The Sacred Effusion Volume 1

The Sacred Effusion30%

The Sacred Effusion Author:
Publisher: The Islamic Education Board of the World Federation of KSIMC
Category: Imam Hussein

Volume 1
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 19 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 45938 / Download: 14267
Size Size Size
The Sacred Effusion

The Sacred Effusion Volume 1

Author:
Publisher: The Islamic Education Board of the World Federation of KSIMC
English

Taken from www.al-islam.org


1

2

Chapter 5: Peace be unto you, O blood of Allah and the son of the blood of Allah

أَلسَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكَ يَا ثَارَ اللَّهِ وَابْنَ ثَارِهِ

Peace be unto You, O Blood of Allah and the son of the Blood of Allah

Commentary

السَّلامُ عَلَيْكَ يَا ثَارَ اللَّهِ

Peace be unto You, O possessor of the blood venerated by Allah

The word thar ثَار in the Arabic language has been employed for different meanings: avenging for blood, rancour, blood, the slain, etc.

Many commentators of Ziyarat ‘Ashura’ have rendered the phrase ‘thar Allah’ as ‘blood of Allah’. ‘Allama al-Tabataba`i likewise is reported to have said the same thing when asked about its meaning.1

In order for this verse to be comprehensible, a mudhaf (first particle of a genetive construction) is taken to be elliptical and hidden before the word thar. The sentence would originally read “ya sahiba tharillah” (O possessor of the blood of Allah’. Therefore when we say “ya thar Allah”, we actually mean “ya sahiba tharillah”.

Obviously Allah is free from any kind of anthropomorphic attribute(Qur`an, 42:11) , and thus the meaning of ‘blood of Allah’ should not be taken as ‘the blood that is a part of Allah’, far is He from any kind of imperfection whatsoever. The possibility that thar Allah means ‘the blood owned by Allah’ is although correct in the real sense, for Almighty Allah has absolute ownership over every entity(Qur`an, 3:189) , it is not meant in the present case. This is because the appellation ‘thar Allah’ here denotes a distinct characteristic of al-Husayn (AS) whereas ‘thar Allah’ in its general sense refers to every human being. Unless, however, we would like to express the nobility (sharafa) of the blood of Imam al-Husayn (AS), which was sacrificed in the way of Allah.

We do have similar instances in the Arabic language such as baytullah (house of Allah), ruhullah (spirit of Allah), naqatallah(camel of Allah: 91:13) , etc. Annexing the name Allah in such instances is in order to reveal the nobility of the first particle of the genetive construction. In short, when we say ‘ya thar Allah’ we mean ‘O one whose blood is the blood that Allah venerated and preferred over the blood of others.’2

أَلسَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكَ يَا ثَارَ اللَّهِ

Peace be unto you, O the spilled blood, whose avenger is Allah

One of the most clear expositions3 for thar Allah is that it refers to that blood that has been spilled in falsehood and injustice, and is attributed to the wali al-dam (one who has the right to avenge for the blood). Therefore when we say thar Allah we mean ‘the spilled blood that belongs to Allah’, and He alone is the avenger of the same. This meaning can be understood in other salutational recitals as well. For example in one of the ziyarat of Imam al-Husayn (AS) we address him as follows:

... وَاَنَّكَ ثَارُ اللهِ فِِي الاَرْضِ وَالدَّمُ الّذِيْ لاَ يُدْرِكُ ثَارَهُ اَحَدٌ مِنْ اَهْلِ الاَرْضِ وَلاَ يُدْرِكُهُ إلاَّ اللهُ وَحْدَهُ

...and that you are the blood of Allah (thar Allah) in the earth and the blood that none of the inhabitants of the earth can avenge, and none save Allah alone can avenge it.4

This, however, does not contradict those salutational recitals and supplications that encourage us to ask Almighty Allah to enable us avenge the blood of Imam al-Husayn (AS) with our present Imam (AS), for he is a vicegerent of Allah on earth and His medium, and can thus serve as Allah’s representative in avenging the blood of Imam al-Husayn (AS).

The Holy Qur`an says:

وَلا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتي‏ حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلاَّ بِالْحَقِّ وَمَنْ قُتِلَ مَظْلُوماً فَقَدْ جَعَلْنا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطاناً فَلا يُسْرِفْ فِي الْقَتْلِ إِنَّهُ كانَ مَنْصُوراً

Do not kill a soul [whose life] Allah has made inviolable, except with due cause, and whoever is killed wrongfully, We have certainly given his heir an authority. But let him not commit any excess in killing, for he enjoys the support [of law.] (17:33)

Al-Bahrani in his Tafsir al-Burhan, while commenting on the above verse narrates the following tradition:

عَنْ مُحَمَّد بنِ سِنَان، عَنْ رَجُلٍ، قَالَ: سَأَلْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللهِ عَنْ قَوْلِهِ تَعَالىَ: وَمَنْ قُتِلَ مَظْلُوماً فَقَدْ جَعَلْنا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطاناً فَلا يُسْرِفْ فِي الْقَتْلِ إِنَّهُ كانَ مَنْصُوراً.قال: ذَلِكَ قَائِمُ آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، يَخْرُجُ فَيَقْتُلُ بِدَمِ الْحُسَيْنِ

Muhammad bin Sinan narrates from a person who said: I asked Aba ‘Abdillah [al-Sadiq (AS)] about the verse “and whoever is killed wrongfully, We have certainly given his heir an authority”, and he said: That is the Qa`im of the progeny of Muhammad (AS). He will come out and rise to avenge the blood of al-Husayn (AS)...5

We also read in the supplication of al-Nudba:

اَيْنَ الطالِبُ بِدَمِ الْمَقْتُوْلِ بِكَرْبَلاَءِ

Where is the one who would avenge the blood of the one who was killed in Karbala’...6

Therefore whether we say that Allah Himself will avenge the blood of Imam al-Husayn (AS) or the present Imam (AS) will do the same, there is no difference. This is because the Imam (AS) is an entirely submissive servant of Almighty Allah and whatever he does is whatever Allah wants.

أَلسَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكَ يَا ثَارَ اللَّهِ

Peace be unto you, O one whose blood is the blood of Allah

One of the possible meanings of the phrase ya thar Allah is ‘ya man tharuhu thar Allah’ (O one whose blood is the blood of Allah)7 . Here the za’ir declares that Imam al-Husayn (AS) enjoys the lofty spiritual state of al-baqa’ bi Allah ba’d al-fana’ (survival in Allah after dissolution in Him) which the mystic-scholars expound in their works. Due to the comprehensive and profound meaning it entails, we would not like to go into the details of this reality here.

Those who have attained heights of human perfection through supererogatory worship and obedience (nawafil) come to a station where they vision and comprehend that every act of theirs is done through Almighty Allah. In other words, Almighty Allah becomes their means of action. In a sacred tradition [hadith al-qudsi], Almighty Allah is reported to have said:

مَا يَتَقَرّبُ إِلَىّ عَبْدٌ مِنْ عِبَادِيْ بِشَيْ‏ءٍ اَحَبُّ إِلَىّ مِمّا افْتَرَضْتُ عَلَيْهِ. وَإِنّهُ لَيَتَقَرَّّبُ إِلَىّ بِالنّافِلَةِ حَتّي اُحِبّهُ، فَاِذَا اَحْبَبْتُهُ، كُنْتُ اِذاً سَمْعَهُ الّذِيْ يَسْمَعُ بِهِ وَبَصَرَهُ الَّتِيْ يَبْصُرُ بِهَا وَلِسَانَهُ الّذِيْ يَنْطقُ بِهِ وَيَدَهُ الّتِيْ يَبْطشُ بِهَا، إِنْ دَعَانِيْ اَجَبْتُهُ

My servant does not draw near to me with anything more lovable to Me than what I have made obligatory on him. And surely he never ceases to draw near to Me through supererogatory acts until I love him. And when I love him, I am his hearing through which he hears, his sight through which he sees, his tongue through which he speaks, his hand through which he grasps. When he calls on Me I respond to him.

This tradition speaks of two fundamental kinds of proximity: (a) proximity attained through obligatory deeds (qurb al-fara’idh), and (b) proximity attained through supererogatory deeds (qurb al-nawafil). Thar Allah refers to the first level. In this level it is the servant who becomes the instrument of Allah. Almighty Allah Sees, Hears, and Speaks through His servant. This should not lead one to conjecture that Allah is in need of His servant, for the latter’s very existence as well as subsistence entirely depend on Allah’s volition. Being an instrument of Allah rather shows the utter obedience of the servant and his unity with Divine volition.

Perhaps Imam al-Husayn (AS)’s well-known dictum ‘Ridha Allah Ridhana Ahl al-Bayt’ (The pleasure of Allah is our pleasure, the Ahl al-Bayt (AS)8 refers to this very state. The servant in this state becomes عَيْنُ الله ‘aynullah (the eyes of Allah), يََدُالله yadullah (the hand of Allah) or ثَارَالله ”tharullah” (blood of Allah), which means that He employs these intermediaries of the elevated human being to do what He decides. Hashim bin ‘Umara narrates: I heard Amir al-mu’minin ‘Ali (AS) say:

أَنَا عَيْنُ اللَّهِ وََأَنَا يَدُ اللَّهِ وَأَنَا جَنْبُ اللَّهِ وَأَنَا بَابُ اللَّهِ

I am the eye of Allah, and I am the hand of Allah; and I am the side of Allah and I am the door of Allah.9

And Aswad bin Sa’id reports: I was with Abu Ja’far (AS), and he said:

نَحْنُ حُجَّةُ اللَّهِ وَنَحْنُ بَابُ اللَّهِ وَنَحْنُ لِسَانُ اللَّهِ وَنَحْنُ وَجْهُ اللَّهِ وَنَحْنُ عَيْنُ اللَّهِ فِي خَلْقِهِ

We (the Ahl al-Bayt) are the proof of Allah, we are the door of Allah, and we are the tongue of Allah, and we are the face of Allah, and we are the eye of Allah in His creation...10

Scholars of insight when expounding this exalted state also refer to the following verse of the Holy Qur`an:

فَلَمْ تَقْتُلُوهُمْ وَلكِنَّ اللَّهَ قَتَلَهُمْ وَما رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ وَلكِنَّ اللَّهَ رَمى‏ وَلِيُبْلِيَ الْمُؤْمِنينَ مِنْهُ بَلاءً حَسَناً إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَميعٌ عَليمٌ

You did not kill them; rather it was Allah who killed them; and you did not throw when you threw, rather it was Allah who threw, that He might test the faithful with a good test from Himself. Indeed Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (8:17)

This verse speaks of the Battle of Badr. The Holy Prophet (S) asks Imam ‘Ali (AS) to give him a handful of pebbles, whereafter he (S) throws them at the faces of the polytheists of Quraysh.11 Almighty Allah describes this as His own action. In other words, the Holy Prophet (S) was Allah’s agent and medium. He is told: You did not throw when you threw, but Allah threw. In reality no kind of selfhood remained in the Prophet (S). His entire being manifested the Divine.

