The Last Chance for Sudan to Exist: Get Out of the Arab League Now! Part II

Pan-Arabism: the Epitome of the most Anti-Human Racism, a Forgery aiming at bestializing the Human Being.

An inquisitive approach to the chances of the multi-ailing, yet great, African country to survive through an innovative political concept at the antipodes of the prevailing, disastrous Arabic nationalism.

By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

In the first part of this article, we examined the non – Arabic character of Sudan’s Past. We underscored that there was no Arab involved in the two stages of Sudan’s islamization, and we highlighted the weak linguistic presence of Arabic until the moment of the rise of Pan-Arabism, a colonial ideological product of total falsification, historical distortion, and negative political implications. In this second part we will study the perverted, counterfeit nature of Pan-Arabism that is the only reason behind the currently executed genocide of the Darfur people. It is true that criminal acts, as those carried out by the Janjawid dictatorial and racist militias, do not permit any respectful administration to stay in place.

We believe that one last chance must be given to the government of Sudan before that country splits to four or five pieces. A last chance must be given to them in order to denounce – in loud voice and through convincing political and military action – the criminal work that was done, and to uproot and ultimately exterminate the Arabic nationalism in all its forms, and the Islamic extremism in all its aspects. For this purpose, we will set up the only agenda that matters for that government’s existence, for Sudan’s existence, and for the Mankind’s imperative task to annihilate the racist ideological system of Pan-Arabism.

1. The Presentation of Pan-Arabism in the Western bibliography and encyclopedias.
In this part we do not intend to delineate the trajectory of this perverted system. There is plenty of bibliography on this subject, although there is absolutely nothing, truly nothing, about the early rise, the really malignant beginning of that bogus-ideology. Michael Doran’s ‘Pan-Arabism before Nasser, Egyptian Power Politics and the Palestine Question’ focuses only on the 1930s and 1940s.

We intend to focus first on the missing part of the bibliography, to interpret this lack and to find its correlation with the machinated political and social developments. We will concentrate on the canalization of thoughts and ideas in the Middle East, according to the Colonial Scheme of France that was set up in order to bring forth and diffuse the ideology of Pan-Arabism in the areas of the Ottoman Emoire. Furthermore, we will analyze its real nature, its really negative impact on the non-Arabic masses that criminal, anti-human, colonialists attempted to ‘arabize’, totally besot, and then ‘use’ at will.

The encyclopedic references are quite indicative; if we quote so various sources of information as the Encyclopedia Britannica Online and the Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia, it is because we want to show that there is no difference, as far as the maliciously kept obscure beginnings of the Arab nationalism are concerned.

A) Encyclopedia Britannica states the following (entry ‘Pan-Arabism’):
"Nationalist notion of cultural and political unity among Arab countries.
Its origins lie in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when increased literacy led to a cultural and literary renaissance among Arabs of the Middle East. This contributed to political agitation and led to the independence of most Arab states from the Ottoman Empire (1918) and from the European powers (by the mid-20th century). An important event was the founding in 1943 of the Ba'th Party, which formed branches in several countries and became the ruling party in Syria and Iraq. Another was the founding of the Arab League in 1945. Pan-Arabism's most charismatic and effective proponent was Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. After Nasser's death, Syria's Hafiz al-Assad, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, and Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi tried to assume the mantle of Arab leadership".

It is obvious that the author anticipates that there were ‘Arabs’ in the Middle East, since the expression "cultural and literary renaissance among Arabs of the Middle East" hints precisely at this. Of course this is very wrong, but the sophisticated authorship of the Encyclopedia Britannica intended to preserve most of the falsehood related to the Pan-Arabism intact and far from criticism. Equally wrong is to assume that Pan-Arabism’s ‘origins lie in the late 19th and early 20th centuries’; it is even contradictory with the rest of the text, since it is assumed to have ‘contributed to political agitation and led to the independence of most Arab states from the Ottoman Empire (1918)’. How can possibly a newly diffused ideology create this sort of political agitation so fast?

