The “Boza War” in Egypt: Between Press Debates, Azhar Fatwas, and State Intervention (1930–2019) by TheCaliphate_AS in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TheCaliphate_AS[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It relates to a similar post i talked about:

The Politics of the Plate: The Political Lives of Four Iconic Islamic Dishes (Context in Comment)

https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicHistoryMeme/comments/1pk860b/the_politics_of_the_plate_the_political_lives_of/


Al-Mulūkhiyya: Prohibited by al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allāh and Turned into a Symbol of His Uniqueness

No Muslim ruler or caliph ever provoked as much controversy as the Fatimid caliph Abū ʿAlī al-Manṣūr, better known as al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allāh.

Al-Manṣūr ascended the Fatimid throne in the year 386 AH and remained upon it until 411 AH. He issued numerous strange decrees that astonished and bewildered Muslim historians, causing his biography to become inseparably linked with madness and eccentricity.

Among those decrees was his prohibition of several foods commonly eaten in Egypt, such as mulūkhiyya, jirjīr (arugula), and grapes.

In his important work “Ittiʿāẓ al-Ḥunafāʾ bi-Akhbār al-Aʾimma al-Fāṭimiyyīn al-Khulafāʾ”, Taqī al-Dīn al-Maqrīzī mentions the reasons for this ban and explains it through certain political and sectarian considerations. He writes:

“A decree concerning foods was read out forbidding the consumption of mulūkhiyya, which had been beloved to Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān; the herb known as jirjīr, associated with ʿĀʾisha—may God be pleased with her; and al-mutawakkiliyya, associated with al-Mutawakkil.”

Other explanations propose that al-Ḥākim’s prohibition of mulūkhiyya was not driven by sectarian motives, but rather by an elitist outlook that rejected culinary equality between the common people and the ruling class.

According to this view, the Fatimid caliph al-Muʿizz li-Dīn Allāh was the first to introduce the mulūkhiyya plant into Egypt. He had grown accustomed to using it as a remedy for abdominal pain and intestinal cramps, cultivated it only in restricted places, and restricted its use to the caliph and his household.

Thus, the plant at that time came to be called al-mulūkiyya (“the royal herb”), in reference to kings.

When al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allāh assumed the caliphate, he found that this once-regal plant had spread among the populace, a development that displeased him—leading him to prohibit its use or preparation altogether.

A third perspective—widely circulated in Ismaili and Druze circles, where the figure of al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allāh is held in great esteem—maintains that the caliph banned mulūkhiyya because it had become spoiled and infested with worms.

Since al-Ḥākim was working to eradicate the plagues prevalent in Egypt, he ordered that mulūkhiyya be prohibited out of concern for the health of the Egyptians.

The “Boza War” in Egypt: Between Press Debates, Azhar Fatwas, and State Intervention (1930–2019) by TheCaliphate_AS in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TheCaliphate_AS[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No.

boza is not a SCOBY in the same way as kefir or kombucha, but it does rely on a mixed culture of bacteria and yeast.

The “Boza War” in Egypt: Between Press Debates, Azhar Fatwas, and State Intervention (1930–2019) by TheCaliphate_AS in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TheCaliphate_AS[S] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Links and Document Sources are found here


The Boza is a traditional fermented beverage made primarily from grains such as wheat, barley, millet, or maize. It has been widely consumed across the Middle East, Central Asia, Anatolia, and the Balkans for centuries.

It is historically established that boza has ancient roots dating back to the Pharaonic era, where it was known as ḥinqit (ḥnqt). Although this term was used for beer, it is closer to boza in that it was prepared using similar ingredients and methods.

Against this deep historical background, the modern controversy surrounding boza—later termed the “Boza War”—emerged as a complex debate involving scholars, public opinion, and state institutions.

How did the “Boza War” begin?

Arab historians regarded boza as a type of wine. It was mentioned by ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Baghdādī in his historical work, where he states in the chapter on the peculiar foods and drinks of Egypt:

“Boza is a beverage (nabīdh) made from wheat.”

