Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis.In an earlier article titled "Can Sudan Survive and Remain Intact? Plead for Sudan's De-Arabization, Pacification, and Expansion", I stressed the point that the formation of Modern Sudan, as it happened, was mainly an Anglo-French colonial machination viciously directed against all the people who inhabit the vast East African land and who (similarly with all the other people worldwide) did not identify themselves as ‘nations' prior to the diffusion of colonial concepts in East Africa.

I emphasized the fact that the main ruling ethno-religious group of Sudan, the Arabic-speaking Sudanese, who are of Kushitic – Meroitic origin, were the main victims of the process, because colonial, anti-Sudanese concepts and machinations were introduced to Sudan through Egypt, when the latter was detached from the Ottoman Empire and put under indirect but genuine Anglo-French Freemasonic colonial control, only to confuse them, mislead them, and deprive them of the great chances that they had on the basis of undeniable historical realities.

As a matter of fact, the process through which Sudan's Ottoman Muslim citizens became several, at times conflicting with one another, ethnic groups of the vast country totally escaped the mind and the control of Sudan's indigenous populations, although it was launched against them, against their identity, and against their chances to either remain Ottoman Muslim citizens or become a fully emancipated modern nation, as per the existing European prototypes.

I made clear that without an earlier identification and rejection of the colonial fallacies diffused among the Sudanese elites, today's Sudan cannot possibly escape the nefarious traps into which the Freemasonic elites of London, Paris and Washington have long planned to methodically conduct it.

I enumerated and analyzed several colonial fallacies diffused among the Sudanese establishment and worldwide as regards 18th - 19th Century Sudan (namely the concepts that Funj was an independent Islamic kingdom, and that the period 1821 – 1885 in Sudan can be called "Turkiyah" or Turkish Sudan).

I terminated the article by enumerating the main Anglo-French Colonial Plans for 19th Century Sudan, by examining what the possible options would be for an alternative Sudanese political authority, and by making comparisons between the greatly different Anglo-French policies toward Sudan (the only country to have full right to the historical name of Ethiopia) and Abyssinia (the country that was incited by the Anglo-French to usurp the name of Ethiopia and unlawfully attribute it to itself).

In the present article, I will expand further, demonstrating that survival for Sudan means a) rejection of all practices and concepts introduced in the vast African country at the times of the Egyptian control, and b) cancelation – one by one – of all the biased privileges, illegitimate advantages and colonial rewards offered to the insignificant, isolated, and barbaric state if Abyssinia.

1. Practices and Concepts Introduced at the Times of Egyptian Control

Disregard of the country's historical heritage is very high in the list of the concepts and practices introduced at the times of the Egyptian control over Sudan. The practice was introduced since day 1, namely the Egyptian military expedition of 1821.

The Egyptian soldiers destroyed many Kushitic and Meroitic pyramids to carry out their materialistic search for gold and to meet their needs in terms of urgent erection of military outposts. The total disregard for Sudan's great pre-Christian Antiquity offers a striking opposition with the French expedition to Egypt, just 20 years earlier.

This is a point of the utmost importance that the colonial powers either kept hidden or even totally denied in their contacts with Asiatic and African peoples, elites and rulers.

2. Disregard of the Historical Heritage

When Napoleon undertook his expedition to Egypt (1798 – 1801), he was accompanied by no less than 160 scholars and scientists, 400 engravers, and 2000 artists who constituted the focal point of the campaign as they undertook an exhaustive exploration of Egypt's natural, architectural, monumental and epigraphic resources. As soon as the French soldiers defeated the Mameluk Ottoman garrison (in the famous Battle of the Pyramids), the Institute of Egypt was founded by the Napoleon, located in the then Cairo suburbs, and served as workshop, library and atelier for the collections that the French scholars worked hard to establish. Beyond many other secondary printouts, magazines, etc. a monumental publication was decided in order to propagate the notes and analyses of the observations and explorations carried out throughout Egypt. The first edition of the voluminous opus titled ‘Description of Egypt' comprised of 23 volumes of Mammutfolio (1m x 0.81cm) that appeared over the period 1808 – 1829. Ten of these volumes contained 894 plates, and some of these plates comprise of over 100 individual engravings of Egyptian fauna, flora or antiquities. (DVD- ROM edition available here: http://www.harpocrate.eu.com/fiches%20ouvrages/description.htm).

