flavor (by conquering major Arab cities with centuries-old history and heritage: Cairo, Mecca, Yathreb, Damascus, Baghdad, Kairouan, Kufa, and Basra) to the Ottoman empire that previously had an Anatolian, European, non-Arab flavor.

The political nature of the Ottoman rule:

 The Ottomans never cared for the internal affairs of its provinces in the fields of agriculture, trade, transportation and routes, ports, education, health, facilities, etc., and they did not cope with developments taking place in Europe. The Ottomans exercised their authority within a narrow scope: to appoint trusted governors in all provinces, preserve internal security, to collect taxes indirectly using local employees, and to make all judges in courts adhere to the Abou Hanifa doctrine. Thus, the sovereignty of the Ottomans did not influence its subjects, and no radical changes occurred in all provinces; people were allowed to keep their languages, religions, lifestyles, etc., and even some local representatives shared rule with the Ottoman governors to guarantee the collection of the annual taxes and tributes. This is why the Ottoman governors of Egypt allowed the Mameluke princes to rule governorates in the name of the Ottoman sultan. The Mameluke prince Ali Bey Al-Kabir tried to rule Egypt independently for a short duration, but Egypt was retrieved to the Ottoman rule by another Mameluke prince named M. Bey Abou Al-Dhahab. Since the Ottomans retained the Mameluke princes to rule Egyptian governorates in their name, the social, religious, and economic conditions remained the same as they were during the Mameluke sultanate. The Ottomans, after all, were mere Turkish tribes who had no civilizational background to cause cultural or intellectual changes; this is why they converted to Sunnite Sufism as if it were Islam and they never knew Islam of Prophet Muhammad. The Ottomans liked the Sunnite jihad (i.e., invasion, conquests, looting, sabotage, enslavement, rape, and tax-collecting from the poor) in order to establish an empire by oppressing people (i.e., Muhammadans [Shiites and Sunnites] or Christian Europeans). This crime that contradict the Quran (i.e., Islam) began first by the Qorayish caliphs like Abou Bakr and Omar.  

Features of Sunnite Sufism during the Ottoman Era:

1- Sunnite features: the grand mufti, called ''sheikh of Islam'' at the time, was the highest rank within the Ottoman Era; he was supervising all judiciary and religious institutions and issued fatwas for the sultans, especially regarding waging wars or making treaties. The notion of jihad made religious authorities play a role in preparing soldiers for battles. The Ottomans was keen on applying traditional Salafist, Sunnite sharia as per the Abou Hanifa doctrine. The Ottoman authority never allowed anyone eating in public during days of the fasting month and it organized pilgrimage to Mecca, and though the Ottomans never interfered in the internal affairs of any provinces, they made caring for pilgrims a priority by digging wells, building hotels, and guarding the four regular annual caravans of pilgrims, coming from all the corners of the Ottoman empire, by military troops led by the prince of pilgrimage.   

2- Sufi features: the Ottomans allowed Sufi sheikhs in their Sufi orders to exercise their authority and control freely over their followers and disciples. Sufi orders increased in number all over Egypt and the masses were more obedient and loyal to Sufi sheikhs more than officials and statesmen of the Ottomans. Of course, the Ottomans patronized and sponsored many Sufi orders in turkey, Egypt, and elsewhere; e.g., Al-Ahmady order, Al-Rifaai order, Naqshbandi order, Bektashi order, Khalwati order, and Mevlevi order. Mehmed II the Conqueror made use of the myth that a companion of Muhammad, named Abou Ayoub, participated in the Umayyad siege of Constantinople in 670 A.D. and died there, to boost the morale of his troops; he spread the rumor of finding the tomb of Abou Ayoub near the wall of Constantinople. This fake tomb was turned into a 'holy' mausoleum surrounded by a mosque by Mehmed II, and this religious spirit made the troops fight hard until they conquered Constantinople. Mehmed II turned the famous church of Aya Sofia into a grand mosque, and renamed Constantinople as Istanbul. This Sunnite jihad – done falsely in the name of Islam – posed a threat to Europe; they Europeans feared that Mehmed II was bent on invading Europe – in the name of all Muhammadans – to avenge the crusades that conquered the Levant (defeated by the Mamelukes) and for losing Andalusia to the Spanish and the Portuguese. Mehmed II thus established the tradition that every new Ottoman sultan must be enthroned by visiting this mausoleum within celebrations and pompous processions to receive the sword of Othman (i.e., their forefather) by the Sufi sheikh of the Mevlevi order to assert their theocratic, spiritual authority.    

(N.B.: the historical facts are quoted from a book, in Arabic, about refuting myths about the Ottoman caliphate by the late Dr. Abdel-Aziz Al-Shennawi, professor of history at Al-Azhar University, but the analysis of these facts is ours. The pages from which we quoted the historical facts are as follows: 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 54-59, 64, 186-190, and 345).

The Ottoman policies in dealing with Shiites inside the Ottoman Empire:

 Within the Ottoman war against the Shiite Safavids of Iran, the Ottomans drove away all Shiites of Anatolia and stopped the Shiite proselytization and call in most Arab provinces especially in Egypt. Yet, Iraq was an exception as the Safavids spread their Shiite doctrine there and because Iraq contains holy sites and mausoleums for Shiites. Thus, Shiites were the majority of Iraqis at the time who adhered staunchly to their own religious and social traditions and customs and never accepted Sunnite Sufism. When Suleiman the Magnificent conquered Iraq in 1534 A.D., he stayed for four months in Baghdad and managed to please and gratify Iraqi Shiites and Iraqi Sunnites, and he established institutions for both Sunnites and Shiites. This Ottoman sultan visited the mausoleum of Abou Hanifa (after fixing it, because it was desecrated and destroyed by Persian Shiites) and the holy Shiite mausoleums, especially in Karbala and mausoleum of Ali in Najaf, to worship at them, and he built a wall to stop irrigation water from damaging Karbala mausoleums. Moreover, he widened a water canal to allow more irrigation water to serve orchard around Shiite mausoleums. This means that Suleiman the Magnificent adopted policies toward Iraqi Shiites and Sunnites that showed how wise, sage, open-minded, and shrewd he was.          

The influence of the Sunnite-Shiite conflict on the collapse of the Mameluke sultanate and bringing the Ottomans in Egypt:

The struggle between the Sunnite Sufi Ottoman Empire and the Shiite Safavid Empire in Iran

The emergence of Shah Ismail the Safavid as a danger threatening both the Mamelukes and the Ottomans:

Introduction:

1- Most of the Muhammadans during the Ottomans were dominated by the earthly religion of Sunnite Sufism; yet, the Shiite earthly religion challenged all attempted of uprooting it, especially in Persia and Iraq; it is linked to Persian nationalism and Persian Shiites spread their religion among some Arab Muhammadans in many eras (as per the book of Al-Malti), but Sufism always claims the biggest number of adherents as it remains situated in the middle of both camps of Shiites and Sunnites.  

