Progenitor of Wars & Tyrannies: the Falsehood 'Pan-Arabi - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#369954
Progenitor of Wars and Tyrannies: the Falsehood of Pan-Arabism

The deep and hidden reason of the tyrannical oppression practiced throughout the Middle East is the imposition by France and England of pan-Arabic nationalist cliques that intend to dictatorially arabize the various peoples of the Middle East, who are – all – not Arabs.

By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis, Orientalist


To start with basic, we should stress the point that among the member-states of the so-called Arab League there is not a single one inhabited by Arab population. In this regard, the simple and single historical truth in this is that there are no Arabs at all. There are only ‘Arabic-speaking’ peoples having striking dissimilarities one from another, and they all have different past, different cultural backgrounds, different social and behavioural systems, different orientations and archetypes. Only failure is guaranteed in any attempt to shape up a ‘union’ among these so disparate elements and peoples.

We have all attested numerous similar examples of disunion, mutual disparagement and unprecedented co-vilification so paradigmatically performed by the uneducated and uncultured ‘leaders’ of the ‘Arab’ League. The mistake was to view all that as ‘fratricidal’ situation, whereas it is not, since they are very disparate and divergent from one another. It is only the paranoiac and contra-natural regrouping named ‘Arab’ League that, by creating the shock of bringing together elements that just cannot be together, generates the unpleasant atmosphere in which all these funny and clownish ‘leaders’ are engulfed, without knowing why ‘this’ happens to them! So pathetically ignorant they are.

If this concerned only these grotesque characters of the present day political Commedia dell’ Arte, the problem would be limited, and no one would need to discuss and tackle it. But the West and the rest of the World is found involved in this situation one way or another, because of the interconnections existing since the Colonial times. The Middle East affects the entire world. And if this absolute and fundamental historical reality is not widely assessed and understood first, nothing good can come out of the Middle East, and its extremist frenzy.

If the Middle Eastern peoples are not Arabs, what are they?

The real, true but hidden Face of the Middle East.

In reality, the Lebanese are Phoenicians, who got hellenized and aramaized in Late Antiquity.

Arabic speaking Syrians and Iraqis are Aramaeans.

So are the Palestinians and the Kuwaitis, as well as the Emirates and the Qataris, who have certainly been intermixed with Persians.

Egyptians are Copts, native Egyptians, descendants of the people of Ancient Egypt in their amalgamations with the numerous foreigners, who passed by the valley of the Nile: Aramaeans, Phoenicians, Yemenis, Greeks, Meroitic Sudanese, Romans, and others.

Sudanese are descendants of the ancient Meroites and the Nubians.

Libyans and the people of the Maghreb are descendants of the Khammitic peoples of the great Atlas, Berbers, in their genuine fusion with Carthaginians and Romans.

And finally Yemenis are Yemenis, descendants of the ancient states of Saba, Qataban, Himyar, Hadramout and other; they are closer to Abyssinians (mistakenly called Ethiopians) than to the Arabs of Hedjaz.

Islamization: the reason of the (linguistic but not racial) Arabization
All these peoples, by accepting Islam, sooner or later, started becoming arabized, but this happened at a linguistic, not at a racial, ethnic level. And we know only too well that the Arabs of the times of the Prophet were not numerous at all. One generation later, when let us say Islamic armies were reaching Carthage in today’s Tunisia, Central Asia and the Indus valley, the Muslim fighters were speaking Arabic but among them Arabs were already a minority. Aramaeans from Damascus and Ctesiphon, Egyptians from Alexandria, Yemenis from Muza and Persians from Praaspa were already a majority among them! They learnt the language of Quran, but they did not and could not change their racial and ethnic origin.

The Copts (Christians) of Egypt, and the ‘Assyrians’ and ‘Chaldaeans’ of Iraq and Iran are very good examples that show very well what happened: those who remained Christians preserved initially their language (Coptic and Aramaic – Syriac), and lost it gradually in later dates.

Among the people who accepted Islam in the early period, only Persians preserved their language. This is not strange, since the great cultural phenomenon of Ferdowsi gives us an insightful understanding of the subject. If Copts and Aramaeans had not been christened, and if they had kept a national traditional historical record of their glorious past, they would have resulted into a different perception of Islam, preserving their original languages and developing epics similar to Shahnameh.

Colonial practice and diffusion of Pan-arabism

Because this did not happen, we attest nowadays the current situation, but this does not involve that these peoples are Arabs, or that a kind of union can be based on falsely perceived history, and tons of misinformation and disinformation due to colonial powers’ diplomacy. Mainly France and England became the centers of emanation of a falsely conceived and inaccurately studied ‘pan-Arabism’, since they focused their educational – academic – cultural – ideological policies on issues related to their strategic efforts to bring down the Ottoman Empire, Safevid Iran, and Mughal India. The term ‘inaccurately studied’ is employed because this falsehood created problems worse than those it was supposed to solve, even if we limit the discussion to the Western world, since Islamic Terrorism is a later result of the earlier ideological developments in the area of the Middle East.

It is from the Western European universities, political parties and demented ateliers of all sorts that nationalism emanated. And as such, it caused serious problems to peoples of the East and the West, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and others. The confusion spread throughout the territories of the Ottoman Empire finds its equivalent in the disaster of the Irish, the Scots, the Corsicans and the Celts of Brittany. Actually, it leads to nowhere.

Earlier one understands this, sooner one escapes from the traps that led millions to wars and disaster.

Of course, the Colonial Scheme was not meant only against the Ottoman Empire. It did aim at creating an entire situation in which it would be sure that no powerful successive state form would ever rise in its stead! In this way, the colonial powers shaped the problematic Middle East of the 20s, the 30s, the 50s and the 60s that we all know; an area of total confusion and impotence. An area, from which the Western powers would extract oil and other resources in a most profitable way that – at the same time – would help them impose themselves as undisputable powers over the rest of the world.