Contrarily to the French expedition in Egypt, the Egyptian expedition in Sudan ended in the destruction of some of Sudan's greatest monuments. This is not said in order to support a severe judgment of the behavior of the Egyptian army, and such an approach – to condemn or revile an army or a political authority for deeds performed at the margin of a primary undertaking – would be meaningless. What matters in this comparison is to understand the contextualization of a change that had occurred without the main actors understanding it.

During the long centuries of Islamic rule (including the Ottoman period), the ancient monuments of Sudan, Egypt, Phoenicia, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Iran, Yemen and other high lands of Antiquity were revered, preserved (although they were deprived of any function), and at times studied and interpreted. Many of these antiquities had been incorporated into the Islamic culture after they were mythically interpreted; for example, the fire temple of Adhar Ghushnap or Praaspa was renamed as Zendan-e Suleyman (prison of Solomon / see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takht-e_Soleym%C4%81n) and the peak sanctuary of Commagene was called Nemrut Dagh (Mountain of Nemrud / see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Nemrut). It is clear that neither the Ancient Israelite king (a Prophet for Islam) nor the Babylonian ruler, who was mythologized as Gilgamesh among the Assyrians and the Babylonians or as Nimrud within Talmudic Judaic and Islamic context, had anything to do with the aforementioned places in Occupied South Azerbaijan (presently Iran) and Central Anatolia (Turkey). All the evidence we have bears witness to the fact that the Muslims in Africa, Asia and Europe respected the pre-Islamic and pre-Christian antiquities, integrating them into their culture and daily life.

3. What meant the Collapse of Ottoman Rule in Egypt for Egypt's Islam

But the collapse of Ottoman authority, which was the only possible guarantee for the average Islamic culture to continue, brought about a change – a transformation in everything, notably political authority, economic organization, educational system, average culture, socio-behavioural attitude, mindset priorities, human attitudes; it was an entire change of the Weltanschauung shared among the inhabitants of the colonially conquered land. Of course, the Anglo-French diplomats, who were in control in Alexandria and throughout the detached Ottoman province of Egypt, were all Freemasons, vicious enemies of the Ancient Oriental History, as well as of Islam, Catholic Christianity, Oriental Christianity, and Judaism. They did their ingenious best to hide the reality and impose the changes that their rise in force brought about, without the Egyptians really understanding them. Part of this trickery was the appointment of Muhammad Ali as Viceroy of an Emperor (namely the Ottoman Sultan who was the Caliph of Islam) who did not recognize him! The reason was simple; only through time the change would be consolidated. The perversion would take hold of minds day by day, week by week, and month by month.

Few understood then that Egypt under the French or under Muhammad Ali was a land similar to Spain after the prevalence of Reconquista (1492). As much Islamic was Andalucía in 1497 so much Islamic Egypt was in 1803 – five years after the arrival of the Freemasonic contamination of France.

There was certainly a difference; after the Reconquista, there was no mosque functioning in Spain, but under the French rule and during the time of the Albanian soldier Muhammad Ali and his offspring mosques were still functioning in Egypt.

This difference merely reflects another difference; the Reconquista of Spain was undertaken by the forces of a genuinely Catholic establishment whereas the colonization of Egypt was undertaken by the forces of a genuinely Freemasonic establishment that controlled both Paris and London.

The difference between the two examples is that in the first case Islam and the Islamic political authority (which is not detachable from the Islamic faith even by an inch) had to withdraw – at least temporarily. With a socioeconomic reorganization, more resources and more wealth, and with a reassessment of military forces, the Caliphate could re-conquer Spain and re-diffuse Islam.

Contrarily, and under far more detrimental conditions for Islam, in the second case (which applied to Egypt and later to Sudan), Islam was detached from the ensuing political authority. This in fact had never happened before; a Christian conquest of Islamic lands meant automatically (as in Spain) elimination of Islam. We have clear examples taken from the Orthodox, Eastern Roman Reconquista of Crete or Antioch and North Syria, and from the Catholic, Norman Reconquista of Sicily (all prior to the Crusades).

