By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu (Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)
Pre-publication of chapter XVI of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters XIV, XV and XVI belong to Part Five (Fallacies about Sassanid History, History of Religions, and the History of Migrations). The book is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters.
—————————————————
Hsiung-nu soldier from Saksanokhur, Tajikistan
However, soon afterwards, Europe faced two major threats that lasted many centuries: the Islamic armies and the Manichaean subversion. Despite their ferocity and their conquests, at a certain point the Islamic armies were stopped either in Western or in Eastern Europe. But the Manichaean tidal wave that hit Europe back was disproportional and beyond any expectation. Starting from the Eastern Roman Empire and the entire Caucasus region and as early as the 7th c. CE, the Paulicians triggered an enormous religious, social and imperial destabilization across vast lands. The famous Eastern Roman Akritai, i.e. the imperial Eastern Roman guards and frontal forces against the Islamic Caliphate, were – all – Paulicians, having rejected the Christian Orthodox Constantinopolitan theology. Digenes Akritas, the Eastern Roman Empire’s greatest hero and Modern Greeks’ most revered and foremost legendary figure was a Paulician, not an Orthodox.
Constantinopolitan patriarchs, emperors and theologians persistently described the Paulicians as Manichaeans; they used the same term also for the Iconoclasts. This does not mean that these religious, spiritual and esoteric systems of faith were ‘Manichaean’ stricto sensu, but they were definitely formed under determinant Manichaean impact. The same concerns the Bogomiles across the Balkans, Central and Western Europe, starting in the 10th c., the Cathars across Western Europe from the 12th c. onwards, and also many other religious, spiritual and esoteric systems that derived from the aforementioned.
The Muslim friends, partners and associates of the Paulicians were also groups formed under strong Manichaean impact and historically viewed as such; known as Babakiyah or Khurramites or Khorram-dinan, the 8th c. religious group setup by Sunpadh and led in the 9th c. by Babak Khurramdin made an alliance with the Eastern Roman Emperor Theophilos (829-842), an outstanding Iconoclast, and not only repeatedly revolted against the Abbasid Caliphate but also fought along with the Eastern Roman army in 837 in the Anti-Taurus Mountains to recapture Melitene (Malatya), and on many other occasions. The Khurramite commander Nasir and 14000 Iranian Khurramite rebels had no problem in being baptized Iconoclast Christians and taking Greek names (Nasir became then known as Theophobos), which shows the Manichaean origins and affinities of the Iconoclasts and the Khurramites.
The state of the Paulicians
The massacre of the Paulicians
Kale-ye Babak, the impregnable castle of the Babakiyah (or Khurramites) near Kaleybar – East Azerbaijan, Iran
Afshin brings Babak as captive in Samarra. from a manuscript miniature of the Safavid times
Babak Khorramdin statue from Babek city in Nakhchivan province of Azerbaijan
Within the context of early Islamic caliphates, the Manicheans prospered, definitely marked by their superiority in terms of spirituality, letters, sciences, philosophy and cosmology. It was relatively easy for them to reinterpret the Quran as a Manichaean scripture; it was totally impossible for the uneducated and naïve early Muslims to oppose Manicheans in open debate or to outfox Manichaean interpretative schemes. Among the leading Muslim erudite polymaths, mystics, poets and translators of the early period of Islamic Civilization (7th – 8th c.), many defended all major pillars of the Manichaean doctrine and even the dualist dogma; Ibn al Muqaffa is an example. The illustrious translator of the Middle Persian literary masterpiece Kalila wa Dimna into Arabic was a crypto-Manichaean Muslim, and surely he was not the only. Ibn al Muqaffa was executed as per the order of Caliph al-Mansur (754-775), but the first persecution of the Manicheans started only under the Caliph al-Mahdi (775-785); however, this was the time many groups and movements or Manichean origin started openly challenging Islam and the Caliphate in every sense. However, it is noteworthy that the greatest Caliph of all times, Harun al Rashid (786-809), had a very tolerant and friendly stance toward Manicheans of all types.
