Islamic Terrorism: a European Creation Monster Impossible to Integrate
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
August 18, 2007
To help the reader fast recapitulate the points, we enumerate them here: 1) Centuries long European Hatred of Islam, 2) Fallacious Academic – Intellectual Background and Fake Identity of Modern Europe (Hellenism), 3) Misperception of the World History through the Scheme West vs. East, 4) Execrable Disfigurement of the ‘Other’ (Orientalism), 5) Demolition of the Ottoman Empire, 6) Tragic Termination of the Islamic Civilization and Rise of Barbarism throughout the nominally Islamic territories, 7) Formation of Pan-Arabism / False Identity and Language for the colonized masses, 8) Methodic and Perverse Work of Obliteration of the Berberic, Coptic, Aramaic and Yemenite Languages, Cultures and Identities, 9) Severe Distortion of the National Histories of the illegally detached from the Ottoman Empire Peoples, matched with a multi-target confusion of the World academia, 10) Distorted Representation of the Oriental and Islamic Past for average European, Western and World readerships, 11) Forged Disconnection of the Islamic Past from the Pre-Islamic Oriental Past, with catastrophic impact on both, colonized peoples and colonizing states, and 12) Anemic, Anodyne and Fallacious Western Doctrine of Islamology, as the most marginal and obscure doctrine of Orientalism.
In the present, fourth, article, we will focus on the most important point – reason of the Muslim immigrants’ impossibility to integrate in the European, and in general in the Western societies.
Point 13 – Cataclysmically Disastrous Formation of Islamism by the Colonial West
In fact this point is absolutely interrelated with Point 5 – Demolition of the Ottoman Empire. Point 13 would be almost impossible to effectuate without a prior materialization of Point 5. And Point 5 would never attain its worst dimension without the implementation of Point 13.
It would appear odd to have the Colonial West accused of developments pertaining to the religious – theological – ideological characteristics and nature of the ‘Islamic’ World. But, this is issue is far more perplex. And in general, it is only normal to accept that a country, culture or behavioural system can exercise an impact on another country, culture and behavioural system, especially if the latter are colonized and controlled by the former.
At this point, one can best understand the issue through first perceiving accurately the prevailing religious – theological – ideological situation within the so-called Islamic World prior to Napoleon’s arrival in Egypt (1798). As we already have briefly presented in Point 6, the Islamic Civilization had already been extinct within the Caliphate’s territory, and ceded the place to utter and blatant Barbarism. Long before Napoleon’s arrival in Egypt, which is the beginning of the Colonial Times, Islam was Dead – irrevocably Dead. This has to be plainly understood.
Islam does not Exist.
This statement can be correctly and validly said either in 1700 or 2007; the preponderance of the crude, primitive and coarse system of the Hanbalist Ibn Taimiya was a fait accompli already by 1600. The rise of this theological system to power among the masses was a slow process, and it was allowed to survive in the beginning as it was never taken seriously. As a theological system, Ibn Taimiya’s discipline was mostly diffused among the masses, provoking barbarism, and subsequently utilizing the barbarized populations to further expand. It consisted in sheer rejection of the Islamic Golden Ages of Sciences, Philosophy, Arts and Culture. It made of the philosophers, the artists, the free thinkers, the erudite scholars and the wise, inquisitive explorers of Islam its main target.
Genuinely drawing from Hanbal and the earliest forms of rejection of the authentic – Aramaic – Islam, it was solidly based on Arab Tribal Behavioural system and Barbaric Reductionism.
Ibn Taimiya’s system came as the worst curse in the world of Islam, at the moment of a supposed victory, namely that over the Crusaders; through its gradual diffusion over the span of 300 years (1300 – 1600), it turned this victory to defeat as the dates 1291 (loss of Acre, the Crusaders’ last bastion) – 1798 (Napoleon’s arrival in Egypt) can illuminatingly symbolize.