B) In Wikipedia (entry ‘Arab nationalism’) we read the following:
"‘Arab nationalism’ is a nationalism ideology in Arab world. It is defined by a belief that all Arabs are united by a shared history, culture, and language. Closely related is Pan-Arabism which calls for the creation of a single Arab state, but not all Arab nationalist are also Pan-Arabists. Immediately prior to the First World War, Arab nationalism was not a strong force. At the time, Arabs generally did not see themselves as members of a nation or people. Instead, most Arabs held loyalty to their religion or sect, their tribe, or their own particular governments. The ideologies of Ottomanism and Pan-Islamism were stronger than Arab nationalism. Arab nationalist thought was confined to a few intellectuals mostly in Beirut and Cairo. The ideology first became important during the collapse of Ottoman authority. The rise of the Young Turks and CUP alienated many of the empire's supporters in the Arab lands. The powerful notable families, excluded by the new governments in Istanbul, turned towards Arabism as an alternative. The CUP government was also accused of trying to Turkify the empire. This new spirit was manifested in the Arab Revolt during the First World War and the first failed attempts at Arab unity under the Hashemites. While during the war the British had been a major sponsor of Arab nationalist thought, in order to use it against the Ottoman Empire, during the Mandate period Arab nationalism became strongly anti-colonial. During the interwar years when the Arab lands were under colonial control Arab nationalism became an important opposition movement.

Important Arab nationalist thinkers include Michel Aflaq and Sati' al-Husri. The most prominent of Arab nationalist world leaders include Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Moammar Al Qadhafi, President of Libya, and former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The Arab nationalist movement was strongest in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In 1958 the states of Egypt and Syria temporarily joined to create a new nation, the United Arab Republic. Attempts were also made to include Yemen in the union, but the UAR collapsed in 1961 after coup in Syria, leaving only Egypt, which had been the centre of political activity in the UAR, with Cairo as the capital and Gamal Abdal Nasser as the president. The name United Arab Republic continued to be used by Egypt until 1971, after the death of Nasser.

Arab nationalists generally were not particularly religious, and did not promote observance of Islamic laws as such; however, the fact that most Arabs were Muslim was used as an important building block in creating a new Arab Muslim national identity. The large number of early Arab nationalist thinkers were not Muslims, but Arab Christians from Lebanon and Syria. An example of this is Michel Aflaq, the founder of the Ba'ath Party.

Throughout the Middle East, regional nationalisms and allegiances to the post-WWI states such as Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq partly compete and partly coexist with broader Arab nationalism. In Lebanon, for instance, the identity of "Arab" is rejected by some Lebanese nationalist groups (especially Maronite), while being enthusiastically embraced by others".

Since Wikipedia is a much more innovative and free encyclopedia, we can easily distinguish in this entry several elements that have been certainly censored in the Britannica, as they have been throughout most of the existing bibliography. Although the entry is not a fully and pertinently presented academic contribution, it specifies for the reader the following critical points:

1. ‘Prior to the First World War, … Arabs generally did not see themselves as members of a nation or people’. This is a very different concept that that of a … missing renaissance!
2. ‘Arab nationalist thought was confined to a few intellectuals mostly in Beirut and Cairo’.
3. The ideology first became important during the collapse of Ottoman authority.
4. During the war the British had been a major sponsor of Arab nationalist thought, in order to use it against the Ottoman Empire, and
5. During the interwar years when the Arab lands were under colonial control Arab nationalism became an important opposition movement.
All these points are very meaningful, and we are going to analyze them further on.

C) Going through the entry ‘Pan-Arabism’ in Wikipedia, we read the following:
"Pan-Arabism is a movement for unification among the Arab peoples and nations of the Middle East. It is closely connected to Arab nationalism. Pan-Arabism has tended to be both secular, socialist, with a current of anti-Westernism.