Abu’l Abbas al-Saffah proclaimed as the first Abbasid Caliph: the Abbasid dynasty opened the door for a cataclysmic Iranian cultural, intellectual, academic, scientific and spiritual impact on the Muslim world.
However, it is only as late as the time of Caliph al-Muqtadir (908-932) that the Manicheans, persecuted in the Caliphate, left Mesopotamia in big numbers, making of Afrasiab (Samarqand) and Central Asia the center of their faith, life and activities. This was not a coincidence; many Turanians had already been long date enthusiastic Manichean converts and adepts, whereas several Manichaean monuments unearthed in Central Asia date back to the 4th c. At the time of al-Mansur, the Uyghur Khaqan (: Emperor) Boku Tekin accepted Manichaeism as official state religion in 763; the Uyghur Khaqanate stretched from the Tian Shan mountains and the Lake Balkhash (today’s Kazakhstan) to the Pacific. For more than one century, Manichaeism was the state religion across the entire Northeastern Asia.
During the same time, Manichaeism was diffused in Tibet and China. Similarly with what occurred in the Islamic Caliphate, Manicheans in Tibet and China had it easy to reinterpret Buddhism in Manichaean terms. As a matter of fact, Chinese Buddhism is full of Manichaean impregnations. For this reason, several anti-Buddhist Chinese emperors (like Wuzong of Tang in the period 843-845) confused the Manicheans with the Buddhists and persecuted them too. However, Manichaeism was for many centuries a fundamental component and a critical parameter of all social, spiritual, intellectual and religious developments in China. And this was due to the incessant interaction of Turanians and Iranians across Asia. About:
During the Sassanid and early Islamic periods, the central provinces of Iran had to embrace many Turanian newcomers. This was one of the numerous Turanian waves that the Iranian plateau and its periphery had to welcome across the millennia. A vast and critical topic of the World History that was excessively distorted and systematically misrepresented across various disciplines of the Humanities is the chapter of the major Eurasiatic Migrations. Various distorting lenses have been used in this regard. It is surely beyond the scope of the present chapter to outline this subject, but I must at least mention it with respect to the persistent Orientalist efforts to divide and dissociate Iranian from Turanian nations across several millennia.
If one accepts naively the ‘official’ dogma of Western colonial historiography, one imagines that all the world’s major civilizations (Sumerians, Elamites, Akkadians-Assyrians/Babylonians, Egyptians, Cushites-Sudanese, Hittites, Hurrians, Urartu, Phoenicians, Iranians, Greeks, Romans, Dravidians, Chinese, etc.) were automatically popped up and instantly formed by settled populations. Modern historians, who compose this sort of nonsensical narratives, are monstrous gangsters intending to desecrate human civilization and to extinguish human spirituality. All civilizations were started by nomads, and there was always a time when all indigenous nations (each of them in its own turn) were migrants.
But modern Western historians intentionally and criminally misrepresent the major Eurasiatic Migrations in a most systematic and most sophisticated manner, by only introducing – partly and partially – aspects of this overwhelming and continual phenomenon, like spices on gourmet dishes. I do not imply that the Eurasiatic Migrations were the only to have happened or to have mattered; there were also important migrations in Africa, the Pacific, and the continent of the Aztecs, the Mayas and the Incas. However, I limit the topic to the migrations that are relevant to the History of Iran and Turan. So, those who study Ancient Roman History are customarily told that, ‘although everything was fine and civilized Romans prospered in peace’, suddenly some iniquitous barbarians arrived to invade Roman lands and to embarrass the civilized settled populations altogether; this type of bogus-historical presentations is a Crime against the Mankind, because it distorts the foremost reality of human history, namely that we have all been migrants.
There is no worst bigotry worldwide than that of settled populations.
Yet, every manual of history would be easily rectified, if few extra chapters were added, at the beginning and during the course of the narration, to offer an outline of parallel developments occurred in the wider and irrevocbly indivisible Eurasia.
The discriminatory, truly racist, manner by which the civilized migrants are presented in various manuals of (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Cushitic, Anatolian, Roman, Greek, European, Russian, Iranian, Dravidian, and Chinese) History helps only reinstate the vicious and immoral axiom that ‘History is written by the victors’. Every historian, who does not consciously write in an objective manner to reveal the truth and to reject the paranoia of the aforementioned adage, is an enemy of the Mankind.