Thar Allah, according to some Divine scholars, refers to this very kind of perfection. Imam al-Husayn (AS)’s entire movement and sacrifice manifested the attributes of Allah.

Scholars of insight, considering the reality that Imam al-Husayn (AS) is thar Allah say that the compensatory price of the blood of al-Husayn (AS) therefore is Allah Himself. The late scholar Ayatullah Muhammad Ridha Rabbani in his Jalawat-e-Rabbani says:

آن حضرت مقام ثاراللهي را واجد است و بهمين جهت است كه خونبهاي او خود خداست

That Hadhrat occupies the station of thar Allah and for this very reason his compensatory price is God Himself.12

And in his comments over ‘Allama al-Tabataba`i’s translation of thar Allah as ‘blood of Allah’ Shaykh Rukhshad, a former student of ‘Allama says:

منظور اين است كه خداوند متعال خود خونبهاي امام حسين – عليه السلام – مي باشد؛ زيرا در برابر شهادت و فداكاري آن حضرت هيچ نعمتي از نعمتهاي آخرتي جز ديدار پروردگار قرار نمي گرفت

This implies that Almighty God Himself is the compensatory price of the blood of Imam al-Husayn (AS). This is because in exchange for the Imam’s martyrdom and sacrifice, there was no blessing of the Hereafter other than the vision of God.13

Perhaps the reason why the compensatory price of al-Husayn (AS) is Allah Himself is the Imam’s state of utter dissolution in the Beloved and survival by Him (al-fana’ fi Allah wa al-baqa’ bihi)14 . As we said earlier, Imam al-Husayn (AS), due to his very exalted station, was a medium of Allah’s works.

Therefore, like the Prophet (S) who is told ‘you did not throw when you threw, rather it was Allah who threw’(8:17) , Imam al-Husayn did not fight gallantly when he fought gallantly in the plains of Karbala’ but Allah fought gallantly in the plains of Karbala’. This is because every element of Imam al-Husayn (AS) was for Allah. Hence he can rightly be known as ‘aynullah (eye of Allah), yadullah (hand of Allah), lisanullah (tongue of Allah), tharullah (blood of Allah), etc.

Mentioning the lofty station of Imam al-Husayn (AS) and his companions, al-Naraqi in his Mathnawi-e-Taqdis says:

اين فناي بنده در مولا بُوَد

اين فنا از صد بقا اولي بُوَد

اين عدم باشد رهِ كويِ بقا

فهم آن خواهي برو تا كربلا

This is the dissolution of the servant in his Master

This dissolution is better than a hundred lives

This dissolution is a path towards the alley of survival

If you would like to know its reality go upto Karbala.15

Although the compensatory price for the horrendous massacre cannot be paid, the meaning of ‘avenging the blood of Imam al-Husayn (AS)’, as we shall come to understand later in this Ziyarat, would in reality be a struggle to eradicate all those enemies who are openly against a Divine government being established, where the laws of Allah are executed and the religion is practised in the best possible manner, so that an environment for human perfection is facilitated for every human being.

يَا ثَارَ اللهِ

O one who has been killed for the sake of Allah

Thar has also been translated as qatil (the one who is killed). And when Allah is annexed to the word thar, it confers the meaning qatilullah (the one killed for Allah or in His way). The expression qatilu Allah has come in different ziyarat related to Imam al-Husayn (AS). For example in a Ziyarat taught by Imam al-Sadiq (AS) we address the Imam (AS) saying:

أَلسَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكَ يَا قَتِيلَ اللَّهِ وَابْنَ قَتِيلِهِ أَلسَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكَ يَا ثَارَ اللَّهِ وَابْنَ ثَارِهِ

Peace be unto you O martyr, the son of a martyr, peace be unto you, O blood of Allah, the son of the blood of Allah...16

Observe that the phrase ‘thar Allah wabna tharih’ has also come in this Ziyarat. Does it mean therefore that thar Allah has a different meaning from qatil Allah? Obviously in this place it is possible. However we can also take thar Allah as an emphasis of qatil Allah. In our case, i.e. in Ziyarat ‘Ashura’, however, it is possible that this phrase would like to confer the meaning of both the phrases depicted in the above quotation. And Allah is All-Knowing.

وَابْنَ ثَارِه

And the offspring of the blood of Allah

This phrase talks about Imam ‘Ali (AS) also occupying the exalted station of thar Allah. Perhaps it would like us to know that Imam al-Husayn (AS) being the product (ibn) of a thar Allah inherited the same appellation from his father.

Notes

1. Muhammad Husayn Rukhshad, Dar Mahzare ‘Allameye Tabataba`i, p. 177

2. Habibullah Kashani, Sharhu Ziyarat ‘Ashura`, p. 45

3. Sayyid Mahdi Mir Baqiri, Sabr-e-Jamil Sayr o Suluk ba ‘Ashura`, pp. 75-76

4. Ibn Qulawayh, Kamil al-Ziyarat, v.1, p. 216

5. Al-Bahrani, Al-Burhan fi Tafsir al-Qur`an, v.3, p. 528

6. Al-Mashhadi, al-Mazar, p. 579

7. Habibullah Kashani, Sharhu Ziyarat ‘Ashura`, p. 45

8. Imam Khumayni, Glosses on the Commentary of Fusus al-Hikam, pp. 281-282

9. Shaykh al-Kulayni, Al-Kafi, v.1, p. 145

10. ‘Allama Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, v.25, p. 384

11. Shaykh al-Bahrani, Al-Burhan fi Tafsir al-Qur`an, v.2, p. 662

12. Ayatullah Muhammad Ridha Rabbani, Jalawat-e-Rabbani, v.1, p.305

13. Muhammad Husayn Rukhshad, Dar Mahzare ‘Allameye Tabataba`i, p. 177

14. One should not misconceive such kind of unity being a kind of compositional unity (ittihad) or incarnation (hulul); far is Allah from every kind of deficiency whatsoever. Those endowed with a sharp vision say that such a state is nothing but ‘the unveiling of the reality.’ The utterly submissive human being understands that he is nothing but an action of Allah.

15. Mawla al-Naraqi, Mathnawi-e-Taqdis, p. 273

16. ‘Allama Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, v.98, p. 151

Chapter 6: The Exceptionally Unique

الْوِتْرَ الْمَوْتُورَ

The Exceptionally Unique

Commentary

الْوِتْرَ الْمَوْتُورَ

The Exceptionally Unique

The original meaning of al-witr in the Arabic language is al-fard (single) and man la thaniya lah (one who does not have a second)’1 . And al-mawtur which is an adjective of al-witr also means the same, but is brought as an emphasis2 in this case. A similar example3 has come in the Qur`an with regard to hijr (forbidden) and mahjur (prohibited), the latter being an emphasis of the former:

يَوْمَ يَرَوْنَ الْمَلاَئِكَةَ لاَ بُشْرَى يَوْمَئِذٍ لِّلْمُجْرِمِينَ وَيَقُولُونَ حِجْرًا مَّحْجُورًا

On the day when they shall see the angels, there shall be no joy on that day for the guilty, and they shall say: It is a forbidden thing totally prohibited. (25:22)

And in the well-known supplication of al-Sabah, Amir al-mu’minin ‘Ali (AS) tries to emphasize al-layl (the night) with the adjective al-alyal (nightly):

صَلِّ اللَّهُمَّ عَلَى الدَّلِيلِ إِلَيْكَ فِي اللَّيْلِ الأَلْيَل وَالْمَاسِكِ مِنْ أَسْبَابِكَ بِحَبْلِ الشَّرَفِ الأَطوَل

Bless, oh Allah, the guide to You in the darkest night, him who, of Thy ropes, clings to the cord of the longest nobility...4

Some scholars opine5 that al-witr refers to Imam al-Husayn (AS)’s unique spiritual status which the Holy Prophet (S) and the Infallible Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS) also possess. Hence, in relation to the rest of the creation an infallible leader (al-imam al-ma’sum) the like of Imam al-Husayn (AS) occupies a unique station, and hence is al-witr al-mawtur.

Amir al-mu’minin ‘Ali (AS) describing an Infallible Imam as:

لاَ يُوجَدُ لَهُ مَثِيلٌ وَلاَ يَقُومُ لَهُ بَدِيل

He is peerless, no substitute can represent him.6

And in another tradition, Imam al-Ridha (AS) describing the qualities of an infallible Imam, says:

الإِِمَامُ وَاحِدُ دَهْرِهِ لاَ يُدَانِيهِ أَحَدٌ

The Imam is unique in his time. None can come closer to him in rank...7

We may also say that Imam al-Husayn (AS) is a manifestation of the Divine Name al-Witru. The Holy Prophet (S), after speaking about the Divine Names, is reported to have said:

إِنَّهُ وِتْرٌ، يُحِبُّ الوِتْرَ

Surely He [Allah] is Unique, and He Loves the unique8

Expounding the meaning of Ya Witru in his commentary on the supplication of al-Jawshan al-Kabir, Mulla Hadi Sabzawari says:

( يَا وِتْرُ) ايْ انه الوجود الصرف البسيط الذى لا يخالطه سنخ اخر من ماهية أو مادة أو قوة أو استعداد

Ya Witru means that He is Sheer Existence, which is Simple [Non-composite], and nothing accompanies it like quiddity (mahiyya), matter (madda), potentiality (quwwa) or potential (isti’dad)...9

The corollary of being ‘sheer existence’ (al-wujud al-sirf) and ‘non-compositeness’ (al-basata) is uniqueness. This is because it is impossible for a non-composite entity to have a second. Hence, no entity can be likened to His Sacred Essence, nor can any entity be compared to Him.

Imam ‘Ali (AS) explaining the meaning of the phrase Allahu Akbar says:

يَعْنِيْ اَلْوَاحِدُ الاَحَدُ الَّذِيْ لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ لاَ يُقَاسُ بِشَيْءٍ

It means that He is One, Non-composite, the like of which there is nothing, and nothing can be compared to Him...10

The Ahl al-Bayt (AS), being the most perfect manifestations of the Divine Names, enjoy such an exalted station near Allah, that none can be compared to them. They undoubtedly are manifestations of the Divine Name al-Witr, which means مَنْ لاَ ثَانِيَ لَهُ (One who does not have a second). In a tradition narrated from Zurara, Imam al-Baqir (AS) says:

وَإِنَّا لاَ نُوصَفُ وَكَيْفَ يُوصَفُ قَوْمٌ رَفَعَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمُ الرِّجْسَ وَهُوَ الشَّك

And surely we cannot be described, and how can a people be described from whom Allah has removed impurity, which is doubt...11

Apparently the doubt that is spoken about in this tradition is related to the realities of the Creator and His creation. The Ahl al-Bayt (AS), due to their lofty spiritual status, transcend the lower levels of conviction and enjoy the level of haqq al-yaqin or even higher. Therefore the absence of doubt should not be conjectured to be merely in the conceptual level.