2- Sufism needed the protection of the Sunnite religion and the Sunnite rulers aimed to contain Sufism and inject the Sunnite religion inside it to face Shiite ideology: this led to the hybrid religion of Sunnite Sufism. Likewise, Shiites who practiced their Taqiyya in the midst of Sunnite societies had to hide behind the façade of Sufism invented by them: this led to the hybrid religion of Shiite Sufism. Shiite Sufism has existed first before Sunnite Sufism; this means that Sufism is the descendant of Shiite religion first. This is why there had to be clear boundaries between Sunnite Sufism and Shiite Sufism. Within Sunnite Sufism, the Sufi features eclipsed the Sunnite fiqh element; the latter is manifested in acts of worship and within judges of courts, whereas Sufism controlled the tenets, notions, culture, thought, and social life. In contrast, within Shiite Sufism, the Sufi element was a thin veneer, as Shiite tenets and notions dominated the core in every aspect. This Sufi thin veneer allowed Shiites to infiltrate secretly some societies to deceive them through Sufism to convert to the Shiite religion. Sufism has been the common element of religious and cultural life of the Muhammadans throughout the centuries of the Mameluke and Ottoman eras.           

3- The Ottomans assumed they had embraced 'Islam' officially and formally, but in fact, they embraced the religion that dominated Anatolia at the time: Sunnite Sufism. The Ottomans had to be part of the struggle between Sunnite Sufism and Shiite Sufism, as the latter posed a threat by a fierce foe; namely, the Shiite Safavid dynasty of Persia ruled by Shah Ismail. 

4- The fierce struggle between the Ottomans and the Safavids was between the earthly religions of Sunnite Sufism and Shiite Sufism. The vast majority of the Muhammadans were Sufi Sunnites and the Ottomans maintained this; yet, the Shiite Sufism was never annihilated though the Ottomans defeated the Safavids, and this defeat brought about its collapse later on. In fact, the struggle between the Ottomans and the Safavids resulted in the collapse of the Sunnite Mameluke sultanate whose regions were conquered by the Ottomans who led Sunnite world. Thus, the young Ottoman caliphate brought about the downfall of the old Sunnite Mameluke State after the Ottomans defeated and killed Al-Ghoury, the Mameluke sultan in Egypt, in the battle of Marj Dabiq in 933 A.H.      

5- Both of the Ottomans and the Mamelukes at first formed a political alliance to defend Sunnite Sufism against a common enemy: Shah Ismail the Safavid ruler of Iran who sought to spread the Shiite religion in neighboring countries to conquer and annex them later on. Shah Ismail sought ardently to destroy this Sunnite alliance by making both parties distrust each other – through rumors made by his agents and spies – until he made the Mameluke troops side with him in his war against the Ottomans. The Mamelukes were not ready for such fighting; the Ottomans had no intentions before this to destroy the Mameluke sultanate; yet, it collapsed very quickly and unexpectedly as Selim I conquered Egypt. This was hardly expected when Al-Ghoury went to Aleppo to reconcile Shah Ismail and the Ottoman caliph. This sudden collapse was because of the internal economic weakness of the Mameluke sultanate because trade route between Europe and India passing by it was deserted when the Portuguese discovered the Cape of Good Hope to reach India, making the Mamelukes lose a good source of money as a result.  

6- The relations among Shah Ismail, Selim I, and Al-Ghoury were very mysterious and intricate; we divide them here into two phases below to simplify them to our readers.

Phase I: The emergence of Shah Ismail of the Safavid dynasty:

1- Shah Ismail emerged in Persia in 905 A.H., and his great-grandfather and grandfather were Sufi sheikhs in Ardabil, revered and respected by rulers (e.g., Tamerlane) who assumed that these sheikhs performed miracles 

2- The father of Shah Ismail, named Haydar, converted to the Shiite Sufism and gathered many followers and disciples in Ardabil; the sultan Jihan Shah of Azerbaijan feared that Haydar might grow too powerful and he drove him out of his kingdom. Haydar went to Diyarbakir and married the daughter of its ruler, Hassan Al-Taweel. When Al-Taweel conquered Azerbaijan, Haydar returned to Ardabil and gathered many followers within his Sufi order, when Al-Taweel died, sheikh Haydar married the daughter of a sultan named Yacoub, and she gave him a son named Ismail in 892 A.H., who would be later on the Shah Ismail the Safavid ruler.         

3- Sheikh Haydar participated in armed political struggles using his own followers who were called the Qizilbash (or the redheads). Haydar was killed in a battle and his son, Ismail, was captured as a child and he tasted the bitterness of defeats. Ismail imitated the ways of his father within a Shiite Sufi order to gather many followers, and he used them as troops to conquer Khorasan, Azerbaijan, Tabriz, Baghdad, etc. while putting to death their rulers and he killed nearly one million man in his battles; his fierce soldiers used to prostate before him (from the manuscript no. 41 titled ''chronicles of the 10^th  century A.H.).

How Shah Ismail the Safavid posed a threat to the Ottomans:

1- Before Selim I, Ottoman conquests were in Europe and the Balkans, but Selim I directed his conquests to Arab provinces as he was concerned with stopping the Shiite danger infiltrating from Persia which was ruled by Shah Ismail who preferred to conquer Arab provinces instead of facing other powers that aimed to conquer Eurasian plains. Thus, at first, the Ottomans never coveted Egypt or the Levant, the provinces of the Mameluke sultans who never waged war at the time against the Ottomans and the Safavids, as they Mamelukes were concerned only with defending their provinces against any Persian attacks.    

2- In contrast, Shah Ismail desired to form an empire and he was encouraged by the laxity of Bayezid II (father of Selim I) to spread and proselytize the Shiite religion in Anatolia of the Ottomans and around Konya so as to plan annexing Anatolia to his Safavid state by political manipulation of the Shiite religion. 

3- The endeavors of Shah Ismail resulted in armed rebellion against the Ottomans led by the Shiite head of clergymen (i.e., the Shah Qool), who managed to defeat and kill the Ottoman grand vizier. The Shah Qool had close ties with the prince Korkut (son of Bayezid II) who coveted his father's throne. The two princes Shahenshah and Murat, sons of prince Ahmed who was the brother of Selim I, converted to the Shiite religion, and this means that he Safavid danger infiltrated into the Ottoman dynasty members and inside Anatolia.   

4- This led Selim I to revolt against his brothers and family members as well as his father Bayezid II to replace him on the throne; Selim I was helped by the soldiers known as the Janissaries who found in Selim I a strong leader to combat Shah Ismail; thus, the Janissaries forced Bayezid II to cede his throne to Selim I. 

5- Before this revolt, Selim I realized the enormity of the Shiite threat when he was appointed as governor of Trabzon; he saw the intrigues, schemes, and military moves of Shah Ismail and feared that his brother Korkut might dethrone Bayezid II to rule instead and he would not pay attention to this grave danger. Selim was furious as his father, Bayezid II, dealt laxly and leniently with the Shiite revolt of Shah Qool in Anatolia.  

6- Once enthroned, Selim I confirmed his internal front and focused within the external front to face Shah Ismail; he massacred many Shiites of Anatolia and banished others to the European regions of the Ottoman caliphate so as to guard his rear/back when he would engage into a war against Shah Ismail.

How Shah Ismail posed a threat to the Mamelukes:

1- The armed struggle between the Sunnite Ottomans and the Shiite Safavids entailed that the Mamelukes must interfere and side with one of these two powers, because the Mameluke sultanate led the 'Islamic' world at the time and it had borders with both the Ottoman and the Safavid states.

