Tens of millions of people died and paid the price for the fragile independence of the Middle-Eastern countries, yet the colonial powers planted the seeds of hate, division and wars….

There has been a false promise of peace in the Middle-East, and the powers work in darkness to hinder peace and destabilize the fragile region by fighting real reformers and peace seeking leaders.

The Middle-East is a unique tragedy, a region that is the cradle of civilization. The region is interchangeable with the ‘Near East’, which has seen many of the world’s oldest cultures and civilizations, disasters and triumphs.

This history of the Middle-East started from the earliest human settlements, continuing through several major pre- and post-Islamic empires, to the nation-states of the Middle-East today.

Sumerians were the first people to develop complex systems as to be called “Civilization”, starting as far back as the 5th millennium BC. Egyptian civilization coalesced around 3150 BC with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under the first pharaoh.

Mesopotamia was home to several powerful empires that came to rule almost the entire Middle-East—particularly the Assyrian Empires of 1365–1076 BC and the Neo-Assyrian Empire of 911–609 BC.

From the early 7th century BC and onwards, the Iranian Medes followed by the Achaemenid Empire and other subsequent Iranian states and empires dominated the region.

In the 1st century BC, the expanding Roman Republic absorbed the whole Eastern Mediterranean, which included much of the Near East.

The Eastern Roman Empire, today commonly known as the Byzantine Empire, ruling from the Balkans to the Euphrates, became increasingly defined by and dogmatic about Christianity, gradually creating religious rifts between the doctrines dictated by the establishment in Constantinople and believers in many parts of the Middle-East. From the 3rd century up to the course of the 7th century AD, the entire Middle-East was dominated by the Byzantines and the Sasanian Empire. From the 7th century, a new power was rising in the Middle-East, that of Islam.

The dominance of the Arabs came with a huge scientific and cultural evolution that came to a sudden end in the mid-11th century with the arrival of the Mongols mainly Turkic savages who brought the Seljuq and the Ottoman reigns that destroyed centuries of history and science.

The reign of the Ottoman Empire destroyed the once beautiful Middle-East and turned it into a living tragedy for 400 years of wars, ransacked history, art and culture, and banning advanced science in the most parts of the Middle-East.

The people of the Middle-East fought for their freedom in the late 19th century, only to fall into the greedy hands of the colonial powers in the early 20th century that carved these ancient civilizations between themselves by creating rifts which we still feel to this date.

Tens of millions of people died and paid the price for the fragile independence of the Middle-Eastern countries, yet the colonial powers planted the seeds of hate, division and wars by carving nations into borders among the other nations.

The Kurds lost their homeland Palestine with the capture of Damascus that ended up carving up Syria out of the Hashemites kingdom, that freed the people from the Ottomans only to fall under the French mandate and the Young Arab Society giving a rise to national socialists that ended up aligned with the Nazis in World War II.

The west mainly France and Great Britain are responsible for the bulk problems of the Middle-East. These powers are not helping, every time they interfere with the region they make things far worse, example the Khomeinist regime and Iranian revolution.

These powers kept the Middle-East from achieving its potential throughout the 20th and 21st century, adding insult to injury these colonial powers are preaching to their victims how they should live, interfering in their internal affairs and creating havoc in the process.

I think it is about time for Middle-Eastern nations to get over their own differences and engage in an alliance that’s beneficial to their people.

Featured-Image credits: www.OnManorama.com

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He often writes about Islamism, Islamist factions and modern Terrorism. He tweets under @0khalodi0.

Now, to refute yet another imprecise impression that persists resolutely —”British imperialism defeated Ottoman empire to create Saudi Arabia”—erroneous assertion!

Challenge is not that the study of British Imperialism has few students, but that British Imperialism has been distorted to suit fabricated biases and vested interests, often manipulated to deceive and generate a hostile perception, with sole intention to isolate any independent, sensibly functioning country—Saudi Arabia—being the target here.

The unification of the current Saudi State occurred during the period — 1902 till 1932 — almost 13 years before the UN was established in 1945.