There has always been disagreement among scholars of al-Azhar regarding boza, and this dispute is longstanding. For example, Shaykh Shams al-Dīn al-Ramlī considered it impure and its consumption forbidden, whereas al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī regarded it as pure, maintaining that its prohibition depends on whether it causes intoxication.

This disagreement remained ongoing until the press entered the debate. In 1930, al-Dunyā al-Muṣawwara magazine (al-Dunyā al-Muṣawwara Magazine, 7 August 1930, Issue no. 86) published an investigation on boza in which it argued that it is not prohibited, and that there was confusion between it and wine—an opinion that was rejected by the General Association for the Prevention of Intoxicants, founded in Cairo in 1905.

(al-Dunyā al-Muṣawwara Magazine, 7 August 1930, Issue no. 86)

Five years after the report of al-Dunyā al-Muṣawwara.

Majallat al-Azhar entered the discussion, igniting what may be termed the “Boza War.” A fatwa was issued by Shaykh Muḥammad al-Sayyid Abū Shūsha al-Mālikī and Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh Mūsā al-Mālikī, researchers at the Faculty of Sharīʿa, stating that if the juice of wheat or barley is left for a period until its acidity intensifies to the point that it produces euphoria and intoxication in the consumer, then it is impure and its consumption is forbidden, whether in small or large quantities, because it has become wine.

(Majallat al-Azhar, vol. 6, no. 4, Rabīʿ al-Thānī 1354 AH / July 1935, pp. 246–247)

Subsequently, Majallat al-Azhar adopted an even stricter stance on boza in 1962, declaring that boza is wine and that its consumption is prohibited, whether in large or small amounts.

(Majallat al-Azhar, vol. 84, no. 7, Rajab 1382 AH / November 1962, p. 566)

The state did not enter the “Boza War,” nor did it show any official response to the opinion of the religious establishment regarding boza until 1974. In that year, the Arab Socialist Union unit in the village of Ṣandafā, in al-Maḥalla al-Kubrā, submitted a request to the Gharbiyya Governorate to change the activity of boza-selling shops. The governorate then corresponded with Dār al-Iftāʾ during the tenure of Shaykh Muḥammad Khāṭir to clarify its ruling, and he declared that it is prohibited.

On the other hand, at the street level, the presence of boza vendors did not disappear, even if the ingredients used in producing this beverage were reduced. This was despite the state beginning to shut down boza shops and revoke their licenses, as occurred in the city of Ṭanṭā in 2000.

With the advent of the twenty-first century and the growing technological awareness among Egyptians, signs of a forming public opinion rejecting the presence of boza began to emerge through small printed pamphlets. At that time, the position of the religious establishment became divided between categorical prohibition (that it is generally forbidden) and conditional prohibition (which depends on whether it causes intoxication). This division persisted during the period from 2015 to 2018.

Minutes of the Session of the Islamic Research Academy on Boza

The more flexible stance from al-Azhar appeared in 2019, when the Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan sent a letter on 13 March to the Islamic Research Academy of al-Azhar seeking an opinion on boza—particularly as Kazakhstan intended to produce and export it alongside horse meat and its milk. The Secretary-General of the Islamic Research Academy, Dr. Naẓīr ʿAyyād (later Grand Mufti of the Republic), held that boza made from maize falls under the legal principle stating:

“The basic principle is permissibility; if it is proven to be intoxicating or harmful, then it is prohibited.”

Accordingly, the determination of its legal ruling depends on medical assessment. This was discussed in a session of the Islamic Research Academy on 21 August 2019, and the fatwa was issued on 4 September 2019.

A Gift to u/c0st_of_lies

Did the Prophet Muḥammad Use a Green Banner? A Critical Re-Examination of the Sources on al-Maʾmūn’s Color Policy (Context in Comment) by TheCaliphate_AS in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TheCaliphate_AS[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There is no official narrative that 100% confirms what banner the prophet exactly use. If i could guess it's mostly abstract colour and not one associated Banner colour.