2- It was expected that Al-Ghoury would side with the Sunnite Ottomans against the Shiite Shah Ismail who began the aggression also against the Mameluke lands in the Levant; yet, Shah Ismail managed to make Al-Ghoury side with him by intrigues and wiles of his agents inside the Mameluke sultanate, thus neutralizing this Sunnite power so as not to make it side with the Ottomans against the Safavids; in fact, Shah Ismail enjoyed watching the young Ottoman caliphate destroying the old Mameluke sultanate that was never helped by the cunning Shah Ismail who dragged it out of its security to meet its end, in his endeavors to crush Sunnite Sufism with his Shiite Sufism of his ancestors.  

3- We quote the chronological order of these events from the Egyptian historian Ibn Eyas in his book (Badaei Al-Zohor) who witnessed such events that changed the regional and international history radically. Ibn Eyas mentions that in 908 A.H., Shah Ismail attacked Aleppo on the borders of the Mameluke State, and this disturbed the conditions in Cairo, leading the sultan Al-Ghoury to hold a council for all the Mameluke princes for consultation about how to face Shah Ismail within preparing and mobilizing military troops. In 913 A.H., the Mameluke governor of Aleppo sent a letter to Al-Ghoury in Cairo that Shah Ismail attacked Aleppo, and the remnants of troops returning to Cairo told many tales about the atrocities committed there by the Safavid troops, and Al-Ghoury felt very much disturbed, and he held a council for all the Mameluke princes for consultation about sending military troops there; the troops were mobilized first at the Cairo citadel for the sultan to see, and this parade was witnessed by all princes and by an emissary of the Ottomans as well. News came that the Safavid troops passed the Euphrates to invade Iraq and this posed a threat to the Mameluke Levantine region, and the Mameluke governor there, after a period of laxity, mobilized the Turcoman soldiers to defend the Levant. Al-Ghoury paid the financial dues to the soldiers after a period of delay and he held a party to celebrate the Ottoman emissary and gave him the finest embroidered garments to honor him. Ibn Eyas mentions that later on, some of the soldiers of Shah Ismail were captured and beheaded, and some of the severed heads of the Qizilbash (named as such as they wore red headwear) were brought to be shown at the gates of the wall of Cairo, and Shah Ismail sent a letter to Al-Ghoury informing him that the atrocities committed by his soldiers were never upon his orders at all and that he was surprised by their deeds.         

Analysis of the above:

1- Ibn Eyas did not voice the official viewpoint of events; rather, he expressed the view of the Egyptian street at the time, as we discern from his mentioning that the governor of Aleppo and his troops narrated to people in Cairo the atrocities committed by soldiers of Shah Ismail.

2- When Ibn Eyas mentions news of 908 A.H., Shah Ismail was not known very much at the time and little information about his was available, but he mentions that Cairo was troubled by the threat of the Levantine borders of the Mameluke sultanate, and Al-Ghoury held a council with princes to discuss such a grave matter and to mobilize defense troops. As for news of 913 A.H., much details were known about the situation and about Shah Ismail, with the new event that an Ottoman emissary was honored and allowed to witness mobilization of troops; this means that correspondences existed between the Mameluke sultan and the Ottoman sultan to face the common Shiite enemy. Of course, skirmishes and minor attacks of the troops of Shah Ismail was a test balloon before thinking about waging a decisive full-fledged war against both the Ottomans and the Mamelukes.    

The policies of Shah Ismail with the Mameluke sultan Al-Ghoury:

1- Contacts between the Mamelukes and the Ottomans did not result in a successful alliance to ward off the Safavids; Shah Ismail changed his plans to prevent such Sunnite alliance, as he made Al-Ghoury feel threatened internally by Egyptian Shiites revolting against him any time and externally by Safavid troops attacking the Levant. Thus, Shah Ismail forced Al-Ghoury into a secret alliance with him against the Ottomans.  

2- Egyptian Shiites revolted in Upper Egypt in 911 A.H., incited by spies of Shah Ismail, but their rebellion was not successful. Shah Ismail tried to look for other allies. Ibn Eyas mentions that the Mamelukes arrested spies and agents of the Safavids who carried letters to European rulers to urge them to help him defeat Egypt as he would attack it with his infantry soldiers and they would attack the Egyptian coasts with their fleet. The Europeans had captured Tripoli, in Libya, months before this, and even the prince of Mecca arrested three spies/agents of Shah Ismail in Hejaz.   

3- Al-Beira province – located between the Safavid empire and the Mameluke borders – was attacked by the Safavid troops, and its ruler Azbek Khan tried in vain to defend the province, but he was defeated and killed by Shah Ismail. Ibn Eyas mentions that Al-Ghoury was very much troubled as he received this piece of news and held a council for the Mameluke prince for consultation to face the Safavid threat that aimed to invade the Levant and Egypt.

4- Shah Ismail adopted the policy of threatening Al-Ghoury; he sent an emissary to him carrying the severed head of Azbek Khan along with lines of Arabic poetry to brag of his military power and Shiite religion, composed by the poet Safy Eddine of Aleppo. Al-Ghoury received the emissary of Shah Ismail very well and within celebrations, but he prevented people contacting this emissary and made him heavily guarded in the Cairo citadel as if he were imprisoned.   

5- Ibn Eyas mentions that Shah Ismail recruited desert-Arabs and Bedouins inside Egypt as his agents, and they revolted against Al-Ghoury at the time when Shah Ismail conquered Al-Beira province and its residents allied themselves to him. 

6- Al-Ghoury feared that those Egyptians who claim to be descendants of Ali and Fatima would revolt against him as their Shiite tendency might overpower them; he confiscated some of their Waqfs (religious endowments) and made judges examine and reevaluate those who claim to be descendants of Ali to exclude those who could not prove this, in order to see if some of them were recruited as spies/agents for Shah Ismail or not.  

7- Ibn Eyas mentions that the emissaries of Shah Ismail and Al-Ghoury exchanged letters of harsh words and threats, and Al-Ghoury verbally abused the emissary of Shah Ismail in public and in the letters, though Al-Ghoury out of hypocritical flattery made pompous procession and celebrations to honor this powerful emissary, whose name was Tamer Bey. Suddenly the emissary of Selim I told Al-Ghoury that Bayezid II died and his son, Selim I, succeeded him to the Ottoman throne; Al-Ghoury wept in public for the death of his Ottoman ally. 

8- Ironically, endeavors of Shah Ismail led to more closed ties between the Al-Ghoury and Selim I; Al-Ghoury celebrated and honored the Ottoman emissary and was a mediator to reconcile Selim I and prince Kokand who was self-exiled in Egypt and other infuriated princes who fled from Istanbul when Selim I was enthroned and came to Egypt. Al-Ghoury sent sums of money to buy weapons, timber, and iron from the Ottomans, but Selim I gave him all that he wanted for free, using his fleet, and he gave Al-Ghoury his money back, along with a letter heaping praises on Al-Ghoury, as per words of Ibn Eyas.    