الْوِتْرَ الْمَوْتُورَ

The Exceptionally Unique

Some commentators give the possibility that this verse refers to Imam al-Husayn (AS)’s uniqueness with regard to everyone, including Prophet Muhammad (S) and the other members of his infallible progeny (AS). This however is not because his spiritual station is higher than theirs, for all of them unite in the Muhammadan Light (al-Nur al-Muhammadi). In a conversation with Salman and Jundub, Imam ‘Ali (AS) says:

اَنَا اُحْيِي وَاُمِيْتُ بِاِذْنِ رَبّيْ، اَنَا اُنَبّئُكُمْ بِمَا تَاْكُلُوْنَ وَمَا تَدّخِرُوْنَ فِيْ بُيُوْتِكُمْ بِاِذْنِ رَبّيْ، وَاَنَا عَالِمٌ بِضَمَائِرِ قُلُوْبِكُمْ وَالأئِمّة مِنْ اَوْلاَدِيْ يَعْلَمُوْنَ وَيَفْعَلُوْنَ هَذَا إِذَا اَحَبُّوْا وَاَرَادُوْا لاَنّا كُلّنَا وَاحِدٌ، اَوَّلُنَا مُحَمّدٌ وَآخِرُنَا مُحَمّدٌ وَاَوْسَطنَا مُحَمَّدٌ وَكُلّنَا مُحَمّدٌ فَلاَتُفَرِّقُوْا بَيْنَنَا

I revive the dead, and make the living ones die by my Lord’s permission; I can inform you about what you eat and what you store in your homes by my Lord’s permission; and I know what is hidden in your hearts; and the Imams from my progeny (AS) can [also] know this and do the aforesaid if they desired and wanted, because all of us are one: the first among us is Muhammad, the middle one among us is Muhammad, the last among us is Muhammad, and all of us are Muhammad; therefore do not differentiate between us.12

The reason, as some great scholars like the late ‘Allama al-Tabataba`i13 and Ayatullah Sa’adat Parwar (may Allah elevate their noble spirits) expound14 , why Imam al-Husayn (AS) occupies a unique station, is his utilization of the greater opportunity to manifest his perfect qualities by carrying out his great movement and sacrificing everything he had for the sake of the Only Beloved. The Holy Qur`an says that for everyone are stations according to what they did:

وَلِكُلٍّ دَرَجَاتٌ مِّمَّا عَمِلُوا وَلِيُوَفِّيَهُمْ أَعْمَالَهُمْ وَهُمْ لاَ يُظْلَمُونَ

And for all are degrees according to what they did, and that He may pay them back fully their deeds and they shall not be wronged. (46:19)

If the other Imams (AS) faced the same conditions that Imam al-Husayn (AS) had encountered, they too would have done what he did. The opportunity however was gifted to Imam al-Husayn (AS) and accordingly he acquired a station that is unparalleled. The following tradition refers to a unique station for Imam al-Husayn (AS):

رُوِيَ عَنِ الرَّسُوْلِ الاَعْظَمِ قَالَ لِزَوْجَتِهِ اُمّ سَلَمَة: اَوْحي اللهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ إلَيَّ اَنَّ لَهُ (اَيْ لِلْحُسَيْنِ) دَرَجَةً لاَ يَنَالُهَا اَحَدٌ مِنَ الْمَخْلُوْقِيْنَ

The Most Noble Messenger (S) said to his wife Umm Salama: Allah Revealed unto me that verily he (al-Husayn) has a station which none of the creation would attain.15

And Imam al-Husayn (AS) just before his departure from Madina sees the Prophet (S) in his dream saying to him:

وَ إِنَّ لَكَ فِي الْجَنَّةِ دَرَجَاتٍ لاَ تَنَالُهَا إِلاَ بِالشَّهَادَة

And indeed you have stations in the Paradise that you shall not attain save with martyrdom.16

A Peerless Contingent Being

In his masterpiece Jalawat-e-Rabbani Ayatullah Muhammad Ridha Rabbani (may Allah elevate his spirit) believes and tries to establish that Imam al-Husayn (AS) is a peerless contingent being (mumkin al-wujud bila sharik). At one place he says: In our book Tawhid-e-Rabbani we have comprehensively explained the meaning of the magnificent name Allah. One of its meanings is, “aliha al-khalq ‘an darki ma’iyyatih wal ihata bikayfiyyatih” (The creation is baffled in comprehending His whatness and apprehending His howness)17 , which the cleaver of the knowledge of the disciplines of the foremost and latter ones and the fifth brilliant star of Divine Leadership and Guardianship, Hadhrat Imam al-Baqir (AS) has mentioned. Imam al-Baqir (AS) has said that Allah is that God before Whose Essence and Attributes the intellects of the entire creation are bewildered, confounded and mystified.

Sa’di, the Persian poet says:

جهان متفق بر الهيتش

فرو مانده در كنه ماهيتش

The entire creation is unanimous in his Godhood

Unable to apprehend the Essence of His Being

Thereafter Rabbani says that Imam al-Husayn (AS), who is a manifestation of the Name Allah, likewise, confounds the intellects and overcomes the human beings with perplexity and amazement.

فيك يا أعجوبة الكون غدا الفكر كليلاً. أنت حيّرت ذوي اللب وبلبلت العقولا

O the marvel of existence, the intellect is exhausted in You; You confounded people of insight and confused the intellects

اين حسين كيست كه عالم همه ديوانه اوست

اين چه شمعي است كه جانها همه پروانه اوست

Who is this Husayn, that the entire world is mad after him; What candle is this, that all the souls are its moth(s)?

Imam Husayn (AS) not only puzzled and astounded the human world and realm of humanity, but also made the most exalted angels and the residents of the Divine throne as well as the entire chain of the sacred intellects, astonished at his display of intense love and self-sacrifice in the path of the Eternal and Infinite Beloved.18

الْوِتْرَ الْمَوْتُورَ

The martyr, whose near ones have been killed, but their blood have not been avenged for

Lexicologists like al-Turayhi in his Majma’ al-Bahrayn, have defined the word mawtur as one whose near one has been unjustly killed but his blood has not been avenged for as yet19 . And since he is mawtur, he necessarily is the tha’ir (avenger of the blood) as well. Muhammad bin Muslima in the battle of Khaybar employs a similar expression when he tells the Holy Prophet (S):

أَنَا الْمَوْتُوْرُ الثَّائِرُ

I am one whose kin has been unjustly killed but his blood not yet avenged, and I am the avenger.20

The word witr also signifies ‘the blood that has been spilled unjustly’21 . Therefore when we address Imam al-Husayn (AS) as al-witr al-mawtur we mean he is the martyr whose near ones and companions were unjustly killed, but their blood has not been avenged for. Hence he is the avenger of their blood.

Some commentators opine that if we consider the Imam (AS) to be the one who would avenge the blood of his near ones, then that would transpire during his return to this world (raj’a). With regard to raj’a, Hamran narrates from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (AS):

إِنَّ أَوَّلَ مَنْ يَرْجِعُ لَجَارُكُمُ الْحُسَيْنُ فَيَمْلِكُ حَتَّى تَقَعَ حَاجِبَاهُ عَلَى عَيْنَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِبَرِ

Indeed the first one to return is your refuge al-Husayn (AS), who will rule [for so many years] until his eyebrows would hang over his eyes, out of old age.22

الْوِتْرَ الْمَوْتُورَ

The Alone who was Rendered Solitary

Sometimes the word witr is translated as ‘alone’, whereas the word mawtur as ‘one whose relation is slain, and so is separated from him and rendered solitary’.23 Imam al-Husayn (AS) was rendered solitary after he lost his near ones and noble companions and stood alone to fight against the forces of evil.

Some analysts of this radiant Ziyarat believe that the enemies of Islam right from the time of the Holy Prophet (S) planned how to isolate and make people be indifferent of the household of the Holy Prophet (S). The word al-witr can also allude to this situation that the Imam (AS) experienced. Therefore he was the lonely one, whose relation was slain and who was rendered solitary.

We must understand that the Imam (AS), due to his sublime rank was even lonelier than his companions and family members in the plains of Karbala. The station of Imamate is unique and has no parallel. In this sense he was not only from the strangers (ghuraba’) like his companions, but also gharib al-ghuraba’ (the stranger of the strangers). In a Ziyarat narrated from Imam al-Sadiq (AS) we address Imam al-Husayn (AS) as follows:

السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكَ يَا غَرِيبَ الْغُرَبَاء

Peace be unto you, o stranger of the strangers.24

In this state of intense ghurba, the enemies did not spare the lives of his noble family members and companions, and rendered him solitary and alone. It is in these moments that he cried from the depths of his heart:

هَلْ مِنْ نَاصِرٍ يَنْـصُرُ الذُّرِّيَّةَ الأَطهَار، هَلْ مِنْ مُجْيْرٍ لأَبْـنَاءِ الْبَتُوْلِ، هَــلْ مِنْ ذَابٍّ يَذُبُّ عَنْ حَرَمِ الرَّسُوْلِ ؟

Is there any helper to help the immaculate progeny? Is there any protector for the children of al-Batul (AS)? Is there any defender to guard the sanctuary of the Messenger of Allah?

Perhaps Imam al-Husayn (AS) summed up his message to his lovers in these short, but very meaningful expressions. The call was made to ‘the future’ and every receptive heart can hear it every moment. Imam al-Husayn (AS) was the epitome of Islam, and his call was the call for the emancipation of Islam. If we are receptive enough to hear his call, then every step of ours must be geared towards assiting Islam. If we struggle to eradicate sin and try to perfect ourselves as well as others and revive Islam, then we do respond to his call. Otherwise we should not be surprised if we also rank among those who left him alone. May Allah protect us from being among those who leave him alone.

الْوِتْرَ الْمَوْتُورَ

The Alone and Deprived

Sometimes the word al-mawtur is employed to mean ‘one who is deprived’ (al-manqus). The following tradition of the Holy Prophet (S) is translated taking this meaning into consideration:

الْمَوْتُورُ أَهْلُهُ وَمَالُهُ مَنْ ضَيَّعَ صَلاَةَ الْعَصْرِ

One who is deprived of his family and wealth is one who wastes the prayer of ‘Asr25

Therefore if we take the word witr to mean ‘alone’, the phrase would mean ‘the alone who was deprived of his hometown, family and wealth’.

Notes

1. Sayyid Husayn al-Hamadani, Sharh al-Asma’ al-Husna, p.143

2. This variable has been discussed by great scholars like al-Naraqi in his Mushkilat al-Akhbar (p. 301) and al-Shubbar in his Masabih al-Anwar (p. 341). ‘Allama al-Tabataba`i also translated al-witr al-mawtur as ‘the unique one’ (Rukhshad, Dar Mahzar-e-’Allameye Tabataba’i, p. 184)

3. Other examples that have come in Arabic literature are: bardun barid, shi’run sha’ir, etc.

4. ‘Allama al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, v. 84, p. 339

5. I heard this opinion from Ayatullah Ansari Shirazi, from whom I would study the 9th volume of the magnum opus al-Asfar of Mulla Sadra.