The Freemasonic conspiracy, which first eliminated the Catholic political control in their lands, namely France and England, was a far more perplex, sophisticated and perverse method. By detaching Islam from its political authority, the Anglo-French Freemasonic masters of the puppet named Muhammad Ali brought destruction to both, Islam as religion, and Islamic political authority as a ruling system throughout the regions inhabited by Muslims (Dar al Islam).

This is very clear: the Ottoman Empire (Islamic political authority) lost its real control over Egypt. And Egypt lost its Islam, gradually, softly, methodically, irreversibly, and treacherously – without understanding it. The reaction of the Al Azhar scholars, whom the alien, non-Egyptian, ignorant and uneducated soldier Muhammad Ali had no moral compunction to mercilessly massacre, was neither excessive nor unreasonable. They rightfully rejected his willingness to secede from the Ottoman Empire, and they were pitilessly tortured and assassinated because of speaking the truth.

4. Islam, Religion and Political Authority of the Caliphate

In fact, Islam does not exist without its political authority. Laymen of Islamic faith or religious authorities constitute insufficient material to make up an Islamic political authority; and when they pretend to exercise political authority in the name of Islam, whereas they keep next to them vicious haters of Islam, their so-called Western advisers, their political authority is genuinely anti-Islamic, and the Islamic faith in their land becomes a plant of short roots and alien to their land.

Worse, in this case, the apparent function of mosques, the existence of a religious opposition (always kept under control, and at times, suitably massacred) is the deceitful method that the Freemasonic lords of the pseudo-Islamic political authority want to preserve. The reason is very simple; it fools the average people, making the masses believe that Islam still exists among them – whereas it does not.

In fact, what is left of Islam, in cases like this, is an execrable mimicking of Islam, the utmost despair of the masses that by repeating traditional acts and practices they possibly preserve Islam. This delusion is paranoid. The formation of the state of Medina constitutes the absolute and undeniable proof. Islam is not true if detached from its, properly ensued, political authority. In brief, it does not exist.

While the panicked Muslim masses reduce Islam into some prayers, fast during Ramadan, and other daily life prescriptions, the focus placed on these acts is disastrous because it brings forth a distraction from what Islam has always been: a Faith. Faith does exist through mere, repetitive and meaningless acts that are rather made to re-comfort the frightened individual of a society in cultural clash; Faith means concepts, principles, values and virtues.

Furthermore, and despite all practices of religious prescriptions and rituals, any acceptance of an un-Islamic or anti-Islamic political authority from the part of a Muslim, turns this Muslim to an unbeliever. His practice of faith is totally rejected as hypocritical.

As every word uttered by the criminal Freemasonic advisors and every ‘advise' offered to Muhammad Ali were the expression of concepts and principles, values and virtues diametrically opposed to the integer Islamic concepts, Islam disappeared from Egypt. The Freemasonic concepts crept into the minds of the - subservient to the Anglo-French - political establishment of the 19th century Alexandria, infiltrated the average society through the lower servants of the political establishment who were simple people and duly propagated the concepts that helped them achieve a social rise and distinction (i.e. corruption), and "appeared" as suitable, modern, progressive, benevolent, beneficial, advantageous, and valuable in order to open "new horizons". And if somebody opposed this "good new system", he was unquestionably slaughtered.

These fake promises, the false "new horizons", would merely bring more and more changes, over the next decades, and these changes would drag the average society farther from Islam.

5. Neither Islamic Political Authority Nor Modern Nation Building

The project was nothing new however, for the Freemasonic rulers of France and England had precisely applied the same method in their own countries first; they had detached Catholic Christianity from the Christian political authority. And useless to add, France and England lost their Christianity gradually, softly, methodically, irreversibly, and treacherously – without understanding it.

The difference between the two types of Freemasonic application, namely in Western Europe and in Egypt and the Sudan, pertains to the rulers' concern for their average subjects; the Western societies were educated after the Freemasonic principles and concepts, and were geared to become modern national states, according to the Anti-Christian interests of their pseudo-democratic rulers.