Beyond the aforementioned points, many historians today will try to find an excuse, saying that, by writing about let’s say the so-called ‘barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire’, they intentionally reflect the Roman viewpoint, because they rely on Roman historical sources. This could eventually be accepted, if stated in 1820, when the modern science of history had not advanced much, and only few archaeological excavations had taken place. But if this is seriously expressed as an apology today, it constitutes an outrage. The least one can say to these forgers is that they must first obtain an interdisciplinary degree, before publishing their nonsensical manual, or – alternatively – study several paperbacks on the History of the Migrant Nations (in this case: Huns, Vandals, Goths, etc.).
An even greater mistake that modern historians make is that they present the continual phenomenon of Eurasiatic migrations in a most fragmentary manner; this creates, by means of Nazi propaganda, the wrong idea and the distorted impression that all of a sudden, every now and then, new migrants appear in the horizon, coming out of the vast Asiatic ‘nowhere’. This is an aberration and a fallacy. The absurd factoid, which is deceitfully called “Invasions of the Roman Empire” and is peremptorily dated between 100 CE and 500 CE, is merely an academic fabrication. Why?
First, there were incessant migrations before and after the said period.
Second, the aforementioned factoid is a fallacy due to the fact that, during the same period, other migrations took also place, but the specialists in Roman History do not mention (or even do not know) them; however, these migrations (that they fail to even name) constitute intertwined phenomena with those that they present in their manuals, and consequently their presentation is a conscious and plain distortion.
Third, the events are always portrayed as a menace of barbarism, as breach of Roman legitimacy, and as violation of a hypothetical right of the Roman Empire to exist. This is an outrage; the Roman Empire was not a sacrosanct institution. In many aspects, its lawless formation, barbaric expansion, and bloody wars constitute some of the World History’s bleakest pages. But criminal colonial historians never discussed ‘unpleasant’ topics with the correct terminology; they did not write for instance about the barbarian Roman demolition of Carthage, the monstrous Roman sack of Corinth, the savage Roman invasion of Seleucid Syria or the lawless Roman annexation of Egypt.
This is the disgusting bias of the Western colonial historiographers: when a negative development takes place against Rome, it is ‘bad’; and quite contrarily, when an undesirable occurrence happens to others, it is ‘good’. And in order to represent this vicious bias as ‘historical truth’, they mobilize a great intellectual effort, involving many methods. In this regard, the Eurasiatic migrations are absurdly fractured into many parts, and many of these parts are deliberately concealed, when focus is made on only one of them. The pseudo-academic methods involved to disguise and conceal the topic are numerous.
First, some migrations are not presented as such, but named after the migrant nations; examples: Scythians, Sarmatians, Celts. And yet, these nations are basically known due to their migrations across vast lands.
Second, other migrations are not mentioned as such, but called after the name of the location where excavations brought to light the material remains of a migrant nation’s civilization; example: Andronovo culture, Afanasievo culture, etc.
Third, several migrant nations of different origin are regrouped after the geography where they spread; this is totally paranoid, because no one can possibly ‘regroup’ the Vandals, who crossed Central and Western Europe, reached North Africa, settled in Hippo Regius and Carthage, and then attacked Greece, Sicily, Rome, Sardinia, Corsica and the Iberian coastlands, with the Huns, who crossed Siberia, Russia, and Ukraine, settled in Eastern Europe and attacked the Balkans, Italy and Gaul.
Fourth, several migrant nations are dissociated from one another migrant nation of the same ethnic origin (example: Huns and Turkic nations), whereas in cases of severe distortion, different names of the same nation, attested in diverse historical sources, are tentatively presented as names of two different nations (example: Huns and Hsiung nu whose name is erroneously spelled Xiongnu).
Fifth, several parts of migrant nations are arbitrarily dissociated from their ethnic counterparts and presented separately as settled nations (example: White Huns or Hephthalites).