6. ‘Allama al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, v. 25, pp. 169-170

7. Shaykh al-Kulayni, Al-Kafi, v.1, p. 201

8. ‘Allama al-Tabataba`i, al-Mizan, v.8, p. 359

9. Mulla Hadi Sabzawari, Sharh al-Asma’ al-Husna, p. 722

10. Shaykh al-Saduq, ‘Ilal al-Shara’i`, v.2, p. 320

11. Shaykh al-Kulayni, al-Kafi, v.2, p. 182

12. ‘Allama al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, v.26, p.6

13. Muhammad Husayn Rukhshad, Dar Mahzare ‘Allameye Tabataba’i, p. 184

14. Ayatullah Sa’adat Parwar, Furugh-e-Shahadat, p.40

15. ‘Allama al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, v. 44, p.225

16. ‘Allama al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, v. 58, p.182

17. ‘Allama al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, v.3, p. 222

18. Ayatullah Muhammad Ridha Rabbani, Jalawat-e-Rabbani, v.1, pp. 278-279.

19. Shaykh al-Turayhi, Majma’ al-Bahrayn, v.4, p. 463

20. Al-Zubaydi, Taj al-’Arus, v.7, p. 582

21. Mirza Tehrani, Shifa’al-Sudur, p. 165

22. ‘Allama al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, v.53, p.43

23. Al-Zubaydi, Taj al-’Arus, v. 7, p.583

24. ‘Allama al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, v.98, p.230

25. ‘Allama al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, v.80, p.28

PartTwo : The History of the Inroad of Nationalism in the Islamic World

Nationalism as an imported school

Nationalism is an importedschool which has been exported by exploiting powers to disturb the unity of the Islamic world. Some Western thinkers andOrientalists who have always strived to introduce Western political and cultural colonization in Asia and Africa, provided the ground for its rise and the so-called enlightened groups depending on the West acted as its banner-bearers, propounding this school of thought.

Western colonizing governments have always considered the unity of the world of Islam, which they call “Pan-Islamism", a potential danger to their political and economic interests. At the end of the 19th century, inspired by the ideas ofSayyid Jamal-al-Din and Sultan AbdulHamid , there started talks about the unity of world Muslims, and the union and solidarity of the Turks and Arabs in the Ottoman Empire prevented the inroad of Western values and ideals in the critical and strategic Middle East zone.

Colonizing powers felt the danger and adopted apolicy which unfortunately proved effective. This was the infusion of the idea of nationalism and the awakening of national sentiments among the Arabs and Turks in order to check “Pan-Islamism” and thereby divide the great Ottoman Empire, and replace the declining influence of the Ottomans by the power of Western colonization.

It is noteworthy that nationalism rose first, not in the Muslimlands which were under British and French domination, but in regions which formed part of the Ottoman Empire. InIndia which was a British colony, such Westernized intellectuals as SirSayyid Ahmad Khan found no need to rely on nationalism, national andxenophobian sentiments and were still occupied with the thought of economic and educational improvement of the Muslims. They even took an opposing stand against the nationalism of the Hindu Congress Party.In Algeria and Sudan too, it was Islam that stood in the persons of theMahdi Sudanese and Algerian Abdul-Qader against colonization, but there was no sign of nationalism. In Indonesia and Malaysia and Muslim lands of the Far East, too, which were directly under British and French domination, Westernized intellectuals believed there was no need to rouse nationalistic feelings.

On the other hand, these intellectuals who were dependent on colonization, raised the cry of nationalism in the lands of the Ottoman Empire, namely Turkey, Egypt and the Arab lands in order to overthrow the Ottoman rule and pave the way for their own influence and expansion.

This historical fact clearly shows that those who sympathized with nationalism in Islamic lands did not claim independence out of xenophobia, butwere motivated by something quite different. They were in fact, the surrogates of Western colonizers whocould be used to break up Islamic unity and weaken or destroy the Ottoman Empire. We see now, why in the Iran of that time, the westernized intellectuals did not so strongly support the idea of nationalism aswas done in Turkey, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon by their allies, since Iran did not form part of the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, at that time, Iran had little connectionwith the world of Islam owing to the excessive reliance of theQajar kings on the prejudicial differences between theShi'a and Sunni sects, and colonial powers did not think it probable that Iran would join the great union of world Muslims. Therefore, they felt secure and all their effortswere directed at making the western culture and system bear root in Iran, and prevent a religious government from assuming power so, in Iran, the emphasis was laid on the question of the constitution, Western democracy and liberal thoughts of the West. In the works ofTaleboff andMirza KhanKermani , we see much less of nationalism and national unity than in those of their Arab and Turkish counterparts. The focal point of discussion was the 'constitution', Western liberalism and the necessity of casting aside religious thoughts and principles, and copying European culture1 .

Why were the Muslim lands of Istanbul, Cairo and 'Beirut preoccupied with the idea of nationalism? Why was this longing for nationalism at the end of the 19th century concurrent with the height of colonial expansion? Why did the Arabs and Turks, the targets of nationalism, confront each other? Why was there no talk of British or French colonialism? Why did nationalistic sentiments become popular in the realm of the Ottoman Empire, but not in those countries invaded by Western colonialism? Why is it that following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire,as a result of intense nationalistic sentiments, colonialism rapidly succeeded in swallowing the Middle East? Answers to these questionsmay be found in the wide dimension of Western colonial interference for the creation and expansion of nationalism in the world of Islam.

Napoleon and Frenchmen as pioneers of Egyptian Nationalism

In Islamiccountries nationalism took birth in the 19th century. The firstcountries which fell victim to it were Egypt and Turkey. Napoleon's invasion of Egypt was a turning point in the history of the Islamic world and the beginning of Westernization. During the brief stay of the French in Egypt, Western ideas had found their way amidst Egyptian intellectuals. The contact of such Egyptian scholars as AbdulRahman Jabarti , Sheikh Hassan Attar etc. with the men of learning that Napoleon had brought with him to Egypt, and the encouragement given by the French, roused the desire in some self-sold Egyptians to walk in step with the West. This point can explain why the spirit of nationalism rose first in Egypt to prepare the ground for its separation from the Ottoman Empire sooner than other lands belonging to it. Most probably, as the French were openly fighting the Empire of the Turkish Muslims and inherited the anti-Islamic prejudices from the crusaders and men like Charlemagne, they began sooner than others to break up Islamic unity and destroy the Ottoman Empire, by rousing Egyptian nationalism, in the same way as the British did with Arab lands.

In order to revive Egyptian nationalism and rouse the pride of the Egyptians of their past, Napoleon established an institution called the “Egyptian Foundation”, a sham scientific society supposedly for research in ancient Egyptian history and culture, but which in reality aimed at revivingEgyptianism against the idea of Islamic unity, and at undermining Islamic inclinations forcing a gap between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire. It was through this Foundation that some distinguished French men of learning such as Clot,Cerisy ,Linant andRousset were dispatched to Egypt2 , whose objective, as we may guess, was to help the Egyptians discover their ancientPharaonic culture and to acquaint them with French culture on which they were encouraged to frame their lives and policies.

Sylvestre deSacy and other French scholars wrote books on the magnificence of Egyptian civilization, and Egyptian nationalists such asTahtavi discovered the splendor of their ancient civilization and cultural independence through DeSacy's book, “Nationality3 ”.

It was probably through French influence that Muhammad Ali declared his independence from the Ottoman Empire and for the first time raised the question of Arab unity. Western missionaries, too, were very active. Between 1863 and 1879, no less thanseventy seven French, American, Italian and German schools were opened in Egypt.

Following all these efforts at colonization, a westernized intellectual class rose as the banner-bearer of Egyptian nationality, insisting upon the following of Western civilization.Defa'at -al-Tahtavi (1801-1873) was the first of these men. He stayed in Paris for five years andhaving been indoctrinated with French ideas, he returned to Egypt to propoundMontesquieu's thoughts on the nation and the country.

Tahtavi in his well-known book, “Manahej ” and other works made recurrent use of words like 'homeland' and 'patriotism', words which were not so popular till then among the Egyptians, in the concept of Western nationalism. He declared that the Egyptians were a nation apart from other Muslims, and the core of their love and loyalty should be their 'homeland'. He tried to prove that nationalism is not compatible with Islam, but this was a futile and hypocritical effort. This pioneer of nationalism considered the reason for the decadence of Egypt to be the rule of non-Egyptian Muslims such as theMameluks .But at the same time, he shamelessly spoke of the French and Westerners in general, not as a symbol of greed for the world, but as representatives of science, civilization and culture, and suggested that Egypt should follow the West4 .

Another pioneer of Egyptian nationalism wasYaghoub Zow'e , whose father was a Jew and mother, an Italian. He lived in Paris for a long time and was a French agent. In Paris, he published the journal, 'EI-Vatan -el-Mesri ' (Egyptian homeland) to propagate nationalism. He was a founder of Egyptian nationalism5 and had a close friendship with Cromer, the English governor of Egypt.

Taha Hossain was another Westernized Egyptian nationalist. He attempted in his book, 'EI-Mostaqbel -el-Thaqafe ', to prove that Egypt has no connection whatsoever with the world of Islam, but that it has instead, a strong bond with Europe.

In the time ofTaha Hossain , nationalist forces led by theWafd Party became a determining factor in Egyptian politics.Sa'ed Zaghlool , leader of theWafd party and other nationalist politicians were British pawns who considered political independence only as a means of becoming Europeanized progressives and found it in the acceptance of Western values.

This was an account of the rise and spread of nationalism in Egypt, showing how Westerners sowed the seed of nationalism and irrigated it.

Three Jews as inspirers of Turkish nationalism

Turkey was another of the first Islamic countries where the school of nationalism found its way. Bernard Lewis, the well-knownorientalist , confesses that three European Jews inspired the spirit of nationalism in Turkey6 .

The first person who tried hard to kindle the flame of Turkish nationalism was Arthur Lumley David (1811-1832). He was an English Jew who traveled to Turkey and wrote a book called, 'Preliminary Discourses' in which he tried to show how the Turks were a distinguished and independent race, superior to the Arabs and other oriental races.

Lewis writes: “The book of this English Jew made the Turks imaginethemselves as having a distinct nationality and independence.” Before the spread and indoctrination of Western ideas, no signis seen of nationalism in the Ottoman, Empire. Even until the beginning of the present century, the Turks did not consider the Arabs as aliens, and the Arabs looked upon the Turks in the same way. The Arabs were content to be included in the Ottoman Empireon account of being of the same religion, and the Turks respected them because of their culture, and knowledge of Arabic was considered a sign of learning.Even a Sultan like Abdul-Hamid was surrounded by Arab counselors in his court, the likes ofAbol-Hoda andEzzat Pasha . In the revolution of 1908 againstAbdul-Hamid there were at least two Arab officers, named Aziz AliMesri andMahmood Showkat Pasha among the leaders. But the book of the said Jew gradually convinced some self-sold and dependent intellectuals and politicians like the leaders of the" Young Turks» movement of the superiority of the Turkish race.

In 1851,Fu'ad andJowdat Pasha translated most of David's writings into Turkish. In 1869, another writer, AliSavi , published a treatise in Turkish which was an imitation of David's, speaking of the glorious past of the Turkish race. This was one of the first writings in which nationalism was propounded and it was somethingquite unprecedented in the Ottoman Empire.As Lewis says: “Thus the Turks discovered their nationality through the West and copied the writings of the Westerners7 .”