Ibn Taimiya’s system is mainly based on fear, something totally anti-Islamic, and more specifically the fear caused by the Crusaders, and the Hulagu Khan’s 1258 destruction of Baghdad. Usually, if a country is invaded (like parts of the Islamic Caliphate were by the Crusaders for 200 volatile years) and that country ultimately achieves to kick the invaders out, a kind of expansionism is rather expected, as normal consequence of the re-affirmation of that country’s power. This did not happen because of the early stage of Ibn Taimiya’s system’s diffusion mostly in Syria, Palestine and Egypt. The Ottoman rise is due precisely to effective impermeability of the Anatolian Islam, thanks to the Great Philosopher and Scholar Jelal eddin Rumi Mevlana, who set up a Neo-Platonic Islamic synthesis driving Anatolian and Istanbuli Islam to completely different – and islamically more genuine – directions.
Ibn Taimiya’s Satanism replaced Islam
Ibn Taimiya’s system evolves around following axes:
1) Reduction of Islam from a Civilization to simple religious practice
2) Complete indifference for the rest of the world – considered as inimical and negative
3) Limitation of the Islamic religion to few practices that become an imperative rule as all the essence of life is undermined
4) Deletion of any esoteric, spiritual, and transcendental interest, aspect or dimension in the Islamic religious practice and belief
5) Abnegation of any interpretative method, and at the same time, adoption of a literal reading of all the Islamic religious texts (Coran, Hadith) as preserved at those days, without any critical approach, any innovative approach, any inquisitive spirit
6) Establishment of an anhistorical, unreal version of Islam’s History quasi-exclusively turning around the years of the prophet – which is considered among Ibn Taimiya’s followers as prohibited to criticize (although it was absolutely absurd and ridiculous to any serious scholar and philosopher of Ibn Taimiya’s days, as his system was considered as barbaric and non-Islamic)
7) Extreme promotion of the traditional, surviving throughout the earlier Islamic Ages as marginal phenomenon and barbaric expression, of the Arabic tribal behavioural reductionism that makes the people be interested only in a very limited and low level of material survival – totally materialistic and therefore sinful for real Islam
8) Absolute favoritism of the flattery of the followers, despite their utmost barbarism; prioritization of the partial approach to and judgment of any person on the basis of his performance of the religious tasks (no 3)
9) Explicit imposition of the religious authority (although ignorant, barbaric and coarse – if ascribed to this system) as the ultimate source of correct jurisprudence, sociopolitical decision making, and evaluation of all sorts
10) Promotion of all negative feelings, hatred, envy, malignancy as tools of social – political pressure / blackmailing, with subsequent rise of Unprecedented Immorality
As through sociopolitical machinations, and totalitarian methods (threats, blackmail, physical elimination) the Ibn Taimiya followers eradicated most of the Islamic paragons of Civilization, Culture, Science, Knowledge, Philosophy and Art, the few remaining and surviving concentrated in Istanbul, as all other high places of the Islamic Civilization were abandoned. The Ottoman court was against these forerunners of the modern terrorists but a frontal attack would expose the vast country of Suleyman the Magnificent to a thunderous Civil War, at a moment the Ottoman Empire was fighting against the Spaniards in Morocco and the Western Mediterranean, against the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation in Central Europe, and against the also vast and powerful Safevid Empire of Iran in the Caucasus and Caspian Sea region and alongside the current borders between Iran and Iraq.
Viewed diachronically, it would be clear - since those days - that, if no one eradicated the barbaric and bestial sheikhs – followers of Ibn Taimiya at the days of Selim II and Murat III (late 16th century), one should expect the end of the Ottoman Empire to launch the frontal attack against them (as done by Kemal Ataturk).
Severe deterioration of Ibn Taimiya’s Satanism: the rise of Wahhabism
As Darkness prevailed around the end of the 16th century throughout the Ottoman Empire (with symbol date the destruction of the Istanbul Observatory), the bogus-Islamic theological system that finally prevailed expanded more and more over the periphery; it had already taken hold of societies and elites in Iran, Central Asia, India, and Morocco, although to lesser extent. However, the collapse of the Islamic Civilization and the disregard for Letters, Philosophy, Arts and Sciences started having its own dynamics, independently from the Ibn Taimiya’s theological system’s expansion.
