How the Falsehood Ethiopia was Created - Refutation of Ezekiel Rediker´s Falsification. Part 3
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
January 12, 2010
(http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/136140), I specified as main reason for African nations´ multifaceted mistreatment, inhuman persecution, and severe endangerment the evil, fallacious literature that has been ceaselessly composed by Anglo-French academia and systematically diffused by them worldwide in a peremptory way in order to deceive all possible players.
To exemplarily refute an Anti-Somali, Anti-Ogadeni falsification of East Africa´s History, I selected the article "The Ogaden: A Microcosm of Global Conflict" by Ezekiel Rediker (http://www.tcr.org/tcr/essays.htm); I republished two excerpts of the 20-page article about Somalia, Ogaden and Abyssinia (fallaciously renamed Ethiopia), and refuted the errors point by point.
In the present article, I continue the refutation of the aforementioned article´s excerpts. Latin numbers inserted in the text correspond to points of my commentary. Modern European numbers in the text corresponds to the author´s footnotes. In forthcoming articles, I will complete the analytical refutation.
The Ogaden: A Microcosm of Global Conflict
By Ezekiel Rediker
The History of Conflict: 1400-1855
Ahmed the Left-Handed ….. was assisted by the Ottomans who supplied food and weaponry.3 (XI) Yet Ahmed the Left-Handed soon overreached himself, (XII) leading his troops deep (XIII) into Abyssinian territory. There, he was overwhelmed by the forces of the newly-expanded, (XIV) Portuguese-backed Abyssinian army. (XV) Having defeated the armies of Ahmed the Left-Handed, (XVI) the Abyssinian Empire (XVII) reclaimed the Ogaden.4 (XVIII)
The Abyssinians struck a crushing blow against the forces of the Muslim Sultanates and the Ottoman Turks. (XIX) They became the dominant power in the region. (XX) Fighting between the two powers ceased, (XXI) and Muslim herders, (XXII) who previously avoided the Ogaden because of hostilities with the Abyssinians, (XXIII) migrated to the region in large numbers.5 (XXIV)
Muslim herders began to bring their livestock to the Ogaden for annual pasturage. (XXV) They migrated in and out of the Ogaden according to rainfall, and combed the region for the most fertile grazing spots. These Muslim herders were ethnic Somalis, and to this day, the region is peopled almost entirely by their descendants.6 (XXVI)
The Ogaden thus became a land of Muslim Somali herders, (XXVII) a migratory people (XXVIII) who followed the predictable patterns of rain and pasturage. According to Dr. Said Samatar, the "precolonial Somali lived in a world of egalitarian anarchy."7 (XXIX) Somali nomads have no centralized government, and according to British anthropologist I.M. Lewis, this "lack of formal government (XXX) and of instituted authority is strongly reflected in their extreme independence and individualism."8 (XXXI)
Lewis also noted that the Somali nomad has "an extraordinary sense of superiority as an individual" (XXXII) and believes that he is "subject to no other authority except that of God."9 (XXXIII) Various Somali tribes fought wars over territory and cattle, and a delicate power-sharing balance was created to preserve cordial relations between the clans. Fierce clan loyalty and the refusal (XXXIV) to accept a centralized Somali government later contributed to the collapse of the Somali state in the 1990s.10 (XXXV)
Between the late 16thcentury and the early 19th century, the peoples of the Ogaden lived largely in peace. They were relatively unaffected by the struggle between Arab merchants and the indigenous Somali clans for control of East African seaports (XXXVI) such as Mogadishu, Bimal, Merka, and Baraawe. As herders, people of the Ogaden did not play a major role in the slave trade, which was the primary cause for conflict between ethnic Somalis and Arab traders.11 (XXXVII)
Commentary
(XI) This is true and normal; all the Eastern African sultanates, similarly with many other peripheral Muslim states and realms, exerted political authority at the local level only in the name of the Caliph, who after 1517 was rightfully the Ottoman Sultan. There is nothing wrong in it, and similarly, the Abyssinians were greatly helped by the Portuguese colonials.