David Leon Cohen, a Jewish French writer was another man who greatly contributed to the expansion of Turkish nationalism. In 1899, he published a book called "IntroductionGenerale a l'Histoire de L' Asie8 ”. In this book, he writes of the racial superiority of the Turks and of their epical records in history. This bookwas translated into Turkish in the first decade of the 10th century in a large number. Prof.Khadouri and Bernard Lewis believe that the said Jew inspired the Pan- Turkism of 'Young Turks' who started a revolution in 1908.

In addition to the above book, Cohen published several epical stories on the past glories of the Turks. Clearly, the main aim of this Jew in his eulogy of the Turkish race was to rouse their racial prejudices and weaken their bond with other Muslim nations. He was not content with writing only, but also formed societies of exiled Turks and Egyptians in Paris and tried to lay the foundation of nationalistic movements in those countries9 .

But the person who had the greatest role in the creation of Turkish and Arab nationalism, was the famousorientalist , ArminiusVambery (1832-1918), the son of a Jewish Hungarian priest. He published many works on the necessity for the revival of Turkish nationality,language and literature. His works intensely captivated the attention of Westernized, so-called enlightened Turks and incited their patriotism. He was closely acquainted with the Turkishstatesmen and politicians of the first rank10 .

One of the main aims of the Jews in inciting nationalistic sentiments was to pave the way for the occupation of Palestine. The Jews in their unsuccessful contact with Sultan Abdul-Hamid to secure Palestinian territories for Jewishemigrants, came to the conclusion that the only way to fulfill their dream was to overthrow Abdul-Hamid and break up Islam and Arab and Turkish unity. Under the cover of nationalism and through encouraging the creation of the 'Young Turks' movement, Zionism first succeeded in deposing Abdul-Hamid , imprisoninghim and laying the ground for inciting differences and enmity between the Turks and Arabs.

These plots of colonialism and Zionism gave birth to the 'Young Turks'movement which resulted in the revolution of 1908 and deposal of Abdul-Hamid . The “Young Turks” who executed the Zionist scheme, embarked on a 'Pan- Turkish' policy based on a belief in the superiority of the Turks. So they adopted an anti-Arab stand, closed down Arab cultural societies and began acts of discrimination against the Arabs and non- Turks, a conduct which was in line with the direct plots of British colonialism in rousing Arab nationalism.

ThusZionism and imperialism and their discrimination towards the Arabs on the one hand, and inciting Arab nationalism and their opposition to the Turks on the other. Until this time, the Arabs did not consider themselves a separate race.But as the Turks were seeking the superiority of Turkish culture over other cultures, the Arabs, too, insisted upon their own independent identity. It was the racial and nationalistic policies of Young Turks that kindled the flame of Arab nationalism-a matter, which as we shall see,was directly supported by the British11 .

After the revolution of 1908, the “Young Turks” expanded Turkish nationalism by force and by propagation through the mass media. Moreover, the repeated blows inflicted upon Turkey by Arab countries, together with the extension of western education and dispatch of students to Europe, intensified Turkish nationalistic frenzy. Even some Muslim thinkers asNamek Kamal (1840-1888), Zia Pasha (1825-1880) andJowdat Pasha (1823-1898), tried hard to blend Islam with nationalism-an idea which was doomed from the very beginning since these two schools are incompatible. The progressive advance of nationalism and colonization at last led to the rise of Ata Turk accompanied by his anti-Islamic policy.

With him, Turkey becametotally dependent on the West, exactly what the Satanic West wanted. The Western intellectual class continued to promote thisschool which was now supported by the bayonets of Ata Turk and his successors. ZiaGukalp (1876-1942), the greatest theoretician of the Turkish nationalist school, was a well- known personality of the west who busied himself copying Western ideas and culture, both of which he made the core of his ideology. Turkish nationalism resulted at last in the membership of Turkey in the NATO, thereby surrendering its political and cultural independence.

This was then an account of the rise and advance of nationalism in Turkey.

$$SUB[ British Colonialism, the Banner-bearer of Arab Nationalism]

4- British Colonialism, the Banner-bearer of Arab Nationalism.

Nationalism was nowhere tobe seen in the Arab countries before the inroad of Western ideas and colonial influence.

Arab lands gradually came under the domination of the Ottoman Empire from the 16th century onward, and a unitywas established between almost all parts of the Muslim Middle East (excluding Iran). All through the Ottoman rule, until the beginning of the 20th century, the Arabs had no feeling of alienation towards the Turks, and were perfectly content with the unity that existed between Turkish and Arab lands. They considered the Ottoman Sultan, the rightful ruler of the Muslims, and the Ottomans, too, showed no discrimination towards the Arabs. They chose the governor of each Arab zone (with the title ofNaghib ) from among the people of the same zone.

French colonization was the first to sow the seeds of nationalism and the separation of Egypt, tobe followed by the deceitful and mischievous creation of Turkish nationalism by Imperialism and Zionism in the form of the 'Young Turks' movement and leading for the first time to discrimination of Arabs by them.

Concurrently, colonial powers especially Britain roused the racial and nationalistic sentiments of the Arabs through Christian Arab missionaries and Western intellectuals.

After Egypt, the pioneers of Arab nationalism were Syria,Lebanon and Jordan. Missionaries were most active in these regions. Members of the Jesuit Catholic sect from 1830 and Protestants from 1820 entered Syria. The giant Christian society became the agent for executing the plot of colonization. Christian Arabs regarded Western penetration to their own interests, and looked at French and British colonization as a refuge against the Muslims.They were very sensitive about the expansion of the idea of the universal IslamicUmmah , since such a unity would place them in a minority, whereas having nationalism as the basis of unity would not only prevent their being considered a minority (since in such a unity all are Arabs -not Muslims and Christians), but being ahead of the Muslims as far as Western education was concerned and trusted by colonial powers, they hoped to assume the rein of affairs. From the beginning, Christian Arabs sought the aid of Western governments against Muslim Arabs, as was the case in the Civil War of 1860 when they invited the Europeans for a campaign in Lebanon.But this method did not solve the Christians' problem in the long run since it roused the cynicism of the Muslims.Therefore on the suggestion of their colonial masters they resorted to the importation of the creed of nationalism.

One of the clearest examples wasNajib Azouri , a founder of Arab nationalism. He was an agent of both France and England. In 1904 in Paris, he published a book named “LeReveil de la NationArabe ”. He further formed a society by the name of “Ligue de laPatrie Arabe ”, and published a monthly journal named, “L 'independenceArabe ”, as an organ of the union. In its publication, an employee of the French Foreign Ministry named Eugene Lung, collaborated closely with him. Lung as a servant of French colonialism wrote a book named “LaRevolte Arabe”12 , in which he praised the Arab race. One of the points repeatedly stressed in this book was the racial,cultural and political differences between the Arabs and Turks, and occasional reference to the superiority of the Arabs over the Turks and the necessity of segregating the Arabs from the Ottoman Empire. To bothAzouri and Lung, three revolutions would be necessary to destroy the Ottoman Empire: An Arab revolution, a Kurdishrevolution and an Armenian revolution13 .

Azouri's views on international politics, too, show his dependence on Britain and France. Against the Turks, he sought the friendship of Britain, and supported the pro British party of MuhammadWahidi and pro-British dailies such as “El-Haghtatem ” and “El-Watan ”. He regarded the power ofGermany which supported the Ottoman Empire a danger to human society, and considered the governments of France and Britain as the banner-bearers of justice in the world, and encouraged these two colonizing powers to interfere in the Ottoman's internal affairs in favor of the Arabs. He volunteered to start a revolution within the Ottoman Empire in cooperation with lung, with the aid of British and French capital and weapons. Dr.Hamid Enayat writes:

Azouri expressed his loyalty and obedience to Britain and France and introduced himself as the supporter of their interests in the East, and said: 'The French should assist and tell us what they want from us14 .”

Azouri as a founder of Arab nationalism was dependent on the French and British governments and was in their service15 .

BesidesAzouri , there were such men asPetros Bostani ,Nasif al-Yazeji , Ibrahim al-Yazeji ,Nofel ,Salim Nofel ,Mikhael Shamhada ,Sem'een Kalhoun ,Gerges Fayyaz ,Rastan Dameshghia and many other Christian enlightened men depending on colonial powers, who tried to incite and expand Arab nationalism. These men did their utmost to convince the Arabs that they were a distinct race, superior to other Muslim nations. They deliberately misinterpreted history to attain this objective and presented Islam, Islamic culture and civilization as being originally Arabic- a matterwhich was a great treason to the intellect. Their arguments and ways to prove Arab nationality came from Western culture and thought.

Arab nationalism was reflected in two ways: firstly by emphasis on Egyptian, Syrian,Iraqi and other nationalities, and secondly by emphasis on Arab unity, or the Arab race.

During the World War I, the British government decided to enter the arena in person and to openly support and guard Arab nationalism, turning the enmity between the Arabs and the Turks to its own interest. The rise of SharifHossain , grandfather of kingHossain of Jordan against the Turks in June 1916, whichis regarded as an objective desired by Arab nationalism, was the product of direct British meddling and intervention. The expansion of Arab nationalism against theOttomans, brought the British and French governments into the Arab zone, resulting in the creation of Israel as a cancerous tumor in the heart of the Arab land.

SharifHossain , as a pioneer of Arab rebellion against the Turks was a British agent, and the British were the greatest supporters of Arab independence from the Turkish yoke. The story of SharifHossain's collaboration with the British as a hero of Arab nationalism is very amazing. In 1914, direct contactwas made through Abdullah, son of SharifHossain and father of KingHossain , betweenKitchner , well-known English general, and Sharif.Some time after,Kitchner sent one of his high-ranking officers, named RonaldStors to visit Abdullah. At this time, the World War had begun andKitchner who was now British War Secretary, sent a message to Abdullah in October 1914 asking him to rise in rebellion for independence against the Turks.Kitchner promised to support the Arabs' efforts for independence, and even to transfer the Muslim Caliphate from the Turks to the Arabs and choose Sharif as the new caliph.

SharifHossain , this so-called reverend pro-British nationalist, carried out the plan of colonialism in the name of Arab independence, and at a time when Turkeywas entangled with the British and French, he made an assault upon the Turks rousing the Muslims against them and infavour of the British. McMahon, an English general, sent a letter to Sharif, the copy of which is in the archive of the British Foreign Office in which SharifHossain's roleis lauded as a determining factor in “the combat for independence by the valiant Arab nation.”

On July 21, 1915, Sharif sent a message to McMahon, asking for British support for the Arab demand for the caliphate. On June 10, 1916, the Arab national uprising, with the aid of British arms and munitions and military and political supportwas started , led by SharifHossain . T. E. Lawrence, an English government official, was the principal adviser to Feisal, son of Sharif, in this national Arab uprising. On one side, the Arab forces rushed upon the Turks, while on the other, in a perfectly coordinated operation, General Allen by, the British commander in Palestine took the lead in fighting. Thus the combat of the Arabs for independence incited bynationalism, was promoted under British military protection.