As it usually happens at the time of disintegration of a civilization, the deterioration does not stop, and one negative development is followed by another worse. This occurred in the second half of the 18th century, approximately 200 years after the destruction of the Istanbul Observatory.
It has mostly to do with the rise of an ignorant and barbaric sheikh – Epitome of Hatred, Muhammad ibn Abdel Wahhab al Tamimi, who is commonly known as Abdel Wahhab. Suffering from a colossal complex of inferiority towards Istanbul and the Sultan Khalifatic milieu whereby he could not possibly be accepted for studies, preaching and further promotion, undergoing an ulcerous hysteria against the Shia erudite scholars of Najaf, Kerbala, Samarra, (in the Ottoman Empire, today’s Iraq) Maragheh, Tabriz, Shiraz, Esfahan, and Mashad (in the Safevid Empire of Iran that was then engulfed in a civil war between the ailing Safevid and the rising Zend dynasties), he comforted himself with low level studies in Basra, Medina and Mecca. Islamic studies in Islam’s Haramayn (two holy sites) was not a valuable affair at those days; Kairwan in Tunisia, Cairo, Damascus, Jerusalem and the Haramayn had all fallen – over the ages – in the hands of the followers of Ibn Taimiya, and darkness had prevailed. Contrarily, Istanbul, Maragheh, Shiraz, Esfahan (Safevid Iranian Imperial capital) had become a kind of Ark for the opponents of Islamic Darkness. As they had rejected the barbaric and idiotic young Arab of the desert, Abdel Wahhab made of them his main target.
If one wants to truly understand the Wahhabist barbarism as it permeates today’s extremists’ minds, one has to delve into the abysmal psychological complex of inferiority, and the ensuing misery, depression, and murk that characterized the psycho-synthesis, the personality, the character and the ‘thought’ of Muhammad ibn Abdel Wahhab al Tamimi.
Deeply understanding his mediocrity and misery, he first idealized his culturally and historically valueless place, the northern part of the peninsula’s desert, because of the vicinity to the Haramayn (Mecca and Medina). With his mind infused with Ibn Taimiya’s reductionism, he misunderstood
a) the real values and principles to which Prophet Muhammad ascribed himself,
b) the real values and principles that helped the Islamic Civilization rise,
c) the real values and principles that were still accepted at Istanbul and Esfahan, the two great capitals of the Islamic World, and
d) the total extent of his environment’s and background’s unworthiness.
It goes without saying that Abdel Wahhab was genuinely unable to grasp
a) Islam’s position in the World’s History of Religions,
b) Islam’s real essence, ascent, and purpose,
c) Islam’s reasons of decline, and
d) the real dimensions of the World Politics at a moment (middle of the 18th century)
1) the Islamic Civilization had disappeared throughout Islam as
consequence of the ideas Abdel Wahhab believed as redemptory, and
2) the Islamic political world was facing a severe setback (with the gradual
downfall of the Mughal empire of India and the rise of the Maratha
state), being engulfed in
i) an all-out war with seven (7) Christian states, namely the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, Russia, Holland, France, England, Spain and Portugal, and in
ii) a terrible, ceaseless and disastrous fratricide war between the Ottoman Empire and Iran.
In his simple and demented world, Abdel Wahhab thought (‘dreamt’ is the correct word) that with his infinitesimal background, and his erroneous conception of Islam and the World History, he could mend the Islamic World. He expressed therefore a heinous rhetoric against the Sultans, the Shahs, the Islamic Philosophers of the Islamic Golden Ages, the Christians, the Jews, all the non Muslims, and tried to expand his social – behavioural system along with his ideas that are simply and exclusively relevant to this barbaric realm.