9- Thus, Al-Ghoury did not take advantage of Ottoman princes coming to Egypt (who desired to usurp the Ottoman throne) to get political gains from Selim I. This is unlike the previous Mameluke sultan Barsbay who made use of the presence of a self-exiled Ottoman prince in Egypt to force the Ottoman sultan Murat to accept to oblige him regarding certain demands. Al-Ghoury received Ottoman princes like Suleiman and Kokand, whereas prince Ahmed Bey joined the Safavid ruler. Al-Ghoury feared that Selim I might get angry as Egypt received ottoman princes who were furious by Selim I usurping the throne; Al-Ghoury sent his emissary with man gifts and a letter to congratulate Selim I and to act as mediator to reconcile him with the self-exiled princes, though the plague struck Egypt at the time and its conditions were bad, even Al-Ghoury was taken ill himself, as per Ibn Eyas. Yet, when Al-Ghoury was bent on fighting Selim I, he received the Ottoman prince Qassim Ibn Ahmed to spite his paternal uncle Selim I.        

Phase II: How Al-Ghoury allied himself to Shah Ismail, and the influence of such alliance on the collapse of the Mameluke sultanate:

How the polices of Shah Ismail with Al-Ghoury failed:

 Within the letter of the Ottoman sultan Bayezid II to A-Ghoury about Shah Ismail and his Qizilbash troops, he mentions that they were heretics and apostates (i.e., Rawafid) who rejected 'Islam' and must be fought to ward off their evil, and Al-Ghoury responded in his letter to him that he was willing to help the Ottomans in the military endeavors to defeat Shah Ismail to annihilate the 'Sufi Shiite infidels' and to crush the Safavids. Al-Ghoury mobilized and sent troops led by Jalal-Eddine Qansuh to the Levant to be ready to defend the borders against any possible Safavid attacks, and the Ottoman promised to send their own troops as well. Thus, it was a struggle between the Mameluke/Ottoman Sunnite Sufism and the Persian Shiite Sufism. Eventually, polices of threats and intimidations adopted by Shah Ismail with Al-Ghoury failed as the Ottomans and the Mamelukes became allies.      

How Shah Ismail changed his policies and allied himself to Al-Ghoury against Selim I:

1- Shah Ismail was furious that his policies ironically led to an alliance between the Sunnite sultans Selim I and Al-Ghoury that threatened him; he changed his policies with Al-Ghoury as he felt that Selim I was powerful and not as lenient and lax as Bayezid II and that the decisive moment was drawing nearer as Selim I was bent on crushing the Shiite threat. Shah Ismail decided to win the side of Al-Ghoury at any costs. 

2- Shah Ismail managed to make amends and reconcile with Al-Ghoury and both rulers made a secret alliance against Selim I, and secrecy and Taqiyya were arts mastered by Shiite spies and agents, of course.  

3- Shah Ismail had several Shiite agents and spies throughout the Mameluke domain from Libya to Iraq, and from southern Asia Minor to Hejaz and northern Sudan. The Shiite religion imposed on its adherents to ally themselves to the religion and never to the Sunnite rulers in any province. Some spies of the Shiites, working under Shah Ismail, came to Cairo, Egypt, while carrying banners of Sunnite Sufism (within Taqiyya) to join the class members of those who claim to be descendants of Ali and Fatima. Thus, they had authority and power within the Cairene streets. The Mameluke Egypt at the time used to spread this myth of Ali's descendants; one of these spies reached high stature to the extent that he was the close friend and a courtier of Al-Ghoury and he convinced him to secretly ally himself to Shah Ismail. This spy was Al-Sharif Al-Ajamy Al-Shanqajy.   

4- Ibn Eyas mentions that Al-Ghoury made Al-Shanqajy lead a procession of elephants to the Mameluke governor of the Levantine cities to help in the fight against the Ottomans; and this long journey made people spread the rumor that Al-Shanqajy died, but suddenly Al-Ghoury himself joined the troops of Al-Shanqajy in the Levantine regions and announced the alliance with Shah Ismail that was held as a secret before the battle of Marj Dabiq.  

5- Ibn Eyas was a historian in contact with the masses to get news to write in his book, and he never knew about the intrigues of the Mameluke palaces never entered by him; he never mentions any intrigues inside the palace of Al-Ghoury; we never know how Al-Shanqajy, the wily Shiite spy, managed to convince the old, senile Al-Ghoury to lead his troops himself to Marj Dabiq where he was defeated and killed under hooves of horses, and this resulted in the downfall of the Mameluke sultanate as Selim I invaded Egypt soon enough. 

6- In his book Al-Kawakib Al-Saera, the historian M. Najm-Eddine Al-Ghuzzi (of Gaza, Palestine) who was contemporary to these events mentions that Al-Shanqajy was a spy/agent of Shah Ismail who got too close to Al-Ghoury inside his palace, and suddenly, people saw Al-Ghoury marching with his troops to the Levant to fight Selim I, and he got killed during the battle of Marj Dabiq. We never know how Al-Shanqajy was too influential that he convinced Al-Ghoury to take this risk nor what he promised the sultan in the name of Shah Ismail.   

 But what was the influence of such new change on the Mameluke-Ottoman relations?

1- Before Al-Ghoury was enthroned, he Mameluke-Ottoman relations were good as long as each side never interfered in the affairs of provinces between their states, as some rulers of such provinces were loyal allies of the Mamelukes and some were the same with the Ottomans. Minor troubles occurred (between Qaitbay and Bayezid II and Mehmed II the Conqueror and between the Mameluke governor of a Levantine city), but both sides reconciled every single time. The emergence of Shah Ismail led eventually to the collapse of the Mameluke sultanate by Selim I who conquered Egypt.  

2- There was never troubles about the borders between the Mamelukes and Shah Ismail, unlike the case with the Mamelukes and the Ottomans. We tend to think that Al-Ghoury might have feared that the balance of power changed against him and for the side of the Ottomans when Selim I defeated Shah Ismail in the battle of Chaldiran; he might have feared that Selim I would conquer the Levantine northern regions (located at the Ottoman borders) that contained provinces of rulers loyal to the Mamelukes. This is why Al-Ghoury sided with Shah Ismail during the battle of Chaldiran; Ibn Eyas mentions that Al-Ghoury sent his troops to Aleppo, near the location of the battle of Chaldiran to be ready for any possible Ottoman attacks against the Levant and to see who would achieve victory after this battle. Selim I was furious to know of this move and that Al-Ghoury sided with Shah Ismail 

3- During the battle of Chaldiran in 1514 A.D., troops of the Ottomans and the Mamelukes never directly clashed as they faced the troops of Shah Ismail; yet, the ruler of Maraash (loyal to the Mameluke sultan) was murdered by Selim I because he did not allow reinforcement troops of the Ottomans to pass the city of Maraash, and thus, Selim I invaded Maraash and sent the severed head of its ruler to Al-Ghoury who was furious to lose his ally in the Levant and because Selim I might think of conquering the rest of the Levantine cities and then Egypt; such news created troubles in Cairo and people feared the worst was yet to occur.

4- Ibn Eyas mentions that Al-Ghoury felt very sad as Selim I won the battle of Chaldiran and defeated Shah Ismail, as he never celebrated this victory and all Mameluke princes feared that Selim I might conquer the Levant and Egypt. Al-Ghoury forced his deputy ruler in the Levant to marry his daughter to ensure his loyalty if a war would break out between the Ottomans and the Mamelukes in the Levant. 

5- This means that sending troops to Aleppo to watch events closely exposed the secret alliance of Al-Ghoury and Shah Ismail made by Al-Shanqajy; when Selim I sent the head of the ruler of Maraash to Al-Ghoury, this created more tensions that escalated before the battle of Marj Dabiq.   