Following the results of the WW I America joined the two colonial powers that achieved a multi-targeted ‘miracle’:
1. they destroyed the Ottoman empire
2. they made sure that no power rises in its stead in the Middle East and
3. they kept rival Germany and Russia far from it!

Impossibility of an ‘Arab’ nationalism

In the sense that never Indians will be able to express … Chinese nationalism (!), and never Spaniards will be able to express … Portuguese nationalism, never will
a. the Copts of Egypt (all the population is Coptic, Egyptian properly speaking, not only the Christians, those who are called ‘Copts’) – call them just Egyptians if you want –
b. the Aramaeans of Iraq, Syria, Jordan (I mean again the entire population of these countries, not just the Christains), of Iran (the so-called ‘Arabs’ of Khuzestan are just ‘Aramaeans’), of Turkey (Turkish, Kurdish or Arabic speaking populations of Antakya, Gaziantep, Kahraman Marash, Urfa/Edessa, Diyarbakir/Amida, Mardin/Margdis, Nusaybin, Hasankeyf, Siirt and Cizre) and of Lebanon (here I limit it to the inlanders)
c. the Berbers of Lybia, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco (again I do not mean the Kabylians in Algeria, who openly declare their Berberic/Khammitic identity, but the entire population of all these countries)
d. the Nubians (belonging to the so-called Nilo-Saharic group of languages and races) of Egypt and the Sudan (another terribly oppressed minority), who live between Luqsor in Egypt and Karima in Sudan
e. the Meroites of Sudan, who live either nubianized in the north of Karima or arabized between Karima and Malakal in Central Sudan, being the descendants of the ancient Khammitic population of the historical Sudanese states Kush (800 – 525), Meroe (450 BCE – 350 CE) and (Christian) Makkuria (450 – 1150)
f. the Yemenites and the Omanis, who are certainly Semites but closer to the Abyssinians than to Arabs (their extensively recorded on epigraphic monuments ancient language gave birth to Gueze, the official and religious language of Axumite Abyssinia, and has been preserved until now in some parts of Hadramawt and at the island of Sokotra)
and last but not the least
g. the Palestinians, the Kuwaitis, the Qataris, the Emiratis and the Bahrainis, who – all – are arabized Aramaeans,
…………………… be able to express such a thing as Arabic nationalism.

The strength of survival in numbers was more considerable in the case of the Nubian and the Berberic than for Syriac, Yemenite or even Coptic. The latter went silent just 150 years ago. At the times of Champollion, Coptic was still mother tongue to a few thousands of Christian Egyptians. But yet, Coptic is the religious language in use for the Christians in Egypt, and many hundreds of thousands learn it in the religious schools.

To this - necessarily summarized presentation - there can be only a counter-argument:

Several scholars have indeed pretended that Arabs, going outside the Arabic peninsula at the very Dawn of the Islamic Era. finally settled and definitely intermingled with local populations from Iran and Oman to Morocco, in a way that we could admit a certain …. arabization at the racial, not only the linguistic, level.

The Aramaization of the Middle East during the Late Antiquity: a real racial intermingling.

This would be an entire aberration. Of course, any ‘– ization’ can eventually take place at the level of race, not only language, culture or religion! The case of the Aramaization of Babylonia and Elam (a long procedure that took place from the 6th to the 1st century BCE) is quite indicative! But there were numerous Aramaic populations transported by the Assyrian emperors of the 8th and the 7th centuries there, or had settled because of their own choice. Elamites were exterminated by Assurbanipal at 640 BCE, and the decapitated Babylonians started being outnumbered by the continuously arriving in the Mesopotamian South Aramaeans!

But nothing similar happened during the early Islamic times! At the times of the Prophet, all the Arabs of Hedjaz did not outnumber the population of just one big Aramaic, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Abyssinian, Berberic, Meroitic or Yemeni city like Tadmor, Syene (Aswan), Istakhr, Corinth, Mediolanum (Milano), Axum, Carthage, Dongola Agouza or Aden! So, there cannot be discussion about numbers, the real Arabs went lost among the multitude of the early Muslims, already before the year 30 of Hegira!

What most of the modern Western (in their great numbers Colonial) historians failed to see, focus and understand is that already during the life time of the Prophet Yemenites accepted Ali’s preaching in Yemen at 630 CE. In great numbers! Along with them, Persian soldiers and colonizers, since Yemen belonged to the Sassanid Empire.

Islamic, not ‘Arab’ invasions

So, to rtepeat what we earlier stated, when the first Islamic armies were fighting at Yarmouk (636) and were reaching Jerusalem and Damascus (638), there was a sizeable non-Arabic part among them! And we know only too well that these armies were not so numerous! When, a few years later, Islamic armies were reaching Nihavent (641) and Alexandria (642), already more than half of them were not Arabs! When Islamic armies attacked Constantinople (677) and reached Gibraltar, Arabs were already insignificant portion among them.

Early Islam was not ‘culturally’ Arabic: on the contrary, Islam de-arabized the then Arabs of Hedjaz.

This reality shaped the world, and it was widely accepted among early Muslims in the first centuries of Islam. It was not limited at the racial level whatsoever! It was then accepted as encompassing all levels: cultural, literary, philosophical, religious, scientific, artistic. The great movement of Shu’ubiyeh precisely stressed the point that the contribution of the Arabs was just…. nothing!

And the Shu’ubiyeh were correct! Not only they knew more than the modern XIXth century scholars but they did not have back mind schemes and hidden plans! Nothing from all the aspects of the Islamic civilization is Arabic, except the language! Art, philosophy, sciences, literature, knowledge, wisdom, technology, administration, army, navy, religion, theology: nothing in early Islam is Arabic.

Perhaps this is the most correct summary of the case: by accepting the prophet Muhammad, 7th century Arabs were des-arabized once and forever! In the sense that all that was genuinely Arabic before Muhammad with his preaching took a definite end!