At this point, I have to stress the qualitative difference of the two alliances. The Somali – Ottoman alliance was a natural phenomenon reflecting the political will of the populations of the two entities, namely the Somali Sultanate and the Ottoman Empire. The two respective authorities represent legitimate states and political establishments with a great historical tradition in their spheres of influence. The Somalis, the Afars and other Kushitic nations of Eastern Africa had early accepted Islam, and at the times of the great King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim, the Western Red Sea coastlands, the Horn of Africa inland, and the Eastern African coastlands in general, had a 700 years long Islamic past.
On the other side, the historicity itself of the Solomonic is totally rejected.
Christian continuity in Abyssinia is a fake.
Only the fallacy diffused by the Anglo-French pseudo-scholars, the likes of the Freemason forger Edward Ullendorff, helped create this erroneous assumption of a plausible continuity. The Abyssinian Axumite kingdom was not connected with the Ethiopian Kushitic and the Nilo-Saharan Christian kingdoms of Nobatia, Makuria and Alodia that all emerged in the area of today´s Northern and Central Sudan in the 5th century CE.
The Abyssinian Axumite kingdom´s contacts with the Coptic Patriarchate evolved around the dispatch from Alexandria to Adulis (in the area of today´s Massawa) by boat (and thence to Axum) of the Abuna, the supreme religious head of the Axumite Christianity. Despite the fact that, following the early 7th century Islamic explosion, Nobatia, Makuria and Alodia survived, and Nobatia even expanded occupying Upper (South) Egypt (that was not invaded by the Islamic armies), Axumite Abyssinia collapsed.
The disintegration of Axum was complete, and the entire administration of the Christian state was dismantled with the early Islamic occupation of today´s Eritrean territory. We can be sure that there was not even a certain, organized effort of retreat to remote areas in the African inland. There is no evidence that the Axumite dynasty survived the 7th century Islamic onslaught.
When a 10th century African, non-Christian queen, supposedly named Judith (the name can be a posterior legend attributed in order to disfigure her), attacked Axum, we have definitely to assume an earlier Axumite re-emergence of apparently brief duration - not an undocumented and totally hypothetical continuity.
The two centuries of Agaw royal power do not represent any sort of cultural, religious, ethnic, linguistic and political continuity of the Axum times´ Abyssinia. The Kushitic Agaws were totally unrelated with the Semitic Abyssinians who were one the Ancient Yemenite tribes that was kicked out of Yemen and sought shelter on the other side of the Red Sea coastlines.
There are certainly appearances of religious similarity between 5th CE Axum and 12th century Lalibela; but they are so inconsequential as the Abuna dispatches from the Alexandria Patriarchate. A critical dimension is the indifference for political interaction with the then ailing Eastern Roman Empire; this shows the limited scope of the Agaw state and its evident position within the Eastern African context. As a matter of fact, calling the Kushitic Christian Agaw state "Abyssinia" is simply an aberration.
Abyssinia terminated in the 7th century CE, and all the traditions about the fictional marriages of Mararah, the first Agaw ruler, with Masoba Warq, hypothetical daughter of Del Na´od, the mythologized last king of Axum (see: http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/del_na'ad.html) relate to later times´ reconstruction.
When the ´Solomonic´ debteras fabricated their forgery ´Kebra Negast´ in an attempt to draw a bloodline as back as the Yemenite Queen of Sheba and King Solomon, they were forced by the scope of their own attempt to reconstruct the non-Abyssinian, Kushitic Agaw History as per own needs. In so doing, they certainly destroyed many Agaw times´ sources that, if left intact, would discredit their forgery from foundations. Mararah´s other name Mara Takla Haymanot is also a posterior attribute, part of the historical falsification undertaken by the Amhara debteras.