Before the war between Al-Ghoury and Selim I:

1- After the battle of Chaldiran, Selim I was bent on fighting the Safavids in Persia to crush Shah Ismail for good; Al-Ghoury feared that Selim I would take revenge against him for this move in Aleppo; at the same time, Shah Ismail tried to spare himself a war after his defeat in the battle of Chaldiran. Thus, Shah Ismail endeavored to make Al-Ghoury fight Selim I in the Levant until Shah Ismail would prepare his military troops to ally himself to the Sunnite force that would emerge victorious. The Ottoman troops that headed to Persia were surprised by the Mameluke troops attacking them, but they defeated the Mameluke troops and killed Al-Ghoury in the battle of Marj Dabiq.  

2- Shortly before the battle of Marj Dabiq, Al-Ghoury prepared his military troops and made his military leaders swear on a copy of the Quran to be united against the Ottomans, while spreading fake news that the Ottomans desired to conquer the Levant and Egypt, as per Ibn Eyas.

3- Selim I sent troops to fight those of Shah Ismail, but he was surprised to see troops of Al-Ghoury in Aleppo,  and he sent two letters with two emissaries to Al-Ghoury to neutralize him while offering the pretexts of his fighting Shah Ismail; i.e., the Safavid troops massacred innocent people and wreaked havoc and sabotage in the region and such ''Rawafid'' infidels must be fought and massacred to preserve peace. By the end of the letters, Selim I asked for prayers from Al-Ghoury and his Sufi sheikhs for the sake of supporting God's sharia!

Conditions of the Ottoman decision of Selim I to fight Al-Ghoury:

1- A Shiite spy told the Ottomans the lie that the Shiite Safavid Qizilbash troops would fight on the side of Al-Ghoury and this proved to them that Al-Ghoury allied himself to Shah Ismail.

2- Selim I in Konya received a letter from Al-Ghoury who headed his troops in the Levant that the only reason for his coming to the Levant was to reconcile the Safavids and the Ottomans so that bloodshed of innocent people would be avoided; he lied when he told Selim I that Shah Ismail intended never to fight the Ottomans after his defeat. Spies told Selim I that Al-Ghoury himself headed his troops in Aleppo, and Selim I made his troops that originally were sent to Persia to fight the Mameluke troops to prevent their joining the troops of Shah Ismail; Selim I never forgot that the Mamelukes had once defeated the Ottoman troops of his father Bayezid II.   

3- Spies of Selim I managed to steal a letter sent by Al-Ghoury to Shah Ismail to as for reinforcement troops to defeat the Ottomans; Selim I was furious by this proof of treachery. 

4- Correspondences exchanged between Selim I and Al-Ghoury failed to end this problem peacefully and the alliance and friendship were lost. Selim I even offered to hand over the city of Maraash to Al-Ghoury, who refused and insisted on the lie that his only aim was to reconcile the Ottomans and the Safavids; he advised Selim I never to fight Shah Ismail. At one point, Al-Ghoury imprisoned the emissaries of Selim I, who was infuriated by such insult and sent a military delegation to Al-Ghoury to threaten him with war; Al-Ghoury, feeling insulted, was bent on beheading the members of this delegation, but his vizier Younis Pacha, advised him not to do this.     

5- Selim I in his military council declared war against the Mamelukes in the Levant in 922 A.H. after he realized that Al-Ghoury was bent on fighting the Ottomans after he sided with Shah Ismail.

6- These were the conditions of the Ottoman decision of Selim I to fight Al-Ghoury, as all peaceful means failed to win back Al-Ghoury to the side of the Ottomans; Selim I decided to defeat the Mamelukes before crushing the Safavids, as he vowed to end the Mameluke and Safavid states, and he made Sunnite Sufi sheikhs praise his endeavors to annihilate the Shiite infidels/Rawafid who committed atrocities in the Levant.  

 But did Selim I actually desire to conquer the Levant and Egypt?

1- Our own reading of historical facts and events show that Selim I at first never intended to conquer Egypt, the Levant, or even Persia, though shah Ismail attacked Anatolia; the Ottomans focused on conquering European Christian regions, but the emergence of the Shiite Shah Ismail made the Ottoman policies change.

2- Selim I in one of his letter to Al-Ghoury in 922 A.H. asserts that his only purpose was to deter the Safavid troops ad defend the Sunnite sharia and religion and not to conquer Arab provinces ruled by Sunnite sultans nor Persian provinces ruled by Shiite sultans.

3- After the defeat and death of Al-Ghoury, the Levantine cities were conquered easily by Selim I, with the help of some Mameluke princes and agents who allied themselves to him. After Selim I conquered the whole Levantine regions, Tuman Bay, the last Mameluke sultan, received in Cairo a letter from the emissaries of Selim I to submit into the Ottoman rule peacefully without fighting. The same command was sent again by Selim I after the defeat of Tuman Bay, who took hiding in Upper Egypt, by the ottoman troops. At first, Tuman Bay accepted to rule Egypt in the name of the Ottomans and sent emissaries to Selim I to announce his acceptance; yet, some Mameluke princes murdered the Ottoman emissaries sent by Selim I to Tuman Bay while they exchanged correspondences; this made negotiations fail.         

4- Selim I at first did not have in his plans conquering the Levant and Egypt and he was furious to suffer heavy losses in his troops; he once shouted at his ally the Mameluke prince Khair Bey that he deceived him by convincing him to conquer Egypt; Selim I told Tuman Bay after his being captured and before putting him to death that he never intended or planned before to conquer Egypt and that he would not have done this if Tuman Bay would accept submission and to rule in his name by making coins and Friday sermons in the name of Selim I.     

How Shah Ismail schemed and plotted against Selim I after the death of Al-Ghoury

1- Shah Ismail was surprise by the sudden downfall of the Mameluke sultanate; this ottoman expansion prevented Shah Ismail from annexing Arab lands to his Safavid State. Shah Ismail decided to make his Shiite spies and agents in the Levant and Egypt spread many intrigues and rumors; yet Shah Ismail died suddenly at the age of 38 in 930 A.H. Before his death, Shah Ismail sent a letter to Selim I when he left Cairo and was in Damascus to congratulate him on annexing Egypt, the Levant, and Hejaz to serve holy sites of Islam and to propose peace treaties so as not to make the Ottomans conquer Persian lands of the Safavids and he vowed never to attack Ottoman borders. Selim I never trusted him and refused to conclude any peace treaties; he sent troops led by his grand vizier Beiry Mehmet Pacha in Diyarbakir to watch any movements of Shah Ismail closely.    

2- At the same time, Shah Ismail continued his conspiracies against the Ottomans in the Levant by his Shiite spies and agents; upon Shah Ismail's orders, some of his agents, months after the collapse of the Mameluke sultanate, roamed the markets of Damascus and kept wailing for the death of Hussein in Karbala.  

3- Shah Ismail betted on the ambitions of local Levantine princes, and he made the Shiite prince of Sidon, Ibn Hanash, become his chief ally. As per history book of Ibn Tulun, Shah Ismail urged Ibn Hanash to revolt against the Ottoman rule, and the rebels were joined by other Shiite rulers of some of the Levantine cities. Such revolt increased once Selim I left Damascus and went to Aleppo. The revolt ended once Ibn Hanash and other Shiite rulers were killed and defeated by the Ottoman military leader Jan Beirdy, who was appointed as the governor of the whole Levant, as a reward, to rule in the name of the Ottomans. Shah Ismail never despaired and managed to win Jan Beirdy to his side; Jan Beirdy revolted against his Ottoman masters and announced his independent rule, but he was defeated soon enough.        

