Immortal Slains

Those Who Died Before a Principle

Once upon time, lived a well educated man, and a friend of the famous poet Umar Khayyam, he started as a jurist and ended as a master terrorist. Hassan Sabbah, the master of Almod Catsle, who employed and trained the 2nd most reputed terrorism group in Islamic history, after Kharijites. Smoking hash and free sex with slave girls were parts of the hallucination package he granted to his mislead youth assassins. Therefore, the cult was named after Hashish, to be known during Fatimid era and after it as Hashashin. A word that fathered the term Assassin in Latin and Anglo-Germanic tongues later on.
During a visit to Martin Luther King Museum in Atlanta last week, a question beamed in my mind. Why a good percentage of great leaders throughout history were assassinated? I then remembered the common story we tell about Omar ibn Al-Khattab, the 2nd Caliph in Islamic history, when a man saw him sleeping under a tree with no guards, and commented, "O' Omar, you ruled justly, therefore felt secured enough to sleep" But was this statement concrete? Was being just enough to protect the leader? I think it was not, best confirmation was Omar himself, had been dispatched by one of those who abhorred his justice. They do exist everywhere and throughout history. Unjust systems by nature usually have a beneficiary group that tends to protect and fix the regimen favoring it. Antagonistically, a fair leader, being biased to none, has no specific defenders. He works for the wide public, those who never understand how effectual the leader was before they lose him. Proving scenes from history are numerous,

- Omar ibn Al-Khattab- 644 CE

Every Muslim must have grasped ample values of Omar, apart from Shiites convictions about him that are surely unfair; his highest reputed value was justice. This did not prevent a grudging Persian coward, to stab him six times with a dagger, while he was leading prayer in the mosque of Medina. Abu-Lulua the Magi, the assassin, was caught and killed on Omar death, two days after the assassination occurrence. (The rumors linking the shrine of Baba Shuga El-Dien in Kashan, Iran, to this man is fiction created by troublemakers to inflame hatred among Sunnis and Shiites, the man was killed and buried in Medina)

- Ali ibn Abi-Talib- 661 CE

My ceaseless prime role model, the fair judge, the even-handed Caliph, the freedom fighter, the philosopher of Islam and the founder of Logical Interpretation scholary in Islamic juristic history. All this was not sufficient to guard him from the poisoned sword of the son-of-bitch zealot, who though himself a fundamentalist, Abdurrahman ibn Mulgim. The terrorist Kharijite, revenging Ali's conquest over his Qaida-like battalion in Nahrawan. Ali's honorable blood was shed also in the mosque of Kuffa. However, his tomb is controversial between Iraqis who claimed it to be in Najaf, and Afghanis who claimed to be in Mazaar Sharif. Surely the Iraqi story sounds more logical being closer to the factual place of death. However, in history, you can never be very sure.

- Saif El-Deen Qutuz- 1260 CE

What the classical movie Waislamah did not tell in the story of Muzaffar Qutuz, is the sad end of it. When Qutuz and his prime general Bibars Bondukdary disputed after Ain Jalut battle. Bibars wanted to be an independent governor of Aleppo in Syria, while Qutuz perceived it as fragmentation of Arabic power after defeating the first wave of Mongols, a risk that is highly expected to rise again shortly. Standing before his ambition, Bibars decided to slain his Jihad partner, assassinating Qutuz in the way back to Cairo, to jump on the Egyptian throne as the well-reputed Sultan Rokn El-Deen Bibars.

- Abraham Lincoln – 1865 CE

After his speech in Ford's theatre, supporting the civil rights of the newly freed slavery of USA. For this human creed intention, he was assassinated by the fanatic Confederate Booth, who shot the president with a shotgun, that delivered the bullet to back of his head, to die in the next morning. Being commemorated in humankind hearts with liberty. While Booth were commerated with vanity.
- Martin Luther King- 1968
This man's life was a miracle, achieving a leap in civil rights in his limited lifetime, could be expressed with what black Americans say about it, "He found us a place on the table". What a simple, yet, ultimately deep statement!! This honorable man was shot during an activity trip to Mississippi, although his presumed Assassin were tried and sentenced for 99 years. Kings family still insists the US government had a hand in the matter. His death stands with JFK one as the couple of rich conspiracy theory fields in modern history.

- Mohandas Gandhi-1948 CE

Being a Hindu who loved all the nation of Indian subcontinent, including Muslims, was enough sin as visualized by the fanatic Hindu Mahasabha. One of them, was the sick fanatic who shot Mahatma during his daily tour among simple publics in Delhi. God bless the Grand Soul and burn in hellfire all fanatics.