On the contrary, the colonized territories, Egypt, Sudan and all the other lands that were targeted, were not viewed in the same way; even those selected from among the colonized territories in order to be educated in the Freemasonic universities of England and France, were not educated properly like their Western European mates but were destined to learn only what would help them to carry out their tasks as puppet rulers, adjust their territories to the global Freemasonic aspirations, and thus irrevocably destroy the worldwide Islamic authority. The Egyptians, Sudanese, Algerians and all the others got fake degrees that were "bon pour l' Orient" – good for the subservient, colonized territories of the Orient. They went back home, idiotically imagining that they would make of their countries simulacra of the Western countries whereby they were foolish enough to believe that they had studied, whereas they had simply been intoxicated in the evil, viciously Anti-Islamic fallacies of the Freemasonic Order.

And when they attempted to implement their delusion back in their homelands, they triggered reaction from the part of the religious opposition which had lost the Islamic political authority, and was not allowed to evoke the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate and the Islamic political authority in Egypt, because this was supposedly a "national threat".

This was precisely what the Anglo-French diplomats and consultants of the anti-Islamic Viceroys (the Khedawis) expected to create in the colonized territories as false debate.

At the same time, in order to efficiently prevent the only possibility of successful emancipation and liberation of Egypt from their Freemasonic yoke, the Anglo-French diplomats unleashed an evil campaign of defamation of the Ottoman Empire that their stooges propagated in order to serve their masters, and get material benefits for their viciously Anti-Islamic deeds. With waves of massacres performed against the true Muslims and the sheikhs of Al Azhar, after some decades few were left to oppose the indirect vilification of Islam, and few realized that every word uttered against the Ottoman Empire was said in order to further detach the Egyptians and the Sudanese from the only political authority that could possibly be theirs.

6. False debate "traditional values vs. modernization"

With the true Islam and the Islamic political authority removed, the false debate "traditional values vs. modernization" was the ultimate trap for all. Without becoming modern states, without shaping a National History (as per the European prototypes), and without entrusting themselves to true values (Islamic or Western Freemasonic), Egypt and Sudan were engulfed in a situation turned against them in the long run, of which they would never liberate themselves as they were truly unaware of.

This trap functioned perfectly well for two centuries as every opposition to a demarche of modernization was not expressed in terms of Islamic political authority (which presupposes the existence of Caliphate and its Islamic, genuine, political ideology) but in reference to an unsubstantiated, sterile, customary and thoughtless reaction, which could certainly bring forth no result, except the caricaturization of Islam as a backward, anachronistic and otherwise useless entity, theory, faith and system. It was of course highly hypocritical or absolutely idiotic, because the only possibly correct Islamic rejection of any demarche of modernization would merely be the following demand:

- Reinstate and restore the Ottoman imperial rule, and the Islamic Caliphate's political authority!

Any other statement was predestined to fail.

The devilish caricaturization of Islam attributed to Islam ideas, beliefs, considerations, attitudes and behaviours that were not inherent to Islam but precisely due to the prefabricated, unsubstantiated, sterile, customary and thoughtless reaction of the traditionalists who reacted in this impertinent manner because they knew that any demand for the reinstatement of the Ottoman imperial rule would be met with cruel incarceration and certain execution.

Out of this context, which was imposed by the French and the English, came the aforementioned disregard for the Kushitic – Meroitic pyramids and the other Ancient Sudanese monuments. In fact, the Egyptian soldiers did in Sudan what they could not do in Egypt whereby the Anglo-French diplomats forced the infantile Viceroy to entrust to them the supervision of the Antiquities. In Egypt, many sheikhs had opposed the Western Orientalists' explorations and researches, but under the aforementioned, wrong terms, and they could thus not offer a lucid understanding of the Orientalist fallacy. Any destruction of monuments in Egypt would certainly bring forth castigation and penalties, and the only demolition of an archeological site that was tolerated was a fast excavation undertaken in order to rob antiquities and sell them to Western smugglers. These illegal dealers were ok for the Freemasonic diplomats of England and France because in most of the cases they were their partners in the scandalous affair of robbery of Egypt's and Sudan's antiques.

However, in Sudan, the lack of (either Ottoman or colonial) authority made this type of acts, such as the destruction of pyramids, possible.

