Modern Arabic: the Anglo-French Tool of Islamic Terrorism Promotion

  
 

By Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

November 24, 2006 (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/17075)

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/modern-arabic-anglo-french-tool-islamic-terrorism-promotion.html

The US faces difficulties in Iraq that pertain to structures set up after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. What is totally unknown in the West is the nature of the colonial work carried out by France and England; it has little to do with politics and economics, its main dimension being educational – cultural. Only false nations with fake languages can turn out to be the permanent victims of the Colonial Scheme.

Colonial Anglo-French tactics at the times of the Only Superpower

The really well orchestrated game of France and England started with the Entente Cordiale, to which all other countries are to be outsiders: according to the game’s rules, France and England respect each other’s zones of influence; they support each other against a third party, and they divert (theoretically, ideologically, academically, politically) all the rest from the nucleus of the Anglo-French colonial machination of eternalizing situations favorable to their interests.

Furthermore, they use any country they can in order to make of it an unconscious player to the Anglo-French interests’ benefit, and if need be, France and England participate in opposite blocks or groups to confuse all the other countries, and to manipulate both groups so that the steps taken do not damage the secret Anglo-British interests. This is the game they played in Iraq.

England went along with America, ridiculously ‘bringing’ Italy and Spain in. How better could they show their (supposed) pro-American attitude?

France coordinated and led the opponents, Germany, Russia and China.

The result of this tactics is that whatever comes out, one of the two fornicators would be involved, and that country would do its best to lead things to the secret common interest; that is why you cannot speak about possible ‘secret plans’ of anyone in Europe: the political, academic, intellectual and journalistic establishments ridicule the concept of conspiracy beforehand, so that they never face a serious reproach about having been engaged in a ‘secret plan’. The absurd and criminal bogus-logic of this tactics is simple:

- If no ‘secret plans’ can exist, there cannot be any Anglo-French secret plans whatsoever!

Anglo-French hysteria against the Ottoman Empire and Turkey

England and France do not want Turkey in Europe, and in addition, England does its best to divert American statesmen and military experts from the easiest solution and the most logical option the US have in Iraq, namely to replace the bulk of the US forces with Turkish army that would act on a well conceived plan to offer national home to the Aramaeans, the Turkmens, the Kurds and the Shias of Iraq, punishing at the same time the Sunni supporters of Saddam Hussein and perpetrators of Islamic terrorist acts.

This issue is at the epicenter of their plans for the Middle East and Northeastern Africa. It is therefore seminal, for an effective perception of the issues involved in the Iraq ordeal, to scrutinize the Anglo-French plans for the vast surface of the Ottoman Empire that they intended to confiscate and usurp, at times in frontal antagonism (until 1905). The essence of their plans and their deeds was such that generated the Islamic Terrorism through successive stages of educational and cultural machinations.

The colonial plans were composed no less than 250, possibly 350, years ago. They involved the gradual dismemberment and ultimate collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and its replacement by many states that would be manipulated and explored (because of their resources and geo-strategic position) but could also (eventually) unite for further use and manipulation by the Anglo-French axis.

When Napoleon sailed to Egypt (this was the first major step in the effort to materialize the aforementioned plan), there was no Arabic speaking nation, and there was no Arabic spoken as native language to any people, except Arabia (here I mean Hedjaz, so the western mountains, and Nafd, so the northern desert of today’s Saudi Arabia).

Modern Arabic: French fabrication of a fake language to de-personify, de-valorize, radicalize and barbarize

Through the creation of a fake modern Arabic language , the French prevented a genuine Nation building in the area, ensured that the local peoples would never have access to their identity, and like this gave the Wahhabist sheikhs a most powerful tool of de-personification, de-valorization, radicalization and barbarization. The so idiotically venerated French ‘mission civilisatrice’ is truly speaking a ‘mission barbarisatrice’.

The French created what is the concept of Arabic as Modern Language, and (as an extension to it – at a second stage) the Arab nationalism – supreme stage of the colonialism.