Pan-Arabism was first pressed by Amir Hussein, the Sherif of Mecca, who sought independence from the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of a state of Arabia. In 1915-16, the McMahon-Hussein Correspondance resulted in an agreement between Britain and the Arab world that if the Arabs successfully revolted against the Ottomans, Britain would support claims for Arab independence. In 1916, however, the Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France determined that crucial parts of the Middle East would be divided between those powers and not given to Arab self-rule; when Turkey surrendered in 1918, Britain refused to keep to the letter of its arrangments with Hussein and the two nations assumed guardianship of several newly-created states. The promised "Arabia" (later Saudi Arabia) was formed in the less valuable south. Additionally, Britain used the Balfour Declaration of 1917 as reason to administer Palestine as a British Mandate, which it became in 1920. As a result, early ideals of pan-Arabism were not realized and instead began a long period of British and French domination of the Arab world.

A more formalized pan-Arab ideology than that of Hussein was first espoused in the 1940s in Syria by Michel Aflaq, a founder of the Ba'ath (Renaissance) Party, combining elements of both socialism and Italian fascism. A pan-Arab ideology lay at the basis of various attempts over the past fifty years to unite various Arab nation-states, most notably the short-lived United Arab Republic, which united Egypt and Syria, thus encompassing Sunni, Shia, Druze, and Christian Arabs, among others. In contrast to pan-Islamism, Pan-Arabism is primarily secular and many prominent Pan-Arabs, such as Aflaq himself were non-Muslims. Similarly, Tariq Aziz, a Christian and the deputy prime minister of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, was another prominent pan-Arabist.

The Syrian government is, and the former government of Iraq was, led by the Ba'ath Party, which espouses pan-Arabism. The high point of the pan-Arab movement was in the 1960's, but pan-Arabism was strongly hurt by the Arab defeat by Israel in the Six Day War and the inability of pan-Arabist governments to generate economic growth. By the 1980's, pan-Arabism began to be eclipsed by Islamist ideologies".

In this entry, we select the following critical points (adding them to the aforementionned):
6. Pan-Arabism was first pressed by Amir Hussein, the Sherif of Mecca, who sought independence from the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of a state of Arabia.
7. When Turkey surrendered in 1918, Britain refused to keep to the letter of its arrangments with Hussein and the two nations assumed guardianship of several newly-created states. The promised "Arabia" (later Saudi Arabia) was formed in the less valuable south.

In addition, we notice the following in the entry ‘Young Turks’ (Wikipedia):
‘In 1915 the Young Turks came down hard on Arabic secret societies in Damascus’.

2. Historical Analysis, and Refutation of the Colonial presentation of the Pan-Arabism.

A) There was no Arab Identity prior to WW I
It becomes obvious that part of the truth is already openly said to average Western readership. The basic truth is already revealed in point 1. Before WW I there was no Arab identity, no concept of common cultural background, and no feeling of linguistic or behavioural commonality; to be precise, there was no identification according to ‘nation’ but conforming to religion, and as result one could not detect among Oriental and/or Muslim sources any sort of historical falsification about the background of the Arabic speaking Muslims. As late at the end of the 18th c. not a single Muslim in Iraq, in Syria, in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Egypt, let alone the Maghreb, would identify him/herself as ‘Arab’.

All this is what the Westerners were able to notice through their systems of exploration and investigation; however, this does not reproduce to the correct and complete image, because many important issues went unnoticed or were kept deliberately under silence.

Ever since the Shu’ubiyeh movement expanded in the days of early Islam, it was very well known, understood and commonly accepted that Islam was a purely non-Arabic affair, in terms of cultural development and intellectual – artistic achievements. Aramaeans, Persians, Yemenites and Copts were the factors of Light, Culture, Science, Education and Wisdom within Islam – not the Arabs.

The Shu’ubiyah movement was precisely a great movement of Cultural Identity that stipulated in the most categorical way that Civilization within Islam was exclusively the result of activities of the aforementioned non-Arabic peoples. The fact that these peoples – and later other people in various countries of Europe, Africa and Asia – learned, spoke and wrote Arabic, the holy language of Coran, never meant for all these peoples that they ‘became’ Arabic in any sense! The use of a language does not change the ethnic, racial and cultural hypostasis of a people, or part of a people.

