Can Sudan Survive and Remain Intact? Plead for Sudan´s De-Arabization, Pacification, and Expansion
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
June 16, 2010
The series of articles are to be found here:
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-29-2004-58615.asp
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-31-2004-58716.asp
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-4-2004-58911.asp
As the years pass, and the Khartoum Arabic-speaking ruling class persist on their particular Arabo-Islamism (a term I certainly prefer to the confusing "Inqaz" which is closer to ´fundamentalism´), Sudan has almost reached the point of no return.
When, during the next year, the referendum for independence will take place in the South, the result will announce the secession of the South, which is the equivalent of Certificate of Death for Africa´s largest country.
Of course, this perspective may be doubtful to some, but all the developments that took place in Sudan after the Machakos Protocol (20 July 2002) would have been considered as delusional by the Khartoum rulers back in the 80s and the 90s.
In fact, what the Arabic-speaking Sudanese ethno-linguistic group, which has always controlled Modern Sudan, fails to understand is not Ancient or Islamic History of Sudan, but Politics and Modern History.
Yet, understanding what truly happened in Sudan over the past 212 years is key for the country´s self-determination and survival. The date I am hinting at relates to Napoleon´s arrival to Egypt, and apparently has no evident link with Sudan; this is however a deceitful approach. For the French and the English disembarked in Alexandria and the Delta in order to bring forth changes of colonial nature not only in Egypt but also in Sudan that both were then Ottoman provinces. Napoleon never set foot on Sudan, but the purpose of his expedition to Egypt is part of the preconceived Freemasonic, colonial plan against the Ottoman Empire and the African Islam, with focus on the entire Eastern Africa, from Egypt to Somalia and Tanzania.
In the present article, I will enumerate and briefly analyze the fallacious purposes that the colonial powers have entertained as regards Sudan, and the catastrophic plans that the Freemasonic Western establishment developed about Eastern Africa long ago.
1. Colonial Fallacies about 18th - 19th Century Sudan
The modern concept of nation did not exist either during the Antiquity and the Late Antiquity or in the Middle or Islamic Ages. Within the context of the Ottoman Empire, no one was considered as Arab, except the inhabitants of Hedjaz (western part of today´s Saudi Arabia) and the few descendants of 7th century Arabs who had settled outside Arabia. In addition to them, few more considered themselves as Arabs, without in fact truly being so: these had been the descendants of indigenous people who, after the Islamic invasions, associated themselves with Arab settlers outside Arabia. They had done so in order to acquire a higher sociopolitical status within the Caliphate and to have thus access to the supreme magistrates of the Caliphate.
As long as the Ottoman authority over Sudan was asserted by means of intermediate rulers, mainly the Funj Sultanate of Sennar, the delusional concept of an Arab Sudan simply did not exist. Only some families had been associated with Arabs in order to legitimize their power. The Funj rose to power in today´s Sudan´s central provinces at the very end of the Mameluk period in Egypt (1504 CE). Few years later (1517), Egypt became Ottoman province, and the insignia of the Caliphate were taken to Istanbul. Today´s Sudan´s northern and eastern provinces had always been under Caliphate´s control; at the times of Amara Dunqas (1503 – 1533), the Funj realized that they had to acquiesce to the rising Ottoman power, and that is why Islam was promulgated as official religion of the Funj Sultanate (1524), which like so many other political institutions and minor states, was legitimized as subservient to the Ottoman Empire, i.e. the Islamic Caliphate. Many mixed marriages occurred during the following period to every time reassert Funj´s ties with the Ottoman Empire´s ruling families.
The concept that Funj was an independent Islamic kingdom is typically colonial forgery of Anti-Ottoman and Anti-Islamic character; in fact, as periphery to the Islamic Caliphate, it may have had a sort of autonomy, but the Funj territory was properly speaking, Ottoman territory, and integral part of the Islamic Caliphate.
When, in the beginning of the 19th century, the Funj local rule apparently disintegrated because of the earlier detachment of Egypt from the Ottoman Empire, Ismail, the son of Muhammad Ali, the Khedive (Viceroy) of Egypt, undertook a military expedition in Sennar (1821) in order to assert Egyptian control over Sennar in the name of the Sultan. But the control was only nominal because Egypt was out of the political control of the Caliphate and the political power in Alexandria was truly speaking at the evil, colonial hands of the English, French and other Consuls who maneuvered Muhammad Ali according to their own interests, and primarily against the Ottoman Empire.