And this is what leads us to the correct understanding and interpretation of the Egyptian rule in Sudan which is falsely called Turkiyah. It was indeed an exportation of Anglo-French colonialism from Alexandria to Sudan, in replacement of the collapsed Ottoman rule, which had been exercised by the Funj dynasty of Sennar. The entire aforementioned, complex sociopolitical and cultural context was then transported to Sudan in order to detach the country from Islam and from the Islamic political authority.

One can write volumes to analyze how the Egyptian colonial rule over Sudan did nothing but destroying both the tradition of the Islamic political authority, and the possibility of the indigenous nations to build a modern nation, according to the real Western European prototypes. In fact, the Egyptians were supported by the Anglo-French to do in Sudan what the Anglo-French had done in Egypt. The introduction of a legal system in the 1850s is merely an example. Consequently, the entire false debate "traditional values vs. modernization" was duly exported to Sudan.

7. Traditional Values vs. Modernization in Sudan, and the Western Lies

This false debate became a typical characteristic of Sudan's sociopolitical life for more than 150 years, and it still haunts the country's elite and decision making process.

Here are a few examples:

1. Sheikhs, religious instructors, and judges were exported from Al Azhar, after the historical institution was purged by the Muhammad Ali's butchers and was forced to accommodate the Freemasonic, Anti-Islamic, Anglo-French policies of the Freemasonic regime, which signified destruction of Islam, and of the Islamic political authority.

This means that a fake Islam was thus fabricated in Sudan and all its derivatives cannot be but destructive for Islam, without however allowing a real nation building process to be launched.

2. As it happened in Egypt, the opponents of this fallacy, the Shaiqiyah, were driven to a total delusion, and were forced to imagine that defense of Islam was the equivalent of the defense of themselves, and not the demand of full reinstatement of the Ottoman political authority and the Funj sultanate.

The traditional sheikhs and judges (qadis) were dispossessed of their true authority and were allowed to deal with politically insignificant affairs. Their reaction failed because they proved incapable to grasp that only the evocation of the Caliph and the Sheikhulislam would truly oppose the evil plans of the Anglo-French Freemasons and their Egyptian and Sudanese stooges. They imagined that the issue pertained merely to a difference of school of Islamic jurisprudence (Sudan had been a traditional Maliki, not Hanafi, territory), but in reality there cannot be any Islamic judicial authority in a territory whereby there is no Islamic political authority.

3. The slave trade expanded disproportionately at those years but until now no one understood in Sudan the bitter reality; it was indeed all due to the Anglo-French and their Egyptian and Sudanese stooges, and it did not reflect the traditional Sudanese values and way of life.

Slavery is an undeniably European and Western tradition that goes back to the Greek and Roman Antiquity. Within the context of the great Oriental civilizations, Sumer, Egypt, Elam, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia, Hurri, Hittite Anatolia, Canaan, Phoenicia, Kush (Ancient Sudan, i.e. real "Ethiopia"), Iran, Indus valley, Yemen, and Carthage, there were no slaves. The concept itself of slave did not exist; there were only captives who were used as common labor force. Slavery existed in Greece and was greatly promoted within the Roman Empire; the institution survived within the Christian and the Islamic worlds but was always a minor and marginal phenomenon.

The really cruel form of slavery which involves racism, inhumanity and evilness is exclusively associated with Western colonialism, starting with the Spaniards and the Portuguese. With the English and the French, it reached its apogee, because it is an inherent part of the Freemasonic Weltanschauung and world view. In Sudan, it was used as a political trickery in order to offer venues for English – Egyptian intervention and deeper colonial involvement.

A comparative study of the Funj Sultanate 17th – 18th century annual income originating from slavery and the same origin annual income collected by Egyptians and their Sudanese stooges in the period 1821 – ca. 1880 would demonstrate that in real monetary terms the former was less than 1% of the latter. The fact that there were many anti-slavery activists in Europe and America does not exonerate in anything the Freemasonic establishment that ruled Paris and London. In fact, the English colonials acted in the same manner in Africa and in America – in the latter they strongly supported the slavery practiced in the evil South and opposed the abolitionists of the North.