Sixth, the ethnic origin of several migrant nations is confusingly presented (example: the Bulgars, who were a Turkic nation, are often included in Europe’s ‘Migration Period’ and categorized along with Slavs, whereas they should have been mentioned in the ‘Turkic migrations’!).
To the aforementioned inaccuracies, distortions and prejudices, a plethora of false maps is added to comfortably reduce the size of kingdoms, empires and nations whose existence did not happen to please the discriminatory minds of the perverse Anglo-French and American colonial historians. About:
The end result of this systematization of Western colonial falsehood is that great and highly civilized conquerors and emperors like Attila, Genghis Khan, Hulagu Khan, Kublai Khan, Timur Lenk and others appear as mysterious meteorites, who came from “nowhere”, as barbarian invaders, and a “scourges of God”, whereas in reality they all (and many others) were far more educated, more cultured, more competent and more heroic than any Greek, Macedonian, Roman or European king or general. To the aforementioned historical reality additional, deceitful tactics and insidious procedures have been added by the criminal, racist, Western European and North American ‘historians’: they definitely proved to be able to write 100000 words to deplore the destructions supposedly caused to the Human Civilization by Attila, Genghis Khan, Hulagu Khan, and others, but when they happen to write about the fact that Alexander the Great burned Persepolis, they remain malignantly and partially silent, abstaining from any due criticism.
King Attila with the Turul bird in his shield (Chronicon Pictum, 1358)
It would be far easier for all to tell the truth: ‘Asia is Turan’ for most of its territory. And the moral lesson must be drawn: the existence of a ‘state’ is not a reason for anyone not to invade its lands. States are not sacrosanct; and in any case, the territory occupied by the nation that setup the local state, in all cases of historical states, was also invaded by the ancestors of that nation in the first place.
The biased Western colonial historians carry out all these distortions as tasks in order to promote the lawless interests of their own disreputable states; for this reason they always concealed the following unwavering reality: throughout World History, various fundamental concepts like ‘land’, ‘state’, ‘nation’, ‘sacred place’, etc. have had different connotations among nations of nomadic migrants and nations of settled populations.
Furthermore, several fundamental concepts, which are valid among settled nations, have no validity at all among nomads and migrant nations, and vice versa. In addition, some basic concepts that exist among nomads and migrant nations start being altered and becoming different if and when these nations happen to settle somewhere ‘permanently’. The concept of ‘universe’ and the deriving imperative of ‘universalism’ are fundamental notions of nomads and migrant nations; notably, the Akkadians (early Assyrians – Babylonians), who first produced significant literary narratives to detail the concept, were also a migrant nation that had settled only few centuries before writing down in cuneiform texts their world views.
The History of Eurasiatic Migrations, in and by itself, highlights the extensive presence of Turanians in Iran since times immemorial. Thanks to the Turanians of the Achaemenid Empire, the Turkic nations of Central Asia, China and Siberia came to get detailed descriptions of faraway regions and lands, such as Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, the Caucasus Mountains, the Anatolian plateau, the plains of Ukraine and Central Europe, the Balkan Peninsula, and Egypt. Consequently, further the interaction between Iran and Rome progressed, more details about the western confines of Europe reached the Turanian nomads who were moving around Lake Balkhash (Kazakhstan), Yenisey River and Baikal Lake (Siberia), Orkhon River (Mongolia), the Tarim Basin (China), the Oymyakon River (Yakutia, Eastern Siberia) and other circumferences. The incessant waves of migrations to the West and to the South were not blind and desperate movements of uninformed barbarians, who ran like crazy on their horses; only the distorted publications of Western colonial historians contain similar, nonsensical conclusions.
The pattern of the Turanian military horsemen and skillful soldiers is absolutely prominent and protruding in the History of the Early Caliphates; but it is merely the continuation of a millennia long tradition. This consists in a very embarrassing fact for all the Western Orientalists specializing in Early Islamic History, and more particularly with focus on the 8th c. CE, the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the rise of Abbasid Baghdad. They therefore constantly come up with incredible assumptions, farfetched arguments, nonsensical explanations, and sly innuendos to explain how and why so many Turanian soldiers and military heads appear in the Islamic Caliphate. In fact, without Turanian military skills, the Umayyad dynasty of Damascus may have not been overthrown.
