What has changed in the Arab world; Compared to what this world was like over a thousand years ago? How does order and consciousness – and then the coordinates of reality move – work in the Arab world after Napoleon’s campaign (which is supposed to be the beginning of questionable self-awareness) and to this day?
Has this system of consciousness severed the connection to a history inhabited by the struggle of predatory forces, free violence, sectarianism, sectarianism, fragmentation, chaos, and inhuman and unjust situations, in addition to labor, production, diligence, and diligence. . and so on.
Backward structures that produce only backward; On the other hand, is he connected to another cultural universe, which is a human being in his final stage of development and its finest manifestation, or is he still connected in spirit, mind, and action to this history that draws him to the bottom of his consciousness?
The communication hypothesis seems to be the most important not only in the connotations contained in the manifestations of cultural discourse but also in the connotations of facts / reality. And if the late Arab thinker / Muhammad Abed Al-Jabri studied in his great, four-part project the Arab mind from its formation during codification, then forming it as a general governing system of the consciousness system and then expressing it in two senses: political and moral, then all factors he referred to, and emphasized, are in themselves factors which regulate the totality of the forms of the Arab movement on two levels: theoretical and practical.
However, if Al-Jabri had defined the period of “formation of the Arab mind” for a limited period of codification, suggesting that it formed what followed and later became a conscious system that governs all Arab history from those beginnings to the present day, I do not see that this period stopped to a crucial moment in our history, for despite its centrality and impact on everything that follows, it is because it is a period / practice that it is constantly repeated. I do not just mean what Al-Jabri meant that the current mind of the Arabs is controlled in a way
Rather, I mean that the current Arab mind is engaging in betting by strengthening it as it restores its structure and even increases its durability and bulge. To be a continuous period of formation that accumulates over a long period of time; But without going beyond the first factors, but rather they are in the same orbit and revolved in a vicious circle from the first centuries / era of codification to the present day; So its novelty is old, its enlightenment is rigid fundamentalism in restored content, renewal is the eye of its traditions, its modernity is just a silly restoration of antiquity scattered on the sidewalks of history.
Last week’s article was on “The History of Islamic Violence,” that is, the history of Muslims. Violence is not just what was revealed in the key facts I referred to in summary and as references in that article, but violence in all its manifestations, even what seems to be soft violence if you will!
If children were slaughtered at their mother’s (as he did with Sir Ibn Arta), and the holy city was allowed to be looted and raped for three days after tens of thousands of people were killed on its outskirts by heat and before that by massacre affecting the holiest religious people of his time / Karbala, and all this during the period Suppose it is Puritan, the period considered by Muslims to be the most sacred period according to the archaeological tradition, and the most charitable period. But above all, everything that happens is in the hands of Muslims, and in the Islamic state, if it condemns, overturns and condemns these practices, the size of the condemnation, acceptance and condemnation circle has never reached immunity, i.e. it did not rise to form a strong public opinion that prevents such cases from the outset, or at least prevent its recurrence after the ugliness and ugliness of its first facts have been understood.
Yes, stable public opinion was not formed, collective conscience was not crystallized, which becomes a difficult chapter in the reality equation and then frames the actual events of the event or at least contributes to the formulation of the event and its determination of the main paths. Unfortunately, the opposite happened, which should be the focus of the historical critical process because it was justified (justified by a realistic or legal necessity or both, as the former is the predecessor of the latter), and therefore, it was repeated in this context.
The rationale is firm and will make it normal for it to be a fundamental part of social mobility. And stability, harmony, justice, and the strengthening of the human principle become an emergency, it is rare, it is a transient exception, it is a miracle that violates the law of stable historical reality, it is a dream that rises like a ray of lightning, the fragile margin on the board of violent atrocities broke man on more than one level of history. Long, not great Arab.