They were all catapulting leaders who had a principle to die before, Omar martyred before justice and the glory of Islamic Empire, Ali martyred before the noble values he represented against the pragmatism of Muawia and Amre. Qutuz martyred before chivalric ethics and unity mind sets, while Lincoln, Gandhi and King all martyred before equity, liberty and tolerance of the other. All slain on hands of tampering forces, who did not determine in them in power a craved benefit. What is the lesson we can figure out from all this? A good leader, can never even dream to be the favorite of everyone. It is a matter of conflict of interests. This applies today in every society, community or organization. On this I have a quote I said once in a business conversation "Whoever sweats to satisfy persons, not values or principles, will sweat forever and achieve nothing, keeping everyone happy is an urban legend"


Arabic ID said...

Actually, I didn't understand again..

I think those people didn't sweat to make everyone is happy , they sacrificed their lives in order to achieve a big principle of their lives,No not only this but but for the goodness of the world,

your words might work on others, like me for example, I was told from someone "you don't ever say No???", this might be the one who will never get rest or even a peace of mind, I know this is wrong with me, and I sometime try to change this,

but those leaders with one word they change facts, they might kill people if hate is one of their goals , but it wasn't.
they had faith that freedom and justice will make the world better.

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

Dear Arabic ID,
we are saying the same I guess. I said those people died before a principle. Although they were models of goodness and justice, they found some people to hate them to death. Then, we should be all after packing what we belief, like them, not after making whoever happy. Regards

Amre El-Abyad said...

"The rumors linking the shrine of Baba Shuga El-Dien in Kashan, Iran, to this man is fiction created by troublemakers to inflame hatred among Sunnis and Shiites, the man was killed and buried in Medina"

Dear Eyad, that is not fiction. It is a fact. There is shrine for Abou Loalo2a Al-Magousy In Iran.

Check the interview on "Aljazeera" between the persian nationalist Hashmi Rafsanjani and youssef Al-Quaradawy. The Iranian sectarian criminal terrorist, simply didn't deny it:)

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

Dear Amre,
The shrine there is either empty or has the body of any other man. Yes, some 3olat shiaa were believing he is Abo Loloa. based on a fictious story saying he escaped and travelled to Kashan and lived there. The majority of sources said he was executed and buried in Medina. Afterall, what I am sure of, apart from the chitchat of Qaradawy and Rafsingany, the official attitude of Irani government was to shut down the shrine and prevent prayer in it to avoid inflaming dispute with Sunnis. A dispute that ONLY benefits our enemies.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Dear Friend,

"A dispute that only benefits our enemies"

Of course that will only beneit our enemies mainly Iran and Israel

That is not a fiction, by the way. It is a well documented, well photographed and well acknowledged fact that it was Iran that stabbed Iraq at the back during the invasion. It is well known the Iran ( not shiites) is occupying Iraq with forces on the ground killing Arabs, secualrs, army men,s cientists, pilots-sunnis and shiites alike. It is well known that govenment in Iraq is not shiite it is an IRANIAN ONE NOT A SHIITE ONE. There is difference between siite and Iranian.

It is well known that is Iran is changing demography in Iraq by pushing ,millions of IRNAINS INTO IRAQ WHO ARE BEING EMPOWEREDBY BY THE AMERICAN IRANI ALLIANCE.

It is well known that Iran is doing its best to De-Arabise Iraq. And it is not just about that. It considers Pan-Arabism, its number one enemy in the region. Its dispute with America is over the flesh of Iraq.

While its fiuctional tactical dispute with Israel is over hegemony in the Middle-East

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

Dear Amre,
I do not know if u visited Iraq or not lately. I tried to understand the situation there by reading about it. Only when I realize I need to be there and for a good time to understand the reality of situation.

However, I do not blame Iran if plays a role to increase its prominence in the region. It is the right for any country want to prosper to try regional leadership. Being a pan-arabist myself does not prevent me to understand Pan-Arabism to be unfavored by Iran, it gives them 1st the sense of Umayyads era (though this is not the type of Arabism I favor) and it alignate them in the region.

What I do not agree with, is to put Iran in one basket with Israil. An overt enemy who we know for more than 60 years in bloody conflict. Even if I make sure of all what you said about Iran, I really cannot put them before Israil in my list of enemies. Best Regards

Amre El-Abyad said...