With the early expansion of Abdel Wahhab’s followers in Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt (and to lesser extent in Yemen and Africa), we reach the eve of Napoleon’s arrival in Egypt (6 years after Abdel Wahhab’s death).
The first Westerners noticed immediately the idiotic nature of the ignorant over-simplistic followers of Abdel Wahhab who wished to mend the Islamic Caliphate by …… eliminating the Sultan, the Turks, and the Shia ‘threat’ of Iran, thus ‘purifying’ Islam. These fanaticized and bestialized humanoids wanted to turn the grandiosity and the existing (although ailing) power of Istanbul and Esfahan to a filthiness, similar to their miserable huts. The first Westerners reported what was perceived as threat in Istanbul, but could be France’s and England’s best tool against the Sublime Porte.
Western Use of Wahhabism in view of the Creation of Islamism
A definition of the two terms will help make our position clear; Wahhabism pertains to the early followers of Abdel Wahhab’s ‘theology’ and ‘ideology’. Islamism relates to an Wahhabist who was exposed to, and/or came to learn about, the Western world.
During the 19th century, Wahhabism continued expanding; the Sultans sent several expeditions to the Arabian desert to eradicate the Wahhabist pestilence, but the Ottoman forces were always mediocre, as the empire had come under attack in Caucasus and the Balkans, in Northwestern Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, Libya) and in the Black Sea, while at the same time sizeable military force had to be ready in Mesopotamia against Iran, and Egypt had been detached by the French through the bias of the Khedivate (the Khedive – Viceroy was a descendent of an Albanian soldier of the Ottoman army, Mohamed Ali, whom Napoleon had initiated into the anti-Islamic rituals of the French Freemasonry). Even Mohamed Ali, the apostate Ottoman soldier, who became Viceroy in Egypt thanks to French support, felt the need to cooperate with the Sultan in fighting Abdel Wahhab’s followers, again without result.
There is a parallel between Sultan Murat III (unable to prevent - as he had wished - the destruction of the Istanbul Observatory by the barbaric followers of Ibn Taimiya), Sultan Mahmud II, viceroy Mohamed Ali (both unable to eradicate Abdel Wahhab followers), and President Bush (unable to eliminate Islamic Terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia); their ineffectiveness is due to their hesitant (for different reasons and within different contexts) character. Only Mustafa Kemal Ataturk understood accurately what it takes to irrevocably eradicate these barbaric elements; the fact that Ataturk’s legacy is under threat in today’s Turkey (88 years after Ataturk embarked on the effort to set up a Republic and introduce Enlightenment and Civilization instead of Wahhabist darkness, and 69 years after Ataturk died) demonstrates both, Ataturk’s great and ‘irrevocable’ success and his followers’ deviations (staring already with Ismet Inonu, not to mention Adnan Menderes).
Islamism’ started being formed in Egypt; Western Islamologists and 19th century Historians want to either undermine or deny West’s contribution in this phenomenon’s emergence. This by itself is a good reason of the West’s inability to deal with the Islamist Extremism today. The reason is simple; when we say the colonial West helped form Islamism, we do not mean that they taught Islamic theology and political ideology to Muslims, who by believing this hypothetical teaching became extremists (Islamists).
The formation of Islamism is not a theological – ideological phenomenon like the formation of Wahhabism. It is a social and educational phenomenon. At its epicenter, one can identify the main problem that triggered a multitude of developments: the biased cohabitation of between Muslims and Westerners on a spot especially created for the ignominious purpose: 19th century Alexandria and Algeria, and to lesser extent Tunisia.
In both cases what happened was not normal; first, immediately after Napoleon’s victory over the Mamelouk soldiers of the Sultan, many Westerners, Italians, French and others, and many Christians from various parts of the Ottoman Empire (Southern Balkans, Phoenicia – falsely called by the French as ‘Lebanon’, Syria) came to settle in Alexandria, and turned out to become a new – alien – class of unnecessary merchants, lawyers, engineers, and doctors whose main reason of presence was not the development of the detached Ottoman province, but their own economic profit. The argument that they contributed to that province’s development is pathetic and invalid, as any place should either rely on the indigenous population for development or be deprived of any progress, in case its population cannot generate it, and then it is totally unworthy it. Egypt, and more particularly Alexandria, became a model of cosmopolitan colony where – worse than anywhere else – the foreigners almost outnumbered for some period the indigenous people.