Different type of Islamization: the Persians preserved Persian, but other peoples got linguistically arabized. An effort of analysis.

The different approaches to the phenomenon of the adhesion to Islam consist in a certainly large – truly speaking – a vast, subject. We currently know many details, but until now scholars did not focus on a comparative, eventually interdisciplinary, approach.

Turks accepted Islam late, in Central Asia, and through the Persians.

The main issue focalizes on the difference between
a. the Persians – from one side – and
b. the Aramaeans (the many Aramaic speaking peoples that consisted in the outright majority of the areas belonging to today’s SE Turkey, SW Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Emirates, Bahrain, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, and N – NE – E Arabia) and the Egyptians – from the other side.

The main distinction between the two groups at the very moment of the beginning of the Islamization procedure was the fact that
- all the Egyptians and the great majority of the Aramaeans belonged to various Christian denominations, with the minority of the Aramaeans practicing Manichaeism and other Late Antiquity forms of Gnosticisms (of which originate both the Mandaean and the Yazidi Kurdish minorities of present day Iraq), but
- the outright majority of the Iranians were following various religious systems that almost all were derivatives of Zoroaterianism (namely Mithraism, Mazdakism, Zervanism, Gayomardism) turning around the Court derivative of Zoroasterianism, i.e. Mazdaism that was deeply involved in shaping a national – nationalistic political ideology that could not find its counterpart among any christianized people and/or state.

Whereas Mazdaism’s approaches to the diachronic role of Iran were shared by Iranian Mithraists, Mazdakists, Zervanists, Gayomardists, and eventually Iranians following other religious systems (Manicheism, Nestorian Christianity, Buddhism), Christianized populations of the Roman Empire, Aramaeans, Egyptians, Greeks, Armenians, Romans and others were involved in terrible Christological divisions, debates, confrontations, and polarizations. They had all rejected political ideologies related to their pre-Christian religions, cults, ideologies, and philosophies, adopting the Christian Roman ideology of ‘Urbi et Orbi’, a kind of early ‘internationalism’ bringing nations together to the trinity – god of that religion.

The case of the Egyptians was particularly hard, since terrible hatred against the Pharaonic past of the country was diffused among the darkened minds of the fanatic, christianized masses, leading therefore to total disrespect for their own identity, culture and past.

Briefly, the ideological issues that were by then prevailing among the Aramaeans were the division between Nestorians (who rejected Jesus’ divine nature) and Monophysites (who rejected Jesus’ human nature), and the common rejection of Constantinople Christianity (that was refuting both, Nestorianism and Monophysitism, accepting Jesus’ double nature).

The issues among the Egyptians were the fights between the outright Coptic – Monophysitic majority and the sizable Greek majority that was following Constantinople Christianity, as well as the anti-Jewish stand of the Christians that created serious problems wherever Jews formed a sizable minority.

Similar to their attitude of forgetting their mother language because of their adhesion to Islam, one can find later among Greeks, who – by accepting Islam – went through linguistic turcization. There was no apparent reason for them to preserve Greek (as for the Arameans Aramaic, and for the Egyptians Coptic), in the way Persian was preserved among Iranians.

As far as the Yemenites are concerned, it seems that Monophysitic or pro-Constantinople Christianity (supported by and collaborating with Axumite Abyssinian King Kaleb, who invaded Yemen to help the Eastern Roman Empire in its fight against the Sassanid Empire of Iran) was so insignificant (whereas the majority was versed either in older forms of Yemenite religion, or in Nestorianism and Judaism), that the overwhelming acceptance of Islam came as a natural result to earlier developments.

Peace depends only on the extinction of the falsehood “Pan-Arabism”.

This effort for analysis consists in just some introductory thoughts regarding the perplex phenomenon of Islamization, but again the subject is vast, and mostly unstudied. However, this event’s implications in the present day politics are so deep that never peace in the Middle East will be achieved, before an earlier understanding and a final outmaneuvering of the aforementioned situation be reached and undertaken!

Arabic nationalism must be extinguished, the Arab League must be dissolved, Syriac, Berberic, Nubian, Yemenite and Coptic must be taught in the schools, primary and secondary, in parallel with Arabic and Kurdish! Not only minorities, but the entire population of the Middle East must be taught the correct language in the primary and secondary education. This is the only way to Peace in the Middle East.
By Whitelotus
#371489
Haha I only just got it prof megalommatis, from megalomaniac...Haha that was a good joke, you had me going there...cool
By Smith 2.0
#371607
Megalommatis wrote:Only failure is guaranteed in any attempt to shape up a ‘union’ among these so disparate elements and peoples.


Specifically refering to the League of Arab States: I was unaware that it was desired or intended it to be anything other than a merely consultative IGO, but if I am reading you correctly, you seem to suggest that there is some sort of unification movement? Perhaps you could clear this up for me.

Gernerally speaking, I can accept most of what you say, although much of it I must confess to taking at face value, since Middle Eastern History pre-20th century isn't exactly my strong point! The problems presented to political unification by immense diversities are clear. What your essay also seems to touch on is what can be one of our most problematic tendancies: to try to simplify, group together and/or generalise complex scenarios. In this instance perhaps, particularly when in the past it has suited political leaders with their own agendas. Or like you say, we could just put it down to 'pathetic ignorance'. ;)

Education is definitely one of the main avenues to approach this problem, but I'm not sure how practical it is to ask children to learn several different languages whilst in school; might they not neglect other studies? Perhaps revised history and geography lessons in addition to learning fewer dialects than you suggest? But this is a mere technicality in the context of your essay.

