Part Eight
(This is a translation from the original Arabic, offered so that my grandchildren, and others of their generation, may understand something of their history— a history they were denied when they were uprooted without choice.)
The Fabrication of “Judeo–Christian Culture”
The European Renaissance, which began in Italy, was marked by two major events previously mentioned: the expulsion of Arabs, Muslims, and Jews from Spain following the fall of Granada, and the arrival—at once as conquerors and settlers—of Europeans on the shores of a continent later named “America” in the year 1492. It is worth pausing briefly to consider what Europeans did in the American continent in order to understand an essential aspect of their conduct toward the world in general, and toward us in particular.
Conquest is not a European invention; it is as old as history itself. Whenever a people have felt the need for what others possess, they have resorted to invasion and the unlawful seizure of what was not theirs. This is precisely what Europeans did when they invaded, plundered, and settled the American continent. Yet European conquest differed from all earlier conquests in one decisive respect: it was accompanied by ethnic cleansing—something no previous conqueror had practiced in such a systematic and total manner. Europeans did not merely steal the gold of the Americas; they exterminated the indigenous population in its entirety on islands such as Cuba, as we know it today. In the northern part of the continent (today’s United States and Canada), despite the Zionist Hollywood establishment’s vast effort to falsify history through cinema, the reality of the genocide of the indigenous peoples—whom Europeans misnamed “Red Indians,” though they were neither Indian nor red—could not be erased. Two centuries later, Europeans carried out the same crime in Australia after annihilating the peoples of the Americas.
It is essential for us to grasp this reality, because in its dealings with us—as with other peoples of the world—the European believes he has the absolute right to do whatever he wishes, without limits, even if that entails the annihilation of entire nations, so long as it serves his interests. We must understand this when we deal with a European, for he looks at you with astonishment if you deny him the “right” of Jews to seize Palestine—because he knows that he and his ancestors have been doing precisely that for centuries.
The Ottoman state entered its phase of peak power after its conquest of Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) in 1453, effectively preventing any serious European encroachment upon our region, particularly in the Mediterranean basin. As a result, European advances toward our lands were confined to the southern reaches of the Arabian Sea, along the coasts of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz—areas more exposed to Persian influence than to Ottoman power. The Portuguese succeeded in establishing themselves along the Omani coast and in Hormuz from the beginning of the sixteenth century until 1650, when the Omanis expelled them from their last stronghold in Muscat. The Dutch followed, briefly touching the Arabian coast on their way to Asia under the banner of the Dutch East India Company (founded in 1602).
The truly dangerous intervention, however, came from the Anglo-Saxons, who began their gradual advance after the Portuguese were expelled from Oman—and who remain entrenched in our lands to this day. Britain, lacking direct access to the Mediterranean and facing competing powers there, did not enter our region through it. Instead, it penetrated the Fertile Crescent from its southern extremity while the Ottoman state was still at the height of its strength. Moving with extreme slowness and caution, and adapting to shifts in the balance of power, the British gradually took control of the Gulf coast as Ottoman power waned, until they fully occupied Iraq in 1918 at the end of the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Since Britain had already occupied Aden in 1839, it had, by the dawn of the twentieth century, effectively encircled the coastline of the Arabian Peninsula even before occupying Iraq.
France, by contrast, entered through the Mediterranean, as it had direct access to it—though this occurred after the French Revolution. The Frenchman who claimed his revolution stood for liberty, equality, and fraternity swiftly transformed into a conquering force that occupied land and devastated livelihoods. Napoleon led massive armies to invade Russia. The French then intervened with the Ottoman caliph under the pretext of protecting the Christians of the Levant, thereby securing a foothold that remains embedded in Lebanon to this day—despite never having truly protected Christians or anyone else. They later intervened in North Africa, occupying Algeria and settling it as part of France for one hundred and thirty years.
When the First World War ended, the French—entrenched along the western coast of our region—and the British—positioned along its southern coast—rushed to divide the spoils. Such was the state of our region in the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate.