Dearest Friend Eyad,

Much as I respect and cherich your views and appreciate the growing frienship, I totally disagree with you regarding the Iran issue.

Moreover, I find your stance on the whole issue inconsistent with your brilliant analytical ways which you employ in all your writings.

What is the diffrence between Israel and Iran? Iran is kiling Iraqis and ethnically cleansing the Arab Identity of Iraq-much the same like what Israel did n 1948.

Also when you say you don't understand the situation in Iraq because you havent beeen there is a bit unconvincing. Becaus Iran's ethnic cleansing and aliiance with Iraq, and its SETTLING OF IRANIANS IN THE SOUTH OF iRAQ IS A WELL KNOWN, WELL DIOCUMENTED FACT THAT IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE IRANIANS BEFORE ANYONE ELSE.

After all, what happened to the SHIITE Arab clans in the south, was not long ago. They stormed the Iranian consulate in Basarah while they were chanting" Arab we are all Arabs" get out persian dirt ( Barrah ya garab). That was published on all news outlets official as well alternative! Later on, the Shiite Arab shiekhs were subjected to a massacre by the Irania Quds brigades in the south.

Yet, I have to say the Iranian occupation and murderous crimes in Iraq, is yet more critical and catastrophic to Arabism and Egyptian national security than the Israeli crimes in Ghaza- that is when go through the fluctuations in power balance in the middle east since fifties, you quite easily note that they point out that IRAQ IS MOST CRUICAL FOR ERECTING ARAB POWER.ON THE OTHER HAND, IRAN HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING BUT AN ENMY AND AN ALLY OF ISRAEL WHETHER IT WAS THE SHAH OR THE CAVE- MAN SATANIST AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI. THAT COUNTRY IS RULED BY NOTHING BUT PERSIAN NATIONALISM AND AND EXTREME GRUDGE ON ARAB CIVILSATION .

The Iranian occupation of Iraq makes an irreversible adverse effect on Egypt's and Arab's position on the global geoppolitical map.

I guess we have all seen how the tone of the official Arab discourse has toned down signifcantly since the inavasion.

Also when you say "I dont blame Iran for playing a role". That reads I dont blame Iran for allying itself with the Americans, occupying Iraq, fueling civil strife and ethnically cleansing the Arab population.

Also, you say that despite being a pan Arabist yourself, it does not prevent you to understand Pan-Arabism to be unfavored by Iran.

My dear friend that maps into " you don't balme Iran for hating it and allying itself with ISRAEL AND THE U.S in their war on Arab nationalism"

I think it is very clear that Iran's integration and Arab nationalism is mutually exclusive.

It is not a matter of specualtion. That is a very obvious fact.

In 1982 Iraq offered to stop the war so as to interfere in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.However, the criminal Khomeini refused. That was the scenario of 1973 when the shah mobilsed the Iranioan troops on the iraqi borders to prevent a full Iraqi particpation in the 1973 war!

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

Dear Amre,
I still cannot blame the Iraqi situation now to Iran. I blame it first to Saddam ways of managing political disputes. Then to the Arabic silence of the lambs. About the war in 80s, who started it in the very first place? Wasn't he Saddam fighting for the Americans their own war? Was'nt he Saddam revevnging the embassy hostages crisis for the Americans? Alliance of USA with Saddam, I have a proof on it in the releases documents of CIA in 2005, 2006. I do not hold equivalent to the Iranian alliance with US or Israil. Moreover, ideologically, Irani system sells itself internally on a positioning that disables any overt alliance with neither. There are power games in Iraq between USA and Iran. There is also conversations discretely about this power game. However, this is normal in political world. Best Regards

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

I am pan-arabist. However, I do not blame others, when they play to the welfare of their nations and glorifying ttheir status. It is our work to do so for our nation. None else is accountable in this regard. Regards

Amre El-Abyad said...

Dear Eyad,

That is wrong Saddam didnt start the war. That is Iranian propaganda:)

Now let's go over the facts.

1)In 1979- Bany Sadr the first president of the khomeinist Iran dclared that revolution wil only stop in Bghdad.

2)The satan Ayatollah Khomeini: decalred Arab nationalism herecy an said that the way to jeurosalem goes through Baghdad.

3) Iraq in the seventies engaged in an amtious project to sculariseand modernise the Iraqi south. Ayatoallh Khomeini and co. resisted vehmently by playing the emotionsof the naive people and portraying progress as against religon.