4. The Mahdiyah period in Sudan corroborates the above analysis too. Although most of the end targets of Muhammad Ahmad Ibn as Sayyid Abdallah, widely known as Mahdi, were correct, he failed to realize that, when the Islamic political authority – which can be ensuing from the Caliphate alone – is absent, Islam is weakened as religion and practically speaking falls to desuetude, whatever religious rites may be kept in practice. In absence of the Caliphate, which is the Islamic political institution, religious authorities cannot substitute any sort of Islamic political authority – except for failure.

8. How Muhammad Ahmad, the So-called Mahdi, Would Be Successful

Whereas Muhammad Ahmad Ibn as Sayyid Abdallah, Usman Digna, and Abdallahi Ibn Muhammad were truly speaking the first Third World leaders, and definitely are the real icons of the African Struggle against the Colonial, Racist, Anglo-French Freemasonry, they failed to realize that their only true chances did indeed lie with the following:

A. Reaching out to the Sultan and Caliph at Istanbul

B. Exercising local power in the name of the Caliphate, and with Ottoman administrators

C. Coordinating with the Ottoman army in Palestine and in Libya in view of a liberation of Egypt from the Khedawi (Viceroy) pestilence – thus causing an enthusiastic and thunderous revolt of the Egyptian populations who in their entirety greatly reviled the Anglo-French presence and the Satanic policies imposed by them on their country's unlawful elite

D. Blocking the Suez Canal for any English and French boat; calling for an International Committee to run and defend the territory under the auspices of the Ottoman Empire, Qajar Iran, Tsarist Russia, Austria – Hungary, and Germany

E. Obliterating the viciously Anti-Islamic, tiny but heinous and rancorous kingdom of Abyssinia – as (relatively late, in 1887) Abdallahi Ibn Muhammad attempted to do; invading Gondar, he defeated the forces of the filthy cannibal Yohannes (fallaciously portrayed as "emperor" by heinous, Anti-African, Anglo-French literature), captured thousands of prisoners, and humiliated the terrorist, racist Amhara and Tigray Abyssinians.

(Note: the entry History of Sudan 1884 – 1898 in the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sudan_(1884%E2%80%931898) is particularly false and biased, and Yohannes was never called ‘emperor of Ethiopia'. The entry becomes particularly ludicrous when stating that "Khartoum dismissed him (Muhammad Ahmad, the so-called Mahdi) as a religious fanatic"; Muhammad Ahmad was not a fanatic but his political movement jeopardized the evil, colonial interests of the English, who defamed him at the religious level in order to hide their own political lawlessness. It is also totally false to state that the so-called Mahdiyah Sudan was a "jihad state" and that it was "run like a military camp". The country was under attack and it was only normal, until the enemy be driven out, to be momentarily ruled militarily. The ridiculous and racist, Anti-Sudanese and Anti-Islamic statement is the equivalent of saying that "during WW II, England was run like a military camp".)

Finally, the 1898 Anglo-Egyptian colonial military expedition destroyed Sudan's genuinely anti-Western and anti-colonial administration, and imposed in a very brutal manner and for more than half a century the vicissitudes that Napoleon was determined to impose on Egypt first. All the aforementioned characteristics of colonial nature have been widely imposed during this period, and the false debate "traditional values vs. modernization" was enriched with a new dimension of modernization, namely the Third World nationalism, and more specifically Pan-Arabism, which in turn further detached Sudan from both, the Islamic political authority (meanwhile collapsed with the abolition of the Caliphate by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) and the perspective of a modern nation building.

Without rejecting the colonial policies imposed on Egypt by the Anglo-French and on Sudan by the English and the Egyptians, no government in Sudan will ever have a chance to possibly survive. A modern nation building necessitates much more than just offering some ministerial positions to people originating from this or that ethno-religious group; it pertains to a genuine concern for all the ethno-religious groups, a proper reassessment of identity and historical heritage, and a resolute approach in order to bring forth a larger Kushitic confederation, by destroying the country favored for more than 150 years by Sudan's vicious enemies and methodic destroyers. In this regard, the Mahdist spirit and the bravery of Abdallahi Ibn Muhammad will be the greatest advantages. On this subject, I will expand in a forthcoming article.

Note
Picture: Sudan's borders reach the sources of the Blue Nile and the lake Tana
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Mahdist_State,_1881-98,_modern_Sudan.png