In 23/644, Caliph Omar was assassinated and martyred during the morning prayer by Fīrūz al-Nahāwandī, the Persian slave of al-Mughīrah b. Shuʻba, also called Abū al-Luʼluʼ. The reasons of the incident and the way it took place are described in detail in early Islamic historical sources. Accordingly, Caliph Umar had banned non-Muslim non-Arabs from residing in Medina. However, Abu Lu’lu’, who was a master in three crafts, was able to obtain special permission to reside in Medina thanks to his professional (...) skills. Fīrūz, thinking that al-Mughīrah had received a large amount of tribute from him, took the matter to Caliph Omar, but made plans to kill him, claiming that the Caliph was indifferent to his problem. Abū al-Luʼluʼ, who assassinated Caliph Omar during the morning prayers, committed suicide and took his own life when he was captured by the Muslims. Classical sources attribute Abū al-Luʼluʼ to Nahāwand, Kashan, and Abyssinia. However, reliable sources generally state that he was of Nahāwand origin. Although it is stated in the sources that Fīrūz was a Majusi, Christian or infidel (‘ilc) and not a Muslim, in some sources of al-Shīʻah, Fīrūz is presented as a Muslim who is a supporter of Caliph Ali. The rumors that Hurmuzān, Cufayne and Fīrūz were seen with the knife used in the incident the day before the assassination gave rise to the possibility that the assassination was an organized political conspiracy. At the first stage of this article, based on the classical Islamic historical sources, the manner in which this event occurred, the possible reasons for the assassination, the identity and fate of the murderer have been revealed in a scientific way. In the second phase, by comparing the information given about Abū al-Luʼluʼ by some Shiite history and hadith sources compiled in the following centuries with the early Islamic history sources, the mythological information that the Shiites have built around Abū al-Luʼluʼ is put forward and the distorted historical information is presented, and perceptions are corrected. Likewise, the reflection of Abū al-Luʼluʼ perception on today's Sunni and Shiite world is briefly mentioned. In the study, comparison between sources, criticism, analysis and description methods have been used. (shrink)

The purpose of this study was to explain differences between employees who feel a sense of belonging and those who feel a sense of otherness in terms of their opinions about diversity works in their organizations. We conducted an empirical study to examine the perceptual differences between two independent groups of the study “who feel a sense of belonging” and “who feel a sense of otherness.” We collected data from 792 employees working for organizations in different sizes, industries, and capital (...) structures, which enriched the representativeness of the sample. The findings show that out-group members remain less satisfied with diversity works in their organizations based on four main issues such as “competence of diversity actors,” “embeddedness of diversity works in organizational policies/practices,” “diversity awareness in the HRM functions,” and “diversity-related employee satisfaction.” This paper makes two contributions. First, it contributes to the extant literature an understanding of the differences between those who remain indifferent to diversity works and those who care to see, speak, and hear about them. Second, with a few exceptions, extant studies on diversity works have been dominated by Western-centered research. Research is needed on countries with different macro-contextual conditions, such as different legal regulations, socio-political status, and history. For this study, survey data were collected from people who work in Turkey, a country which has limited legal measures and underdeveloped discourses for equality, diversity, and inclusion. The paper provides significant insights into leading diversity works in national settings with less developed supportive mechanisms for diversity. (shrink)