If we view any problem through an erroneous conceptual framework, then we're obviously wasting our time - so thanks for pointing out a lot of historical and cultural context to the Middle East that I was unfamiliar with. A good read,

Cheers,

Smith


Off-topic:

Whitelotus wrote:Haha I only just got it prof megalommatis, from megalomaniac...Haha that was a good joke, you had me going there...cool


Actually there is no reason to think he is not who and what he say he is; A quick Google search will reveal this.
By Whitelotus
#371827
Well I happen to know how professors usually write their articles since they expect students to do the same...the way he writes and defends his article shows that if there is a professor by that name, he ain't him
By Garibaldi
#372399
I find the professors work quite honest, Arab Nationalism was the tool used by the British to defeat the Ottoman Empire in WWI. However, from what I understand the movement has died down considerably and that Islamic fundamentalism rose in it's place. But of course both operate under the same flaw that the middle east is of the same culture; perhaps teaching them their ancient origins as well as teaching them western philosophy might restrict tension?
User avatar
By GandalfTheGrey
#372617
Saying that an "arab race" doesn't technically doesn't exist is neither here nor there - its simply playing with semantics. The fact is there is a group of people united by geography, language and religion (there are other religions, but over 90% are muslim).

If you think the Europeans are the only ones guilty of lumping "arabs" into the one basket, I remind you of the heavilly influential book in the US called "The Arab Mind" - which was re-released in 2002 - on the eve of the invasion of Iraq (coincidence?)
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... temID=5611
This book is reverred by those very people who control the White House and the Pentagon.

Professor, you love to bash the British and French for all the ills they have created in the ME, yet have nothing but praise for the Americans. I find this most curious given the US's track record in the last half century.
By Spin
#373044
Yes and maybe just maybe the arabs have made a few fuck ups as well. Lets spread the blame as far as possible.
By Piano Red
#373172
Professor, you love to bash the British and French for all the ills they have created in the ME, yet have nothing but praise for the Americans. I find this most curious given the US's track record in the last half century.


The US's track record for the last half century is nothing when compared to Europe's track record for the last half millenia. Which do you think holds more weight?
By Garibaldi
#373377
Also, I think it's understood that America most liekly recieved it's infomation about the area from France and Britain when America first started interfering. I do not know of heavy American Interference before twenty or thirty years ago.
By Whitelotus
#373491
the trackrecord for the past 50 years holds more, which you can see from the surveys that will tell you the whole world hates the US and that hatred towards european countries is much smaller...besides the crap the US has put these countries through is still going on today whereas the colonial impact has worn out through the years.
By Whitelotus
#373502
again he is not a professor if he was a professor one would find his name connected to some university on the internet, this "professor" only has his name connected to internet forums where he holds the same story over and over again.

That aside I sincerely doubt you can put the blame of the invasion of iraq in the shoes of France, afterall they have always refused to invade the country, they have always been against this war, which means that any information that came from the French can not have played a decisive role. Aside from this it was the US that constantly came out with reports that they had proof of WMD's and other such things.

Besides the weapon inspectors were basically under american leadership and previous weapon inspectors have complained about the CIA interfering in their investigation and asking them to spy for them, the US government has twisted their results and even replaced the head of the weapon inspectors when they did not like the results they got.
By Piano Red
#373681
the trackrecord for the past 50 years holds more, which you can see from the surveys that will tell you the whole world hates the US and that hatred towards european countries is much smaller...besides the crap the US has put these countries through is still going on today whereas the colonial impact has worn out through the years.


Your joking right? The US only became heavily involved with the ME not less than thirty years ago, whereas Europe has been involved with the region since what? The 13th or 14th centuries? The Crusades? the Reconquista (sp), etc.? Come on now, there is no comparison.

Of course surveys taken today would show that the ME hates the US more than it does the US, but if you asked them which has had more interest in the area over time and continues to do so even today then it would definitely be Europe that would take the gold medal.
By Whitelotus
#374103
yes and still surveys conducted show the people in the ME hate americans a lot more than they hate Europeans. Europe was involved in the middle east yes...but they haven't been doing such things recently, and eventually what has an impact on them now is something that weighs much heavier than something that had an impact on them a long long time ago.

Of course surveys taken today would show that the ME hates the US more than it does the US, but if you asked them which has had more interest in the area over time and continues to do so even today then it would definitely be Europe that would take the gold medal.


I'm sorry Europe has the largest interest in the ME now? weird, I thought america led the attack on iraq both now and 10 years ago...I thought america is sponsoring israel in killing palestinians, I thought the US is big buddies with the Saudi Arabia leaders, I thought the US is threatening Iran constantly. The US has the largest oil companies and well the middle east is famous for oil you know opec and all, plus the US is the biggest user of energy by far. The US in short has the most to lose and to gain in the middle east, not europe.

And the reason they hate the americans there so much is precisely because america is always interfering...they don't hate europe so much because europe doesn't interfere as much, because europe doesn't have the same interests in the area as america
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#374290
A fascinating article, Megalommatis I always knew that the myth of Arab unity was just that, a myth, and that Pan-Arabism was a foolish idea. However, I learned a great deal of the history of the region that I did not know before from your piece. Thank you.
#375115
Dear all,

Thank you very much indeed for your active interest, compliments, comments and nice words. I apologize for the delay in answer!

Well, since there has been a doubt expressed about my professorship, I have just to say that I have been a fully accredited professor since 1993, and as such participated in conferences and congresses, colloquia and all sorts of academic activities. I have been specialized mostly in Ancient History, Languages and Religions of the Middle East. I have published – in 7 different languages – more than 10 books, 30 scholarly contributions and/or essays, 600 entries to several encyclopedias (some extremely lengthy), and 700 articles in newspapers and magazines – in no less than 10 countries. I am Greek citizen, of Turkish origin, born Christian, converted into Islam in 1994 (at the age of 37). I lived / studied / worked in more than 10 countries, and I traveled in more than 90 countries. Between Mauritania and Kazakhstan there are only minor importance archeological sites that I did not visit, study and/or explore. In all these countries I had the opportunity to contact people from the lowest to the highest social (academic and political) level. As far as my more specialized are concerned, I can only say that they vary. From Assyrian – Babylonian and Egyptian mythological symbolism to Sargonid political ideology, polarization between Mithraism and Zorosterianism / Mazdeism, and the trade between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean, and from Ancient Geography and Cosmology, to Gnosticisms of the Late Antiquity, and Political History of the New Egyptian Kingdom. I think this enough for all, and any curious lady should know that I am single (still: you enjoy after the first 45 years of your life).