It is well known that the early Islamic armies advanced up to Merv in today’s Turkmenistan (651) and they stopped there. For the next hundred years, the only Islamic advance in Asia was effectuated only in today’s Baluchistan province of Pakistan; only at the end of the 7th c. and the beginning of the 8th c., the Islamic armies reached the Indus Delta and Gujarat. But how the Islamic Caliphate started being flooded with Turanian soldiers as early as the last decades of the Umayyad rule, if there had not already been massive Turanian populations in the Sassanid Empire of Iran? If the Turanian nations were confined ‘somewhere in Eastern Siberia and Mongolia’ (as per the distortions of colonial Orientalists), why did they appear to be so deeply involved in battles and developments that took place in Mesopotamia and Syria during the first half of the 8th c.? The answer to this question is very simple: there were always massive Turanian populations in the Pre-Islamic Iranian empires.
Or why I defended Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 against the thoughtlessly irascible Muslims
When a Muslim writes an Obituary for the Catholic Church’s sole Pope Emeritus…
Table of Contents
I. From Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI
II. The theoretical concerns of an intellectual Pope
III. Benedict XVI: A Pope against violence and wars
IV. Manuel II Palaeologus and the Eastern Roman Empire between the Muslim Ottoman brethren and the Anti-Christian Roman enemies
V. The unknown (?) Turkic mystic interlocutor and the Islamic centers of science and reason that Benedict XVI ignored
VI. Excerpt from Benedict XVI’s lecture given on the 12th September at the University of Regensburg under title ‘Faith, Reason and the University–Memories and Reflections’
VII. The problems of the academic-theological background of Benedict XVI’s lecture
VIII. Benedict XVI’s biased approach, theological mistakes, intellectual oversights and historical misinterpretations
IX. The lecture’s most controversial point
X. The educational-academic-intellectual misery and the political ordeal of today’s Muslim states
Of all the Roman popes who resigned the only to be called ‘Pope Emeritus’ was Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI (also known in German as Prof. Dr. Papst), who passed away on 31st December 2022, thus sealing the circle of world figures and heads of states whose life ended last year. As a matter of fact, although being a head state, a pope does not abdicate; he renounces to his ministry (renuntiatio).
Due to lack of documentation, conflicting sources or confusing circumstances, we do not have conclusive evidence as regards the purported resignations of the popes St. Pontian (235), Marcellinus (304), Liberius (366), John XVIII (1009) and Sylvester (105). That is why historical certainty exists only with respect to the ‘papal renunciation’ of six pontiffs; three of them bore the papal name of ‘Benedict’. The brief list includes therefore the following bishops of Rome: Benedict V (964), Benedict IX (deposed in 1044, bribed to resign in 1045, and resigned in 1048), Gregory VI (1046), St Celestine (1294), Gregory XII (1415) and Benedict XVI (2013).
I. From Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI
Benedict XVI (18 April 1927 – 31 December 2022) was seven (7) years younger than his predecessor John Paul II (1920-2005), but passed away seventeen (17) years after the Polish pope’s death; already on the 4th September 2020, Benedict XVI would have been declared as the oldest pope in history, had he not resigned seven (7) years earlier. Only Leo XIII died 93, back in 1903. As a matter of fact, Benedict XVI outlived all the people who were elected to the Roman See.
Benedict XVI’s papacy lasted slightly less than eight (8) years (19 April 2005 – 28 February 2013). Before being elected as pope, Cardinal Ratzinger was for almost a quarter century (1981-2005) the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was the formal continuation of the Office of the Holy Inquisition, and therefore one of the most important sections (‘dicasteries’; from the Ancient Greek term ‘dikasterion’, i.e. ‘court of law’) of the Roman administration (‘Curia’).
