Mamdouh Bitar, Mira Bitar
Mr. Kamal Hamza wrote regarding homelands, “I remind you that the issue of homelands across the Arab world, bathed in its blood, was never the result of a temporary regime, whether Ba’athist, Muslim Brotherhood, or otherwise, but rather the result of a cultural approach that emerged with the early days of the Muhammadan conquest, which played a major role in establishing what we later reached.” Mr. Attaf Muhammad responded with the following statement, which we quote as he wrote it: “If you don’t say it correctly, then the wisdom of half the world, that is, the occupation of half the world by the Bedouins of the Arabian Peninsula was a great virtue, bestowed by God upon half the world, I would blame Mr. Attaf Muhammad, who did not write the truth, because he apparently does not know how to write in Arabic. Rather, he wrote out of his ignorance and criminality, which was reflected in his illiteracy in the alphabetical form of his statement.
History has long known the constant struggle between good and evil, but it did not consider Occupying other countries and subjugating their peoples to the will of the occupier, no matter how different and varied the content of that will, was once considered virtuous and good. Occupation or conquest has always been evil, as even Caliph Omar ibn Abdul Aziz confirmed when he ordered the cessation of conquests. This was simply because it was an evil practiced by other caliphs, and indirectly justified by others, such as Le Bon. Le Bon is reported to have said that there were no ones more merciful than the Arab conquerors. We do not disagree with anyone about the discrepancy between occupations and conquests, that is, a discrepancy between the degrees of evil. There is, for example, a significant discrepancy between the French mandate and the Ottoman occupation of Syria. However, this discrepancy does not change the nature of the evil, nor does it transform evil into good. The discrepancy lies only in the degree of evil. Invasion is theft and rape, i.e., it is absolute evil. Theft and rape have no historical context to justify them; rather, they are an ongoing practice that has faced and continues to face the will for good, represented by the principle of not engaging in aggression against others.
Gathering opposites together is considered assassination. Logically and morally, the first part of Le Bon’s statement does not logically square with the second part. Conquest, as an absolute evil, does not square with the concept of mercy. It cannot be said that this is the truest of lies. Lying negates truth, and conquests negate mercy. Ibn al-Khattab’s occupation of Jerusalem and the Levant, i.e., his theft of Jerusalem, the Levant, and other lands, was an act of aggression against others, a practice that negates any other “positive” aspect. The problem with morals is clearer. Whoever practices this combination of opposites is promoting and justifying occupations, and in doing so, represents a worse version of humanity than Ibn al-Walid, al-Qa’qa’, Hulagu, Ibn Nusayr, or others. The conquests harmed others, but they harmed the conquerors to a greater degree. To prove this, it is sufficient to take a quick look at the state of the descendants of the conquerors these days. They loot and steal from each other as a continuation of the mentality of the spoils of war. They are extremely backward and immoral as a continuation of Because of the bad morals of the conquests and their decline in civilization, they are violent as a continuation of the violence of the conquests. They are hungry because they do not work, and they did not realize the value of living from production (the duality of living and production). They stole with the sword, so the Umayyad treasuries were full of spoils of money, jewels, and other things. Stealing was their profession, so they were called even in ancient times “Saracine.
After the swords rusted and were no longer effective in looting and plundering, the Saracens were left with nothing but parasitism on others. It seems that parasitism is also at its end. They are unbearable despite the intense sympathy for them because of the hunger they suffered. Despite that, Europe has now taken several steps aimed at returning refugees to the countries from which they came. It is not the duty of Europe, Lebanon, or even Turkey to bear the expenses of refugees. Caring for Syrian refugees is the task of the countries from which they came. The battles of conquest that the Bedouins of the peninsula fought were driven by the desire to seize the spoils and captives and divide them with Ibn Abdullah and then with the Caliphate in proportions that were attractive to the Bedouin who were accustomed to fighting, fighting and stealing. Men who had always lived on the edge of hunger, they emerged from the barren, arid desert with new material horizons. The proportions for dividing the stolen goods were encouraging to the thieves who obtained four-fifths of the stolen goods, and the fifth was for the Chosen One or the Caliph. And because they were experienced in… Brutality, cruelty, crime, abuse, harshness, and then barbarism, so they fought with the stolen goods. Wars and invasion were not part of the culture of the stolen goods, like the inhabitants of the Levant and the Egyptians. Therefore, the invaders quickly succeeded in extending their control over the occupied areas and drained them in a way that history has no equal. The invasion met the material needs of the Bedouins. The Bedouins did not fight for the sake of faith and religion because at that early time they did not understand religion and did not understand faith, and there were no religious books. They were also illiterate, and there were no religious men among the raiders. Sharkhabil was not a religious man, and Khalid ibn al-Walid was a man of war, sword, and rape only. Others were like them. They seized it by the sword, swallowed the rights and lands of the non-urban, and treated its inhabitants with brutal and arbitrary treatment (Hussam Itani’s book). They did not come to the Levant, which was more advanced in civilization than them, as the reverential writings describe them, to spread equality among people. How can equality be achieved between the thief and the robbed?? Between the aggressor and the aggressed, and between the oppressed and the oppressor? The options of the oppressed were limited to Islamization, paying the jizya with their own hands while they were humiliated, or fighting. The matter of crime does not change, and even if we believe the issue of spreading the message, it is then a message of crime. Bedouin communities that live off theft and violence do not know what is called equality, especially in the era of Muhammad. There is no equality in Muhammadanism, but rather what is called justice, that is, their justice or their justice designated for the sake of establishing their right and ensuring their interests. The theoretical framework and the racist colonial plan of action found their place in the barbaric Umarian Covenant, which was a set of conditions for the surrender of the defeated to the victor by the sword. It was a dictate and coercion that was unparalleled in its barbarity. We are amazed at a person who accepts the conditions of this covenant and even praises it, despite it being dictate and coercion at the point of the sword. There is no relationship between the degraded covenant and human rights, even in that historical context. The practice of conquest was never a virtue, and it is not… It is a human duty to accept the conditions of the invader. Unfortunately, the covenant has not expired or become extinct. Its spirit still hovers in this region, destroying all equality and social justice. It represents a modern type of projection of the thefts from abroad onto the interior. There is no possibility of practicing thefts abroad, so they are practiced internally. Therefore, corruption has spread in the regions of the invaders. The invader does not work or produce, but rather kills and steals. Look at the state of the regions that have been characterized by the characteristics of the Bedouin invaders and thieves, which are now called “Arabia”, is there anything but murder and corruption, i.e. theft!!!!. Some mentally deformed people are proud of conquests, knowing that boasting about vice is degradation. In fact, whoever stole and occupied a quarter or half of the world should apologize to the whole world. The Arabs have failed for many reasons in everything, because they do not admit mistakes and therefore do not apologize, and do not find a reason to correct mistakes!
![]()
![]()
Post Views: 405