But while British and French colonizing powers tempted the Arabs into a war of independence, and while SharifHossain and Arab secret organizations such as El-Fetat and El-Ahad were actively executing the schemes of the colonial powers, Britain and France were secretly dividing the Arab zones among themselves. With the Treaty of Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration, they laid the ground for the division of Arab lands and creation of Israel as a country.

France occupied Algeria,Tunis and Morocco by inciting anti-Turkish feelings. Italy made Libya its colony, while Russia occupied parts of Armenia; Britain occupied Egypt, Cyprus, Aden, and the Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf, and then Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, culminating in the creation of the cancerous tumor, “Israel”, in the heart of the Arab world.

And that was the painful story of Arab nationalism, its creation and expansion.

Conclusion

It becomes clear then thatnationalism in Islamic lands was incited by the Westerners , with the British and French missionaries andOrientalists having a great share in it. Itwas then expanded by colonial plots and used by colonialism as a tool for breaking up Islamic unity and destroying the Ottoman Empire . In this connection, Christian and Jewish minorities and pro-Western intellectuals were the principal executors of these imperialistic plans. Almost all the banner-bearers and famous pioneers of nationalism in Islamic lands were those who copied the Western values and ideals.

With the inroad of Western ideals, words like 'homeland' and 'patriotism' became very popular with the Arabs,Turks and Iranians. Nationalism was the stealthy and motivated imitation of Western models, dictated by colonial powers, eventually resulting in the dependence of those countries upon the West or East. This fact that for many years the main supporters of Egyptian nationalism and Arab nationality and other Islamic nations were France and Britain is more eloquent than words. With those brilliant records of colonization, at present, the biggest supporter of nationalist forces of Turkey and Iran is the U.S., and the supporter of theBa’athists and some Arab countries is the Soviet Union.

The important question that arises is why the idea ofnationalism which penetrated Islamic lands through Western ideas and colonial plots, was welcomed by some sections of the Muslim masses and how did it expand?

Firstly, the masses could not see the difference between 'patriotism' and 'nationalism' and to their unconsciousmind, both concepts seemed to denote the same idea as that of Islamic 'Ummahism '. From the beginning, Islam had created a strong feeling of the 'Ummah ' and had divided the world into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War”. The masses believed nationalism to be the same as 'Ummahism ' and therefore welcomed it.

The reason was that even though the people sometimes spoke of nationalism, yet in practice, they regarded a Christian Egyptian and Coptic Egyptian beyond the sphere of nationality, and Turkish Armenians as aliens. Actually, to the masses, nationalism and IslamicUmmahism meantone and the same thing.

Secondly, contrary to the main pioneers of nationalism, who propagated itas a result of their dependence on colonial powers and the West, the masses manifested nationalistic sentiments in opposition to social tyranny or to the colonial influence of Britain and France. To the masses, nationalism was a sentiment, not a school, but to the Western, so-called enlightened class and politicians, it was an ideology and a political creed.

The third factor behind the growth of nationalism among the masses was the injustice of the selfish, pseudo-Muslimgovernments which inflicted oppression and torture upon the people. While the Ottoman Empire was on the brink of collapse, Turkish rulers like other selfish rulers of history treated their subordinates oppressively including not only the Arabsbut the Turkish peasants. After the Young Turks assumed power,tyranny and discrimination became prevalent, an outcome of Turkish nationalism, which led to a spread of nationalistic sentiments among the Arabs, of which colonialism made the utmost use. The most recent example of a country where nationalism isfully manifest , is Bangladesh, resulting from the tyrannical conduct of Pakistan's military dictators.

Notes

1. Refer to the books: “Andishehaye Mirza Aqa KhanKermani ”- (Thoughts ofMirza Aqa KhanKermani ) andAndisheye Mirza Fath -e AliAkhundzadeh -( Thought ofMirza Fateh -e AliAkhundzadeh ) byFereydoon Adamiat .

2. M.Sabry : L 'Empire Egyptian sour Mohammad Ali, p; 579, Paris, 1930.

3. Refer to the book: «Andisheye Arab"-( Arab thought) byHurani and “Tarikhe Andisheye Siasie Arab] -(The history of the Arab political thought) byHamid Enayat , p. 28.

4. For more information onTahtavi's nationalistic thoughts, refer to the book “Seiri dar Andisheye Siasie Arab”-( A survey of the Arab political thought) byHamid Enayat , p. 34-35.

5. Ditto, p. 46.

6. Bernard Lewis: Islam in History, London, 1973, p. 132.

7. Bernard Lewis: Islam in History, p. 132.

8. Refer to “Nationalism in Asia and Africa” byKhadouri , p.159.Khadouri has offered reasons and proved that the westerners are the founders of nationalism in. most third-world countries. Also refer to «Islam in History», by Bernard Lewis, p. 132.

9. Refer to Jewish Encyclopedia, an article byZodic Kahn, p. 61, and “Turkism and the Soviets” byHutler , p.141.

10. Concerning the role of David Cohen andVambery in the emergence and expansion of the Turkish nationalism refer to “History-Writing and national revival in Turkey” by Bernard Lewis and “The Development of secularism in Turkey" byNiazi Brex , Printed in Montreal, 1944, p. 314-315.

11. Concerning the role of Zionism and the westerners in the creation and expansion of the Turkish nationalism refer to:Mardin's “The Genesis of young Ottoman thought” a study in the modernization of Turkish political ideas (Princitton N.J. 1962, p. 250). HaroldBoven's British contribution to Turkish studies, London, 1945, p. 43-4.Also refer to “The Emergence of Arab Nationalism" byZein Nzein , p.71.

12.Elic Kedourie : The Politics of Political Literature in Middle East studies, vol. III No.2, May 1972, p.230.

13. Refer to “Al-Belad -ul -Arabiat -e-dulat -et-Uthmania ”, by Sateaal -Hasari ,Darul -Elmul-mulaeen , Beirut, 1960, p. 126.

14. “Seiri dar Andisheye Eslamie Arab”-(A survey of Arab Islamic Thought), pp. 234- 228.

15. George Antonius: “Arab Awakening", p. 99.

PartTwo : The History of the Inroad of Nationalism in the Islamic World

Nationalism as an imported school

Nationalism is an importedschool which has been exported by exploiting powers to disturb the unity of the Islamic world. Some Western thinkers andOrientalists who have always strived to introduce Western political and cultural colonization in Asia and Africa, provided the ground for its rise and the so-called enlightened groups depending on the West acted as its banner-bearers, propounding this school of thought.

Western colonizing governments have always considered the unity of the world of Islam, which they call “Pan-Islamism", a potential danger to their political and economic interests. At the end of the 19th century, inspired by the ideas ofSayyid Jamal-al-Din and Sultan AbdulHamid , there started talks about the unity of world Muslims, and the union and solidarity of the Turks and Arabs in the Ottoman Empire prevented the inroad of Western values and ideals in the critical and strategic Middle East zone.

Colonizing powers felt the danger and adopted apolicy which unfortunately proved effective. This was the infusion of the idea of nationalism and the awakening of national sentiments among the Arabs and Turks in order to check “Pan-Islamism” and thereby divide the great Ottoman Empire, and replace the declining influence of the Ottomans by the power of Western colonization.

It is noteworthy that nationalism rose first, not in the Muslimlands which were under British and French domination, but in regions which formed part of the Ottoman Empire. InIndia which was a British colony, such Westernized intellectuals as SirSayyid Ahmad Khan found no need to rely on nationalism, national andxenophobian sentiments and were still occupied with the thought of economic and educational improvement of the Muslims. They even took an opposing stand against the nationalism of the Hindu Congress Party.In Algeria and Sudan too, it was Islam that stood in the persons of theMahdi Sudanese and Algerian Abdul-Qader against colonization, but there was no sign of nationalism. In Indonesia and Malaysia and Muslim lands of the Far East, too, which were directly under British and French domination, Westernized intellectuals believed there was no need to rouse nationalistic feelings.

On the other hand, these intellectuals who were dependent on colonization, raised the cry of nationalism in the lands of the Ottoman Empire, namely Turkey, Egypt and the Arab lands in order to overthrow the Ottoman rule and pave the way for their own influence and expansion.

This historical fact clearly shows that those who sympathized with nationalism in Islamic lands did not claim independence out of xenophobia, butwere motivated by something quite different. They were in fact, the surrogates of Western colonizers whocould be used to break up Islamic unity and weaken or destroy the Ottoman Empire. We see now, why in the Iran of that time, the westernized intellectuals did not so strongly support the idea of nationalism aswas done in Turkey, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon by their allies, since Iran did not form part of the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, at that time, Iran had little connectionwith the world of Islam owing to the excessive reliance of theQajar kings on the prejudicial differences between theShi'a and Sunni sects, and colonial powers did not think it probable that Iran would join the great union of world Muslims. Therefore, they felt secure and all their effortswere directed at making the western culture and system bear root in Iran, and prevent a religious government from assuming power so, in Iran, the emphasis was laid on the question of the constitution, Western democracy and liberal thoughts of the West. In the works ofTaleboff andMirza KhanKermani , we see much less of nationalism and national unity than in those of their Arab and Turkish counterparts. The focal point of discussion was the 'constitution', Western liberalism and the necessity of casting aside religious thoughts and principles, and copying European culture1 .

Why were the Muslim lands of Istanbul, Cairo and 'Beirut preoccupied with the idea of nationalism? Why was this longing for nationalism at the end of the 19th century concurrent with the height of colonial expansion? Why did the Arabs and Turks, the targets of nationalism, confront each other? Why was there no talk of British or French colonialism? Why did nationalistic sentiments become popular in the realm of the Ottoman Empire, but not in those countries invaded by Western colonialism? Why is it that following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire,as a result of intense nationalistic sentiments, colonialism rapidly succeeded in swallowing the Middle East? Answers to these questionsmay be found in the wide dimension of Western colonial interference for the creation and expansion of nationalism in the world of Islam.

Napoleon and Frenchmen as pioneers of Egyptian Nationalism

In Islamiccountries nationalism took birth in the 19th century. The firstcountries which fell victim to it were Egypt and Turkey. Napoleon's invasion of Egypt was a turning point in the history of the Islamic world and the beginning of Westernization. During the brief stay of the French in Egypt, Western ideas had found their way amidst Egyptian intellectuals. The contact of such Egyptian scholars as AbdulRahman Jabarti , Sheikh Hassan Attar etc. with the men of learning that Napoleon had brought with him to Egypt, and the encouragement given by the French, roused the desire in some self-sold Egyptians to walk in step with the West. This point can explain why the spirit of nationalism rose first in Egypt to prepare the ground for its separation from the Ottoman Empire sooner than other lands belonging to it. Most probably, as the French were openly fighting the Empire of the Turkish Muslims and inherited the anti-Islamic prejudices from the crusaders and men like Charlemagne, they began sooner than others to break up Islamic unity and destroy the Ottoman Empire, by rousing Egyptian nationalism, in the same way as the British did with Arab lands.