4- Shiite spies and agents of Shah Ismail in the Ottoman Egypt ever ceased to conspire and obey all commands of the Safavids; for instance, when Selim I fought troops of Shah Ismail in Tabriz, Persia, a Sufi sheikh named Dhahir-Eddine Al-Ardabili (who was a Safavid Shiite spy) managed to be among the courtiers of Selim I  and he deceived everyone by pretending to be a Sunnite Sufi sheikh. Selim I admired him so much that he made him accompany him in Istanbul and gave him 80 dirhams as a daily wages. Dhahir-Eddine Al-Ardabili, upon commands of Shah Ismail, managed to convince  Ahmed Pacha (a high-rank military leader under Selim I) to convert to the Shiite religion and to rebel against the Ottomans, but Ahmed Pacha was defeated and killed. 

5- Hence, the Sunnite Ottomans defeated and crushed the Shiite Safavid state as Selim I conquered Persia. This means that Sunnite Sufism became dominant for centuries while the Shiite religion hidden behind a thin veneer of Sufism lost the chance of being propagated for centuries. 

6- The Sufi element dominated the Ottoman Era in Egypt and elsewhere more than the Sunnite element in the Sunnite Sufi religion; the Sunnite element was manifested only in other acts of worship   and prayers (performed in mosques filled with mausoleums of Sufi saints worshipped and venerated by everyone and names of saints were given to these mosques). Thus, even the Sunnite element served the 'holy' Sufi saints and not the other way round. 

References:

 The historical data about the conflict between Ismail the Safavid, Selim I the Ottoman, and Al-Ghoury of Egypt are taken from printed sources and manuscripts written by historians who were contemporaries of such events. Firstly: manuscripts in the Egyptian Public Library (Dar Al-Kotob), in Cairo: chronicles of the 10^th century A.H. manuscript no. 41, history of Selim I and Al-Ghoury, manuscript no 13 and no. 14 history of Taymour, manuscript no. 67 and no. 68 within vol. no 2026 history of Marei Al-Hanbali, manuscript no. 133 and no. 134 governors of Egypt by Al-Bakry, manuscript no. 22 in vol. no. 2407 history of Taymour, and manuscript no.2/533 about history of Jerusalem. Secondly: printed editions of authoritative books of history: History of Ibn Eyas part 4, p. 39, 118, 123, 152-167, 186-187, 191, 205, 219, 221, 260, 265, 271, 285, 289, 324, 398-399, 402-404, 471:475, and 483, and part 5, p. 22 and 35-38. History of Ibn Hajar part 3, p. 499-500. History of Ibn Tulun part 2, p. 23, 74-75, and 78-79. Al-Kawakib Al-Saeera, chapter about battles and conquests, part 1, p. 159, 216, and 297. History of Ibn Zanbal Al-Ramal, about Selim I and Al-Ghoury, p. 133-136.   

CONCLUSION

The moral lesson drawn from the complicated relation among Turkey of the Ottomans, Iran of the Safavids, and Egypt of the Mamelukes

Introduction:

1- We are digging in history within our research and write about rarely tackled topics NOT for the sake of amusing readers, but to draw morals lessons about the present and the future, because history repeats itself when citizens and nations are (re-)living the past within the present time. This fatal error occurs typically when earthly, man-made religions dominate people/nations and leading them to worship what their ancestors have left as centuries-old traditions. The Salafist (i.e., literally, ancestral) religions control not only the religious aspect of such nations, but also its intellectual, political, social, and legislative aspects. Within such a miserable state of affairs, the past repeats itself but within other appellations and persons. This does not occur in the West as it has entered into the age of innovations and modernity when it imposed a curfew on the Catholic Church of Europe, and Christianity in general, within its walls and never allowing it to infiltrate and control other aspects of life. Thus, within scientific discoveries and empiricism, the white European man has roamed the earth and discovered the outer space, and later on, Europeans colonized the countries of the Muhammadans previously ruled by the Ottomans. Of course, the West is still controlling the Arab world because most of the Arabs/Muhammadans  maintain their silly, illogical earthly, man-made religions since the Abbasid Era till the present moment and deify certain idols that lead them to fight one another, causing destruction to themselves with their own hands with the help of other non-Arab hands.              

2- In such a state of affairs now, we are to delve deeper into the historical roots of the current political life within the countries of the Muhammadans; because history there in the Middle East is repeating itself. This is proven when we see on TV screens the nauseating figures of ISIS terrorists who do not differ at all from the soldiers of Al-Saud troops when they established the very first Saudi state (1745 - 1818) and they repeat atrocities committed by the fierce Hanbali fighters during the Abbasid Era in Iraq. This is why Abou Bakr Al-Baghdadi of ISIS is no different figure from Abou Bakr Ibn Abou Qohafa the first caliph among the four pre-Umayyad ones, deified by the Sunnites till now. Both men had committed military aggression and atrocities. Indeed, massacres committed by ISIS are very much like the ones committed by the Qarmatians in Iraq and the Levant (specifically in Mosul and Raqqa) within the Middle Ages. A last thing to exemplify the fact that history repeats itself in the Middle East is that Shiites who perform pilgrimage to Karbala city in Iraq are being massacred since the Abbasid Era till now. The only difference is in names of figures/persons and the types of weapons and arms used, but all such events of the past and the present are united in the same earthly, man-made religions that force on followers to repeat the past and re-live it even in silly dress codes: hijab (veil), niqab/chador (full veil covering the face), circumcision (or rather genital mutilation) of male and female children and babies, etc.            

3- The purpose of this book you are reading now about how the earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans developed and evolved is to assert that Islam has nothing to do at all with what crimes and atrocities that are going on now in the Arab world and in the countries of the Muhammadans, as such crimes are sins that contradict Islam (i.e., Quranism). The factors behind such crimes and atrocities are the earthly, man-made religions of the Muhammadans. We assert this fact repeatedly in our writings so as to warn all people and to undeceive them. This is the mission undertaken by reformist authors like ourselves. May God come to our aid and help.     

Firstly: the three poles of the Middle East, past and present:  

1- Within our current age of collapse, decay, and downfall in the Arab world, the three poles of the Middle East, which is a region situated in the middle of the countries of the Muhammadans, are Egypt, Iran, and Turkey. Of course, Iran embraces the religious and political ideology of the Shiite Twelver sect; Turkey has a weird president with a mania to restore the past 'glory' of the Ottomans; Egypt is currently ruled by a military regime that follow the footsteps of the Mameluke military state that tortured, oppressed, and despised Egyptians. The only difference between the Mameluke Egypt and Egypt of today is that Egypt was great and glorious during the Mameluke Empire (e.g., Cairo is filled with monuments and great buildings and mosques of the Mameluke Era), whereas now, the military regime in Egypt made Egypt sink lower on all levels, because we tend to think that the military ruling regime is a failure and has betrayed Egypt and Egyptians more than any previous regime.   

