Tens of millions of people died and paid the price for the fragile independence of the Middle-Eastern countries, yet the colonial powers planted the seeds of hate, division and wars….

There has been a false promise of peace in the Middle-East, and the powers work in darkness to hinder peace and destabilize the fragile region by fighting real reformers and peace seeking leaders.

The Middle-East is a unique tragedy, a region that is the cradle of civilization. The region is interchangeable with the ‘Near East’, which has seen many of the world’s oldest cultures and civilizations, disasters and triumphs.

This history of the Middle-East started from the earliest human settlements, continuing through several major pre- and post-Islamic empires, to the nation-states of the Middle-East today.

Sumerians were the first people to develop complex systems as to be called “Civilization”, starting as far back as the 5th millennium BC. Egyptian civilization coalesced around 3150 BC with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under the first pharaoh.

Mesopotamia was home to several powerful empires that came to rule almost the entire Middle-East—particularly the Assyrian Empires of 1365–1076 BC and the Neo-Assyrian Empire of 911–609 BC.

From the early 7th century BC and onwards, the Iranian Medes followed by the Achaemenid Empire and other subsequent Iranian states and empires dominated the region.

In the 1st century BC, the expanding Roman Republic absorbed the whole Eastern Mediterranean, which included much of the Near East.

The Eastern Roman Empire, today commonly known as the Byzantine Empire, ruling from the Balkans to the Euphrates, became increasingly defined by and dogmatic about Christianity, gradually creating religious rifts between the doctrines dictated by the establishment in Constantinople and believers in many parts of the Middle-East. From the 3rd century up to the course of the 7th century AD, the entire Middle-East was dominated by the Byzantines and the Sasanian Empire. From the 7th century, a new power was rising in the Middle-East, that of Islam.

The dominance of the Arabs came with a huge scientific and cultural evolution that came to a sudden end in the mid-11th century with the arrival of the Mongols mainly Turkic savages who brought the Seljuq and the Ottoman reigns that destroyed centuries of history and science.

The reign of the Ottoman Empire destroyed the once beautiful Middle-East and turned it into a living tragedy for 400 years of wars, ransacked history, art and culture, and banning advanced science in the most parts of the Middle-East.

The people of the Middle-East fought for their freedom in the late 19th century, only to fall into the greedy hands of the colonial powers in the early 20th century that carved these ancient civilizations between themselves by creating rifts which we still feel to this date.

Tens of millions of people died and paid the price for the fragile independence of the Middle-Eastern countries, yet the colonial powers planted the seeds of hate, division and wars by carving nations into borders among the other nations.

The Kurds lost their homeland Palestine with the capture of Damascus that ended up carving up Syria out of the Hashemites kingdom, that freed the people from the Ottomans only to fall under the French mandate and the Young Arab Society giving a rise to national socialists that ended up aligned with the Nazis in World War II.

The west mainly France and Great Britain are responsible for the bulk problems of the Middle-East. These powers are not helping, every time they interfere with the region they make things far worse, example the Khomeinist regime and Iranian revolution.

These powers kept the Middle-East from achieving its potential throughout the 20th and 21st century, adding insult to injury these colonial powers are preaching to their victims how they should live, interfering in their internal affairs and creating havoc in the process.

I think it is about time for Middle-Eastern nations to get over their own differences and engage in an alliance that’s beneficial to their people.

Featured-Image credits: www.OnManorama.com

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He often writes about Islamism, Islamist factions and modern Terrorism. He tweets under @0khalodi0.

The prophecies about the conquest of Constantinople made by Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) are yet to happen before the end of times, and it has nothing to do with Ottoman emperor Sultan Mehmet Fatih…

All the Prophetic narrations which are also known as “Ahadith” that talk about the conquest of Constantinople are related to the end of times—especially during the sequence of the events like the arrival of the Antichrist, the emergence of the Mahdi, the descent of Jesus Christ, till the last Hour. So technically, the best leader who’ll conquer the modern-day secular Turkey is yet to emerge.

.لاَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ التُّرْكَ قَوْمًا وُجُوهُهُمْ كَالْمَجَانِّ الْمُطْرَقَةِ يَلْبَسُونَ الشَّعَرَ وَيَمْشُونَ فِي الشَّعَرِ

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: “The Last Hour would not come until the Muslims fight with the Turks – a people whose faces would be like hammered shields wearing clothes of hair and walking (with shoes) of hair.” [Sahih Muslim Book 54, Hadith 79]

حَدَّثَنَا مَحْمُودُ بْنُ غَيْلاَنَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ فَتْحُ الْقُسْطُنْطِينِيَّةِ مَعَ قِيَامِ السَّاعَةِ ‏.‏ قَالَ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ غَرِيبٌ ‏.‏ وَالْقُسْطَنْطِينِيَّةُ هِيَ مَدِينَةُ الرُّومِ تُفْتَحُ عِنْدَ خُرُوجِ الدَّجَّالِ وَالْقُسْطَنْطِينِيَّةُ قَدْ فُتِحَتْ فِي زَمَانِ بَعْضِ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم. ‏

Anas bin Malik said: “Constantinople will be conquered with the coming of the Hour.” [Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 33, Hadith 82]

The most famous Islamic contemporary scholars and the historians who lived during the time of the conquest of Constantinople such as Al-Suyuti, Al-Sakhawi, Ibn Al-Imad mentioned about the Ottoman commander Mehmet Fatih in their books describing his conquests, but they never associated him with Prophet Mohammed’s (peace be upon him) prophecies about the conquest of Constantinople.

The Hadith scholars like Imam Abu Dawood – author of Sunan, Imam Ahmad – author of Musnad Ahmad, and Imam Ibn Majah mentioned the reason for the conquest of Constantinople, that is—first the Muslims and Romans will make a strong alliance to fight a third enemy, then the Romans will betray, which will lead to the fierce fight between Muslims and the Romans at a place called Al-Ghouta, that will eventually lead to Al-Malhamah.

The great Scholar of Hadith Shiekh Ahmed Shakir stated that, “Conquest of Constantinople, Turkey which was prophesied in the Ahadith will be in a near or far future which only Allah Almighty knows. The correct conquest is that, when Muslims return to the religion which they had left.”

The Hadith scholar continues, “As for the Turkish conquest that was before our time, it was a prelude to the greatest conquest. Then it came out of the hands of the Muslims, since their government announced that it is a non-Islamic and a non-religious government.” [Source: حاشية عمدة التفسير عن ابن كثير ٢/٢٥٦]

It’s as clear as a day that the prophecies about the conquest of Constantinople made by Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) are yet to happen before the end of times, and it has nothing to do with Ottoman emperor Sultan Mehmet Fatih, while the sequence of events are clearly mentioned in the prophetic narrations—which don’t collide with Fateh’s invasion of Constantinople.

Dr. Areej Hussain is specialized in Arabic Studies from the American university of Cairo.

Ottomans benefited from the propaganda of Islamist groups from the beginning of the twentieth century

The Riyadh municipality’s decision to remove the name of Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent from one of its main streets has encouraged other Arab cities to get rid of reminders of Ottoman legacy as illustrated by the names of streets and landmarks.

This trend was in great part a reaction to Turkish intervention in Syria and Libya and the projected desire of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to impose his country’s influence on the region like in the days of the Ottoman empire.

Saudi Twitter users shared pictures showing the moment the Riyadh municipality removed the street plate bearing the name of Suleiman the Magnificent from one of its streets.

The municipality’s decision was a symbolic message that fuelled calls in Arab cities to get rid of other modern day reminders of Ottoman colonialism. This happened amid growing calls for former colonial powers to issue apologies and compensations for their past misdeeds against occupied nations.

In contrast to the Saudi decision, the Libyan municipality of Tajoura, east of the capital Tripoli, named one of its main roads after Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent.

This was announced in a social media post shared Monday by Tajoura Mauor Hussein Bin Attia.

The mayor stated that the municipality of Tajoura had formally decided to give the road that starts from the lighthouse of Al-Hamidiya “Al-Fanar” and runs all the way to the island of Al-Duran (known as “the island of Spain”), the name of Sultan Suleiman.

These events could trigger a “street war,” with designations and counter-designations in the region between opponents of Turkish military intervention and its apologists.

The name Suleiman the Magnificent carries special symbolism for Erdogan’s regime because of his expansionist ambitions at the expense of other peoples and nationalities. Suleiman also exhibited intense cruelty during his reign, including by victimising his closest relatives because of his obsession with raw power and penchant for tyranny.