It is high time to speak about something more interesting, namely issues related to the Pan-Arabism as a criminal French and European ideological fabrication that let the Middle East precipitate into the Hell of Colonialism, underdevelopment and Islamic terrorism.

Yes, Smith, you read me very correctly; the Arab League is the top institution for the imposition of the perverted ideology of Pan-Arabism. There are many circles among the despotic governments of the Middle East that want for different reasons to promote varied types of a supposed ‘Arab unity’. All this has a lot of implications at the social, economic and political levels, helping rulers to perpetuate their dictatorship. How? Simply by fanaticizing illiterate, analphabetic masses on false and misleading issues, which are based on pure misinformation, disinformation, misrepresentation (I summarize but can be very analytical if you want), and erroneous prioritization.

It is very cynical and inhuman indeed. All the Arabic speaking heads of state know very well that union (or unity) is absolutely impossible, because of many reasons,
a) diverging economic interests,
b) different political ‘culture’ and aspirations,
c) significant linguistic variations,
d) persistence of numerous ethnic and religious minorities (that even the totalitarian character of Pan-Arabism failed to destroy to the great displeasure of the criminal promoter of Pan-Arabism France), plus
e) the survival itself of several ruling semi-barbaric casts.

Despite they know all this (which is not the deep reason of the Impossibility of Arab Nationalism and/or Un(ificati)on), the criminal regional analphabet dictators – with the strong support of France – keep diffusing the lie of Pan- Arabism that creates social clashes and shocks.

Pan –Arabism is what the French call ‘plaque tournante’ on which stands the generation of all evils. It creates and promotes
a) totalitarian – up to inhuman level – social behaviour among groups of masses that make theirs the ‘target’ of the arabization of the country, in any of the Arabic speaking countries.
b) complete cultural and intellectual de-personification of the area of the Middle East by diffusing social attitudes, ways of thinking, and behavioural system that do not correspond to what prevailed during the Islamic Ages.
One must not forget that the entire complex of Islamic Civilisation was devoid of any Arab cultural, intellectual, social and behavioural aspect and/or element. Since the very early decades of Islam the movement of Shu’ubiyeh (which consists in ’prohibited’ knowledge either in the tyrannical regimes of the Middle East or in the tenebrous and dictatorial French bogus – universities) stipulated that any element of the Islamic Civilization was not Arabic (being mostly Aramaean, Persian, Egyptian, Yemenite, Phoenician, Jewish and Roman). It was clear to the erudite Muslims of the 7th, the 12th, and the 16th centuries) that the ‘Arab’ element was the barbaric one, in total opposition with the ‘Islamic’. The Arabs de-arabized themselves to accept Islam, and they did accept it as Culture to an extent that the great non-Arab majority of the late 7th century Muslims were evaluating as lower than theirs.
All these issues are basics in assessing the subject correctly, and therefore persecuted by the French pseudo-academia.
c) complete de-humanization of the people in terms of thinking, ethics, esthetics, lifestyle concept, and absolute de-valorization of any element of the Human (not only Islamic) civilization.
d) Absolute bestializing of the mental capacities of the people, ending up to complete limitation in very few and very simple issues – all falsely perceived after the functioning of the previous points.

At the very end, Pan – Arabism ends up to the Islamic Terrorism, since it already contributes to several of its themes, and more particularly that of the supposed importance (at the level of Pan – Arabism) or even sanctity (at the level of Islamic Terrorism) of the Arabic language. All the hysterical paranoia for the imposition of Arabic, a later derivative of Aramaic Syriac, is at the very epicenter of the problems of the Middle East. Of course, I do not suggest that France by its own perversion did create all that; they were several earlier negative developments within Islam.

But we all know that Ossama bin Laden did not live at the times of Napoleon. This means that there has been a concrete and grave deterioration of the situation, mostly due to the devious French and British choice of worsening the already bad.

Again, you are right, Smith, “simplify, group together and/or generalize complex” situations leads only to problems.

You refer to children learning two languages in the school as part of an educational approach. Well, Switzerland is the European model, but in the Middle East there are many places where three languages co-exist within the same city to major profit of the mental and intellectual capacities of the inhabitants. In Turkey for instance I can tell you that in Urfa trilingual capacities (in Turkish, Kurdish and Arabic) are common to the majority, before they learn a ‘foreign’ language, namely German or English.

But when you speak about Education, I would suggest that it is not necessarily the number of languages that matters, but the historical presentation of the subject in question. What are the contents of the manuals of History, History of Religion, Literature, Philosophy, Language, and Geography; this is what truly matters.

Dear Gandalf the Grey,

You are all wrong! ‘Arab’ or ‘Arabic speaking’ Aramaean, Egyptian (Copt), Phoenician, Yemenite, Makkurian and Nobatian Sudanese, and/or Berber, is not just ‘playing semantics’.

You are very wrong assuming all these various peoples are ‘united’ by geography, language and religion.

There is nothing in the Geography to unite Morocco with Libya. There was never a state having its capital on the soil of one of the two countries and controlling the other, as well as the areas in-between. Only countries based elsewhere (Rome, Damascus) did rule the two areas, but of course this makes no sense, since it implies that according to your beloved Geography even Rome can be united with ‘them’!

There is nothing to unite Egypt with Iraq, nothing to unite Syria with Yemen, nothing to unite Sudan with Arabia (Hedjaz). You truly assume a lot! Being based on the Pan-Arabic paranoia one can ultimately unite an orange with a Rolls Royce, but my dear, this is called ‘Arab’ unity! It is meant to permanent failure.