2- Within our current age of collapse, degeneration, and deterioration in the Arab world, we see the worst game ever played; namely, to mix politics with an earthly, man-made religion. The most dominant earthly, man-made religion is Sunnite Sufism embraced by more than 70% of the Muhammadans; minorities are ordered (from biggest to smallest groups) as follows: Shiites, Sunnite Wahabis, and Sufi orders, as the latter has their own notions away from the Sunnite religion, including unity/union with God.   

3- When a failed attempt of a military coup occurred in Turkey in 2016, many denounced it and felt glad when Erdoğan crushed it. In fact, we personally have written that we wished the coup would have succeeded in overthrowing this Turkish president, though coups are admittedly a bad thing. This 2016 coup attempt failed because it had no religious ideology to support it nor did it have the support of the Turkish citizens. This is why this coup (and previous ones before it in recent history in Turkey) failed miserably; yet, it has been a step toward democratic transition which is a process that will take many generations who will imbibe the culture of democracy. Thus, we maintain that this coup, if it were a success, would have been for the benefit of Turkey in the short run and in the long run as well. What is definitely NEVER beneficial for Turkey and its neighbors – as it is situated in a unique location between the West and the East – that a theocracy would be established in this secular country. This theocracy, if established, will mix between religious fanaticism and bigotry and Turkish nationalism and racism expressed clearly in speeches and policies of Erdoğan. Shortly after he quelled and crushed such a coup, Erdoğan is turning into a dictator who is getting rid of all his foes and create for himself other new foes inside Turkey and others outside Turkey as he creates troubles for Europe. Of course, Erdoğan is intimidating the Turkish citizens with assumed or imagined internal and external dangers to propagate himself as a new Ottoman sultan who represents 'Islam' and who is facing the 'Christian' West!      

4- Iran names itself as an 'Islamic' republic and claims falsely that it represents 'Islamic' liberation. Indeed, Al-Khomeini declared the endeavors to export the so-called 'Islamic revolution' so as to revolutionize other Muhammadans overtly and ostentatiously by making them practically embrace the Shiite religion to be controlled by Iran. Iran at first has raised the motto of making religious doctrines/sects draw nearer to one another during the 1980s; we personally criticized and attacked such motto and endeavors at the time when we were living in Cairo, Egypt, and exposed it as an attempt to spread and proselytize the Shiite religion for political reasons to benefit Iran and no other countries at all. At the time, we were a 'moderate' Sunnite man, before we have crystalized the Quranism theory as True Islam, and we have attended a conference held (and financed/sponsored by Iran) to discuss this Iranian attempts and calls. When our turn to speak came, we have told the attendees that Shiites must first discuss and reject hadiths ascribed to Muhammad causing the Shiite-Sunnite conflict and making it art of the Shiite religion. We have addressed a shrewd, cunning smiling Shiite high-rank clergymen among the attendees that instead of making Shiites sects draw nearer to the Sunnite ones, the Shiites of Iran must attempt first to make different Shiite doctrines get nearer to one another and be unified. Of course, our words have infuriated most of the attendees, because it touched a nerve and rubbed salt to the wound. The Iranian endeavors to infiltrate (by proselytizing the Shiite religion) into the countries of the Sunnite-Sufi Muhammadans have failed, despite of the raised motto of making religious doctrines/sects draw nearer to one another; Iran has raised another motto or banner of facing the 'Greater Satan' (i.e., Israel and the USA), and Iran tries to lead other Muhammadans worldwide within such assumed confrontation. This confrontation includes the followers of the Sunnite Wahabi religion inside the USA: they are arch-enemies of Iran and the Shiite religion; they are loyal only to the KSA and the other Persian Gulf Wahabi monarchies. Egypt is now dominated and controlled by the kings of the Persian Gulf monarchies thanks to the military regime that has betrayed Egypt and caused failure within many levels in Egypt. 

5- The third pole is Egypt, with its military regime which is a failure and has betrayed Egypt; this military rule made Egypt lose its stature and leadership in the region, and this has left ample room for dwarf countries like the UAE and Qatar and a collapsing country like the KSA to undertake this leadership instead of Egypt, a weak country now in terms of economy and politics. Instead of the Egyptian pole being dominated by either the strong Turkey or the strong Iran, it is controlled now by the Persian Gulf countries, especially the temporary KSA, and this way, the Wahabi countries face the Shiite Iran. Of course, however rich and powerful the KSA might be because of oil revenues, it cannot face Iran on all levels; after neutralizing the Egyptian role, Iran has made its influence and domination reach Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine, Syria, and some parts of North Africa where the Shiite religion is being proselytized.       

6- We cannot help but notice that history repeats itself now within the complicated relations between the three poles (Iran, Turkey, and Egypt). Egypt now is as weak as it was within the reign of the sultan Al-Ghoury. Iran is very strong now; it was the same when Shah Ismail of the Safavid dynasty ruled Persia. Turkey now has its president who seeks to revive the Ottoman 'glory'. Likewise, Europe was an enemy of the three poles (especially Spain and Portugal), but now,  this enemy has emerged as locations and figures changed, and with the rise of the right-wing parties all over the West, which are parties that suffer Islamophobia; there is no difference in this respect between the right-wing in the USA or France, or even within the neutral Netherlands.  

Secondly: the ever-increasinghope of Shiites to reach power:

1- The Sufi religion represents the masses and their submission to the rulers in all eras; the only ambitions Sufis have within political life is to "dance" within the processions of sultans/rulers and to support them to get nearer to them. In contrast, the Sunnite religion represents power-seekers, hegemony, and dominance as well as savagery derived from the history of deified caliphs who came from Qorayish. The Shiite religion is not less than the Sunnite one in seeking to reach (or to maintain) power and authority, and this is why Shiites always join the opposition movements against  Sunnite rulers everywhere. Shiites that way are always within the opposition and resistance side, and they are suffering persecution and clampdown from Sunnite rulers, but Shiites scheme and plot secretly to overthrow Sunnite rulers, while practicing Taqiyya (i.e., showing the opposite of what they believe in) and overtly adhering to peace, and once Shiites reach power anywhere, they practice dominance, tyranny, hegemony, and savagery. Hence, there is no difference between the Iranian persecution inflicted on the Sunnite minority inside Iran in Arabstan and the Saudi persecution inflicted on the Shiite minority in Al-Ahsa region. When Sufism dominated the Arab region for centuries, Sunnites and Shiites in their struggle for power controlled Sufism to control the masses, and this is why there are Sunnite Sufism and Shiite Sufism, and both religions competed at some point in history; e.g., when the Safavid Shah Ismail (the Shiite-Sufi ruler) struggled against the Ottomans whose religion was Sunnite Sufism.            