The Saudi move coincided with mass demonstrations in the West calling for a review of the past, the prosecution of those responsible for racially motivated crimes and the toppling of statues of prominent historical figures accused of bigotry in the United States and Britain.

There is also a growing trend in the Arab world to reevaluate the past. This would include putting Ottoman colonialism on trial and doing what it takes to rid the history books of the glorification of the Turks and their activities. Particularly resented are unjustified efforts to ascribe a religious dimension to the Ottomans’ colonial actions. The truth is that the Turks expelled some colonial powers (the Spanish in North Africa for example), only to play the same role if not worse.

Categorising Ottoman invasions in the Arab world as part of a Muslim conquest does not hold water since the notion of Muslim conquests applies only to lands that were previously non-Muslim. The Ottomans, on the other hand, entered Arab countries in the Maghreb and the Middle East as invaders. Their only concern was humiliating the population and demanding loyalty to the Othman dynasty, which imposed its will east and west by force of arms.

Historians say that Ottoman colonialism does not differ in nature from the Western colonialism it left behind in the region. Ottomans also paved the way for powerful Turkish families to control fertile lands and settle in the best parts of the region, in addition to imposing unfair taxes aimed at forcing hapless populations to bear the cost of Turkey’s old wars.

Experts point out that the Ottomans benefited from the propaganda of Islamist groups from the beginning of the twentieth century, which bestowed on them the image of Muslim conquerors. But the matter is now different after the direct Turkish expansion in Syria and Libya. With the expansion of Turkish economic and political influence in many countries of the region, locals increasingly view Turkey as a colonial power, regardless of the historical rationale it tries to invoke to anchor its influence.

The same way Armenians demanded compensation for Ottoman crimes, Arab voices have begun making a case against Ottoman colonialism and demanding a Turkish apology for the massacres carried out by the Ottomans in the countries of the Levant and the Maghreb, as well as holding this colonialism responsible for the backwardness which has held back the region for centuries.

Article first published on The Arab Weekly.

The video shows a TV interview, where the interviewer asks the Serbian-Yugoslavian current affairs researcher Dejan Lučić about the history of freemasons in Turkey and the possible connections between Erdogan and the secret society.

Lučić claimed that Turkey is ruled by a secret society called as Dömneh, which has elite group of Jews who converted to Islam in 1666, and they have been ruling Turkey since then.

He explained that, a handsome and charismatic Jew called as Sabbatai Zevi, traveled to Turkey, boasting about forming a “Jewish State”.

Zevi was supported by Sufis, Kabbalists and everyone who admired him. He had 50,000 followers, and most of them lived in Thessaloniki.

When the Ottoman Sultan heard about this, he got Zevi arrested for talking about a Jewish state on the Turkish territory. Sultan wanted to cut-off Zevi’s head, but he negotiated with Sultan that the punishment will enrage the Jews in London, Paris, Berlin and Moscow, which will overthrow Sultan. However, he promised Sultan that he could convert to Islam and say “Allahu Akbar” and bow down.

Further, Lučić claimed that, Zevi along with his 50,000 followers, who were Sephardi Jews, converted to Islam and within the five years of time, they infiltrated Turkish ruling system to take full control.

When asked about current President Erdogan, Lučić replied, “Mr. Erdogan, who says that he feels at home in Sarajevo and that Sarajevo and Priština are Turkish and so on, is a member of the secret society Dömneh just like his former Minister of Foreign Affairs – Abdullah Gül”.

To add credibility to his claim, Lučić challenged, “All of you Bosniacs can easily check this, contact your countrymen in Turkey, ask them via phone, Skype or Viber if the that what this Dejan Lučić claims is true, that Erdogan is actually a Jew”.

Lučić was born in Belgrade-Serbia, and graduated from the University of Belgrade in Political Science. He was the founder of a political party called as “Srpski pokret obnove” in 1990s.

The Ottoman’s quickly learned how foolish they were to underestimate the power of the calling…

The Historical Roots

The grass roots movement of Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab started in the eighteenth century C.E. as a movement calling to the return to the monolithic teachings of Islam in abiding to the Quran and Sunnah.

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab calling adapted the Hanbali teachings of jurisprudence, and he denounced many fascist extremist teachings, practices and heresies among Muslims, he sought to return the belief of Muslims to its roots and remove the Clergymen control of faith and organized religious practices forced onto the people through more than 200 years of Ottoman occupation that resulted in closing schools of thought and adapt to teachings based on myths and innovated devotional practices that spread in the Arabian Peninsula.