In order to revive Egyptian nationalism and rouse the pride of the Egyptians of their past, Napoleon established an institution called the “Egyptian Foundation”, a sham scientific society supposedly for research in ancient Egyptian history and culture, but which in reality aimed at revivingEgyptianism against the idea of Islamic unity, and at undermining Islamic inclinations forcing a gap between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire. It was through this Foundation that some distinguished French men of learning such as Clot,Cerisy ,Linant andRousset were dispatched to Egypt2 , whose objective, as we may guess, was to help the Egyptians discover their ancientPharaonic culture and to acquaint them with French culture on which they were encouraged to frame their lives and policies.

Sylvestre deSacy and other French scholars wrote books on the magnificence of Egyptian civilization, and Egyptian nationalists such asTahtavi discovered the splendor of their ancient civilization and cultural independence through DeSacy's book, “Nationality3 ”.

It was probably through French influence that Muhammad Ali declared his independence from the Ottoman Empire and for the first time raised the question of Arab unity. Western missionaries, too, were very active. Between 1863 and 1879, no less thanseventy seven French, American, Italian and German schools were opened in Egypt.

Following all these efforts at colonization, a westernized intellectual class rose as the banner-bearer of Egyptian nationality, insisting upon the following of Western civilization.Defa'at -al-Tahtavi (1801-1873) was the first of these men. He stayed in Paris for five years andhaving been indoctrinated with French ideas, he returned to Egypt to propoundMontesquieu's thoughts on the nation and the country.

Tahtavi in his well-known book, “Manahej ” and other works made recurrent use of words like 'homeland' and 'patriotism', words which were not so popular till then among the Egyptians, in the concept of Western nationalism. He declared that the Egyptians were a nation apart from other Muslims, and the core of their love and loyalty should be their 'homeland'. He tried to prove that nationalism is not compatible with Islam, but this was a futile and hypocritical effort. This pioneer of nationalism considered the reason for the decadence of Egypt to be the rule of non-Egyptian Muslims such as theMameluks .But at the same time, he shamelessly spoke of the French and Westerners in general, not as a symbol of greed for the world, but as representatives of science, civilization and culture, and suggested that Egypt should follow the West4 .

Another pioneer of Egyptian nationalism wasYaghoub Zow'e , whose father was a Jew and mother, an Italian. He lived in Paris for a long time and was a French agent. In Paris, he published the journal, 'EI-Vatan -el-Mesri ' (Egyptian homeland) to propagate nationalism. He was a founder of Egyptian nationalism5 and had a close friendship with Cromer, the English governor of Egypt.

Taha Hossain was another Westernized Egyptian nationalist. He attempted in his book, 'EI-Mostaqbel -el-Thaqafe ', to prove that Egypt has no connection whatsoever with the world of Islam, but that it has instead, a strong bond with Europe.

In the time ofTaha Hossain , nationalist forces led by theWafd Party became a determining factor in Egyptian politics.Sa'ed Zaghlool , leader of theWafd party and other nationalist politicians were British pawns who considered political independence only as a means of becoming Europeanized progressives and found it in the acceptance of Western values.

This was an account of the rise and spread of nationalism in Egypt, showing how Westerners sowed the seed of nationalism and irrigated it.

Three Jews as inspirers of Turkish nationalism

Turkey was another of the first Islamic countries where the school of nationalism found its way. Bernard Lewis, the well-knownorientalist , confesses that three European Jews inspired the spirit of nationalism in Turkey6 .

The first person who tried hard to kindle the flame of Turkish nationalism was Arthur Lumley David (1811-1832). He was an English Jew who traveled to Turkey and wrote a book called, 'Preliminary Discourses' in which he tried to show how the Turks were a distinguished and independent race, superior to the Arabs and other oriental races.

Lewis writes: “The book of this English Jew made the Turks imaginethemselves as having a distinct nationality and independence.” Before the spread and indoctrination of Western ideas, no signis seen of nationalism in the Ottoman, Empire. Even until the beginning of the present century, the Turks did not consider the Arabs as aliens, and the Arabs looked upon the Turks in the same way. The Arabs were content to be included in the Ottoman Empireon account of being of the same religion, and the Turks respected them because of their culture, and knowledge of Arabic was considered a sign of learning.Even a Sultan like Abdul-Hamid was surrounded by Arab counselors in his court, the likes ofAbol-Hoda andEzzat Pasha . In the revolution of 1908 againstAbdul-Hamid there were at least two Arab officers, named Aziz AliMesri andMahmood Showkat Pasha among the leaders. But the book of the said Jew gradually convinced some self-sold and dependent intellectuals and politicians like the leaders of the" Young Turks» movement of the superiority of the Turkish race.

In 1851,Fu'ad andJowdat Pasha translated most of David's writings into Turkish. In 1869, another writer, AliSavi , published a treatise in Turkish which was an imitation of David's, speaking of the glorious past of the Turkish race. This was one of the first writings in which nationalism was propounded and it was somethingquite unprecedented in the Ottoman Empire.As Lewis says: “Thus the Turks discovered their nationality through the West and copied the writings of the Westerners7 .”

David Leon Cohen, a Jewish French writer was another man who greatly contributed to the expansion of Turkish nationalism. In 1899, he published a book called "IntroductionGenerale a l'Histoire de L' Asie8 ”. In this book, he writes of the racial superiority of the Turks and of their epical records in history. This bookwas translated into Turkish in the first decade of the 10th century in a large number. Prof.Khadouri and Bernard Lewis believe that the said Jew inspired the Pan- Turkism of 'Young Turks' who started a revolution in 1908.

In addition to the above book, Cohen published several epical stories on the past glories of the Turks. Clearly, the main aim of this Jew in his eulogy of the Turkish race was to rouse their racial prejudices and weaken their bond with other Muslim nations. He was not content with writing only, but also formed societies of exiled Turks and Egyptians in Paris and tried to lay the foundation of nationalistic movements in those countries9 .

But the person who had the greatest role in the creation of Turkish and Arab nationalism, was the famousorientalist , ArminiusVambery (1832-1918), the son of a Jewish Hungarian priest. He published many works on the necessity for the revival of Turkish nationality,language and literature. His works intensely captivated the attention of Westernized, so-called enlightened Turks and incited their patriotism. He was closely acquainted with the Turkishstatesmen and politicians of the first rank10 .

One of the main aims of the Jews in inciting nationalistic sentiments was to pave the way for the occupation of Palestine. The Jews in their unsuccessful contact with Sultan Abdul-Hamid to secure Palestinian territories for Jewishemigrants, came to the conclusion that the only way to fulfill their dream was to overthrow Abdul-Hamid and break up Islam and Arab and Turkish unity. Under the cover of nationalism and through encouraging the creation of the 'Young Turks' movement, Zionism first succeeded in deposing Abdul-Hamid , imprisoninghim and laying the ground for inciting differences and enmity between the Turks and Arabs.

These plots of colonialism and Zionism gave birth to the 'Young Turks'movement which resulted in the revolution of 1908 and deposal of Abdul-Hamid . The “Young Turks” who executed the Zionist scheme, embarked on a 'Pan- Turkish' policy based on a belief in the superiority of the Turks. So they adopted an anti-Arab stand, closed down Arab cultural societies and began acts of discrimination against the Arabs and non- Turks, a conduct which was in line with the direct plots of British colonialism in rousing Arab nationalism.

ThusZionism and imperialism and their discrimination towards the Arabs on the one hand, and inciting Arab nationalism and their opposition to the Turks on the other. Until this time, the Arabs did not consider themselves a separate race.But as the Turks were seeking the superiority of Turkish culture over other cultures, the Arabs, too, insisted upon their own independent identity. It was the racial and nationalistic policies of Young Turks that kindled the flame of Arab nationalism-a matter, which as we shall see,was directly supported by the British11 .

After the revolution of 1908, the “Young Turks” expanded Turkish nationalism by force and by propagation through the mass media. Moreover, the repeated blows inflicted upon Turkey by Arab countries, together with the extension of western education and dispatch of students to Europe, intensified Turkish nationalistic frenzy. Even some Muslim thinkers asNamek Kamal (1840-1888), Zia Pasha (1825-1880) andJowdat Pasha (1823-1898), tried hard to blend Islam with nationalism-an idea which was doomed from the very beginning since these two schools are incompatible. The progressive advance of nationalism and colonization at last led to the rise of Ata Turk accompanied by his anti-Islamic policy.

With him, Turkey becametotally dependent on the West, exactly what the Satanic West wanted. The Western intellectual class continued to promote thisschool which was now supported by the bayonets of Ata Turk and his successors. ZiaGukalp (1876-1942), the greatest theoretician of the Turkish nationalist school, was a well- known personality of the west who busied himself copying Western ideas and culture, both of which he made the core of his ideology. Turkish nationalism resulted at last in the membership of Turkey in the NATO, thereby surrendering its political and cultural independence.

This was then an account of the rise and advance of nationalism in Turkey.

$$SUB[ British Colonialism, the Banner-bearer of Arab Nationalism]

4- British Colonialism, the Banner-bearer of Arab Nationalism.

Nationalism was nowhere tobe seen in the Arab countries before the inroad of Western ideas and colonial influence.

Arab lands gradually came under the domination of the Ottoman Empire from the 16th century onward, and a unitywas established between almost all parts of the Muslim Middle East (excluding Iran). All through the Ottoman rule, until the beginning of the 20th century, the Arabs had no feeling of alienation towards the Turks, and were perfectly content with the unity that existed between Turkish and Arab lands. They considered the Ottoman Sultan, the rightful ruler of the Muslims, and the Ottomans, too, showed no discrimination towards the Arabs. They chose the governor of each Arab zone (with the title ofNaghib ) from among the people of the same zone.

French colonization was the first to sow the seeds of nationalism and the separation of Egypt, tobe followed by the deceitful and mischievous creation of Turkish nationalism by Imperialism and Zionism in the form of the 'Young Turks' movement and leading for the first time to discrimination of Arabs by them.

Concurrently, colonial powers especially Britain roused the racial and nationalistic sentiments of the Arabs through Christian Arab missionaries and Western intellectuals.

After Egypt, the pioneers of Arab nationalism were Syria,Lebanon and Jordan. Missionaries were most active in these regions. Members of the Jesuit Catholic sect from 1830 and Protestants from 1820 entered Syria. The giant Christian society became the agent for executing the plot of colonization. Christian Arabs regarded Western penetration to their own interests, and looked at French and British colonization as a refuge against the Muslims.They were very sensitive about the expansion of the idea of the universal IslamicUmmah , since such a unity would place them in a minority, whereas having nationalism as the basis of unity would not only prevent their being considered a minority (since in such a unity all are Arabs -not Muslims and Christians), but being ahead of the Muslims as far as Western education was concerned and trusted by colonial powers, they hoped to assume the rein of affairs. From the beginning, Christian Arabs sought the aid of Western governments against Muslim Arabs, as was the case in the Civil War of 1860 when they invited the Europeans for a campaign in Lebanon.But this method did not solve the Christians' problem in the long run since it roused the cynicism of the Muslims.Therefore on the suggestion of their colonial masters they resorted to the importation of the creed of nationalism.