Naming the period 1821 – 1885 in Sudan "Turkiyah" is another colonial fallacy. In fact, it was a period of de-Ottomanization of the political, cultural and religious life in Sudan. The reason is simple; the political power was at the hands of the Egyptians and their local stooges, and the Egyptians did not have a political plan of their own, but acquiesced to the French and English directives that were all viciously anti-Islamic and anti-Ottoman of nature. Of course, they also proved to be definitely Anti-Sudanese and therefore ultimately Anti-African.
The undertaking itself of Ismail´s expedition to Sudan was an act of high treason turned against the Ottoman Empire, and therefore consists in sheer rejection of Islam. The reason is simple; the Mameluk guards of Egypt, who defended the Ottoman province, were attacked first by Napoleon and later (1811) by Muhammad Ali whose authority was absolutely illegal because he was rejected by the Sultan, and at the local level, by all the religious authorities of Al Azhar, who were subsequently murdered by the gangs of Muhammad Ali – a foreigner who was selected by Napoleon because of his docility, initiated in the Satanic rites of Freemasonry, and then appointed as local executor of the Anti-Ottoman, Anti-Islamic, and Anti-Egyptian order issued by the Freemasonic authorities of Paris and London. As the Mameluks were defeated, they withdrew further to the South, and settled in Dunqulah, in today´s North Sudan, more than 500 km south of the Egyptian – Sudanese borderline. As the Funj authority had been disintegrated in the last decades of the 18th century, and this process was intensified due to Egypt´s detachment from the Caliphate, the Mameluks with strong local support set up a state there to further defend Islam, the Caliphate, Sudan, and Egypt from the Anglo-French colonial onslaught.
Muhammad Ali knew that, as long as the Mameluks were consolidating their power in the area of the 3rd cataract, he could not sleep calm. He therefore wrote a treacherous letter to the shadowy Sultan at Sennar to ask him to also betray his superior, the Caliph and Sultan, and to expel the Mameluks. Badi VII, the last Funj ruler, rejected to become a renegade and a traitor, and then Ismail undertook his military expedition, greatly supported by French and English engineers and officers, as he would conquer Sudan mostly for them, and not for his own subjects.
All the Western accounts of the events are untrustworthy, and so are the forgeries published in Wikipedia (notably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badi_VII and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkiyah).
Quite indicatively, even the Jaali tribes (of Arab descent) rejected Ismail´s authority for many long years after the excursion.
Useless to add that accusations of the Mameluks for intentional slavery consist in detrimental distortion of History and have the same value as accusations aired during the recent years by George Bush against honest and independent rulers like Evo Morales of Bolivia, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and many others who simply do not acquiesce to the vicious demands of the global colonial establishment.
2. 19th Century Anglo-French Colonial Plans for Sudan
By annexing Sudan, the Anglo-French colonials intended to implement in the area the following axes of local - regional policy:
1. Irrevocably detach Sudan from the Ottoman Empire
2. Eliminate the existing, authentic, Islamic political ideology and culture
3. Export from Egypt to Sudan the villainous long term projects of "arabization" and "islamization" that are irrelevant to both, the Kushitic and Nilo-Saharan ethnic identity of Sudan and the authentic and traditional Islamic faith and culture of the country
4. Block the possibility of Sudan setting up a modern nation building process with correct assessment of the following critical parameters:
a. the indigenous historical background,
b. the cultural heritage,
c. the authentic socio-behavioural system, and
d. the local ethno-religious identities
5. Create the proper contextualization of conflicts that would certainly explode in that vast territory by means of the parallel introduction of
a) a fake pseudo-Islamic ideology (as per above no 3) and
b) the undertakings of many missionaries among Sudan´s animists in order to offer a pseudo-Christian fake subterfuge to animists exposed to pseudo-Islamic brutal campaigns of fake Islamization
6. Prevent the formation of national identity – as per the existing European prototypes – among any of the ethno-linguistic groups of Sudan, and more particularly, among the Arabic-speaking Sudanese who are of Kushitic origin, being the offspring of the great Kushitic – Meroitic Nation (the Ethiopians of the Ancient Greeks and Romans)
7. Avert any national awakening among Sudan´s Arabic speaking Kushites who could reach out to other Eastern African Kushitic nations, notably the kingdoms of the Oromos, the Sidamas, the Kaffas, the Hadiyas and others, who all descend from Ancient Ethiopia (Kush – Meroe), and could certainly establish a vast East African Confederation of Kush – Ethiopia, excluding the cruel Semitic Abyssinians.