Seeing the level of intellectual decay of the nation and the effects of the Ottoman imposed track of clergy loyal to the Ottomans that resulted in the decline of the education and culture in the Arabian Peninsula bringing it to a complete cessation collapse. Imam Mohammed called for monotheism rejecting the clergymen control of faith and collection of tribute, and devoted himself to purifying the religion and ridding it off what was imposed on the people, as he moved between the towns of Yamama until he settled in the Al-Dir’iyya.

The Imams meet and a nation is born

After the expulsion of the Imam Muhammad by Emir of the Oyiena, Ibn Muammar, for fear of the Ottoman regent the governor of Al-Ahsa, who vowed to cut trade with the Oyiena if Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab was not exiled.

Imam Muhammad bin Saud (Emir of Diriyah) was a religious man who answered to the call of Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Wahhab and wanted to restore the Arabian Peninsula to its past glory and to bring back the Islamic roots back in the region.

He was the founder of the first Saudi state and the 16th Emir of Dra’iyya. Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab arrived to Diriyah, and called on its people to reject all that was foreign to the religion of God and return to the monolithic teachings of Islam in Quran and Sunnah.

Al-Dir’iyya became a center for spreading the reformist call of Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab, schools were slowly popping up in villages, towns and cities across the Arabian Peninsula. The Ottoman regents, clergymen and Rouge Shiekhs started targeting the preachers and teachers.

The news of the calling spread and very few science students who later became supporters of the call and the state from Levant came to it, and the Sheikh Ibn Abdul-Wahab began sending his messages to the neighboring country regents and tribal leaders, calling for a revival of religion.

The lands were lawless and dangerous, so the Sheikh began to help Prince Muhammad bin Saud, to organize troops with very primitive weapons to enforce the basic laws in Diriyah ​​to the neighboring towns, villages and cities, and allow preachers to spread the call and establish its pillars in the region and outside it.

The Sheikh was supervising himself to prepare men, equipping armies, and sending companies, and continuing with writing lesson, teaching people writing and reading, welcoming guests, and delegations.

Battles against warlords and raiders continued and with every village, town freed from the state of lawlessness more supporters of Da`wah joined and more people were slowly started learning the basics of reading and writing.

The year is 1178 AH / 1773 C.E., Riyadh was liberated under the leadership of Prince Abdulaziz bin Muhammad bin Saud, and its former ruler, Daham bin Dawas, fled from it.

At the time of Saud bin Abdul Aziz, the state reached the apogee from a political point of view, as it reached Karbala in Iraq, and to Houran in the Levant, and the entire island was subjected to it except Yemen.

The Saudis abolished the tribute law that forced the weak to pay huge sums and the fees paid to war lords upon traveling, and Zakat was restored to the house of the Money House or Baitul-Maal. Might was no longer the rule in disputes between people as Judges were appointed.

War of the Ottoman’s and the Saudi State

The Ottoman Empire’s perception of the Saudi state varied according to the place it stretches to. The Ottoman’s viewed the Saudi state and its calling as a minor threat, a local uprising unworthy of the Empire’s direct attention.

The Ottoman’s quickly learned how foolish they were to underestimate the power of the calling. Although the Ottoman Empire felt that the calling and the Saudi state were a religious, cultural and political challenge to the Ottomans.

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He often writes about Islamism, Islamist factions and modern Terrorism. He tweets under @0khalodi0.

He is blind just because he is a Christian; and he lacks human dignity just because he is a Christian…

With the dust settling from a multitude of conflicts In the Balkans, Italian-Ottoman war, and the rise of the New Saudi state that started in 1902 and successfully gained more lands and support in the Arabian peninsula further aggravating the Turkish nationalist leading to internal turmoil the 1913 Treaty of London, signed between the victorious Balkan League nations and the Ottoman Empire, the Turks lost not only the Balkans, but also the Christians and Arabs living in the Middle East as well.

These factions had not been successfully assimilated to that of the Ottoman Empire for centuries, and following the successes of the new nation states, it was almost impossible for these Middle Eastern counterparts to the Balkan League to acquiesce the sultanate anymore.

The Young Turks were especially wary of Hellenism spreading from western Anatolia and the Black Sea regions to central Anatolia since the Greeks at the time were both economically stronger and more literate than the Turks.