Therefore, the dreamy, exceptional period of “Umar bin Abdulaziz”, which ruled for only two years, was between 99-101 Hijri (regardless of the circumstances of the period and its context and the elements of the rule in it), as if it were not a real reality, as if it were just a dream , which people did not find. In fact, after awakening, with the exception of the beauty of memory, they only found an exception that reminds them that it is an impossible exception, while reminding them that previous years at all speeds are a reality that they are a natural thing to deal with by integrating into it. . This has been proved by later facts, because despite the “revolutionary decisions” in this very short time, the day after the death of the “exception” confirmed that the “state” in which all parts of the surrounding reality are organized against it, meaning it is a state cacophony; The exception has nothing to do with reality.
When the Abbasid revolution emerged as a realistic contrast and ideological contrast to the Umayyad state, when the first was crushed by brutal violence that not only concerned but also claimed a radical difference when all this happened; The “revolution” was really nothing more than the restoration of the same history that the Umayyad dynasty had originally done. To the extent that it was set as an expression of a predetermined history. Therefore, it was not in reality an ideological opposite, but rather an ideological diversification identified in an established history of violence, a history in which the cascades of a real event interact with an imaginary perception whose shadows remain behind the facts. ancient Arab history: “pre-Islamic” and “post-Islamic” “.
The Abbasid revolution was born, and its first ruler / successor was Abu al-Abbas al-Saffah, who ruled for five years during the turbulent founding period. Then came Abu Jaafar al-Mansour’s brother, the true founder of the Abbasid state. the title of one of his sermons was “Manger. The course of events confirmed that he was indeed a serial killer and even more than a villain. Although Al-Mansour was more than a war criminal (in many events that history books have recorded throughout his” he surpassed both in quantity and quality , what his brother’s butcher had previously done, to become one of the most important symbols of tyranny, violence, and brutality in Islamic history.
And these two, despite the fact that they lived the longest of their lives in the state of Umayyad, and in spite of their constant indignation at its violence, grievances, and ugliness and the enticing image of the 99-101 AH age period, which was a positive image; However, they did not want to or could not, or they did not respond and could not be a continuation of the exception to the flash they loved.
They did not belong to the administrative and ethical context of the man they praised in their language, but paradoxically here were a sequel to those Umayyad rulers who they thought were the worst model for the rulers. In short, at the word level, they cursed the rulers of Umayyad and withdrew from the pardon of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, while at the content of the law / administration they condemned Umar, despised his method, and underestimated his achievements as mere ascetic, dreamy, helpless, when. The biography of the Umayyad rulers, who take the highest models embedded from them, deserves respect and reverence, even as models that are not mentioned in language except with curses after curses!
There was no contradiction here. They were ruled by actual history and the system of observation, and they were able to interpret that actual history and conceptual system only by miracle, and the time for miracles is over. They were children of a deep-rooted reality, created by prejudice. Insofar as they were prisoners of indirect facts in which they were confronted with necessity and a difficult matter to choose; At least.
They created the Abbasid state / state that would be the longest and most dangerous in the history of Islam. Not only did they establish a state that adapts to the Islamic reality, which expands in succession with its long Islamic history, but also, frankly, they founded an ideology that mimics the journey that shaped and rooted this state, an ideology that speaks two languages: spoken and after all, it feeds a long, dark history (His darkness consumes the light of weak and desperate candles); You nurture and develop it in many ways when you have used resources from outside; Not only is he more established and broader, but also more beautiful and attractive and thus more self-evident as the “natural” most obvious / practical and perhaps even the most expressive of humanity in the feasibility criteria!
This is the history of the Arabs in ancient times, the history of Iraq and Syria, the history of the capitals of the Islamic Empire. Has the reality of Arabs changed in particular: the reality of Iraq and Syria today, something of history? Has what happened in Iraq over the last three decades be fundamentally different from any decisive event that took place in Iraq during those three decades between 60-90 AH, that is, fourteen centuries ago? More importantly, has the established value system of Arabs today, the values that govern the behavior of the vast majority of millions of Arabs, changed from the values that prevailed at the level of public perception in the Umayyad or Abbasid era?