4) Iraq filed 100 official complaints to the U.Nabout Iranian border harrassments in the south. Iran was pressing on the south which it considers implictkly a Persian region.

TRhere was nio choice but to teach Iran the lesson of its life.

Iran was destabilising and weakening the country. It is a historical enemy of Iraq and Arabs the same ways Israel is. In 1973 Iran took advantage of the effecticve Iraqi particpation in the 1973 and mobilised its troops on the Iraqi borders. Iran was finacing the extremist ultra nationalist Kurdish rebels espaecially during 1973. Iranian mullahs in 1967 handed out sweets celebrating the defeat o Nasser.

Iraq had no choice but to crush the head of the Iranian snake once and for all. It managed to do so very well.

It happned back then that U.S had its intrests in instigating a war in the gulf so as to check the tremendous Iraqi progress and maintain a foothold in the gulf.

Our interests were aligned partially back then. But here we should blame Iran and no one but Iran for interfering in Arab affairs. Had they stayed within their borders and minded theior own business their wouildn't have been a war anyway.

"am pan-arabist. However, I do not blame others, when they play to the welfare of their nations and glorifying ttheir status. It is our work to do so for our" nation.

What you are saying is that we shouldn't balme the Iranians and Israelians for invading us and destroying our countries because every nation has got the right to glorify its status and seek its natural interets!

Well, what you are saying totaly true. However it dependes on the the side from which you are taking your premises. Israel in 1973 was totally convinced that it was defending itself fairly and justly against its enemies. What I am saying is that, when the enemy believes that its justly seeking its own interests, doesn't mean that we bow and say yes let them do whatever they want , it is our fault in the first place because we were not strong enough to defend ourselves!!!!!

I think that is a logical fallacy on your part.

Finally regarding the war:

Israel was the main supplier of arms to Khomeini during the war, well documented fact.

Also America- the great Satan was selling arms to Iran. Ever heard of Iran-Gate?

90% of Iraqi equipment were French, Russian and Egyptian against a much bigger enemy that outnumbered th Iraqis by 5:1.

What is worse, they were driven by a fanatic QUEDA IDEOLOGY. As the freak Khomeini was brainwashing 14 and 15 years old boys convincing them that they will go to heaven once they ie fighting Iraqis. Sill the much smaller Iraq mangd to humilate Iran, kill khomeni after having brought the freak down on his knees.

Let's hear what khomeini had tosay about the war: " Iraq and arab nationalism is much more dangerous to Iran than Israel "

Natinyahoo an Ariel Sharon stated explictly in their policy papers that the persian Irani-shiite nationalist Iran is not a strategic enemy of Israel, but rather a potential ally. It is Iraq that had to be destroyed.

I am sure that you are courageous and straightforwar enough to change your mind once you have realized that you were not right in a stance.

Anonymous said...

اقولك على حاجه
انا كنت بادخل مدونتك عشان اقرا أشعارك وحكاياتك
واعيش معاها واتفاعل مع كل كلمه بتقولها
كل ده وديته فين؟؟
سؤال نفسي اسأله بقالى مده
من غير زعل :)
اه على فكره
لو ليك فى الحفلات والتجمعات .. اعتقد ان عندى خبر يهمك

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

Dear Amre,
It taked more than a comment to answer the points you arised. I guess I will post on it soon. Replying to My Friend Amr, this shall be the post address. Wish it does not start something like that of you and Nag. Thanks n Regards

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

عزيزتي وينكي
لست أنا صديقتي العزيزة من ذهب به، بل ذهبت به أوضاعنا، الموضوع أنني قررت التوجه غرباً ، نعم و بكل صراحة ، قررت أن أوجه الفكر الانساني الذي أقدمه هنا لمن يحسن فهمه بشكل أفضل ، لقد بدأت بلسان قومي و متجها لهم، فوجدت منهم أصدقاء رائعون ، أعترف بهذا، لكنني وجدت أيضا زبدا كثيرا لا خير فيه، فقررت أن أغير وجهتي ، و لأن أهاجر فكريا فقد هاجر من هم خير مني و لا أقارن بهم شخصي الضئيل فكريا و جسميا ايضا،

شكرا للدعوة، بس للاسف ذوقي السمعي قدييييييم قوييي و شرقي قويييي و كلاسيكي للنهاية

تحياتي و تقديري

Amre El-Abyad said...

Dear Eyad,

I can never comapre you to a degenrate, demoralised, lying dishonest low on manners and values and culture Iranian creature like that owl-Naj.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Dearest friend,

I have simple request for a an elder more experienced brother whom I respect so much. when you make your reply to me please refer my latest post when linking to me. For I do think that it has summed up the Iranian interstes quite effectively.