Back then, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries were recognised by the ruling powers, according to the persisting geo-political necessities, strategic alliances and the World Order that prevailed before the UN’s formation. Most countries recognised the Saudi State during these years (1902 – 1932).

The Islamic Conference, held in Riyadh on the 29th October 1924, brought a wide Islamic recognition and endorsement of Ibn-Saud’s jurisdiction over Makkah and Medinah.

This Islamic recognition was 21 years before the United Nations was established.

The British recognized Saudi Arabia in 1926, and the Republic of Turkey (formerly the Ottomans) also recognized Saudi Arabia in 1926.

Reasonable international relations and diplomacy do not forbid recognizing the international stature and power of countries that formed the “League of Nations” or the “United Nations’ in 1945.

There existed no country in the world that had not established diplomatic relations and military alliances with the British Empire—signed mutual treaties, preferential trade agreements, or hosted British diplomats.

Why British-Ottoman Treaties not questioned?

In 1619, Persian Empire granted trading privileges to East India Company. In 1675, England received privileged trading access to Ottoman empire. In 1793, East India Company Factory in Kuwait was established.

In 1596, a British diplomat Edward Barton accompanied the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet-III in his campaign against Hungary and was present at the siege of Eger.

In 1801, the Anglo-Turkish military forces conspired and captured Egypt, and collaborated further in the second Egyptian—Ottoman war of 1839.

In 1809, ‘Treaty of Dardanelles/Çanak”—signed between the British and Ottomans—ensured the British against entry of Russian fleet into the Mediterranean, reaffirming Britain’s privileged economic rights, and its secret provisions provided that the British assist the Ottomans against the French.

The 1833 peace “Treaty of Kutahya” saw the British empire support the Ottomans again, against Muhammad Ali’s Egypt.

The 1838 “Treaty of Balta Limani” was an Ottoman and British Commercial Treaty granting Britain preferential trading rights throughout Ottoman Empire.

In July 1913, there was yet another agreement between the Ottoman Empire and the British, known as the “Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913″—whereby the Ottomans surrendered its jurisdiction over the Persian Gulf, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Shatt al-‘Arab.

This 1913 Ottoman-Anglo Treaty was signed three years before the infamous oft quoted ‘The Sykes–Picot Agreement” of 1916. The Sykes–Picot agreement did NOT include the Arabian Peninsula.

How are these numerous Ottoman Treaties any different than the “Darin Treaty” of 1915 – signed between the Ruler Ibn Saud and diplomat Sir Percy Cox?

The Treaty between British and Saudi Arabia

The Darin Treaty 1915 was signed to indicate British recognition of the third Saudi State, and in return, Ibn Saud agreed not to attack British protectorates. Ibn Saud’s victory and seizure of Al-Hasa finally compelled the otherwise reluctant and neutral British to subsequently re-evaluate their policy towards Ibn Saud, resulting in signing of the “Darin Treaty”. Sovereign and equal international relations were established between these two supreme ruling powers.

Why is Sir Percy Cox’s role considered any different than that of William Harborne, Sir Edward Barton or Sir Thomas Roe’s role in the Ottoman Empire? Search these names up.

William Harborne’s services for “Turkey Company” are compared to those of Sir Thomas Roe’s to the East India Company.

The Unholy alliance between British and Ottomans

From 1583 to 1908—Ottoman empire collaborated with over 50 British designated diplomats. All attained British imperialism within the Ottoman empire, and secured preferential trade access, capitulations, tariff reductions, selective routes, privileged rights and struck military alliances.

Both, utilized commercial diplomacy to accomplish imperialistic objectives.

In 1831, the Governor of Egypt Mehmet Ali Pasha—once loyal to the Ottomans—decided to retaliate against the Ottoman Empire. To quell Mehmet Ali’s vengeance, the Ottomans appealed to the Russians, French and the British to intervene. The British taking advantage of the situation, defeated Mehmet Ali Pasha but in exchange, acquired exclusive access to Ottoman trade markets.

