The Free Arabists continued, “To avoid what this might arouse in some reactionary (nationalists and Islamists), there is no objection to a light indication that does not include the meaning of belonging, but rather a light touch resembling a faded color or a spiritual light like a fading candle that shows no effect or meaning in reality. But how can this be justified, despite its enormity, and passed off as a new commodity that represents the last word of creative Syrian thought?”
Through a simple and elegant logical trick, the simultaneous exchange of roles between the concept of equal citizenship rights for individuals before the law and the rights of social components to determine the form of the state,
Thus, the Arabs, who constitute more than 85% of the population of Syria, will be in an equility position in determining the form of the state, which essentially includes its national and cultural identity, with the smallest component belonging to another nationality, even if it does not exceed 7% of the population
Yes, this is how it should be, equality for all in rights and duties, and by defining the homeland as the homeland of all, and not the homeland of the Arabs only. Whoever claims that there is a fixed percentage for one of the components of Syrian society, such as 85% Arabs, means that this group possesses fixed organic characteristics that distinguish them from others. This is the essence of ugly racism. However, Arabism is not an organic characteristic, but rather, for the most part, it is a politicized culture, and recently it has become a politicized religion like the Brotherhood. A person distances himself from it or approaches it according to its successes or failures. Most Syrians were, by appreciation, Arabists at the beginning of the twentieth century, but due to the failure of Arabism in all fields, they distanced themselves from it, that is, from those who represent it, such as Nasserism and the Baath. Can it be said that the Baath and the Nasserite Socialist Union represent 85% of Syrians!
The Free Arabists continue the argument: “Syria, which modern anthropologists view as the historical land from which Semitic civilizations emerged, according to most estimates, two thousand years before Christ, and which witnessed the Arab states and empires before Islam, including the Palmyrene Empire, the Ghassanid Kingdom, and others. Syria, which witnessed the first Arab state-empire that extended from China to present-day Spain, and from which the armies of conquest launched that have astonished the world to this day. Syria, which did not change its identity and language after hundreds of years of Roman occupation, nor did it change its identity, language, or Arab-Islamic cultural affiliation in the face of successive waves of Crusader and Mongolian invasions.”
Here the free Arabs visit, the Ghassanids are a people or peoples or tribes of Azd or the tribe of Al Jafna migrated from Yemen to the island and from there to the Jordan region and settled near the Ghassan spring in the third century AD, these tribes embraced Christianity, even these tribes fought alongside the Byzantines and Ibn al-Walid was able to defeat them in the Battle of Marj al-Saffar in 624 AD, and in 636 AD the king of the Ghassanids Jablah Ibn al-Ayham supported the Byzantines in the Battle of Yarmouk in which the army of Ibn al-Walid was victorious, so the relations were not good between the Ghassanids and the Arabs of Quraish, but there were wars between them.
Then what is the relationship of Palmyra to the Arabian Peninsula or to the Arabs in general? There was undoubtedly some immigrants in Palmyra from the Arabian Peninsula, but in terms of civilization, culture, architecture, language and religion, Palmyra had no relationship with the Arabs of the Peninsula, as there is no similarity, however slight, between Palmyra and Mecca. Palmyra was Syrian, and Syria was Roman-Byzantine. Syria mainly belongs to the civilization of the Mediterranean basin, and it had no significant relationship with the Arabian Peninsula, the Quraysh, or the Bedouins. That is, Syria was not Arab. The Quraysh, Mecca and Medina were Arab, and the very advanced Palmyrene world was very different from the very late Quraysh world. Truly, the Arab identity of Syria is not for sale, as there is no one who buys decadence.
The free Arabists continue, “This is Syria, some are proposing today, in its disastrous reality, taking advantage of that reality, that it should give up its Arab Islamic identity and erase 1400 years of its history to become a mere neutral land with no history, identity or affiliation.” How so!!! And will Syria be erased from history by erasing the past 1400 years, and what did Syria the plow, Syria the wheel, and Syria the letter offer in the last fourteen centuries, during the Caliphate and the Ottoman Sultanate??? Absolutely nothing. It is enough to take a quick look at the numerous historical monuments and evidence in Syria. The evidence is devoid of any positive trace of the Arab Qurayshi presence or the Ottoman Sultanate… Absolutely nothing!!
Then the free Arabists continue, “This is presented under a cover of modernity that is not known to countries like France, with its French identity that it is proud of, despite the presence of six million French Muslim citizens of Arab and African origins with a different culture and civilization, and is not known to countries like Russia, which includes Circassians, Tatars, Cossacks, and Chechen Muslims of different nationalities. Excuse me, gentlemen, Syria’s Arab-Islamic identity is not for sale.”
Free Arabists praise the Syrians for not changing their language, despite the Roman occupation for nearly 700 years. These Arabists consider the preservation of the Aramaic language by the peoples of the Levant as a positive thing that deserves praise. The same applies to the Amazigh and Coptic languages, and others. However, the conquering invaders, on the other hand, practiced Arabization, especially the Arabization of the official government offices in the Umayyad era, which the Arabists consider a commendable thing, while we consider it a criminal act. Even international law in this era considers changing the characteristics of the people of an occupied region, whether language or religion, a criminal act. The Arabists consider conquest a liberation, unlike the League of Nations, which considers conquest an unparalleled crime. Therefore, it banned the use of the concept of conquest after World War I, and the ban is still in effect to this day. Would an Arab politician in the United Nations dare to say that the conquest of Spain or India was a liberation for them?? Your Arabism is zero on the left of history ..!
The Free Arabists Forum presented its position regarding Arabism and its opponents, summarizing the article with the slogan “Defending Arab Syria is a religious, national and moral duty.” Perhaps the approach regarding the national duty is correct, but it is not known why defending Arabism is a religious duty!!!, and what religion nests in this Arabism, and in order for the religious duty to be fulfilled and the morals of the believer to be complete, Arabism must be defended, and what is the relationship of Arabism to the true religion and to heaven? Especially when we know that those who created and promoted the concept of Arabism, that is, the origin of the concept of Arabism, which was born in the early twentieth century, were not at the hands of believers in the true religion, but mainly at the hands of infidels. These promoted a civil, non-religious Arabism, in order to confront the groups of believers who called for submission to the Ottomans and to confront the Ottoman Union and Progress.