Of course, this implies total rejection by the Shu’ubiyeh of the persisting – among Arabs – traditional Arabic cultural elements that could not be either accepted or tolerated within Islam, since they contributed to tarnishing of the Islamic concepts, and to lowering the intellectual life, the artistic forms, the theoretical – philosophical background, the scientific – scholarly explorations, as well as of the behavioural system within the Islamic society, since these Arabic cultural elements were vulgar, hideous, and barbaric.

All these contexts were known to all the leading intellectuals and to most of the peoples of the Middle East at the eve of the Western Colonial interference. Of course, the Shu’ubiyeh debate had long ended, the Shu’ubiyeh approach had become common to all, and the issues discussed were a kind of ‘common stored knowledge’ shared by all.

We have no indication that the early European Orientalists (in general) and Islamologists (in particular) came to notice, study and understand this subject in-depth. Their ignorance of numerous related sectors was limiting and ultimately damaging their understanding capacities, but it is not already quite sure at all that they wished to understand anything whatsoever! They tried to learn languages, and to unearth monuments of the Pre-Christian past, but real interest to deeply understand was not in their minds. Their works show rather an effort to impress on linguistic background and through overwhelming archeological discoveries, but the compilation of History, the approach itself, the concept they had of the world developments, did not change at all before and after the major discoveries of the Orientalism! They did not wish so whatsoever! They rather intended to incorporate – very erroneously – new stuff into their preconceived schemes that could not seriously be taken as valid anymore, because precisely of the Orientalist discoveries. In this process many critical issues – that should have been known to the European Orientalists – seem to have been passed under silence, like precisely the colossal issue of the Shu’ubiyeh debate.

Of course, through Political Sciences we can reconstruct in this regard what is missing at the very level of History. Since the colonial interference signified the diffusion of a most problematic nationalism aiming at plunging the entire area into permanent underdevelopment, we can deduce that the colonial intellectuals and Orientalists knew the realities, and deliberately covered the ‘disturbing’ truth.

B) Beirut and Cairo: the birthplace of the fabricated, colonially sponsored Falsehood of Pan-Arabism.
Point 2 is quite indicative in regard with the methods of the colonial intelligentsia and diplomacy. Why the first ‘Arab’ nationalists were confined in Beirut and Cairo? Egypt was detached from the Ottoman Empire under a nominal Regency (the colonially sponsored Khedive regime), and the diffusion of all sorts of European colonial concepts took place without obstacle and without interruption. Lebanon was still part of the Ottoman Empire but, following the malignant French machination (that has been attested in so many places allover the world), French traveling priests, missionaries of all sorts, archeologists, Orientalists, disguised diplomats and military, secret services agents and secret societies’ members started contacting members and representatives of the various Christian denominations to incite them to ‘resistance’ or ‘rebellion’, and – in parallel – through diplomatic maneuvers France pushed the Ottomans to oppress the Christians, so that the French present themselves as ‘saviours’ of the Christians!

In such a deformed and corrupt political environment (where money, bribery and reward of the betrayal were also involved), the pernicious idea of ‘ethnic’ differentiation was appropriately infiltrated and soon viewed by the ‘endangered’ Christians, or Druzes of Lebanon, or by the besotted Egyptians (more they were dependant on the French and the English, more they were thinking of themselves as ‘independent’ from the Sultan!) as the solution that best suited their illegitimate interests. One should specify that this was a definitely long procedure that took the form of long years of studies in Paris and in London (conducted within the ‘bon pour l’ Orient’ frame), pushing part of the local masses to westernization and another part to radicalization. In addition, low level but vast imitative practices at the level of government, army, administration, economy, education, society and culture started taking place.

The ultimate confusion started at the moment, when the Manicheist-like Western intelligentsia and diplomacy set up an intellectual – mental scheme based on the ‘predicament’, ‘distinction’ or ‘divide’ between
a. the Ottoman, the past, the inactivity and the stagnancy, the darkness and ignorance, the underdevelopment, the oppression, and
b. the European, the future, the activity and the progress, the Lights and the knowledge, the development, and the freedom.

