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 culture
.
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 Egypt
, 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, “Nationality
”.
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 West
.
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 nationalism
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 Turkey
.
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 Westerners
.”
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' Asie
”. 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 countries
.
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 rank
.
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 British
.
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”
, 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 revolution
.
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 us
.”
Azouri
as a founder of Arab nationalism was dependent on the French and British governments and was in their service
.
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
0%
Author: Dr. Ali Mohammed Naqvi
