Social and Political Status of the Assyrians
It is not surprising that the West could not apply the same policy
of annulment on the Arabs in Palestine as it did on the Assyrians,
during the mandated periods of the Middle East region, in the
immediate aftermath of World War I.
The Mandated Powers abolished the map of Mesopotamia. They
dismembered it, including the physical map of Assyria that until
1922 had existed in the World Atlas. By doing so, the League Council
annulled the national identity of the Assyrian people, invalidated
their political status and classified them as Christian minorities
of various denominational ‘millet’ groups of specious backgrounds.
The Assyrians of Hakkari-Van, Turkey and Urmia, Iran were evicted
from their native land. They ended up in the Province of Mosul. Some
were rehabilitated in isolation of their kinfolk in Iraq and Syria.
Others were dispersed into the Muslim majority and the rest were
left stranded. They were scattered all over the Middle East and left
to fend for themselves with a view to their gradual assimilation.
The Council’s illegal action led to fragmentation of the Assyrian
people. The Assyrians were dispersed into the Arab-Islamic states in
a bid to integrate them with the overwhelming Islamic majority. The
Mandate’s objective was to deny the Assyrian legitimate claim to
their ancestral land. They were dispossessed and left at the mercy
of their traditional enemy, without any subsistence or concern as to
their future.
The Palestinians rejected such a ploy. They objected to the
Mandate’s unfavourable policy of a coalition government. They
resisted the Mandate’s fragmentation scheme to be vanquished into
the neighbouring Arab states. They adamantly fought the dispersal
policy and sought the help of the Arab governments, resorting to
jihad.
Islamic countries and later the Arab League, in the early sixties,
supported the Palestinians in retaining an Arab identity, by
classifying them Palestinian Arabs. The Abode of Peace welcomed the
Palestinians to reside in their countries as temporary guests,
classifying them as displaced refugees.
The Palestinian travelled with a passport issued by the host
government visibly marked “Bearer of the Passport is of Palestinian
nationality”. Bearer of the travel document was identified as a
refugee and not a naturalised citizen of the Arab host country. The
Arab League maintained this course of action to preserve his
Palestinian entity, in anticipation of reclaiming the whole
territory under the British Mandate as Arab Palestine.
In the case of the Assyrians, the League of Nations classified the
Assyrian people as a minority and not as displaced refugees,
deluding the world that the evicted Assyrians were living in a host
country and not on their own Assyrian soil.
The Assyrian nation was fragmented into several denominational
groups with the object of their assimilation in several neighbouring
Islamic countries. They were termed alien ‘millets’. The West did
not divide Mesopotamia according to the need and legitimate rights
of the native dwellers of the region. The victorious Western Powers
divided it to satisfy the Arab-Islamic wishes and for their own
political reasons and economic benefits.
The Mandates redrew the political map of the Middle East. They
created Arab/Islamic countries and handed over the whole of the
Middle East region to the Muslim occupiers. The legitimacy of the
other Middle East dispossessed nations, Jews and Assyrians, was
ignored. They failed to protect the traditional territories of the
native settlers that rightfully belonged to them from time
immemorial. Restoration of Israel and Assyria, under protection of
the League of Nations, would have created a healthy equilibrium and
struck a sound balance of power among the several diversified ethnic
groups, different in language, culture and religion. Just
distribution of land, by the Mandated Powers, would have been a
positive move, assisting in the long-term stabilization of the
region, easing of tension, and creating greater awareness of their
sovereignty and respect for each other’s rights and borders.
It would have contributed towards attainment of closer
rapprochement, and durable peace in the Middle East. The native
inhabitants have not benefited anything from the Islamic rule,
especially the indigenous Assyrians; they have suffered the most.
To do justice to the traditional inhabitants of the Middle East, the
world community needs to reconsider its policy in regards to the
indigenous peoples of the region. From day one, Islamic regimes were
built on shaky grounds. They never had a civil system of government
based on secular democratic principles in the first place. Their
system was either tribal or sectarian.
The Arabs and their predecessor the Ottoman Turks ruled by the
system of the Consultative Council (Majlis Al-Shuri), a system
inherited from days of old. It had emerged and developed into a
ruling cult with the inception of Islam. Their Council (Majlis) was
a body made up of warlords, tribal leaders, close associates and
powerful members of the ruling clan.