8. Implement the "arabization" and "islamization" project and keep the area with no indigenous political authority (Anglo-Egyptian Sudan) while at the same time the East African project of Abyssinian colonization was quickly undertaken and promoted.
3. What if?
The aforementioned is better understood in the light of historical considerations of the possible options for an independent Sudanese political authority in the middle - late 19th century.
With Egypt detached from the Ottoman Empire, what would truly be a Sudanese political authority´s possible choices and tasks?
The answer to this theoretical question consists at the same time in a reflection of what would be a correct policy for today´s Sudanese government. At the same time, the answer explains the main reason for which the English undertook military expeditions to destroy the Mahdist state of Sudan.
The primary task of an independent Sudanese political authority in 1840 or 1860 would be to assert political control among all the Eastern African Muslims up to the Egyptian border. This includes most of today´s Sudan´s territory, which the exception of the South, although not the entire territory that is today ascribed to South Sudan.
It comprises furthermore the entire territory of today´s Eritrea which corresponds to the initial stage of Italian colonial expansion in the Red Sea coast of Africa. In also encompasses the Ottoman province of Habash (Abyssinia) that offered peace and security to Muslim Africans, namely Afars, Tigre, and all the Jeberti, plus the Hadiya, and the Oromo Muslims, down to Somalia.
This possibility would create a huge territory of ca. 3.5 million km2 that would be ruled from Khartoum, becoming automatically a stumbling block in the path of the colonial powers England, France and Italy.
If this Khartoum-ruled immense East African state were to rise in the mid 19th century, all the colonial plans for Eastern Africa would be canceled; worse, the entire patchwork of Western colonialism would be met with a terrible blow. Whereas the Anglo-French did their ingenious best to demolish the Ottoman Empire, and had in this regard already advanced much, another vast and powerful opponent would rise in Africa, only to later merge with the then colonized Egypt, other Ottoman territories (Libya), and French colonies (Tunisia and Algeria).
4. Vast Sudan Occupied, while Tiny Abyssinia Expanded with Anglo-French Help
To complete the destruction of Sudan´s nation building possibilities, the terrorist colonial Anglo-French rulers undertook an even worse machination; they fabricated a monstrous, pseudo-African, colonial state whereby more than a dozen of African nations and vast Muslim populations have been imprisoned, massacred, persecuted and atrociously treated with the world´s most enduring and most multi-leveled genocides.
By providing vast logistics support, and more particularly guns and ammunition in great numbers, and by inciting a premeditated expansion that ended up in genocides, the French and the English promoted a tiny, insignificant, unhistorical, barbaric, and miserable pseudo-kingdom of heretics, ignoble and lewd soldiers-made-"kings", murderous and incestuous monks, and prostitutes-made-queens to a colonial power at the detriment of Sudan´s proper vocation. This state was Abyssinia, which had already been saved and preserved in existence by the Portuguese colonials 300 years earlier, when the great Somali King Ahmed Ibn Ibrahim had successfully abolished it.
Sudan´s nation-building possibilities, national identity establishment, and historical integrity propagation have also been hindered by the Orientalist and Africanist academia of England and France, who did their ingenious best to drag the illiterate and barbaric rulers of Abyssinia into historical fallacies and falsifications, particularly involving the usurpation of the real name of Sudan, i.e. Ethiopia.
This disastrous situation predestined the chances of the independent state of Sudan to survive; in fact, for this to happen, the ruling class of today´s Sudan must understand the slow process of modern Sudan´s colonial formation, and then forcefully reject it. The colonial powers geared Sudan as an entity with expiry date; it is not only South Sudan, Darfur, and Kordofan; there is far more. It hinges on further calamitous developments that are planned for the period after the secession of South Sudan.
To outmaneuver this plan, the Khartoum rulers must first reject the fake identity that has been projected onto them, see things out of the box, and realize that Sudan has been greatly capacitated; to successfully carry out a real nation building effort, Khartoum must concentrate not on what territory may secede from Sudan but on what regions can be detached from Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia) and merge with Sudan re-baptized as Kush – Ethiopia.
I will further expand on this point in a forthcoming article.
Note
Picture: Sudan will be lighter without South Sudan, and stronger with Oromia and Benishangul. Muslim Berta and Oromos will replace Christian – Animist South Sudan.
From: http://www.hobotraveler.com/b-photos01/211-204-dmz-religion-map-ethiopia-kenya.jpg