Another significant minority within the Ottoman Empire with financial means were the Armenians.

The Young Turks believed these two Christian factions threatened the existence and power of the state, and their presence was a direct result of the tolerance of the previous Ottoman governments.

The Young Turks maintained that, with the influence of the Germans, the Christian minorities that were slowly becoming an economic and political power would eventually seize control of the state.

After the Second Balkan War, ended in 1913 a decision to destroy all Christian elements in Ottoman society and to seize and confiscate their wealth was made. A systematic plan to achieve this goal was implemented. Towards the autumn of 1913, local militias started to form.

While the militias were gearing up for possible clashes, the local inhabitants were subjected to intense propaganda against the Christian minorities. Journalists wrote inflammatory articles to radicalize the public.

Huseyin Kazim, a member of the pan-Islamist association, wrote:

“The existence of such infidels among us is an abscess for us and is a curse for our religion. Every relationship with them is a stain for us, and every connection is spiritual calamity.’

“Regardless of the standing of any Christian, for us, he is blind just because he is a Christian; and he lacks human dignity just because he is a Christian.”

Every possible method was employed to incite hatred against Christians, especially the Greeks. The state spread propaganda that as long as these Christian elements remained, Turkish people were destined to be poor. Muslims were doomed to live without safety or dignity, and the Turkish state was under tremendous danger.

The counties that seceded were coloured black on maps, and those maps were hung on school walls marked with the word “revenge”. The clergy and government mouthpieces spread vengeful and hateful rhetoric across the country.

The attacks launched against the Greeks in 1914 would target the Armenians a year later.

For the armed forces, Pan-Turanism almost became a new denomination; lower-ranking officers were taught Pan-Turanist theories.

For the Turkish Unionists, it was clear as day that the Arabs, who had resisted assimilation for centuries, could not be spared either. According to this mindset, Arabs, who evidently could not be Turkified, had to be humiliated with a huge blow to stop them from seceding.

The Arabs had never accepted Turkish rule and always demanded autonomy. They considered themselves as a noble race, being the proprietors of Islam and proud of the fact that the Quran was revealed in their language.

The abuses of Turkish officials who did not know Arabic or Arab culture angered many Arabs. Security forces suppressed all Arab protests with extreme force.

Among the Arabic-speaking regions, Syria stuck out like a sore thumb for the Turks. Syria had a wealthy class that was in correspondence with the politicians and business people of European countries.

Christians and Muslims living in Syria wanted to build and maintain a harmonious system for themselves in line with their multicultural past. The Turkish Unionists were bitter and annoyed of these attempts to secede and were waiting for an opportunity to implement their anti-Christian and anti-Arab policies in Syria.

The unionists had no intention of granting autonomy to the Arabs even at the expense of losing the hearts and minds of Arabs altogether. Lebanon, which had gained autonomous status with the support of the French, was the first target of the Turkish Unionists.

Lebanon’s autonomous status was abolished on Nov. 1, 1916, and the Christian administrator Ohannes Kuyumcuyan was removed to be replaced by Pan-Turkist Ali Munif. Istanbul deputy Salih Cimgöz said: “Lebanon become a part Turkey instead of being a cyst on (the Empire’s) body.”

The seizure of animals in Lebanon accompanied with a shortage of seed, resulted in mass starvation.

On March 10, 1917, during a congressional meeting, Lebanon deputy Emir Adil, speaking of the deaths of thousands, said: “We consider no difference between dynamite or bread when it comes to Lebanon and Beirut. For example, it is forbidden to transfer even one okka (about 1280 grams) of flour.”

The Ottoman government also seized camels in Syria, making it impossible to transfer trade goods to Lebanon.

Cemal Pasha, who played the leading role in the oppression of the Arabs, threatened bankers and merchants to keep the paper money and gold on par. When he rejected U.S. aid to the region, a large part of the population quickly vanished.

Cemal Pasha persecuted leaders in Syria, especially those holding higher positions in local governments and the educated.

Abdulhamit Zohravi, a member of the delegation of Ayan, and former deputy, Sefik al-Mawyid, was among 36 people executed on the orders of Cemal Pasha during this period. The families and relatives of those convicted were exiled from Syria to Anatolia, hence, wiping out the local leaders of the Syrian people.