Placed within the aforementioned milieu, and facing such an artificial and aberrational predicament, the besotted Egyptians, and the subservient but avid Lebanese Maronites could not opt but for the second. This speeded up the imitative practices that went deeper and deeper, as the 19th century was going towards its end. And since the part of the indigenous ‘elites’ that was formed in Western Europe wishrd to differentiate themselves more and more from the Ottoman type of government, administration, economy, education, society and culture, they gradually reached the level of needing an ‘identity’, another identity, a false pre-fabricated identity, to face the Ottoman ‘identity’ that was truly speaking their own real identity. But unfortunately for these bogus-elites, they were driven to think they were different, and they felt even more so, when they were opposed at their local level to those who did not fall victims of the French propaganda. This ‘new’ identity they were seeking should be a tool in the hands of colonial France, and could not be anything else than ‘Arab’, since this sort of identity was practically easier and better corresponding to the French need for a permanent engulfment of the area into misery, poverty, darkness and underdevelopment. At the same time, their opponents were labeled as ‘Islamists’ or ‘Pan-Ottomanists’, described in the worst possible terms, and awfully depicted.

More the differentiation of these bogus-elites from the Ottoman model was becoming a problem for the Ottoman authorities, more Ottoman oppression was directed towards them in Lebanon, and they were therefore pushed even closer to French and British. This procedure lasted long and this is the reason we did not have any real Arab nationalist ideologist and ‘intellectual’ before the 1920s.

Of course, the Arab nationalism had to create a general awakening among masses, and this would also be very useful to the colonial powers in later periods for their long perspective negative plans and schemes. That is why forms of nationalism and interest for the past that one could expect, making parallels with other countries, were not promoted, supported or even allowed by the Colonial powers here.

As a consequence, there should be no reference to Antiquity, since there was nothing about Arabs there! The Egyptian past, the Mesopotamian antiquity, the Phoenician glories should not play a role equivalent to what Classical Greece had to play and was even forcibly altered in order to play in the modern tiny state of Greece. Coptic and Aramaic Christianity never became a matter of Colonial concern either. This consists in an unprecedented French betrayal of the Eastern Christians, and France, during this perverted effort of setting a forgery of Arab nation, brought a tremendously devastating disaster to both Copts and Aramaeans.

Although Coptic was still spoken as a mother tongue of many Christian Egyptians in numerous villages at the times Napoleon arrived in Egypt, France allowed terrible Muslim oppression against the Copts be carried out, and that led ultimately to the complete disappearance of Coptic 120 years after Napoleon’s arrival. Although the French cared a lot about building museums for the Ancient Egyptian and the Islamic antiquities, they did not bother to express a concern, a care or the slightest interest for the Coptic antiquities that they disregarded and disdained completely. The Coptic Museum was built under entire Coptic care…

Even worse developments took place in the case of the ‘Assyrian’ and ‘Chaldaean’, the Aramaic Christians of the Asiatic Ottoman provinces. Since they were promised a state in the area of present day Northern Iraq, they came to clash with their state’s authorities, and with their Kurdish, Turkmen and Arabic-speaking neighbours with catastrophic results.

While ridiculous and partial French propaganda is still kept alive against the so-called ‘Armenian genocide’, which was not a planned Ottoman policy, but France says nothing about the similar ‘genocide’ that happened to the Aramaeans in 1915 - 1916, since this people is the focal material of the paranoid French machinations in the Middle East. Yet, the ‘Assyrian’ Patriarchate at Kutshanous, a mountainous area in the south of lake Van, nearby Hakkari, was completely destroyed by fanatic Kurds, who were mobilized by local sheikhs in a way to prevent an ‘Assyrian’ – Russian alliance – eventual copy of the Armenian – Russian alliance. ‘Assyrian’ Christians had to face terrible persecution in areas around Mosul in present day Northern Iraq, but these events did not make sense for the French colonial Middle Eastern policy, since the existence of this people in great numbers would be lethal to the successful implementation of the Pan-Arabism in the area of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan and Palestine. Today, it must be explicitly denounced that this people had to be sacrificed for the needs of the French policies in the Middle East.