What existed, as linguistic – ethnic groups’ situation, in 1798 throughout all the lands that belong to modern state members of the Arab League, is this:

1. Arabic had ceased to exist as native language (with the aforementioned exception); it was only the religious language of the Muslims, but it was a dead language – which means that it was not native to anyone.

2. Local, historical, native languages were in use, as follows (not extensive list):

  • I. Berberic in Northern Africa (involving Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt)

  • II. Coptic in Egypt

  • III. Nubian (several dialects) in Egypt and Northern Sudan

  • IV. Fur (in Northwestern Sudan)

  • V. Beja (in Eastern Sudan)

  • VI. Hadendawa (in Eastern Sudan)

  • VII. Tigrigna (in Eritrea)

  • VIII. Tigray (in Eritrea)

  • IX. Afar (in Eritrea and Djibouti)

  • X. Mahrani (in South Yemen)

  • XI. Soqotri (in Soqotra island)

  • XII. Somali (in Somalia)

  • XIII. Aramaic (Syriac Aramaic being divided to two groups, Western and Eastern, spoken in Syria, parts of today’s Southeastern Turkey, Iraq, Southwestern Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Emirates, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel),

  • XIV. Ottoman Turkish (in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, Emirates, Yemen, Oman, and Saudi Arabia)

  • XV. Kirkassian, Turkmen, and other Turkic languages (in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, Emirates, Yemen, Oman, and Saudi Arabia)

  • XVI. Kurdish (in three languages and six dialects, in Syria, Iraq, and parts of today’s Eastern Turkey), and

  • XVII. Farsi.

3. Various idioms / languages had emerged in different places and consisted in per case linguistic amalgamations based on

  • I. Ottoman Turkish (administrative language) – participated in amalgamations throughout the area under study

  • II. Arabic (religious language) – participated in amalgamations throughout the area under study

  • III. Farsi (cultural language) – participated in amalgamations mostly in parts of Eastern Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Emirates, Yemen, Somalia (Farsi was the only native language in Bahrain), and

IV. the aforementioned 17 historical, native languages. These languages played a greater role in the case they spoken by non isolated groups; for instance the Beja and the Soqotri were mostly living in isolated areas, whereas Aramaeans, Copts, and Berbers were living throughout their historical lands in the Asiatic part of the Middle East (the first), Egypt (the second) and NW Africa (the last).

Among these 17 native languages, the most active to participate in the linguistic amalgamation phenomenon were precisely Aramaic, Coptic and Berberic (in their respective areas). These idioms co-existed with the aforementioned historical native languages, and were more than one per case; to give an example, in Egypt there were more than two amalgamated languages based on linguistic mixture of Coptic with Arabic and Turkish (localisms prevailed and the linguistic amalgamation was different in the Delta, Alexandria, Cairo and various parts of Upper Egypt).

It was a very complex situation, as it implied (to give an example, we take Egypt) the parallel existence of the following languages:

  • 1. Berberic (mostly in the Northern coast and the Western deserts)
    2. Nubian (several dialects - in the south of Qena)
    3. Beja (in the south of Mersa Alam)
    4. Ottoman Turkish (administrative language)
    5. Turkic languages (mostly spoken by the Mameluks)
    6. Coptic (spoken throughout the country, as native and religious language)
    7. Arabic (dead language – used only as religious means of communications by the Egyptian Muslims)
    8. Coptic – Arabic – Ottoman Turkish amalgamated idiom of Alexandria
    9. Coptic – Arabic – Ottoman Turkish amalgamated idiom of Delta
    10. Coptic – Arabic – Ottoman Turkish amalgamated idiom of Cairo
    11. – 12. Coptic – Arabic – Turkish amalgamated idioms of Upper Egypt

If we carry out a research about the proportion of the population each of these 12 parallel languages represented, we can be certain that the majority was using the five amalgamated idioms (nos 8 to 12).