You are very wrong thinking that 90 % of the Arabic-speaking people are Muslims. They are not! Muslims are much less than that. But again this is provocatively erroneous, I am sorry, European-wise erroneous. Who told you that you can present Muslims as one group? There are two major and many minor groups. They are all ‘united’ but an unbelievable bloodshed, hysterical hatred, killings and murders as numerous as the stars of the sky, venomous literature able to make anyone sick, so-called fratricide wars (false term since never my enemy is my brother, and never my brother can be so different). I can only say the rejection of Papal authority and the Schism with Constantinople are pale reminiscence of the Shia – Sunni disintegration of the early Islam.

What is unbelievable with your approach is the suicidal character of it. With your ideas Nostradamus will be proved correct, and Europe will become a feud of Mullah Omar. Do you know who say today that there is no difference between Shia and Sunni, and that Islam is one?

Only the Islamic terrorists, my dear! Perhaps you may be willing to have as rulers, this will not be the first and will not be the last of European nauseating imbecilities! You must however know that the perversion of France and Belgium may be has already contaminated to some extent Germany and Holland, but there is a vibrant New Europe, plus several other mentally healthy countries and peoples that will turn Chirac’s dream to ashes…

Very funny is also what you say about the different Arabic languages. You must that they do not understand each other but by speaking Classical Arabic that is another, dead, language. In today’s world, an Algerian, an Iraqi and a Sudanese are like an Italian, a French and a Spaniard, who speak Latin, whenever they meet. And all these Arabic languages are un unbelievable burden within the paranoiac environment of Pan-Arabism. According to the nationalistic ‘principle’ they should not exist! But they do, and people know about that! What to do? To face the unexplainable (to so besotted by the French victims) situation, they turned to the analphabet sheikhs for advise, only to be told that they should not write these different modern Arabic languages, because they differ from the Classical, Coranic, Arabic (supposedly used by Allah, according to the fake Muslim sheikhs of today). This self-tyrannizing attitude was never part of the Islamic and un-Arabic civilization (as above). This self-suffering is new, just one of the many negative effects of the Pan-Arabism and the ensuing Islamic Terrorism.

I do not say the French and the British stand accused for the average ‘Arabic’ mind’s situation in the year 2002. I say they do so for the grave deterioration between 1800 and 2000 to which they contributed (certainly they are not the only, and certainly the problem started much earlier). And they did so on the basis of their interests that brought the Islamic Terrorism to the present world. Without the malignant French anti-Ottoman plans, Islam would have taken that path, being either contained properly by a Sultan or reassessed by a certain Kemal Ataturk with wider land mandate.

America, at the end, did not generate such perversions, followed the European academia, and finally started seriously criticizing European Colonial approaches to History after the early 80s. You do not suggest that the tyrannical French would let Prof. Martin Bernal teach ‘Black Athena’ in their rotten …. Sorbonne.

My dear Garibaldi, perhaps I did not and I do not have space here but I will soon come with another feature on the interaction Pan-Arabism – Islamic Terrorism. The latter is not opposite but a derivative of the former.

Here I find the place appropriate to join my voice with our colleague, ‘AlexandertheGreat’ and say that during the last 50 years America solved the issue of Black Americans, whereas Europeans successfully contributed to the transplantation of Anti-Judaism from Maghreb to the Jewish cemeteries of Paris. Superb!!!

Here I should add that, according to … converging information, Hitler’s last two words before dying were “Le Pen”! Other sources pretend he just said: “Schi Rak”! A possible Teutonic secret apocalyptic meaning codified?

Finally, I must tell you that I find interesting to attend discussions on Hatred diffused in the Middle East. It is a matter of regional governmental propaganda. Of course, stimulated by the anti-American paranoia of the French! It is nothing new. Francois Mitterrand was saying in 1990 that France is in war but the French do not know it. Well, now at least I know that the Americans knew about it in 2003! Good for them! With ‘allies’ like France enemies like the young boy Bashir Assad is under-evaluated!

Of course, the anti-American hatred in the Middle East is all of French inspiration. But does it matter whether most of the people hate America more than Europe, or Israel more than America?

Three things matter:

1) That there is no hatred at all;
2) That the hatred is the result of analphabetism, barbarism, falsehood and underdevelopment to which France, not America, led the Middle East; and
3) That there are many Middle Easterners (mostly the recipients of the bestial oppression of the Pan-Arabic regimes), who truly love America. More than that, they base all their hopes on the USA and on the Greater Middle East plans of the present administration.

In this they are not alone. There are many Europeans, who also base their expectations on the USA, not Jacques Chirac and his force de frappe!

Thank you again for the most constructive conversation.

Shams

(the friends call me this way)

P.S.

1. Of course, a forum is a forum. Not
the Zeitschrift fuer Aegyptische Sparche, or
the Journal of Cuneiform Studies…

2. Have you got the latest news of that woman,
the wife of the former Central European banker,
a Dutch woman, I suppose, who had the
Palestinian flag hanging on her balcony? Did she
go to Ramallah for summer holidays in the bedroom
of Yasser Arafat?

3. Do you remember someone saying that ‘Ours is a
History based on Terrorism’! Suuuuuuuuuuure!
Typically European!
By Whitelotus
#375176
Megalommatis: could you please post the titles of your books so I can look them up?

Plus you keep on babbling about France without ever offering any direct evidence that they have anything to do with it and offering any evidence of what france has gained by doing this.

As for your analyses of why there can be no arabic union, I think I mention the EU is most of my posts and I have to do it here again. Relgious diversity? The EU has it and a history filled with conflict between catholics, protestants and orthodox christians. Conflict? Do I hear anyone say WW1 and its sequal? Minorities? Also available as for their persecution well I think the nazi deathcamps may have served for just that purpose. divergent economic interests? Huge within Europe. The difference between political structure is enormous too within Europe, there is a huge difference between the Dutch political structure and the French one and the french on is again completely different from the german one. As for language well Finnish isn't even from the same branch as german or english.