C) ‘Arab’ nationalism: ‘important’ for Western Colonial interests at the times of collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Point 3 makes clear that Arabic nationalism became ‘important’ at the times of the Ottoman collapse. This testifies to the forgery of the ideology, since the French and the English were in a position to diffuse more easily all the elements of the nationalist ideological fabrication (that were prepared in secret laboratories much earlier), when they almost did not face any opponent. Here comes a critical point of the fraud and the deception.

The Islamic opposition to the forgery of Arabic nationalism was viciously identified by the French and the English with the Islamic opposition to the efforts of modernization that they and their local puppets were trying to introduce, and thus it was discredited and denigrated in a preposterous way. We can all understand that anyone making a mistake on a point can make a very correct judgment on another unrelated issue. The fact that the ignorant and obscurantist sheikhs of those days were wrong in rejecting modernization of the archaic local structures does not discredit them in their rejection of the ‘Arab’ nationalistic forgery!
Despite the irrelevant sheikhs’ attacks against the West, the Western bogus-intellectual agents and disguised missionaries pursued their ‘friendly’ and demagogical attack, and deployed all possible efforts to ‘prove’ and propagate that ‘Islam’ signifies ‘Arabic Civilization’. Of course, all this was a kind of mass psychological manipulation, a vicious flattery that engulfed the besotted indigenous illiterate masses to worse confusion. Gertrude Bell is an excellent paradigm in this regard; preposterously called ‘Uncrowned Queen of Iraq’ or ‘Daughter of the Desert’, she represents the turning point of the Western colonial involvement at the moment the rising Orientalists of the colonial countries started advancing ridiculous interpretations and irrelevant approaches, namely that Baghdad’s architecture was ‘Arabic’, that the literary masterpieces of Islamic Ages are just ‘Arabic’ literature, and that the Islamic Caliphates were just ‘Arabic Caliphates’! All this debilitated interpretation started being diffused along with the collapse of the Ottoman rule and the rise of the mandate powers; earlier it would have been completely rejected, and it would have led to massive local opposition to the French and English colonial falsification and forgery of History.

But in 1920 a shadowy spectrum of Pan-Arabism had already been diffused, large masses had faced a cruel destiny (Aramaeans, Armenians, Turkmens, Kurds, etc), and, in striking contrast, the carefully ‘untouched’ Arabic-speaking people (all of Aramaic origin and cultural background, as far as the areas of present day Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine are concerned) had just met a seemingly pleasant surprise. These populations were the main tools of the French and English colonial strategy first to besot the indigenous people, and then to base the rest of the colonial policies on the perverted techniques of manipulating uncultured, illiterate, besotted and misinformed people. So, these populations, after they were confused enough to believe that they were not Arabic-speaking but Arabs, were suddenly met with the unexpected and unsuspected idea, a kind of manna fallen from the sky, that they could rule ‘their’ own states! As soon as their eyes ‘opened’ (?!), they started demanding more, absorbing now all the nationalist paranoia more easily and in greater quantity, and adding more to it in terms of political totalitarian exaggeration, historical falsehood and nationalistic paroxysm. Since their promised dream was met with ‘colonial presence’ and with the procedures leading to the formation of a national home for Jews in Judea, Arab nationalism became identical to hysteria, as the Colonial powers wished, so that they can permanently manipulate and maneuver the so-called ‘Arabs’ without the slightest difficulty. It was only normal for the illiterate sheikhs of theirs to fall into the colonial trap, and shift from rejection to adoption of ‘Arab’ nationalism, since to their blind eyes this could be a unifying force, and enable them to ‘kick out’ Westerners and ‘Jews’. So, naïve they were…

D) British political machinations
There is actually a vast bibliography on point 4, namely the British propulsion of Arab nationalism, a later, more political – administrative and less academic – intellectual, phenomenon if compared to the French colonial scheme. By ensuring the ‘Arab’ nationalist parties and groups a few decades of political activity in the opposition, colonial powers advanced their scheme, and made sure that, even after their colonial administrative presence is ended, the same negative spirit and hysterical state of mind prevails among the besotted and fanaticized indigenous people so that the underdevelopment persists as an endemic phenomenon and characteristic.