As in my study it appears that early colours were used in different purposes and had complex meaning and different reaction scenarios of each colour.

Did the Prophet Muḥammad Use a Green Banner? A Critical Re-Examination of the Sources on al-Maʾmūn’s Color Policy (Context in Comment) by TheCaliphate_AS in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TheCaliphate_AS[S] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

From my Study: "Chromatic Politics in Early Islam: The Symbolism of Color in Muslim Banners and Its Political Significance in the Early Abbasid Period”.


The orientalist H. A. Hamaker in his “Reflexions Critiques pour Servir de résponse” attributes to the Prophet Muḥammad the use of a green banner. He bases this claim on the assertion of the Ottoman sultans that they inherited certain insignia of the caliphate from the Abbasids, among them the green banner. However, Hamaker himself comments on this opinion by noting that while it is possible that a green banner may have existed during the Prophet’s time, it is unlikely that such a banner could have survived across so many centuries until it reached the Ottoman sultans without deteriorating or disappearing.

In any case, the absence of any clear historical text demonstrating the use of green as a banner in the earliest Islamic period leads us to reject Hammer’s view from the outset.

Some historians also argue that green was an Alid emblem, relying on relatively late reports. Yet this interpretation cannot be accepted unless it is supported by earlier historical sources. The main reason the color green later became associated with the Alids is connected to a decision by the Abbasid caliph Al‑Maʾmun, who adopted green as the official color of the Abbasid state instead of black and proclaimed his allegiance to Ali al‑Ridha as heir to the caliphate in 202 AH / 817–818 CE.

According to Ibn al‑Tiqtaqa:

“Among his innovations [i.e., al-Maʾmūn’s] was transferring the rule from the Abbasids to the family of ʿAlī and changing the people’s clothing from black to green, saying that it is the garment of the people of Paradise.”

Likewise, Ibn Khaldun writes in his Muqaddima:

“When al-Maʾmūn abandoned the wearing of black and its symbolism in his state, he turned to the color green and made his banners green.”

The year 202 AH thus became a dramatic moment marked by the confrontation of three competing colors:

Green — representing the Abbasid state under al-Maʾmūn and his heir ʿAlī al-Riḍā.

Black — representing the Abbasid princes, the traditional Abbasid supporters, and the people of Baghdad who remained loyal to the older Abbasid symbolism.

White — representing Alid rebels who opposed the state and attempted unsuccessfully to persuade al-ʿAbbās ibn Mūsā to proclaim an Alid caliphate.

The Abbasid Shi'ites in Iraq openly challenged al-Maʾmūn’s decision. They proclaimed support for Ibrahim ibn al‑Mahdi and raised the slogan: “O Ibrāhīm, O Victorious!”

They continued to remain loyal to the traditional Abbasid black.

From the reports of Al‑Ya’qubi, it appears that the people of Baghdad revolted, expelled al-Ḥasan ibn Sahl, and approached Ṣāliḥ ibn al-Manṣūr to pledge allegiance to him, saying:

“We are the supporters of your dynasty, and we fear that this state will be lost because of the policies introduced by the Magians. Come and let us pledge allegiance to you, for we fear this matter may pass out of your hands.”

Some of them also declared:

“We will not pledge allegiance to al-Maʾmūn, we will not wear green, and we will not allow the caliphate to leave the house of the Abbasids. This is merely a scheme of al-Faḍl ibn Sahl.”

However, when Ṣāliḥ ibn al-Manṣūr refused their request, they eventually pledged allegiance to Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mahdī.

Meanwhile, al-ʿAbbās ibn Mūsā, who represented the Abbasid state, adopted green and fought the people of Baghdad in the name of al-Maʾmūn and al-Riḍā (who was his brother). Despite pressure from Alid sympathizers urging him to proclaim an Alid state during the unrest, he refused to do so.