Their crime, according to the military courts, was “forming an underground organisation”. The activity of the organisation was determined to be establishing relations with British and French diplomats in order to gain autonomy for Syria.

Military courts were closed to the public, they did not allow defendants to bring their own counsel, and verdicts were immediately carried out.

When Mecca’s Amir Hussain Pasha’s son, Faisal, made a plea to Cemal Pasha on behalf of prisoners, Cemal Pasha not only declined the request, but also ordered the arrest of Faisal for constituting a danger to the state.

Following these events, Mecca’s Amir Hussein, a descendant of Prophet Muhammad, declared his independence in July 1916 and occupied a large part of the Hijaz region. Hussein afterward restated his commitment to the Caliphate and the Sultanate. His rebellion was against the Turkish Unionists and he cited Cemal Pasha’s atrocities, including the persecution of the Christians.

Because of the oppressive security policies and the atrocities of Ottoman Empire officials, Arab nationalists (Pan Arabs) ended up cooperating with the British in Syria and Mesopotamia. Thus, the empire lost control two of the Ibrahimic sacred cities, slashing the clout of the caliphate in the region and denying the Sultans the status of God representative on earth.

400 years of strict centralized, racist, nationalist and oppressive policies cost the empire the hearts and minds of the people before the lands, even when fading into obscurity the Ottomans adapted a policy of genocide against the Christians and Arabs (Arminian Genocide, Safr Burlik, Great Famine of Mount Lebanon and The Greek genocide).

History, tends to keep repeating itself. As the Neo Ottoman aimed to hide the horrors that plagued the Ottoman empire’s history employing Islamists and pan Arabs who find themselves pawns in the game of Neo Ottomans ambitious plans to dominate and control the region and restore the Empire.

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He regularly tweets under @0khalodi0.

Osama bin Laden, the former Al-Qaeda leader, was at odds with the so-called Wahhabi scholars and the Saudi government.

I can’t help but to comment on the recent media rant that ISIS gets their ideology from Wahhabism—nothing could be further from the truth. Please bare with this longer than usual article—it is important for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Reality Check Number One

Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab did not bring anything new, he only revived pure Islamic monotheism and cleaned up the polytheistic mystic Sufi practices and beliefs that were prevalent in the Ottoman Empire in general, and in the Arabian peninsula in particular, where grave and saint worship became the norm. He promoted adhering to the Sunnah, that is, Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him’s way, free from innovations in religion. He was not against modernity and technological innovation.

Reality Check Number Two

Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab and his followers did not revolt against the Ottomans nor was his mission to establish some sort of new leadership under them. In fact, it was Sherif Hussein who headed the Arab Revolt with the help of the British.

Reality Check Number Three

The so-called Wahhabis never labelled themselves as such. The loose label, which is only used to distinguish an orthodox practicing Muslim who frees himself form all partisanships, revolutionary ideologies, and mystical innovative groups, is Salafism.

Salafism is a methodology of following the religion, not an exclusive group with a membership or pledge of allegiance to a secret leader in a quasi-cult as some Muslims groups of today practice. The label Wahhabi was used by the West to negatively label the religious revivalist movement.

Unfortunately, certain Muslims, particularly those who adhere to mysticism, followed suit in the labelling game because this movement was against the practices of grave and saint worship in which extreme Sufis are immersed. Worshipping or calling onto anyone other than God is a form of major polytheism.

Reality Check Number Four

The so-called Wahhabi scholars, such as Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaymeen, Albani and others, were the first to issue fatwas and bring forth solid evidence from Islamic texts condemning terrorism, whose source is the revolutionary group ideologies derived from Sayyid Qutb and Abul A’la Al-Maududi.

These groups promote violence and defiance of rulers, while Salafism promotes adherence the main body of the Muslims and obeying the ruler and keeping order, even if the ruler is an oppressor, for the evil of an oppressive ruler is much less than the evil caused by revolutions.

The Noble Quran clearly states in chapter 6 verse 129 in no uncertain terms that if the rulers are wrongdoers then the citizens are also wrongdoers – God says: “And thus will We make some of the wrongdoers allies of others for what they used to earn.”

Reality Check Number Five

ISIS, a revolutionary and defiant ideology, is the younger sister of Al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden, the former Al-Qaeda leader, was at odds with the so-called Wahhabi scholars and the Saudi government. Yet, you find that Osama bin Laden is labelled a Wahhabi, when he was in fact on the opposite end of the spectrum from so-called Wahhabism, or more accurately, Salafism.

