Imagine killing someone and robbing them of their home. And to be in you surroundings is not about condemning the crime you committed, but only about the time you did your crime, the color of the shirt you were wearing, or your age when you committed the crime.
Imagine, they disagree about your family name, your hair color, and the cleanliness of your shoes as you kill. And not to condemn the crime in the end! This is exactly what happened from the discussion about the identity of Tariq bin Ziad in the series “Fateh Al-Andalus”.
There have been many discussions about the historical fallacies presented by the series, which is finally a sound debate. But at the same time, we have to admit that most of the films and series inspired by historical tales in film and television across the world have changed a lot of historical data, for ideological reasons and sometimes only for the dramatic construction of the work.
Imaginary work is not required to be faithful to historical data. He who wants to know history has to watch documentaries or read history books or both. The fictional work inspired by history (a novel, a film, a series) is very likely to change the data and nature of the characters.
The story of the lawyer who filed a lawsuit to stop the broadcast of the series on the first Moroccan channel is another absurdity. The artwork is confronted with debate and criticism, not with prevention claims.
Now, the problem with the series of Fatah al-Andalus is not his distortion of a historical data related to the identity of Tariq bin Ziad, whether it is a Moroccan Amazigh or an Arab or an Oriental Arab.
The real problem is that the “invasion of Andalusia” (not its opening) is not to debate, criticize, and criticize. The real problem is that we are proud of our invasion and colonization of the countries of others. When the Andalusians decided to take back their country, we called it a “parcel.”
It is historically certain that wars were part of many civilizations. The most powerful countries invaded and colonized weaker countries and exploited their goods. This continued until the mid-20th century. But most advanced civilizations have discussed that stage of their history with criticism, and some have apologized to the former colonial peoples. Regardless of the positions of these countries, most intellectuals, actors and jurists there view those historical eras with a critical attitude. What do we think about today that we still consider our colonization of other peoples a source of pride? What do we are proud of the occupation of the Ottoman Empire and before that the Umayyad and Abbasid countries of many peoples and the captivity of their women and the killing of their peoples and the looting of their goods, and we consider this a conquest and a source of pride? When will we have the courage to admit that it was an invasion and colonization?
Today, as we discuss the colonial history of Europe (and we are right to argue that it is a period worthy of monetary accountability), do we have the same courage to recognize our colonial history and its terrible and inhumane effects? Do we have the courage to question phrases like “conquest” and “conquests” to call them by their real name: invasion, colonialism? How do we accept a terrible duality that speaks at the same time about “Islamic conquests” and “crusades”? Isn’t it, in the end, the same vilified practice, which was probably acceptable in its time and that deserves our criticism today?
By the way, the subject of “Arab conquests in the novels of the defeated” is a fundamental intellectual issue worthy of review and there are many writings available to those who wish to research and think seriously about the subject, away from tribal or religious chauvinism.
For all this, I find the debate about Amazigh or Arabism Tariq bin Ziad secondary. Historians give us enough keys to understand the historical contexts and data. But modern human and cognitive values are supposed to push us to question what Tariq bin Ziad and others have done. To acknowledge the invasions, murders and injustices that have been done against others, from their point of view. To be proud of it, we are truly not like the values of our time and we do not have the courage to hold our past accountable.