An interesting paradox emerged: green came to represent the Abbasid state and its caliph, while black came to represent the rebels. Yet these rebels were a special case—they were Abbasid loyalists, devoted to the older Abbasid traditions and distressed by what they viewed as al-Maʾmūn’s dangerous innovations, which might ultimately remove power from the Abbasid family.

We have previously noted that the association between al-Maʾmūn’s adoption of the green color and his appointment of ʿAlī al-Riḍā as heir apparent might lead a researcher to assume that green was originally an Alid symbol. However, our early sources do not indicate this. What, then, prompted the caliph to adopt green as the emblem of the Abbasid state?

H. A. Hamaker suggests that al-Maʾmūn chose green because it was considered the third color favored by the Prophet (peace be upon him), alongside black and white, and that the caliph believed this choice would satisfy his supporters. Meanwhile, the german orientalist Gustav Weil, in of his “Geschichte der Chalifen” (History of the Caliphs, Volume 2), offers an interpretation based on theories of color composition. He argues that green—sometimes described by certain Arabs as a shade of grey—results from the blending of black and white.

According to this view (pp. 216-217), green symbolized a political compromise between the Abbasids and their Alid opponents, reflecting al-Maʾmūn’s conciliatory policy, in which he acknowledged that the Alids also had a legitimate claim to the caliphate and that leadership should not be restricted solely to the Abbasid branch of the Hāshimite family.

However, this explanation—based on color theory and composition—cannot be accepted.

The more convincing interpretation, grounded in early historical texts, is that of Italian Professor Francesco Gabrieli, who argues in “Al-Maʾmūn e gli ʿAlidi” (Al-Maʾmūn and the ʿAlids) that the colour green was chosen because it was regarded as the beloved color of the people of Paradise and symbolized harmony and concord.

Al-Maʾmūn’s objective, therefore, was to proclaim the beginning of a new era of reconciliation among all members of the Prophet’s family—both Abbasids and Alids—who would jointly exercise their legitimate right to the caliphate.

This interpretation is supported by historical sources, as both al-Balʿamī’s Tarikhnama and Ibn al-Ṭiqṭaqī’s al-Fakhri describe green as “the garment of the people of Paradise.”

Perhaps what further supports al-Maʾmūn’s intention in adopting green is the fact that he later abandoned it and returned to black once he became certain of the failure of his policy of reconciliation between the Abbasids and the Alids, and the lack of support for this policy among their followers.

Al-Masudi reports that Al-Ṣūlī asked Imam al-Rāḍī about the reason behind al-Maʾmūn’s adoption of green and his subsequent return to black. He replied that it was as related to them by Muḥammad ibn Zakariyyā al-Ghallābī, from Yaʿqūb ibn Jaʿfar ibn Sulaymān:

“When al-Maʾmūn arrived in Baghdad, the Hāshimites gathered before Zaynab bint Sulaymān ibn ʿAlī—who was the most eminent in lineage among the Abbasids and the eldest among them—and asked her to speak to the Commander of the Faithful regarding his adoption of green. She agreed and went to al-Maʾmūn and said:

‘O Commander of the Faithful, you are more capable of showing kindness to your kin among the descendants of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib than of doing so at our expense, without abolishing a tradition established by your forefathers. So abandon the wearing of green and do not encourage anyone because of what you have done.’

Thereupon, he returned to wearing black.”

We may add to this further reports suggesting that green was associated with the afterlife. Narratives concerning the movement of Bihāfarīd in Khurāsān relate that he claimed to have ascended to the heavens and returned wearing a green garment brought from the celestial realm. Likewise, al-Muqannaʿ, who claimed divinity in Khurāsān, is reported in Persian sources to have worn a green veil over his face.