Last but not the least, the forgery of the Solomonic dynasty does not represent any historical continuity with Axumite Abyssinia. At all levels, religious, cultural, political and ethnic, Solomonic times´ Abyssinia is an abruption from the Axumite kingdom.
The aforementioned suggests that the historicity of the Amhara kings who opposed the Somali King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim did not exceed 250 years (going back to the rise of Yekuno Amlak).
Useless to add that the Portuguese allies of the Amharas were totally alien to Africa and the world of Islam, and therefore the Amhara – Portuguese alliance had a direct, Anti-African nature, thus bearing witness to the need of isolating the genuinely Anti-African Amharas today.
(XII) The use is highly subjective, and academically wrong; it is purposeless for a modern researcher to use the verb "overreach" for military expeditions. What can one say then for Assurbanipal´s expedition to Egypt and demolition of Thebes (666 BCE)?
In fact, the trajectory of the expedition led by the Somali King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim outside his borders was smaller than the distance between his own country´s two opposite endpoints.
How could we compare this military expedition to that of the Achaemenid Shah Kambudjiyah (Cambyses) of Iran, who left Pasargadae to proceed as far as Napata of Meroe (in today´s Karima in Northern Sudan – this means 2100 km only on African soil!), or that of Alexander the Great who crossed the distance between Macedonia and Northern India? Did they also overreach themselves?
As a matter of fact, King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim did not overreach himself; he achieved something easy, possible and logical. If the Portuguese colonial army did not intervene to support their allies, today there would not be a single Amhara left. East Africa´s most excruciating tyranny and most inhuman moments would thus be spared.
(XIII). This term is also false and geared out of the author´s predisposition and determination to complete his forgery. No one can lead an army "deep" into a small country. It sounds comical to use an adverb in the case the adjective already does not fit.
Indicatively, we can make a sentence such "Hitler´s generals led the German troops deep into the Soviet territory" because they truly advanced much and in addition, the Soviet Union consisted in a very large territory.
But we cannot say that in August 1974, the Turkish generals led their troops "deep" into the Cypriot territory because Cyprus is a small island with no strategic depth.
It was exactly the same for the tiny and barbaric Amhara kingdom that the Portuguese only managed to save.
(XIV) This is another fallacy! The Amhara kingdom had not expanded on the eve of King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim´s invasion. Neither Dawit II (1508 - 1540) nor Naod (1494 – 1508) nor Amda Sion II (1487 – 1494) nor Eskender (1471 – 1494) managed to expand their territory. They merely warred for their survival; thus, leaving the great kingdom of Awdal out of this discussion, I want to underscore the fact that Eskender failed to win over the small African kingdom of Maya and even was killed at the battle field at Enderta. So, contrarily to Ezekiel Rediker´s pathetic assumption, the Amhara kingdom had not expanded in the eight decades that precede the death of Dawit II under the Somali foot.
(XV) In the sentence itself, it is contradictory to state that, although "newly-expanded" (as per Ezekiel Rediker only), the Amhara kingdom was "Portuguese-backed". Why on earth a newly expanded (and therefore strengthened) state would still need the "backing" of the colonial intruders? This automatically suggests that either there had not been any "recent" expansion or (if it ever occurred) it was small, insignificant and ineffective, and because of this, foreign backing was badly needed.
(XVI) According to all the historical sources, the Portuguese defeated the army of King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim, not the Amharas. Despite the continuous Portuguese presence in the Horn of Africa, and in spite of the absence of direct Ottoman involvement, the Portuguese technological superiority in terms of weaponry was not enough to end the Somali pressure on and occupation of the Amhara kingdom. It took no less than twenty three (23) consecutive years (1520 – 1543) for the Portuguese to manage to kill the bravest African of the Second Millennium, the Awdal King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim.
The location of the battles matters greatly in this regard. At Wolla (28 August 1542) King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim defeated and killed most of the Portuguese; Cristovao da Gama died there too. It was then King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim´s turn to be defeated and killed at the battle of Wayna Daga (21 February 1543).