Second, Algeria was detached and colonized, geared to become a French province.
Third, a social – behavioural juxtaposition took place, bringing very close diametrically different people who were poles apart in terms of culture, religion, lifestyle, background, aspirations and destiny. The French, the Italians and the British in Alexandria reflected the changes that took place in their countries during the 19th century. The local populations of Alexandria and Egypt reflected their lethargy, inaptitude, inertia, apathy, ignorance, mimicking, and volatility; the two latter elements are the most important because they signify that the local lethargic masses would change only if something new were to be brought from Europe to Alexandria by some French, British and Italians. The pathetic mimetism of the servile elements triggered the reaction of the ignorant sheikhs (not necessarily all of them, but this matters not). Some of them tried to travel to Europe to attest the origin of changes, and this had cataclysmic results because they lacked the proper background to correctly assess the nature of the changes, and the degree they would be possibly needing ‘back home’.
Focusing on Alexandria, Egypt and Algeria, we do not deny the effect in other parts of the Islamic World. What occurred in Alexandria in 1815 was narrated in Jerusalem, Baghdad, Damascus, Mecca and Massawa in 1820. What happened in Algiers in 1850 predetermined developments in Marrakech, Damascus and Mogadishu in 1920. Within this article, we simply focus on the earliest developments. In addition, we bear in mind that within the context of every civilization, developments are produced first in some central provinces, and thence expand to the rest. In India, Indonesia, and other parts of Islamic Africa similar developments took place at the same time (because of the British, Dutch and French presence there) but they could never attract the interest of Muslims in Central Asia, Iran and the Asiatic provinces of the Ottoman Empire where people were astounded by the fact that a central province of the Islamic Caliphate was - for the first time since the Crusaders - detached by the Franks (Franj as they all called the Westerners in general) and ruled by pseudo-Muslim foreign puppets.
Many came to Alexandria to see what was happening; and many traveled to Europe to study and comprehend the developments that had been exported in the detached provinces. An entire world had changed when Jamal eddin al Afghani traveled to Paris, London, Munich, St Petersburg, and Moscow; he was not the first but the first famous Islamist, as he conceived what he suggested (the return to Islam’s original principles and ideas – that he and all the rest had never correctly assessed due to the aforementioned alterations and degradations) in terms of comparison of the West (namely, in order to regain Islam’s former strength against the West). This is the ineffective way that leads to the impasse the Colonial West had invented for the Islamic World – yet, without realizing that it could backfire as it did.
The only correct way would be a re-assessment of the Islam ‘ab ovo’, and a conclusion on what progress, technology, development, etc. can possibly mean for Islam. This was never done thus far; an intermediate path was taken by Kemal Ataturk, who rejected Islam as social lifestyle, limited the religion within everyone’s free mind, house, and religious place, and implemented the social and technological changes as the Westerners had already applied them first in their own countries. But this nuance could not be possibly caught by the illiterate sheikhs of the Wahhabist Hatred. For them, the Western changes should be implemented only at the technological level – not in the society. Their society had to remain Islamic, but they were unable to understand that it had turned to totally un-Islamic even centuries before they were born. They evangelized therefore what would reduce them – according to the colonial wish – to miserable technology copiers with a pathetic mind engulfed in an un-Islamic doctrine of Barbarism that they have been left to calmly implement in their dependent, exploited, exploitable, manipulated and ultimately useless (to them) countries whereby Hatred and Complex of Inferiority engender Qadhafi-style Megalomania of the Parasitic Ludicrous.
Note
Decorative details from the Tchehel Sotoun Safevid monument in Esfahan - Iran: not important for the barbaric Islamists
Print
Email
