The Defeat of Homelands

Samir Sadek, Mamdouh Bitar;

There are those who claim that the Arabs or Bedouins of the Arabian Peninsula inherited the Fertile Crescent, considering the Fertile Crescent to be Greater Syria, or the main component of the Levant. The people of the Levant are cousins of the Bedouins of the Arabian Peninsula, and of the same Bedouin race. Therefore, the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula have the right to inherit the Levant after its clear conquest and liberation, as they claim. As you can see, the free Bedouin movement led the liberation and urbanization movement in the region, and even in the entire world, or will lead it in the near future, God willing! The Fertile Crescent was a new name for the Levant, and was first used by the American archaeologist James Henry Breasted. The name isn’t the problem; it’s related to the concept of inheritance. The traditional concept defines inheritance as the remainder of something after the owner’s death, passed on to his relatives, including the neck bones. These specifications don’t apply to the inheritance of the Fertile Crescent or the Levant by the Bedouins of the Arabian Peninsula. When the Bedouins of the Arabian Peninsula arrived approximately 1,440 years ago, the Levant was not humanly dead. Therefore, it could not be inherited by Bedouin relatives, and they had no right to inherit the Levant at all, because the people of the Levant were alive at that time. Moreover, the issue of kinship is not that clear at all, and the results of DNA studies have proven otherwise. This kinship was nothing more than a fabrication invented by those who claim to be descendants of the Arabs from the Arabists, in order to continue their colonization of peoples. For Syria, Arabism and Arabism represent a new form of colonialism, one of the ugliest forms of colonialism. The Bedouins of the Arabian Peninsula came to the Levant with the sword, they occupied the Levant with the sword, they ruled the Levant with the sword and changed the minds and affiliation of the people of the Levant with the sword and the Covenant of Umar as well. It was an occupation or a conquest by means of invasion, and the Bedouins did not practice in their lives anything but invasion, which they attached after the emergence of the call to Islam with the attribute of holiness, determinism and obedience to the will of the Creator. The Creator ordered the spread of the call, and all that was required of His servants was obedience and submission. Here the Levantine asks about the reason that prompted the Creator to consider the message, which He sent about 600 years or even thousands of years before as invalid, and why did changing the sectarian affiliation of the people of the Levant become necessary? Even fighting and killing them became a duty! The Creator abandoned them without a logical reason, and what is the virtue in giving orders to practice looting and plunder and to own the land of others and to take their women and daughters captive, then he said to the Bedouins: Eat of what you have captured, lawful and pure!!!!! It seems as if the Creator has turned into a thief, a robber, a plunderer who takes women and children captive and orders his beloved Khalid ibn al-Walid to slaughter them. In doing so, he was a criminal worse than Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. In other words, Ali Baba and his thieves must be worshipped. Invasion, by definition, is the act of seizing something by force, then plundering it and considering it the property of the invader. It is an expression of the heinous culture of war spoils and the decadent concept of Bedouin rights. Even more heinous was the concept of liberation and inheritance. The Bedouins of the Arabian Peninsula liberated the Levant from the Persian-Roman occupier, but the Bedouins of the Arabian Peninsula did not leave after liberating the land of their cousins. Rather, they remained after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their cousins with their swords until 1918. Here, the Allies actually liberated the Levant from Ottoman colonialism, which was a continuation of the Quraysh-based colonialism. The Allies left after a relatively short period. Had they not left, it would have been logical to consider them occupiers or conquerors, possessive and thieves, and in their claim to liberate the country, they were hypocrites. Replacing one colonialism with another is not liberation. The Bedouin catastrophe was represented by the Arabization of the Bedouins as a new colonialism, worse than the older one by several degrees. Every occupation is rejected, and colonialism is sometimes like fate, leaving the people of the colony with no choice but between one colonizer and another. Therefore, if a Syrian were asked to choose between colonialism and the Arab-Ottoman Bedouin occupation and the French mandate, his choice would be the French mandate, which was distinguished by many relative positives compared to the occupation of the Levant by the Caliphate and then the Ottoman Sultanate. Positions and views regarding the French occupation or mandate have changed in recent years. There are now those who regret the departure of France and wish it had stayed for a little more time. What the mandate state did was positive in many aspects. Of course, there were negatives as well. In general, what France did in 25 years cannot be compared to what the Caliphate and Sultanate did in 1440 years.

Those who now inhabit the Levant, which is made up of entities or states established in the last century, are the peoples of the Levant, regardless of their origin and class. Within the framework of the state, there is the Syrian or Iraqi society, etc., and in each of these societies, there are multiple peoples embraced by the state called the Syrian state or the Iraqi state, etc., and in this Syrian state, there is no such thing as a basic component. Recognizing the existence of a basic component inevitably coincides with recognizing the existence of a non-basic or secondary component. What is the definition of the state of society in a state in which a basic citizen lives alongside a secondary or non-basic citizen??? It is a society of inequality! And the society of inequality is destructive to the state concerned, and thus many states were destroyed due to inequality between the individuals of the societies of these states. Inequality is based on racism in its various forms, such as the sectarian form, that is, on the predominant religious predominance, or on Arab nationalist racism, which became pregnant and gave birth to a mouse that was Arabization. The demise of the states of the dominant societies or the societies of forced Arabization was inevitable for several reasons. The concept of religious dominance, i.e. hegemony legitimized by numbers and ratios that are not political, does not align with the concept of the political state. The state is political by nature, and its administration must be political. The selection of the group or party that will manage it politically for a period must be done on political foundations. The sectarian majority is not a political majority, and the sectarian majority, which wants to rule based on the concept of The overwhelming majority cannot be transformed into a permanent dictatorship and thus destructive to the homeland. The state of the overwhelming majority is like the state of race, which must rule because of its false quality. In general, the problem was briefly represented by the attempt to establish states through Bedouin, tribal, clannish, sectarian, and ethnic means, and thus through means that have no connection to the state in any way. The state is a homeland and citizens who practice citizenship in it, not faith as believers. There is no faith in politics, nor politics in faith. The past was characterized by the entities of faith, believers, Sharia, and other things. These peoples existed after the First World War at a crossroads, between the path of the state in its current modern concept, and the system of the tribal, clan, sectarian entity, i.e. the Caliphate. The peoples were not able to nurture and develop the homelands, and they stood in the competition between the tribe and the state, on the side of the tribe with its religious, inherited, heritage system. Consequently, the process of developing the tribe into a state failed. It was not possible to develop the believer into a citizen, nor to develop tribal dependency into a society of equality, nor was it possible to move from the concept of protection to the concept of care. The people allowed the tribe to swallow the state and subject it to its values, concepts and standards, such as loyalty to the person, i.e. the leader, as the leader of the tribe. In addition to that, there was an aversion to the law and modernity, then adherence to custom and habit, and consideration of stagnation, intellectual constants, privacy, and non-pollution, then non-dissolution in society. Globalism is a necessary virtue for the independence of the state, so it is no wonder that the state has disappeared, as it was never established correctly. They were tribes and clans, and they remained tribes and clans!!

Post Views: 387

Post navigation

Leave a Reply Cancel reply