It is essential to underscore the extent of the amalgamation in this regard; a Muslim from Sohag, who was speaking one of the Upper Egyptian linguistic amalgamations of Coptic – Arabic – Ottoman Turkish, would be characterized by the following determinant traits:

  • a – he would not be able to read and understand the Coran, except he had studied in local Coranic schools, which was a thin minority matter.

  • b – he could not understand people speaking

 

  • 1. Aramaic – Arabic – Ottoman Turkish amalgamated idiom of Damascus,

  • 2. Berberic – Arabic – Ottoman Turksih amalgamated idiom of Tunis, and

  • 3. Arabic spoken in Madinah.

Preventing Nation Building and favoring the extremist Wahhabists

If the situation was like that, what a genuine effort of nation building throughout the Ottoman Empire would have implied, if the colonial interference had not taken place?

To answer this question, we must study what happened in other cases of nation building, when various peoples became independent during the 19th and the 20th centuries, and took care of their perception of their identity, history and past, as well as of their need to have a genuine means of oral and written communication, i.e. a language that would reflect the national identity. If we make comparisons between the cases of Italy, Serbia, Greece, Turkey and Egypt, we will be able to note that all these cases are very different one from another, and that wherever we have to deal with French involvement, Greece and Egypt, we attest very different French attitude.

Whereas in Greece the French did their best to incite an interest about the past, a kind of archeolatrous neo-classicism, an interest for linguistic purification and re-introduction of Ancient Greek vocabulary and Grammar, in Egypt they kept the local people far from the decipherment procedure of the Egyptian Hieroglyphics and the unearthing of the Ancient Egyptian temples. Striking but true! For more than 100 years after Champollion was able to read and understand Egyptian Hieroglyphics, there was not a single Egyptian Egyptologist!

Contrarily to what studies were suggested for Greek students arriving in Paris, the Egyptians, who moved to the French capital and to other places of academic importance, were driven to studies of Arabic language with the guidance to shape out of it a modernized vernacular that would become the national medium of communication, exterminating

  • 1. the existing linguistic pluralism

  • 2. the linguistic amalgamations, and

  • 3, the Coptic language.

This was most unnatural, because the Egyptians’ past had nothing to do with Arabic, but this was tactics was imposed because of the need of France to generate a medium of linguistic confusion that would avert any access to national identity awareness, to impose it throughout the country, and later on throughout other areas that were to be detached from the Ottoman Empire. Like this France would form a supposed Arabic nation, as counterweight to the Turks and the Islamic Caliphate.

If there had not been French involvement in Egypt, one of the various Coptic – Arabic – Ottoman Turkish amalgamated idioms would have been chosen by Egyptian intellectuals as basis of a national Neo-Coptic language and efforts of purification would have taken place, with the reintroduction of a sizeable part of Coptic vocabulary and the elimination of Arabic words. Te Neo-Coptic, written of course in Coptic and not in Arabic characters, would certainly have had Arabic words but its bulk would be Coptic, and the imposition of this language would generate a great interest for Egyptian National History, studies of Hieroglyphics, inclusion of Egyptian Hieroglyphic language and writing into the Secondary Education syllabuses (as Latin is taught in Italy and France, and Ancient Greek in Greece).

This would automatically would have signified a genuine possibility of development at all levels, and Egypt today would have been at the economic level of Balkan countries, which would have been quite normal, if we take into consideration that all these countries were at the same socioeconomic development level at the beginning of the 19th century. Like this, Egypt today would not have been a member state of the Arab League, and this organization would have never existed.

More importantly, Arabic would have been only a religious language learnt by a few religious people as it happens in Turkey. Like this, the work of the Wahhabist sheikhs to diffuse Satanism in the name of Islam, and to use fanaticized masses for their terrorist purposes would not have been carried out because they would not have been able to find supporters believing that Arabic is their national language, and the Neo-Coptic would have never been selected by the Wahhabist sheikhs as vehicle of their false Islamic theology. If today’s world has to deal with Ossama bin Laden, the only reason is the disastrous work of Napoleon and the French colonials in pulling Egypt and other countries to the falsehood of Arabization, and the criminal theory of Pan-Arabism.