Besides I may be an idiot but I think the Quran was written in Arabic so that would be a binding language, Islam would be a binding religion...which also explains why highly educated men go to a totally different country to sacrifice their life in order to help their fellow muslims against the American or Israeli oppressor. So please explain the international terrorist networks, please explain the rage across arabic nations caused by America's invasion of Iraq, explain the outrage at israel that exists even in the country in which you now live.

Again you blame Osama on France yet he was trained by the US. He lived in Saudi Arabia and left because of the fact that he disagreed with American influence on his country's government. And basically you're saying "what france wins by this is that terrorists try and blow up stuff in paris and that noone in arabic nations wants any influence from the west, and if the west does try to assert some influence you get suicide bombers on your ass" right I can see why France would want to persue such a policy.

So again you offer no proof of french involvement, you offer no proof of what they have to gain, offer simplistic reasoning that ignores the facts that are occurring as we speak, such as european unification, OPEC, transnational involvement of muslims etc etc.

Your evidence merely points out that France has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose from this so called colonial policy that they assert. It is very easy to say "France is influencing Arabic nations to think in a certain way because it wants world domination so it uses arabia as its colony to obtain power" but the hard part is something you have failed and keep on failing to do, namely providing evidence for your statement. How does France do this? How exactly did France influence thinking and I want to see direct connections to France. I want to see evidence that if a false image is being created that France is involved in this. I want to see what France has to gain from this policy so far it seems to only have negative effects on France, you see I happen to know a little bit about French economy. Perhaps you don't know this, or well I know you don't but the number one high tech industry in france is aerospace. This industry depends on the wellbeing of the American economy since it mainly exports to that country that is why French industry was glad with the euro as it provided a strong currency vis a vis the dollar. Now first of all we see that 9/11 was done with airplanes, not a good deal for france, second we see the impact of terrorism on American economy, also a bad deal for France's leading high tech industry. We also see terrorist strikes in France and Spain and threats in other European countries. This is a bad deal for EU industry, this is a bad deal for Europeans.
Last and you've failed to explain this elsewhere as well why would France, a country that is in the EU and whose economy is almost completely based on intra EU trade and trade with America, focus its political influence on the middle east, a part of the world that does not have much to offer to them. France doesn't have any of the world's largest oil companies. The US does and so does Brittain, they share the top 5 if not the top 10, and surprise surprise which two countries proposed and executed military intervention in the middle east? Which country virtually determines the political life in Iraq? Which country excerts great pressure on Iran and is in constant dialogue with Saudi Arabia? It isn't France, it is the US. And this information isn't even indirect or hard to find. If you have bothered to read a newspaper the last 10 years you will have seen the influence of the US in these regions. This leaves us with two options:
1. you don't read newspapers
2. you don't want to see facts that contradict you

which one you choose is up to you, neither is very flattering and both mean giant questionmarks need to be placed with your theory.

But lets stop with the theories, what I ask from you now is to stop with the endless stream of wild theories which you create and instead create an equally if not larger stream of facts to finally back your theories up.


you then say:

1) That there is no hatred at all;
2) That the hatred is the result of analphabetism, barbarism, falsehood and underdevelopment to which France, not America, led the Middle East; and
3) That there are many Middle Easterners (mostly the recipients of the bestial oppression of the Pan-Arabic regimes), who truly love America. More than that, they base all their hopes on the USA and on the Greater Middle East plans of the present administration.

In this they are not alone. There are many Europeans, who also base their expectations on the USA, not Jacques Chirac and his force de frappe!


well first of all 1 and 2 contradict, you can't have no hate yet hate at the same time. Since there is overwhelming evidence that there is plenty of hate for America in the middle east we'll just scratch number 1 and go to number 2. Only barbarians hate America. I suppose you have evidence of research done under highly educated Arabians who express their love for the US? Because when I watch Al Jazeer and see university professors who can actually be found to be university professors and whose names are also connected to books I see them express a large ammount of hatred and I see the hatred coming from both sides of the often very heated debates on American intervention, the biggest insult in any of those discussions is that you support america. As for muslims living in European nations they too hate the US, not just the poorly educated but also those going to universities.

Anyway I anxiously await the surveys you have for us that show that Europeans as well as people from the middle east love America and put their hopes on them for bringing the golden age. Because the surveys I've read indicate that Europeans think Americans are a bunch of incompetent redneck hillbillies.
User avatar
By GandalfTheGrey
#375192
Shams wrote:There is nothing in the Geography to unite Morocco with Libya. There was never a state having its capital on the soil of one of the two countries and controlling the other, as well as the areas in-between. Only countries based elsewhere (Rome, Damascus) did rule the two areas, but of course this makes no sense, since it implies that according to your beloved Geography even Rome can be united with ‘them’!


I'm talking purely about the location of these nations, not whether or not they had a common ruler - though originally of course they did, and this is what united them in the first place.

You are very wrong thinking that 90 % of the Arabic-speaking people are Muslims. They are not! Muslims are much less than that.


How so? Unless you have a different definition of "muslim", official sources will dispute this:
For example the CIA factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html:

just to take a few examples -
Syria - 90% muslim
Libya - 97% muslim
Saudi Arabia - 100% muslim

in fact I went through all the "Arab" states, and all of them were 90% muslim or more.

Who told you that you can present Muslims as one group? There are two major and many minor groups. They are all ‘united’ but an unbelievable bloodshed, hysterical hatred, killings and murders as numerous as the stars of the sky, venomous literature able to make anyone sick, so-called fratricide wars (false term since never my enemy is my brother, and never my brother can be so different).


Yes, they are all muslim, you said it - thats all I was saying, that they are united in religion. Whether they are sunni, shiite or whatever else, they all believe in the Koran, prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and the 5 pillars of Islam. Just because they hate each other doesn't mean they have different religions. We don't say that catholics are less christians than presbyterians - they are all still christian. So there may be disunity along cultural lines, but I stand by my assertion that the arab world is overwhelmingly united along religious lines.