A major step toward this position was his appointment as archbishop of Munich for four years (1977-1981); Bavaria has always been a Catholic heavyweight, and in this regard, it is easy to recall the earlier example of Eugenio Pacelli (the later pope Pius XII), who was nuncio to Bavaria (and therefore to the German Empire), in Munich, from 1917 to 1920, and then to Germany, before being elected to the Roman See (in 1939). Before having a meteoric rise in the Catholic hierarchy, Ratzinger made an excellent scholar and a distinct professor of dogmatic theology, while also being a priest. His philosophical dissertation was about St. Augustine and his habilitation concerned Bonaventure, a Franciscan scholastic theologian and cardinal of the 13th c.
II. The theoretical concerns of an intellectual Pope
During his ministry, very early, Benedict XVI stood up and showed his teeth; when I noticed his formidable outburst against the ‘dictatorship of relativism’, I realized that the German pope would be essentially superior to his Polish predecessor. Only in June 2005, so just two months after his election, he defined relativism as “the main obstacle to the task of education”, directing a tremendous attack against the evilness of ego and portraying selfishness as a “self-limitation of reason”.
In fact, there cannot be more devastating attack from a supreme religious authority against the evilness of Anglo-Zionism and the rotten, putrefied society that these criminals diffuse worldwide by means of infiltration, corruption, mendacity, and simulation. Soon afterwards, while speaking in Marienfeld (Cologne), Benedict XVI attacked ferociously all the pathetic ideologies which indiscriminately enslave humans from all spiritual and cultural backgrounds. He said: “absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism”. This is a detrimental rejection of Talmudic Judaism, Zohar Kabbalah, and Anglo-Zionism.
It was in the summer 2005 that I first realized that I should study closer the pre-papal past of the Roman Pontiff whom St Malachy’s illustrious Prophecy of the Popes (12th c.) described as ‘Gloria olivae’ (the Glory of the olive). I contacted several friends in Germany, who extensively updated me as regards his academic publications, also dispatching to me some of them. At the time, I noticed that my Christian friends already used to question a certain number of Cardinal Ratzinger’s positions.
But, contrarily to them, I personally found his prediction about the eventuality of Buddhism becoming the principal ‘enemy’ of the Catholic Church as quite plausible. My friends were absolutely astounded, and then I had to narrate and explain to them the deliberately concealed story of the Christian-Islamic-Confucian alliance against the Buddhist terrorism of the Dzungar Khanate (1634-1755); actually, it took many Kazakh-Dzungar wars (1643-1756), successive wars between Qing China and the Dzungar Khanate (1687-1757), and even an alliance with the Russian Empire in order to successfully oppose the ferocious Buddhist extremist threat.
Finally, the extraordinary ordeal of North Asia {a vast area comprising lands of today’s Eastern Kazakhstan, Russia (Central Siberia), Northwestern and Western China (Eastern Turkestan/Xinjiang and Tibet) and Western Mongolia} ended up with the systematic genocide of the extremist Buddhist Dzungars (1755-1758) that the Chinese had to undertake because there was no other way to terminate once forever the most fanatic regime that ever existed in Asia.
Disoriented, ignorant, confused and gullible, most of the people today fail to clearly understand how easily Buddhism can turn a peaceful society into a fanatic realm of lunatic extremists. The hypothetically innocent adhesion of several fake Freemasonic lodges of the West to Buddhism and the seemingly harmless acceptance of Buddhist principles and values by these ignorant fools can end up in the formation of vicious and terrorist organizations that will give to their members and initiates the absurd order and task to indiscriminately kill all of their opponents. But Cardinal Ratzinger had prudently discerned the existence of a dangerous source of spiritual narcissism in Buddhism.
III. Benedict XVI: A Pope against violence and wars
To me, this foresight was a convincing proof that Benedict XVI was truly ‘Gloria olivae’; but this would be troublesome news! In a period of proxy wars, unrestrained iniquity, and outrageous inhumanity, a perspicacious, cordial, and benevolent pope in Rome would surely be an encumbering person to many villainous rascals, i.e. the likes of Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Nicolas Sarkozy, and many others so-called ‘leaders’. The reason for this assessment of the situation is simple: no one wants a powerful pacifier at a time more wars are planned.