One of the clearest examples wasNajib Azouri , a founder of Arab nationalism. He was an agent of both France and England. In 1904 in Paris, he published a book named “LeReveil de la NationArabe ”. He further formed a society by the name of “Ligue de laPatrie Arabe ”, and published a monthly journal named, “L 'independenceArabe ”, as an organ of the union. In its publication, an employee of the French Foreign Ministry named Eugene Lung, collaborated closely with him. Lung as a servant of French colonialism wrote a book named “LaRevolte Arabe”12 , in which he praised the Arab race. One of the points repeatedly stressed in this book was the racial,cultural and political differences between the Arabs and Turks, and occasional reference to the superiority of the Arabs over the Turks and the necessity of segregating the Arabs from the Ottoman Empire. To bothAzouri and Lung, three revolutions would be necessary to destroy the Ottoman Empire: An Arab revolution, a Kurdishrevolution and an Armenian revolution13 .

Azouri's views on international politics, too, show his dependence on Britain and France. Against the Turks, he sought the friendship of Britain, and supported the pro British party of MuhammadWahidi and pro-British dailies such as “El-Haghtatem ” and “El-Watan ”. He regarded the power ofGermany which supported the Ottoman Empire a danger to human society, and considered the governments of France and Britain as the banner-bearers of justice in the world, and encouraged these two colonizing powers to interfere in the Ottoman's internal affairs in favor of the Arabs. He volunteered to start a revolution within the Ottoman Empire in cooperation with lung, with the aid of British and French capital and weapons. Dr.Hamid Enayat writes:

Azouri expressed his loyalty and obedience to Britain and France and introduced himself as the supporter of their interests in the East, and said: 'The French should assist and tell us what they want from us14 .”

Azouri as a founder of Arab nationalism was dependent on the French and British governments and was in their service15 .

BesidesAzouri , there were such men asPetros Bostani ,Nasif al-Yazeji , Ibrahim al-Yazeji ,Nofel ,Salim Nofel ,Mikhael Shamhada ,Sem'een Kalhoun ,Gerges Fayyaz ,Rastan Dameshghia and many other Christian enlightened men depending on colonial powers, who tried to incite and expand Arab nationalism. These men did their utmost to convince the Arabs that they were a distinct race, superior to other Muslim nations. They deliberately misinterpreted history to attain this objective and presented Islam, Islamic culture and civilization as being originally Arabic- a matterwhich was a great treason to the intellect. Their arguments and ways to prove Arab nationality came from Western culture and thought.

Arab nationalism was reflected in two ways: firstly by emphasis on Egyptian, Syrian,Iraqi and other nationalities, and secondly by emphasis on Arab unity, or the Arab race.

During the World War I, the British government decided to enter the arena in person and to openly support and guard Arab nationalism, turning the enmity between the Arabs and the Turks to its own interest. The rise of SharifHossain , grandfather of kingHossain of Jordan against the Turks in June 1916, whichis regarded as an objective desired by Arab nationalism, was the product of direct British meddling and intervention. The expansion of Arab nationalism against theOttomans, brought the British and French governments into the Arab zone, resulting in the creation of Israel as a cancerous tumor in the heart of the Arab land.

SharifHossain , as a pioneer of Arab rebellion against the Turks was a British agent, and the British were the greatest supporters of Arab independence from the Turkish yoke. The story of SharifHossain's collaboration with the British as a hero of Arab nationalism is very amazing. In 1914, direct contactwas made through Abdullah, son of SharifHossain and father of KingHossain , betweenKitchner , well-known English general, and Sharif.Some time after,Kitchner sent one of his high-ranking officers, named RonaldStors to visit Abdullah. At this time, the World War had begun andKitchner who was now British War Secretary, sent a message to Abdullah in October 1914 asking him to rise in rebellion for independence against the Turks.Kitchner promised to support the Arabs' efforts for independence, and even to transfer the Muslim Caliphate from the Turks to the Arabs and choose Sharif as the new caliph.

SharifHossain , this so-called reverend pro-British nationalist, carried out the plan of colonialism in the name of Arab independence, and at a time when Turkeywas entangled with the British and French, he made an assault upon the Turks rousing the Muslims against them and infavour of the British. McMahon, an English general, sent a letter to Sharif, the copy of which is in the archive of the British Foreign Office in which SharifHossain's roleis lauded as a determining factor in “the combat for independence by the valiant Arab nation.”

On July 21, 1915, Sharif sent a message to McMahon, asking for British support for the Arab demand for the caliphate. On June 10, 1916, the Arab national uprising, with the aid of British arms and munitions and military and political supportwas started , led by SharifHossain . T. E. Lawrence, an English government official, was the principal adviser to Feisal, son of Sharif, in this national Arab uprising. On one side, the Arab forces rushed upon the Turks, while on the other, in a perfectly coordinated operation, General Allen by, the British commander in Palestine took the lead in fighting. Thus the combat of the Arabs for independence incited bynationalism, was promoted under British military protection.

But while British and French colonizing powers tempted the Arabs into a war of independence, and while SharifHossain and Arab secret organizations such as El-Fetat and El-Ahad were actively executing the schemes of the colonial powers, Britain and France were secretly dividing the Arab zones among themselves. With the Treaty of Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration, they laid the ground for the division of Arab lands and creation of Israel as a country.

France occupied Algeria,Tunis and Morocco by inciting anti-Turkish feelings. Italy made Libya its colony, while Russia occupied parts of Armenia; Britain occupied Egypt, Cyprus, Aden, and the Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf, and then Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, culminating in the creation of the cancerous tumor, “Israel”, in the heart of the Arab world.

And that was the painful story of Arab nationalism, its creation and expansion.

Conclusion

It becomes clear then thatnationalism in Islamic lands was incited by the Westerners , with the British and French missionaries andOrientalists having a great share in it. Itwas then expanded by colonial plots and used by colonialism as a tool for breaking up Islamic unity and destroying the Ottoman Empire . In this connection, Christian and Jewish minorities and pro-Western intellectuals were the principal executors of these imperialistic plans. Almost all the banner-bearers and famous pioneers of nationalism in Islamic lands were those who copied the Western values and ideals.

With the inroad of Western ideals, words like 'homeland' and 'patriotism' became very popular with the Arabs,Turks and Iranians. Nationalism was the stealthy and motivated imitation of Western models, dictated by colonial powers, eventually resulting in the dependence of those countries upon the West or East. This fact that for many years the main supporters of Egyptian nationalism and Arab nationality and other Islamic nations were France and Britain is more eloquent than words. With those brilliant records of colonization, at present, the biggest supporter of nationalist forces of Turkey and Iran is the U.S., and the supporter of theBa’athists and some Arab countries is the Soviet Union.

The important question that arises is why the idea ofnationalism which penetrated Islamic lands through Western ideas and colonial plots, was welcomed by some sections of the Muslim masses and how did it expand?

Firstly, the masses could not see the difference between 'patriotism' and 'nationalism' and to their unconsciousmind, both concepts seemed to denote the same idea as that of Islamic 'Ummahism '. From the beginning, Islam had created a strong feeling of the 'Ummah ' and had divided the world into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War”. The masses believed nationalism to be the same as 'Ummahism ' and therefore welcomed it.

The reason was that even though the people sometimes spoke of nationalism, yet in practice, they regarded a Christian Egyptian and Coptic Egyptian beyond the sphere of nationality, and Turkish Armenians as aliens. Actually, to the masses, nationalism and IslamicUmmahism meantone and the same thing.

Secondly, contrary to the main pioneers of nationalism, who propagated itas a result of their dependence on colonial powers and the West, the masses manifested nationalistic sentiments in opposition to social tyranny or to the colonial influence of Britain and France. To the masses, nationalism was a sentiment, not a school, but to the Western, so-called enlightened class and politicians, it was an ideology and a political creed.

The third factor behind the growth of nationalism among the masses was the injustice of the selfish, pseudo-Muslimgovernments which inflicted oppression and torture upon the people. While the Ottoman Empire was on the brink of collapse, Turkish rulers like other selfish rulers of history treated their subordinates oppressively including not only the Arabsbut the Turkish peasants. After the Young Turks assumed power,tyranny and discrimination became prevalent, an outcome of Turkish nationalism, which led to a spread of nationalistic sentiments among the Arabs, of which colonialism made the utmost use. The most recent example of a country where nationalism isfully manifest , is Bangladesh, resulting from the tyrannical conduct of Pakistan's military dictators.

Notes

1. Refer to the books: “Andishehaye Mirza Aqa KhanKermani ”- (Thoughts ofMirza Aqa KhanKermani ) andAndisheye Mirza Fath -e AliAkhundzadeh -( Thought ofMirza Fateh -e AliAkhundzadeh ) byFereydoon Adamiat .

2. M.Sabry : L 'Empire Egyptian sour Mohammad Ali, p; 579, Paris, 1930.

3. Refer to the book: «Andisheye Arab"-( Arab thought) byHurani and “Tarikhe Andisheye Siasie Arab] -(The history of the Arab political thought) byHamid Enayat , p. 28.

4. For more information onTahtavi's nationalistic thoughts, refer to the book “Seiri dar Andisheye Siasie Arab”-( A survey of the Arab political thought) byHamid Enayat , p. 34-35.

5. Ditto, p. 46.

6. Bernard Lewis: Islam in History, London, 1973, p. 132.

7. Bernard Lewis: Islam in History, p. 132.

8. Refer to “Nationalism in Asia and Africa” byKhadouri , p.159.Khadouri has offered reasons and proved that the westerners are the founders of nationalism in. most third-world countries. Also refer to «Islam in History», by Bernard Lewis, p. 132.

9. Refer to Jewish Encyclopedia, an article byZodic Kahn, p. 61, and “Turkism and the Soviets” byHutler , p.141.

10. Concerning the role of David Cohen andVambery in the emergence and expansion of the Turkish nationalism refer to “History-Writing and national revival in Turkey” by Bernard Lewis and “The Development of secularism in Turkey" byNiazi Brex , Printed in Montreal, 1944, p. 314-315.

11. Concerning the role of Zionism and the westerners in the creation and expansion of the Turkish nationalism refer to:Mardin's “The Genesis of young Ottoman thought” a study in the modernization of Turkish political ideas (Princitton N.J. 1962, p. 250). HaroldBoven's British contribution to Turkish studies, London, 1945, p. 43-4.Also refer to “The Emergence of Arab Nationalism" byZein Nzein , p.71.

12.Elic Kedourie : The Politics of Political Literature in Middle East studies, vol. III No.2, May 1972, p.230.

13. Refer to “Al-Belad -ul -Arabiat -e-dulat -et-Uthmania ”, by Sateaal -Hasari ,Darul -Elmul-mulaeen , Beirut, 1960, p. 126.

14. “Seiri dar Andisheye Eslamie Arab”-(A survey of Arab Islamic Thought), pp. 234- 228.

15. George Antonius: “Arab Awakening", p. 99.


6

7

8

9

10