Point 5 refers precisely to this situation that was of critical importance for France and England. By engulfing these uneducated and uncultured, semi-barbaric and absolutely undemocratic local leaders and politicians in a much-hated feeling of self-impotence and in a pitiful, powerless opposition, they provoked an unprecedented rise of dictatorial willingness, mentality, attitude and behaviour. These illiterate, ‘Arab’ bogus-politicians never understood that the British and French administrations did not behave in the same way in England and in Iraq, or in France and in Syria! So, they were easily receptive of the machination and they were finally led to the concept of brutal political imposition of undesired choices. ‘Dictatorship’ seemed to them just ‘normality’.

E) Cultural – behavioural changes ensuing from the colonial imposition of a false ‘Arab’ identity
One should not disregard cultural changes that started taking place following the promotion of Arab nationalism. An entire behavioural system that would have been considered as extremely low, hideous and barbaric by all the local people 100 years ago started getting momentum. The approach is simple; if one thinks he is Arab, he behaves like Arabs. In every place at any moment there is always among neighboring peoples a codified perception and understanding of the behavioural system of a certain people. It works at the level of representation of symbolic meanings and attitudes, but this is what makes the average French recognize the average German, the average British, the average Italian in terms of behavioural system. This simple reality presents several points of critical importance for present day Middle East and its tragic problems.

Of course, one must bear in mind that throughout the Islamic Ages, from the early expansion to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Arabs were existing, known to the other Muslim and Christian peoples, and certainly culturally – behaviourally identified by all their neighbors. In their majority, Arabs preserved numerous pre-Islamic cultural and behavioural characteristics, and they stuck to this, very low, semi-barbaric, cultural – behavioural identity. Certainly, this model was rather expressed among the bedouins of Hedjaz and Nafd, since in several cities, like Madinah and Mecca, non Arab Muslims emigrants helped the local Arabs improve to some extent their standards. So, the Arabic cultural – behavioural identity was considered throughout the Islamic Ages as ‘the lowest of the low’ in Islam.

The persistence of the ‘Arab’ behavioural system is certainly aligned with the rise of both, the Islamic philosophical – theological – ideological perversion and the Arab nationalism. Referring to the former, we include hereby the long and slow rise of the successive ‘layers’ – with one coming out of the other – of philosophical – theological – ideological systems:
a) Ibn Taimiya,
b) Abdel Wahhab and the Wahhabism,
c) Kemaleddin Afghani – Muhammad Abdu, and
d) the Islamic Brotherhood, the notorious Ikhwan al Musalmin.
These four layers must be perceived as parallel to the gradual and final extinction of all the great philosophical – ideological – cultural – artistic Islamic currents that were precisely targeted by the Ibn Taimiya introspective obscurantism.

Of course, from the aforementioned one can understand that the ‘Arab’ nationalism started being diffused at a moment when layer b had already appeared and expanded.

More perverted concepts were coming out of
1. the merging and/or interaction of
a. the four layers of philosophical – theological – ideological degradation and Islamic perversion, and
b. the low elements and characteristics of the persisting Arabic cultural – behavioural identity
and
2. the intermingling and mixture of
a. the four layers of philosophical – theological – ideological degradation and Islamic perversion, and
b. the colonially propelled Arab nationalism

At the end, during the 20th c., from the two double mixtures emanated further, even lower, even more degraded and debased, barbaric and corrupt aspects, elements, and traits of the ‘Arabic’ behavioural system. The overall interconnection, along with many external electroshocks, like the Industrial revolution, the mass production, the consumerism, the Marxism –Leninism, the rapid progress and shining success of the state of Israel, the astronautic triumphs, the information revolution, and the 21st c. splendid horizons, led to the current behavioural vulgar misery of the Middle East.

This is a vast issue.