Since military intervention and superiority alone are insufficient to justify domination and colonization, Europeans felt compelled to furnish their ambitions with a legal or intellectual pretext. Thus, they presented the world with a fabrication that they repeated so often they eventually came to believe it themselves: the claim that they represent “Judeo–Christian culture.” By this they mean that they possess the right to guardianship over the world—and particularly over our region—on the grounds that, since both religions were born in our lands, they are entitled to exercise authority over us as the supposed pinnacle of the intellectual tradition produced by these faiths. I cannot comprehend how this fabrication passed unchallenged for so long, especially among the people of the region—above all our Christian brethren in Egypt and the Levant—for this claim concerned them even before it concerned Muslims. It was, after all, a European assertion that he represents them better than they can represent themselves.
What, then, is this “Judeo–Christian culture” of which the European speaks? Is it religious, moral, political, or economic? Or some mixture of all of these? How did it arise, and upon what foundations does it rest?
I see none.
If the claim refers to a shared religious foundation, it is patently false. Jews do not recognize Christ and claim that the one who appeared was a false messiah, asserting that only they will recognize the true Messiah when he comes. Christians, for their part, do not trust the Jews who crucified their Lord—or handed him over to the executioner. There is no genuine relationship between the Old Testament of the Bible (the Jewish scriptures) and the four Gospels, neither in language nor in substance. The Old Testament is a book of wars, bloodshed, and conflict; the Gospels speak of a loving and forgiving God. The only link is that Jesus appeared among the Jews—and he was not Jewish: neither his father was Jewish, nor was Mary Jewish.
As for intellectual and social ties, there is no shared worldview between Christians and Jews. European Christians were shaped by Greek pagan thought—rooted in the pagan traditions of Mesopotamia and Egypt—while Jewish thought stands far removed from this tradition. This explains why Judaism failed to spread in Greece during the period preceding the emergence of Greek philosophy. Further evidence of the absence of intellectual and social integration between Jews and Christians in Europe lies in the historical reality that Jews lived for centuries in European quarters that were nearly closed communities. Jews claim this was due to persecution by European Christians—and while this is partly true, it is not the primary reason. The deeper reason was the Jew’s sense of distinction and superiority over the European Christian as the “chosen people,” and his desire to live within a separate intellectual and social framework. How, then, can the European Christian plausibly claim the existence of a shared Judeo–Christian culture that he represents?
I will not delve further into analyzing the impossibility of a coherent system of shared values between Judaism and Christianity, for such an exercise would be futile. Christianity itself lacks a unified set of values agreed upon by Christians, let alone a foundation upon which it could be meaningfully combined with Judaism. I shall return to this when I write about the fabrication of the “clash of civilizations,” another addition Europeans have made to their ongoing project of historical falsification.
Some may argue that “Judeo–Christian culture” refers merely to general principles common to both religions. But anyone who bases such a claim on this premise must first specify what those principles are and how they were derived.
No one has ever done so.
The true motive that drove Europeans to invent this fabrication was the need to conceal the two inferiority complexes I have described: their awareness that they took both religion and thought from us. If they could claim to represent Judeo–Christian culture—and have that claim accepted—they would gain legitimacy as intellectual custodians of both religion and philosophy. More importantly, they would pull the rug from beneath the feet of the Christians of our region by persuading them that Europeans represent their faith better than they do themselves. In doing so, Europeans insult Eastern Christians by portraying them as having betrayed “true” Christianity, while casting themselves as its sole protectors—and, by extension, as the protectors of those Christians after having “restored” Christianity’s dignity.
This European claim differs little from the assertion made by Turks and Persians that Arabs were unworthy of the religion of Muhammad, and that they—the Turks and Persians—were better suited to understand it and represent it.
How did matters unfold after this? What became of us? And how should we deal with this reality?
That is what I shall attempt to examine next…
To be continued