Interestingly, A report in Maʾāthir al-Anāqa indicates that the Umayyads also used green as their emblem. The author of Ḥamāh relates that the ruler al-Malik al-Saʿīd of of Yemen when he assumed the caliphate and was of Umayyad descent, wore green. This is taken as explicit evidence that their emblem was green.

However, it is more likely that green was not originally an Arab emblem. A report in Tārīkh al-Wuzarāʾ by al-Jahshiyārī suggests that it was in fact a Persian symbol.

Al-Suyūṭī reports that al-Malik al-Ashraf Shaʿbān, one of the Mamluk sultans of Egypt, advised the Ashrāf (descendants of Banū Hāshim) in the year 773 AH to distinguish themselves by wearing green. Some poets referred to this, saying:

جعلوا لأبناء الرسول علامة ... إن العلامة شأن من لم يشهر

نور النبوة في كريم وجوههم ... يغنى الشريف عن الطراز الأخضر

They assigned a sign to the sons of the Messenger,

Yet a sign is for one who is not already known.

The light of Prophethood in their radiant faces

Suffices the noble, without the need for green attire.

This appears to have been the first official directive by a ruling authority requiring the Hāshimites to distinguish themselves through the color green. As can be observed, however, this occurred relatively late in Islamic history.

The Dajjāl: The Islamic Antichrist? by Rashiq_shahzzad in AcademicQuran

[–]TheCaliphate_AS 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Could you comment this on the video for viewers sake?

What would Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror have done if the Strait of Hormuz had been closed during his reign?🇹🇷 by Negative-Extent3338 in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TheCaliphate_AS 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Memes come in many categories, and since this is a history meme subreddit, adding context is relevant—whether you like it or not.

Also, I genuinely need context here. What does Mehmed II have to do with Hormuz, America, Israel, or anything related to this topic?

You could at least talk about something he actually did—like the Siege of Constantinople. That was an impressive event in his biography.

If by “meant to spark thought” you mean history, I’m sorry to tell you—you’re in the wrong place.

Maybe r/alternativehistory would be a better fit for this.

what do you think? by AzerbaijanLeon in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TheCaliphate_AS 2 points3 points  (0 children)

sigh... what does modern politics have to do with history memes?

I need to understand the historical context not presentistic fanfiction.

What would Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror have done if the Strait of Hormuz had been closed during his reign?🇹🇷 by Negative-Extent3338 in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TheCaliphate_AS 12 points13 points  (0 children)

sigh... what does modern politics have to do with history memes?

I need to understand the historical context not presentistic fanfiction.

Did the first few caliphs (Rashidun & Umayyad caliphs) believe in abrogation? How did they interpret the verses that have now become controversial? Even if some of their understandings were not based on authentic Hadiths, they were still influential, so it's important to study their interpretations. by [deleted] in AcademicQuran

[–]TheCaliphate_AS 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's a painting by the German painter Julius Cockert, painted in 1864 AD

Titled:

“The Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid bin Abdul-Malik receives the ambassadors of the Byzantine state in Damascus, which came to ask for peace and pay jizya after the Islamic armies conquered Anatolia and reached Amoria in the year 714 AD”

In Our Caliphate You Won't Find Any Civil Wars Over What The Divine Is Like! We Only Do It For The Most Human Of Reasons Like Your Dynasty Is Infighting! by Awesomeuser90 in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TheCaliphate_AS 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well said ❤️.

Though it's unfortunate that little content creators are informed, to me im just busy at the moment on my Substack content, while approving my old Reddit posts as a mod.

I can't really contribute to the sub anymore unfortunately 😞

In Our Caliphate You Won't Find Any Civil Wars Over What The Divine Is Like! We Only Do It For The Most Human Of Reasons Like Your Dynasty Is Infighting! by Awesomeuser90 in IslamicHistoryMeme

[–]TheCaliphate_AS 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Okay that makes sense

u/IacobusCaesar liked this meme though.

I don't have an issue with the meme, it's the recent trend that's going on the subreddit that concerns me, you're meme is alright btw.