I can only say the rejection of Papal authority and the Schism with Constantinople are pale reminiscence of the Shia – Sunni disintegration of the early Islam.


Once again, eastern orthodox christians are no less christian than catholics - their beliefs are still fundamentally the same.

Only the Islamic terrorists, my dear! Perhaps you may be willing to have as rulers


Your wording is sometimes difficult to understand. Are you saying that only islamic terrorists are united in their beliefs? If so, then this claim is disingeneous. You need only look at the rivalry between different terrorist factions - indeed the very existence of so many different terrorist groups itself is testament to the fact that islamic terrorists are not united. Even I only learned fairly recently that Al-Qaeda is not one united group as we are led to believe by US propaganda.

In today’s world, an Algerian, an Iraqi and a Sudanese are like an Italian, a French and a Spaniard, who speak Latin, whenever they meet. And all these Arabic languages are un unbelievable burden within the paranoiac environment of Pan-Arabism. According to the nationalistic ‘principle’ they should not exist!


I don't pretend to understand too much about it, but as far as I know, all these countries officially have "arabic" as their national language. As far as it being dead, well I know for a fact that it is spoken to a greater or lesser extent in all the mosques around the world, and I have heard it spoken on world news programs on TV. About the different dialects I don't know, obviously it makes it hard for people speaking two different dialects to understand one another. An analogy I can think of is in India where even though there are over 100 different languages, and many hundreds of dialects, Indians still have a national language (Hindi).

Obviously you know more about this subject than I do, and I am not pretending to be an authority on the subject. However I do have a problem with people who paint things in such a simplistic black and white picture - the French and British are evil, pan-arabism is evil, the US is wholly riteous. Mistakes were made by all parties concerned, and evil was conducted by all parties concerned - including the US.

I still don't believe pan-arabism can be dismissed out of hand. I am well aware of the HUGE differences between people within the arab world, but I think Whitelotus makes an excellent point about Europe. In all of history, no group of people have even got close to the hostility shared between these people. No other group has even got close to the bloodshed spilled by this group. Yet, here we are today with an enormous success story in the EU. I say, if unity can be reached in Europe, it can be reached anywhere.
By Garibaldi
#375351
Megalommatis, speaking on terms of their true ethnic identities, do you have a map which would show the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Central Asia along their true ethnic divides?
#416415
I would recommend Karen Armstrong 'A history of god' great book, getting old now but the gist is the same, the connection between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, she even goes so far as to suggest Hinduism has a very strong element of monotheism (strange as it may seem).

I have been thinking. in particular, about Australias acceptence of China's reunification policy. Australia may have, at one time, held aloft a true beacon of freindship, tolerence and decency in respect of human rights, that now, I am ashamed to say, got sold to America and is meaningless (children overboard, Tampa, GST, US Free Trade Agreement, children in detention, the pacific solution and unquestioning support for invading Iraq).

In Foreign relations and diplomacy, Australia really is cowardly, in relation to Indonesia with Aceh, Timor and West Papua and China with Tibet. Accepting murder as an appropriate answer to cries of help.

After hearing a couple of objections from Hong Kong with it's treatment under the 'two systems' of government and Australias pasivity in relation to Taiwan, I wonder where it stops. Vietnam? China has been trying for a long time to unify with Veitnam, what if, after Taiwan China decides to continue with the real nature of One China, Expantionism, or, if it were a western democracy, colinisation?

Well, if countries like Australia are going to sit and watch, I think America couldn't care less about veitnam, Laos? Tailand would be the line I think.

This is the problem with invading two countries, the coalition of the willing has basically said it is OK on occaision to through aside the UN and reassemble a country or two if a big country like America or Australia or the UK want too.

Anyway, why shouldn't muslums have a go as well?

The US backed to Taliban for many reasons, I am sure, as with Saddam. To cut the Opium trade, to fight communism, and to give socialism a fighting chance against Fundamental Islam, there are more, I am sure.

Well, why not recolinisation for the west, under a banner of democracy, Australia is imbarking on it now anyway, as is the nature of colonial minded leaders like John Howard, who is at the moment calling the opposition 'backward looking'. A strange the to say when you are claiming a colony like Papua New Guinea back! Not a bad thing! they never really got it together there anyway! The idea of being corrupt, while outlawing and employing a police force to fight, corruption.

It is a tough one, especially on such a freindly people as christianised savages, they really seem to make sense of the western democracy.

Anyway, if China can do it, the west can do it, it is a pity the Arab League can't put aside their differences and hava a go as well. Then again, if they could scale the Sunni/Shia divide, they could probably live in peace in Israel.

these seem to be the emerging flavours, while us lefties were waiting for Newsoc, wandering how we were going to survive that, we got bit by the the old 'more things change, more they stay the same' :roll: .

I try and empathise with submissives to god, Muslums, it isn't hard, remember when you were young, and the christians were programming you, and found out they were waiting for the Jews to catch up with the gospel, the muslums seem to be waiting for that too, and then for the christians to catch up with the Koran! It must be like waiting for episode III in the Star Wars saga! Will it ever end?? Yes, of course it will! jesus is coming back, or, wait, no, muhammed came, and gods just given up and left the final commands and reminders in the Koran! Is Anikan really going to turn into Darth Vader?? I can't believe it!

Lets make a clone army, to defend freedom from terror, of course, the war will cost us our freedom, and we will still have institutional corruption, but it will be harder to fight, particularly while we are fighting fear itself.

Vote 1, Darth Nader! and may the force be with you all, Amen.

Smart move. NDI is a bunch of warmongering idiots,[…]

Rain Man: Look out there. *Tom Cruise looks insid[…]

Same sex marriage, yep or nah?

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/aust[…]

Here's an interesting alternative take on geopolit[…]