This same Mehmet Ali Pasha had once led an invasion against the Al-Saud in 1811, at the request of the Ottoman Sultan.

Why should then, the Arabs have trusted these treacherous Turk Ottomans or the faltering British empire over their sovereign independence?

Saudi Arabia is Independent

Saudi Arabia today is an independent sophisticated state, economically viable, socially developed, progressive, modern infrastructure, and ruled by sensible leaders. A testimony to the visionary decisions undertaken by the noble Abd al-‘Azīz ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥman Āl Sa’ūd back in 1902 -1932.

Mainstream thinking should make a decisive shift, revert to balance-of-power thinking and study history objectively. Let it not be, “History is a set of lies agreed upon”—Napoleon Bonaparte.

“That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach”—Aldous Huxley

Afreen Baig is a regular writer on contemporary issues of Middle-East and the Arab World. She writes for the Milli Chronicle. She tweets under @afreenb179 and she can be followed on Facebook.

It also found that the share of Turks who say they adhere to Islam dropped from 55 percent to 51 percent.

According to a recent survey by the pollster Konda, a growing number of Turks identify as atheists. Konda reports that the number of nonbelievers tripled in the past 10 years. It also found that the share of Turks who say they adhere to Islam dropped from 55 percent to 51 percent.

“There is religious coercion in Turkey,” said 36-year-old computer scientist Ahmet Balyemez, who has been an atheist for over 10 years. “People ask themselves: Is this the true Islam?” he added

Balyemez said he grew up in a very religious family. “Fasting and praying were the most normal things for me,” he said. But then, at some point, he decided to become an atheist.

Diyanet, Turkey’s official directorate of religious affairs, declared in 2014 that more than 99 percent of the population identifies as Muslim. When Konda’s recent survey with evidence to the contrary was published, heated public debate ensued.

The theologian Cemil Kilic believes that both figures are correct. Though 99 percent of Turks are Muslim, he said, many only practice the faith in a cultural and sociological sense. They are cultural, rather than spiritual, Muslims.

Kilic said Muslims who regularly pray, go on pilgrimages or wear veils could generally be considered pious, though, he added, being true to the faith means much more than just performing rituals or opting for certain outerwear. In his view, “judging whether a person is religious should also be based on whether he or she subscribes to certain ethical and humanitarian values.” When only taking into account people who practice Islam, he said, “no more than 60 percent of people in Turkey can be considered Muslim.”

In Turkey, Kilic said, the relationship between church and state endures. “Regular prayers have become a way to signal obedience toward the political leadership,” he said. “And prayers in mosques increasingly reflect the political worldview of those in power.”

Kilic said a lack of belief did not, of course, mean the lack of a moral compass.

For nearly 16 years under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, first as prime minister and since 2014 as president, Turkish officials have increasingly used Islam to justify their politics — possibly increasing the skepticism surrounding faith in government.

“People reject the predominant interpretation of Islam, the sects, religious communities, the directorate of religious affairs and those in power,” he said. “They do not want this kind of religion and this official form of piousness.” This, Kilic said, could help explain why so many Turks now identify as atheists.

‘Questioning their faith’

Selin Ozkohen, who heads Ateizm Dernegi, Turkey’s main association for atheists, said Erdogan’s desire to produce a generation of devout Muslims had backfired in many ways. “Religious sects and communities have discredited themselves,” she said. “We have always said that the state should not be ruled by religious communities, as this leads to people questioning their faith and becoming atheists.”

Ozkohen cited the unsuccessful coup in 2016, in which followers of the preacher and religious scholar Fethullah Gulen are accused of rising up against Erdogan, a former ally of the theologian’s. The coup, she said, was a clash between opposing religious groups — which was followed by a major crackdown by Erdogan. “People have noticed this and distanced themselves,” she said. “Those who think on this turn to atheism.”

As a result, Ozkohen said, “today, people are willing to openly say they are atheists.” But the government continues to coerce people to conform to perceived religious standards. “Pressure is exerted in the neighborhoods and mosques,” she said.