Anti-capitalist theologian: «On the death of Mohammad, Mohammedanism faded away»

Turan: In his article "Caliph and Sultan" (1912) Acad. Vasily Barthold noted that when Prophet Mohammad departed this world, he took with him Allah-given revelation. So, subsequent religious dogmas were not those having initially been granted to Prophet Mohammad. You insist that a religion granted to Prophet had been buried in Kerbela. Where do you stand on assertions of Acad. Barthold?

Eliachyk: I agree with Acad. Barthold, for Mohammedanism died together with Mohammad"s death when he was buried in Kerbela. Prior to Kerbela, the Islamic religion tried to remain standing. It got blows from the left and the right; it fell, came into its own and fell again. Finally, this religion was axed in Kerbela and buried where it came on the scene. I mean the following:

Following Kerbela the objectives of Mohammedanism on earth were lost аnd no people remained to come them into effect. Further developments ended with expansion of Arabs, looting, attempts to create empire. There was not a single leader left to implement basic provisions of Islam - liquidation of slavery, ensuring of justice, elimination of inequality between the rich and and the poor, establishment of a staste based on shura (council), etc.

Turan: Why could caliphs drive the religion to such a state? Acad. Barthold notes that they thought of themselves as Allah"s deputy (Arab. caliph - deputy)? What do you make of all this?

Eliachyk: They endeavored to realize provisions of Islam in line with their views on it. For instance, caliph Omar meant to build a fair society as he saw it. He acted ass a fair dictator. However, during caliph Osman"s rule Omayyads began penetrating the state to hold important positions there. They suppressed uiprisings, and the caliphate turned into Omayyad state, and later on the Asrab state. It was needed to eradicate slavery within 50 years, go to polygamy, cancel transition of power from father to son, elect shura (council) at a general meeting. Also, terms of office of rulers were set,. Besides, they had to co-exist with Hebrews and Christians.

Turan: French anthropologist Clasude Levi Strauss writes that Mohammad in the perspective of his outlook, is a European of our times. However, subsequently Islam as if wedgedChristianity and Buddhism. This forms a basis of Europeans" negative attitude towards Islam. What would you say about it?

Eliachyk: My thoughts are accordant with this. In my previous statement I characterized Mohammad as "a pioneer of transition from Old World into New World". Note that transition into New World became possible after the abolition of slavery. No slavery is possible in the contemporary world. He is the last Prophet, and no Mahdi-Messiah will ever come to save us. From this point of view, Mohammad is a man who anticipated the advent of the modern world. I mean the French revolution, Russian revolution and the establishment of Republic in Turkey as successively occurring phenomena.

Turan: It was Farabi from the Central Asia who first voiced his protest against Omayyads for having wrecked the religion. What do you think of this protest, and of Farabi personally?

Eliachyk: Farabi was not the first to voicer hisd protest. This process started after the seizure of power by the Omayyads dynasty. During the reign of caliph Osman Ali repeatedly reacted to it, opposition arose there. The 91-years reign of Omayyads saw 80 uprisings, and most of all in Khorasan. The Abbasids marked uprisings against the Empire, including those of Karrmates, Ishmaelites, and Babaites. Note that Farabi expressed the position of protesters against Abbasids. According to Farab, the country was to have been ruled by a philosopher with high moral standards. It was no mere coincidence that Fasrabi"s works were reputed to be the classics in the history of Islam. In my monograph "The fair state" there are sections related to Farabi"s views.

Turan: Acasd. Barthold points out that acquision of title "caliph" by Yavuz Selim is inconsistent with historical reality, a falsification. The point is that in 1258 Hulagu executed the last caliph in Bagdad. After that for 250 years nobody bore a title of "caliph", how could it be granted to Yavuz Selim?

Eliachyk: It is misthought that caliphdom was granted to Abbasides. As a matter of fact, the very caliphdom is a wrong thing. Suffice it to look at "Medina agreement" consisting of 48 clauses which said nothing about the system of monocracy. Instead, it was envisaged to create a democratic system under a direct participation of people. It was not about caliphdom. All the kingdoms of the world were criticized under a name of "caliphdom". Note that caliphdom was not related to the religion, Allah commanded.

Turan: In all societies it was an enlightened religious figure who, irrespective of his religious affiliation, delivered revolutionary statements and speeches, and popular masses followed him in the hope to get rid of enslavement. For example, during the Russian revolution of 1905 priest Gregory Petrov made more left-radical statements tghan Lenin, and masses followed him willingly. What"s your take on that?

Eliachyk: I cannot say whether I"m a revolutionary or not. Until a man is alive to impact the spiritual life of society, it is difficult to make judgments about him. He may be evaluated properly only after his departure from life! If society turns to his works, thoughts and judgments 50 years later, hence, he is the righteous man! Those declaiming obsequious speeches in favor of the highest political opinion of the day and enjoying respect for 3-5 years cannot be thought of as righteous men. The most import thing is to uphold justice, equity and human rights protection, to follow principles you hold a strong belief in!

1) "Following the death of Mohammad, "the seal of prophets" (Quran, ХХХIII, 40), there could have no longer been a man - keynoter of divine will; in this dimension the theocratic principle proved to be buried in the Moslem world as far back as in 632 together with Mohammad". Vasily Barthold. "Caliph and Sultan". http://yakov.works/libr_min/02_b/ar/told_01.htm

2) Eliachyk means a battle of Kerbela between a detachment of Prophet Mohammad"s grandson Husseyn ibn Ali and armed forces of caliph Yazid I on muharram 61 Hegira (9 (12) October 680 in Kerbela on a territory of modern Iraq. The battle eventuated in defeat of Husseyn: less than 100-strong detachment faced with 4,000-strong army of Yazid I [2]. Total 72 were killed, including six-month-old great grandson of Ali ibn Abu Talib Ali Asqar. Many of them were Prophet Mohammad" family members. This tragic event is believed to be a beginning of separation between Sunni and Shia traditions in Islam. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle of Kerbela.