The word Salafi, like the word Islam, has been hijacked and used by different groups. Names don’t matter in reality, instead, the practices and action are what matter.

Conclusions

I advise Muslims to be conscious of God before letting their tongues or pens mention such terms and make such unfounded accusations whether directly or indirectly by posting articles on their walls by so-called Islamic experts.

Salafism calls to orthodoxy. If we claim that ISIS is following Salafism/Wahhabism, then we are saying that they are following orthodox Islam, which is anything but the truth, and is exactly what Islamophobes and haters want to try to prove.

Professor Wasim Ismail is of Palestinian origin settled in Canada. He earned Masters in Islamic Studies from Islamic Online University.

Now, to refute yet another imprecise impression that persists resolutely —”British imperialism defeated Ottoman empire to create Saudi Arabia”—erroneous assertion!

Challenge is not that the study of British Imperialism has few students, but that British Imperialism has been distorted to suit fabricated biases and vested interests, often manipulated to deceive and generate a hostile perception, with sole intention to isolate any independent, sensibly functioning country—Saudi Arabia—being the target here.

The unification of the current Saudi State occurred during the period — 1902 till 1932 — almost 13 years before the UN was established in 1945.

Back then, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries were recognised by the ruling powers, according to the persisting geo-political necessities, strategic alliances and the World Order that prevailed before the UN’s formation. Most countries recognised the Saudi State during these years (1902 – 1932).

The Islamic Conference, held in Riyadh on the 29th October 1924, brought a wide Islamic recognition and endorsement of Ibn-Saud’s jurisdiction over Makkah and Medinah.

This Islamic recognition was 21 years before the United Nations was established.

The British recognized Saudi Arabia in 1926, and the Republic of Turkey (formerly the Ottomans) also recognized Saudi Arabia in 1926.

Reasonable international relations and diplomacy do not forbid recognizing the international stature and power of countries that formed the “League of Nations” or the “United Nations’ in 1945.

There existed no country in the world that had not established diplomatic relations and military alliances with the British Empire—signed mutual treaties, preferential trade agreements, or hosted British diplomats.

Why British-Ottoman Treaties not questioned?

In 1619, Persian Empire granted trading privileges to East India Company. In 1675, England received privileged trading access to Ottoman empire. In 1793, East India Company Factory in Kuwait was established.

In 1596, a British diplomat Edward Barton accompanied the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet-III in his campaign against Hungary and was present at the siege of Eger.

In 1801, the Anglo-Turkish military forces conspired and captured Egypt, and collaborated further in the second Egyptian—Ottoman war of 1839.

In 1809, ‘Treaty of Dardanelles/Çanak”—signed between the British and Ottomans—ensured the British against entry of Russian fleet into the Mediterranean, reaffirming Britain’s privileged economic rights, and its secret provisions provided that the British assist the Ottomans against the French.

The 1833 peace “Treaty of Kutahya” saw the British empire support the Ottomans again, against Muhammad Ali’s Egypt.

The 1838 “Treaty of Balta Limani” was an Ottoman and British Commercial Treaty granting Britain preferential trading rights throughout Ottoman Empire.

In July 1913, there was yet another agreement between the Ottoman Empire and the British, known as the “Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913″—whereby the Ottomans surrendered its jurisdiction over the Persian Gulf, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Shatt al-‘Arab.

This 1913 Ottoman-Anglo Treaty was signed three years before the infamous oft quoted ‘The Sykes–Picot Agreement” of 1916. The Sykes–Picot agreement did NOT include the Arabian Peninsula.

How are these numerous Ottoman Treaties any different than the “Darin Treaty” of 1915 – signed between the Ruler Ibn Saud and diplomat Sir Percy Cox?

The Treaty between British and Saudi Arabia

The Darin Treaty 1915 was signed to indicate British recognition of the third Saudi State, and in return, Ibn Saud agreed not to attack British protectorates. Ibn Saud’s victory and seizure of Al-Hasa finally compelled the otherwise reluctant and neutral British to subsequently re-evaluate their policy towards Ibn Saud, resulting in signing of the “Darin Treaty”. Sovereign and equal international relations were established between these two supreme ruling powers.