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

Dear Amr,
thank you my friend, the matter of Naj was just a joke :). I know we are good friends now despite any conflict of visions or assessments. I will surely refer back to your post when I write about the matter.

Best Regards

Fantasia said...

Dear Dr. Eyad,

i believe this is one of the risks that come with serving a cause. activism has got its high risks, especially at a time when extremist roam the earth freely. and unfortunately there are groups of violent extremists who emerge every now and then to spoil the lives of innocent people and sabotage the development of humanity at large. this is crazy! i mean who would kill a man like Ghandhi for God's sake? he must be a damn idiot! but this idiot made history.. which is a most ridiculous fact to face! pathetic!idiots shape the world it seems.. like the ones who killed Bhutto.. and the stupid kid who wanted to kill Naguib Mahfouz.. Idiots on a holy mission!

i can't believe that we are allowing the ideology of those people to spread this way. everybody's watching as if nothing concerns them. we are losing the best people among us, allowing the scum of the earth to pluck them out of our lives and put and end their glorious work. the easiest thing for those people is slaying whoever doesn't appeal to them. they want to rule the world through assassinating our dreams, hopes, ideas and aspirations. they want to steal history and make it their own. how can we stand against them when all we do is talk?.. a thinker holding a pen in front of a rifle! do we have to carry guns to protect ourselves and the future of our kids? is this the only solution? i wonder

hail to mr. amre el-abyad, the expert on everything Iranian. I enjoyed the discussion you're both having here. but amre, what do you think the solution to the Iranian problem and its backing of the shiites? is there anything else to do in the near future better than the american way of finishing things off? by that i mean violence, armed interference.. whether by ourselves, or through violent allies or groups.

i really wish to be convinced that there are other solutions out there. please somebody give me hope that peace and peaceful means are possible.

Dr. Eyad Harfoush said...

Dear Fantasia,
There is surely something we can do, and it is not something I create, it is the same pathway Europe walked before to get out of darkness era. ILLUMINATI, apart from what is factual and what is fiction in their history, I can elaborate further over mail.

For what we can do in case of Iran, I believe my way, that I am writing in a post now, shall differ from amr's way. It is based on offering a hand not a gun. YET, a strong hand offered with peace, when strong hands are extended with peace, none can reject, unless it is an existence conflict like Arab Israeli one. Kindest Regards

Amre El-Abyad said...

Dear Fantasia and Eyad,

Well,Iran is not backing shiites, but rather, Iranians. In the late seventies when the war against the criminal Iran had been looming up in the distance Iraq deportd Iraqi citizens who were of Iranian origin to Iran as thery overtly supported Iran.

Along with those Iranians minority hard core extremist shiites were deported to Iran as well in the midst odf the war of defence against the persians. It these ( Da3wa party) that are armed and supported by Iran. Not just that, Iran has got brigades fighting in Iraq agaisnt sunnis and the shiite Arab clans.

Recently a confideration of the southern shiite clans has signed a petition to the U.N asking for an intervention to limit the Persianisation of the Iraqi south and to put an end to the Irani intervention.

As for Americans, It was them who handed Iraq to Iran in the very first place! I suggest that you reer to my löast post so as to understand the easons behind it.

The best way to handle Iran, is foiling its platforms. Ordinary Arab citizens from Morocco to Iraq must show Iranians that they are not wanted and hated in the region.

Secondly, we have to work our best to expose the Iranian crimes.

I don't think that Eyad's firm peace policy is viable, since Iran is attacking it is killing all Arabs in Iraq occupying the country. What hand shpould we extend to those dirty bloody grudgy savage killers.

Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia must put up a united front and use force with Iran.

As regards Americans, Once Arabs have put solid inpenetratable front , and start pressing Americans to leave, [they] will simply do. U.S can not stay in the region for a single day, if there is a total collective Arab rejection of its presence. Power balance is not in the favour then:)

Arabic ID said...

would you read my latest post on:


I think it is related some how to this post

Regards, and wish you happiness at all of your times

Anonymous said...

HI, I just joined this community. I m from india. I like this forum.......hope to learn lot of things here ;-)

My Poker review blog Best Online Poker For Poker details

Anonymous said...

Hello, I enjoy геading all of уour article.
I like to wrіte a little commеnt to support yоu.

Ηere is my site; payday loans