2- The complicated relation between the three rulers (i.e., Selim I the Ottoman caliph, Shah Ismail of the Safavid dynasty, and the sultan Al-Ghoury of Egypt) ended as Selim I won eventually and dominated over Egypt, the Levant, Hejaz, Yemen, and North Africa (except Morocco). This way, Egypt turned from a pioneer, leading country to a mere Ottoman province. This change took place all over the Arab world, as the Ottomans controlled and ruled the Red Sea and lands on its both sides and the lands south of the Mediterranean Sea. Later on, the Ottoman Empire doubled its geographical space and led the so-called 'Islamic' world as opposite to the Christian world. This change in Egypt and its submission to the Ottoman rule was aided by a certain catalyst: the Sufi-Shiite spy named Al-Sharif Al-Ajamy who managed to enter secretly into the council of Al-Ghoury in the Citadel to control it, and he managed to give Al-Ghoury ill pieces of advices and to convince him to apply them, which resulted in the murder of Al-Ghoury. This change in Egypt started with this Persian Shiite spy; this shows the unparalleled Shiite genius and experience when it comes to scheming, intrigues, and conspiracies. This means that the loyalty of these extremist Shiites is to their religion and not to the country or homeland in which they live. Of course, we cannot generalize this about any Shiite person now; we mean to say this about zealots among them who seek power anywhere. We, of course, do not blame Shiite religious extremists in such eras for such loyalty (who were not involved in politics) as their being persecuted by the extremist Ibn Hanbal Sunnite clergymen for centuries was too much to bear; this continues against Shiites of today who are persecuted by Wahabis everywhere. Thus, when Shiites find that no country protects them, they resort to their religion to defend themselves and their existence.         

3- Shiites within most eras of their history lived in the resistance camp or trench; they practiced Taqiyya as part of their religion features to defend their existence and their faith that infuriates Sunnite as Shiites curse Aisha, Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman as part of their rituals. All the time, Shiites never cease to hope that one day, conditions will change in their favor, and they never stopped their schemes, intrigues, and plots in many eras as they seek to reach power and authority anywhere. Some of the Shiite schemes succeeded partially or wholly and many failed miserably; it is beyond the scope of this book to exemplify this, but we provide a brief example in the next point.  

4- After the collapse of the Fatimid caliphate, the Ayyubid State was established in Egypt, and this led to the creation of secret Shiite movements that aimed to restore Egypt to the Shiite rule, and members of these movements pretended to embrace Sufism. Such movements were very near to have a measure of success during the period of rule of weak Ayyubid sultans in Egypt, but Shiites failed in their endeavors because the Mamelukes ruled Egypt and proved their meritocracy, especially during the reign of the Sultan Al-Dhahir Beibars. Within the last stage of these secret Shiite movements, when Beibars was in authority, the secret Shiite leader was a man who pretended to be a mad Sufi who settled in a minor Egyptian Delta city called Tanta; this man was called Al-Sayed Al-Badawi, and he had his agents spread all over Egypt and outside it, chief among them were Al-Shazily and Al-Disouky. All these men are now famous Sufi saints/deities who has their mausoleums dedicated to them in Egypt. Another Shiite secret agent who pretended to be a Sufi sheikh was Khedr Al-Adawi who was among the retinue of the sultan Beibars in the palace in Cairo. Of course, Beibars felt this secret movement and tried to hunt down its agent; this drove the frightened Al-Badawi and his men to adhere to Sufism and to overtly discard any Shiite practices and notions. Eventually, this Shiite secret movement proved a political failure; yet, it produced famous Sufi orders ascribed to those conspirators who metamorphosed after their death into supreme Sufi deities/saints later on. More details on that topic are found on our book titled "Al-Sayed Al-Badawi between Fact and Myth", published on our website and in Cairo, Egypt, in 1982.     

Thirdly: Egypt now is coveted by Iran and the KSA:

1- Among the three strategic poles of the region, Egypt is the most important one, even during the current era of being on the verge of collapse because of the military rule (of so many failures) that betrayed Egypt, but Iran and the KSA vie for the control of Egypt and winning Egypt to their side. 

2- At present, the military rule in Egypt (of so many failures) that betrayed Egypt submits to all commands of the KSA, including to criminalize the Shiite proselytization inside Egypt. The KSA fears that Egypt would leave its Wahabi Sunnite religion to convert to the Shiite one. At the same time, Iran is doing its best to spread the Shiite religion in Egypt, hoping to win Egypt one day to its side in order to siege the KSA, its arch-enemy, and to control the whole Arab world later on.

3- Both Iran and the KSA tend to forget a fact of vital importance about Egypt: Egypt can NEVER be a Shiite country at all, though it might be a Wahabi Sunnite extremist country for some time, as Wahabism is dwindling by the passage of time in Egypt. The Shiite Fatimids ruled Egypt at some point in history, and they built its current capital city, Cairo, as well as Al-Azhar institution in which Egypt takes pride. The Fatimid Shiites managed to convert most Egyptians from the Orthodox Coptic Christianity to the Shiite religion (while thinking it were Islam). Yet, shortly before the collapse of the Fatimid caliphate, Egyptians deserted and abandoned the Shiite religion and mocked the deification of  the Fatimid caliph/imam, and they did not like to verbally attack historical figures like Aisha, wife of Muhammad, Othman, Abou Bakr, and Omar. Shortly before the collapse of the Fatimid caliphate, a certain caliph had tried to win back the Egyptians to the Shiite religion by building a mausoleum dedicated to Al-Hussein, the murdered son of the Shiite supreme deity Ali, and the Sunnite Egyptians continue (till now) to deify and sanctify Al-Hussein along with the four pre-Umayyad caliphs. Thus, most Egyptians deify and sanctify the household of Ali and refuse to verbally abuse or mock Aisha, Othman, Abou Bakr, and Omar, and this means that the Egyptians now can NEVER convert to the Shiite religion en masse, even if few citizens convert.       

4- Turkey has no religious ideology now, but it has its Ottoman history in which it takes pride, but the Ottoman rule of Egypt still carries nothing but painful memories to Egyptians. Besides, Turkey has remained a secular country for decades and wishes one day to join the EU, and when Turkey has lately turned toward Arabs and Egypt in particular, it will never have the same weight in Egypt like the Wahabi monarchies of the Persian Gulf. In addition, the geographical location of turkey does NOT make it fit to lea Arabs or the Muhammadans in general, and this location makes it in constant troubles with Europe, Iran, and the Kurds. Moreover, the Ottoman Turkey would not have turned to Arabs if it had not been for the Safavid Shah Ismail, and the Ottomans would have turned westward into Europe; now, modern Turkey seeks (in vain and hopelessly) to join the EU.        

5- This means that the only forces that compete to control Egypt and to win it to their side is Iran and the Gulf monarchies (especially the KSA). A historical fact: Egypt can never be a Shiite country and will never remain a Wahabi one for long; sooner or later, Egypt will return to its ''moderate'' Sunnite Sufism and this will hasten the imminent collapse of the KSA and the Wahabi ideology in general.     

Lastly:

1- The Sunnite-Shiite conflict is actually an Iranian-Saudi one that caused the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya, and it threatens to destroy Egypt, Sudan, and North African Arab countries. It does NOT serve Saudi purposes and interests to see a very strong State established in Egypt, Iraq, and Yemen; besides, the KSA never desires to see a non-Wahabi State established at its borders, and this is why the criminal Wahabis of the KSA cause the outbreak of many wars and bloodshed in the region presumably to protect the Saudi monarchy.  

2- To avoid such total destruction coming soon, Egypt must be ruled by a democratic secular regime that applies human rights, so that Egypt restores its stature and important strategic role in the region; this will lead at once to the collapse of the rule of the Saudi royal family (the axis of evil) and to creating a balance between both real poles in the region: Iran and Egypt. This way, Iran will be confined to its borders and its role will never pose a threat, while the Turkish MB president, Erdoğan, would be forced to let go of his illusions of restoring the Ottoman caliphate.  

3- Otherwise, destruction lies ahead, looming on the horizon for all Arab countries and the whole Middle East.

4- God's Decree will prevail eventually.