After the death of the prophet, the Islamic nation was headed by the
Khalipha, successor of the prophet and ruling head of all Muslims of
the world, for life. The Consultative Council (Majlis Al-Shuri) did
not rule by a written constitution.
Islam, in its precept, strives to assume world dominance, by
whatever means available to it, mainly by force, through traditional
jihad. Its religion, they believe, will be applicable to all
peoples, to all time and all places on earth. To them, it is
universal and eternal in the sense that it will be the domineering
religion worldwide. A secular constitution does not agree with the
Islamic rule of their religious Shari’ah law (Pryce-Jones, 1989: p
354; Mawdudi, 1992: pp 115-116).
Certain Islamic organisations commit violent actions and the world
media describe them as acts of terrorism. The said organizations
accuse the media of being biased and against Islam for calling their
organisations by their religious names such as, Hezbullah (the party
of God), Junoud Muhammad (Muhammad’s soldiers), Jundu-Llah (Allah’s
Army), Fatih (Conquest), Jihad (Struggle in the name of Allah) etc.
Notwithstanding, they all carry arms publicly. Either, such militant
organisations carry arms, in defiance of the government of the day
or the government itself sanctions it. They insist that they are
legitimate.
Unless the concept of jihad is redefined theologically and accepted
by its advocates and adherents as a non-violent precept, violence
will continue. Unless jihad is concurrently practised as a peaceful
means to preaching the call of the Muhammadan message of (Al-Da’awa),
there will be no change in the uncompromising stance and vehement
practice of jihad. Constitutional reform on the lines of other
secular democratic countries would be undesirable, hence untenable.
To gain the confidence and respect of the world, Islam needs to
separate and make a clear-cut distinction between a militant mujahid
who commits acts of incursion and open challenges of slaughter and
destruction, and between a peaceful and unarmed Mujahid. In the
Islamic society, a military uniformed Mujahid and a civilian Mujahid,
whether militant or peaceful, congregate at the mosque of their
vicinity and pray together. They understandably form one unilateral
society. In their dictum, jihad is part of their Islamic religion,
acceptable to all the mujahideen, and will remain as is, and will
not be compromised. The Islamic society is aware of this fact. It
accepts such members in its various communities and government
sectors as legitimate. It is part of its overall traditional
religious and social system. Islamic government view a mujahid,
regardless of his social status, as a potential freedom fighter, in
promoting the cause of Islam, for the sake of Allah whatever the
circumstance and intensity.
Prophet Muhammad himself led and sanctioned, numerous (ghazawat)
raids, considering them as normal Arab tradition, a testimony that
the Islamic Message of (Al-Da’awa) is propagated through jihad, holy
war, against the ‘infidel’, considering such action as a religious
duty. Muhammad owned several swords of different types. During his
lifetime, Muhammad always girded himself with a sword before going
to battle (on more than two hundred separate occasions). He
possessed several swords of different shapes. His swords had names,
the favourite of which was “THU LFIQAR”. The names of some of his
famous swords are: AL-BATTAR, AL-MA’ASSOUB, AL-MOKHATHAM, AL-RUSSOUB,
AL-HATF and AL-ADHB. Constant bearers of his swords accompanied
Muhammad when at war. Islam follows the example of their spiritual
leader.
Heads of The Abode of Peace regime behave like brats. Like a spoilt
child that always nags and is never satisfied. They continue to
demand and never compromise. Arab/Islamic countries have received
billions upon billions of U.S. dollars from the West, in cash and in
kind, in the form of dividends, financial grants; all types of aid,
loans, education, vocational and on-the-job training. Yet, the
Arab/Islamic states defiantly refuse to reform their government
system to a secular democratic constitution to take their place in
the world order of the day. Instead, their heads of government
continue in their trend of creating an order of their own, fostering
the doctrine of the Abode of War and the Abode of Peace in a bid to
achieving a global Islamic Nation, under the Islamic (Shari’ah)
rule, denying other peoples’ total rights to their religion, culture
and ownership of their land. (Assyrians - the Forgotten People, Part
V; p1).
[TOP]