As it is indicated, these battles took place nearby the lake Tana. Even King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim´s camp was nearby the lake! Under these terms, how could possibly the Amhara state "reclaim" faraway Ogaden after the death of the Somali king? This is the extreme effort of overall falsification that Ezekiel Rediker had to write in order to get an award in America!
(XVIII) The fallacy is better viewed in the light of what the modern Abyssinian pseudo-historians say about that dark moment of their past that they incessantly try to lessen so passionately.
Taddesse Tamrat writes the following: "The Muslim occupation of the Christian highlands under Ahmad Gragn lasted for little more than ten years, between 1531 and 1543. But the amount of destruction brought about in these years can only be estimated in terms of centuries" (Church and State in Ethiopia (1270 - 1527) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 301).
Waw! This is quite a statement indeed!
But although this sentence is enough to be taken as a reason for the Abyssinians to be removed out of Ogaden today, because of their proven anti-Somali and anti-Ogadeni rancor and hatred, it also illuminates another interesting point – at Ezekiel Rediker´s absolute disappointment!
If such was the destruction at the very center of the tiny, destitute and quasi-defunct Amhara kingdom, would it make sense in the aftermath of King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim´s death for the Amharas to demand …… Ogaden?
Who could possibly believe that Nazi Germany, a few days after Hitler´s demise, could raise claims on Tibet, an area that Germany had never invaded before?
For as much true it is that the Germans ever invaded Tibet so much veracious it is that the 16th – 19th century Abyssinians attacked – let alone occupied – Ogaden.
(XIX) This is another lie. The Amharas were in such disarray that they willingly exchanged prisoners, notably the son of King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim with the Amhara chieftain Gelawedewos´s brother Menas. All the lies of Ezekiel Rediker are erased in view of the historical facts, notably the wars between the tiny Amhara kingdom with the Tigray petty-king Yeshaq, who was a subordinate of the Pasha of Massawa, Ozdemir.
Not only Menas´s wildest dream would not possibly include Ezekiel Rediker´s fictional "crushing blow against the forces of the Muslim Sultanates and the Ottoman Turks", but also he was terribly defeated at Enderta, his minuscule state´s heartland, by the Tigary petty-king Yeshaq, while the Pasha of Massawa had also become Governor of the Ottoman province of Yemen!
Just 14 years after King Ahmed ibn Ibrahim´s death, the Ottoman empire controlled (on Eastern African soil, and excluding today´s Djibouti´s, Ogaden´s, Somalia´s, Sudan´s and Egypt´s territories) land that was three or four times larger than that of the Amhara state of Gelawedewos´ insignificant, impotent, yet rancorous and racist successors.
(XX) Amhara and Tigray Abyssinians never became an important, not dominant, power in the region before the end of WW II and the subsequent transfer of Ogaden to the colonial state´s barbaric head, Haile Selassie. For this to happen, the criminal Amhara and Tigray 19th and early 20th century kings were supported for more than a century and half by the English and the French colonial powers so that they be later used as a tool of the Freemasonic regimes of the West against all the Eastern African nations.
As late as the 1930s, the Abyssinian soldiers were good only to perpetrate genocides against the subjugated nations that they had incorporated only because the French and the English had sold them modern weaponry whereas the Africans nations of the Kaffas, the Oromos, the Sidamas, the Afars, the Shekachos, the Kambaatas, the Wolayitas, the Anuak and the Gumuz were totally defenseless.
The Italian armies that were defeated by the Greeks in Albania in 1940 – 1941 made however an easy East African promenade to invade and demolish the colonial Abyssinian state, duly incorporating its territories to their East African dominions, only to be later superseded by the English who mobilized Indians and other colonized nations to be able to defeat Italy´s African armies.
In a forthcoming article, I will continue the refutation of Ezekiel Rediker´s forgery.