Why is Sir Percy Cox’s role considered any different than that of William Harborne, Sir Edward Barton or Sir Thomas Roe’s role in the Ottoman Empire? Search these names up.

William Harborne’s services for “Turkey Company” are compared to those of Sir Thomas Roe’s to the East India Company.

The Unholy alliance between British and Ottomans

From 1583 to 1908—Ottoman empire collaborated with over 50 British designated diplomats. All attained British imperialism within the Ottoman empire, and secured preferential trade access, capitulations, tariff reductions, selective routes, privileged rights and struck military alliances.

Both, utilized commercial diplomacy to accomplish imperialistic objectives.

In 1831, the Governor of Egypt Mehmet Ali Pasha—once loyal to the Ottomans—decided to retaliate against the Ottoman Empire. To quell Mehmet Ali’s vengeance, the Ottomans appealed to the Russians, French and the British to intervene. The British taking advantage of the situation, defeated Mehmet Ali Pasha but in exchange, acquired exclusive access to Ottoman trade markets.

This same Mehmet Ali Pasha had once led an invasion against the Al-Saud in 1811, at the request of the Ottoman Sultan.

Why should then, the Arabs have trusted these treacherous Turk Ottomans or the faltering British empire over their sovereign independence?

Saudi Arabia is Independent

Saudi Arabia today is an independent sophisticated state, economically viable, socially developed, progressive, modern infrastructure, and ruled by sensible leaders. A testimony to the visionary decisions undertaken by the noble Abd al-‘Azīz ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥman Āl Sa’ūd back in 1902 -1932.

Mainstream thinking should make a decisive shift, revert to balance-of-power thinking and study history objectively. Let it not be, “History is a set of lies agreed upon”—Napoleon Bonaparte.

“That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach”—Aldous Huxley

Afreen Baig is a regular writer on contemporary issues of Middle-East and the Arab World. She writes for the Milli Chronicle. She tweets under @afreenb179 and she can be followed on Facebook.

There has never been any covert or overt alliance between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity of Israel.

Inferences contrary to this historical evidence are deceptive fallacies and an insult to history.

Saudi State or Zionism—Who came first?

With reference to the run-of-the-mill blog Mondoweiss, and its sleazy hogwash—”How Zionism helped create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”.

First of all, the term Zionism was first coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum, and established as a political organization by Theodor Herzl in 1897.

However, the First Saudi State was established in 1744 in Al-Dir’iya, by Imam Muhammad bin Saud—and this was 146 years before the term Zionism was even coined.

Father of Zionism Theodor Herzl was born in 1860—i.e 116 years AFTER the first Saudi State was established.

The first Saudi State ended in 1818—almost 72 years before Zionism even existed—when the Ottomans invaded Al-Dir’iya and murdered Al-Saud.

Question arises, if the Zionist helped create the Saudi state in 1744, did Zionism also eliminate in 1818 the Saudi State they helped create? Ridiculous, right?

In 1824, the Second Saudi state was re-established by Imam Turki bin Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Saud in Riyadh—66 years before Zionism or Zionist even existed.

Seven Al Saud rulers ruled during this period of 67 years (1824 – 1891).

The second Saudi State ended in 1891, one year after the term Zionism was coined in 1890. Did the Zionist eliminate it again the second time?

Does this not prove the opposite of what all fallacious “Zionist created Kingdom” type articles claim?

Can Zionists control Two Holy Cities? Question your faith.

Delusional individuals with hostility fixed, should deliberate without parti-pris—would the Zionist have created a land upon Monotheism and the Prophetic Sunnah?

Quran says, “And they are those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish prayer and give Zakah or Poor-due and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. And to ALLAH belongs the outcome of [all] matters.” [Surah Al Hajj – 41]

Saudi Arabia ensures worship of Allah Almighty without polytheism. It’s constitution is the Quran, it establishes prayer, distributes Zakah i.e. Poor-due, it implements shariah, serves pilgrims diligently, has embarked upon the most ambitious of projects in Haramain, built mosques and Islamic centres around the world, and funds Muslim countries abundantly and endlessly.

How can any Muslim actually believe the Zionist gained predominance over Makkah and Medinah?

Afreen Baig is a regular writer on contemporary issues of Middle-East and the Arab World. She writes for the Milli Chronicle. She tweets under @afreenb179 and she can be followed on Facebook.