At the time, it was ostensible to all that a fake confrontation between the world’s Muslims and Christians was underway (notably after the notorious 9/11 events); for this reason, I expected Benedict XVI to make a rather benevolent statement that evil forces would immediately misinterpret, while also falsely accusing the pacifist Pope and absurdly turning the uneducated and ignorant mob of many countries against the Catholic Church.
This is the foolish plan of the Anglo-Zionist lobby, which has long served as puppets of the Jesuits, corrupting the entire Muslim world over the past 250 years by means of intellectual, educational, academic, scientific, cultural, economic, military and political colonialism. These idiotic puppets, which have no idea who their true and real masters are, imagine that, by creating an unprecedented havoc in Europe, they harm the worldwide interests of the Jesuits; but they fail to properly realize that this evil society, which early turned against Benedict XVI, has already shifted its focus onto China. Why the apostate Anglo-Zionist Freemasonic lodge would act in this manner against Benedict XVI is easy to assess; the Roman pontiff whose episcopal motto was ‘Cooperatores Veritatis’ (‘Co-workers of the Truth’) would apparently try to prevent the long-prepared fake war between the Muslims and the Christians.
IV. Manuel II Palaeologus and the Eastern Roman Empire between the Muslim Ottoman brethren and the Anti-Christian Roman enemies
And this is what truly happened in the middle of September 2006; on the 12th September, Benedict XVI delivered a lecture at the University of Regensburg in Germany; the title was ‘Glaube, Vernunft und Universität – Erinnerungen und Reflexionen’ (‘Faith, Reason and the University – Memories and Reflections’). In the beginning of the lecture, Prof. Dr. Ratzinger eclipsed Pope Benedict XVI, as the one-time professor persisted on his concept of ‘faith’, “which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole”, as he said. In a most rationalistic approach (for which he had been known for several decades as a renowned Catholic theologian), in an argumentation reflecting views certainly typical of Francis of Assisi and of Aristotle but emphatically alien to Jesus, Benedict XVI attempted to portray an ahistorical Christianity and to describe the Catholic faith as the religion of the Reason.
At an early point of the lecture, Benedict XVI referred to a discussion that the Eastern Roman Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (or Palaiologos; Μανουήλ Παλαιολόγος; 1350-1425; reigned after 1391) had with an erudite Turkic scholar (indiscriminately but mistakenly called by all Eastern Roman authors at the time as ‘Persian’) most probably around the end of 1390 or the first months of 1391, when he was hostage at the Ottoman court of Bayezid I. In the historical text, it is stated that the location was ‘Ancyra of Galatia’ (i.e. Ankara).
This Eastern Roman Emperor was indeed a very controversial historical figure; although undeniably an erudite ruler, a bold diplomat, and a reputable soldier, he first made agreements with the Ottomans and delivered to them the last Eastern Roman city in Anatolia (Philadelphia; today’s Alaşehir, ca. 140 km east of Izmir / Smyrna) and then, after he took control of his ailing kingdom thanks to the sultan, he escaped the protracted siege of Constantinople (1391-1402) only to travel to various Western European kingdoms and ask the help of those rather reluctant monarchs (1399-1403).
At the time, all the Christian Orthodox populations, either living in the Ottoman sultanate or residing in the declined Eastern Roman Empire, were deeply divided into two groups, namely those who preferred to be ruled by Muslims (because they rejected the pseudo-Christian fallacy, evilness and iniquity of the Roman pope) and the fervent supporters of a Latin (: Western European) control over Constantinople (viewed as the only way for them to prevent the Ottoman rule); the former formed the majority and were called Anthenotikoi, i.e. ‘against the union’ (: of the Orthodox Church with the Catholics), whereas the latter constituted a minority group and were named ‘Enotikoi’ (‘those in favor of the union of the two churches’).
V. The unknown (?) Turkic mystic interlocutor and the Islamic centers of science and reason that Benedict XVI ignored
Manuel II Palaeologus’ text has little theological value in itself; however, its historical value is great. It reveals how weak both interlocutors were at the intellectual, cultural and spiritual levels, how little they knew one another, and how poorly informed they were about their own and their interlocutor’s past, heritage, religion and spirituality. If we have even a brief look at it, we will immediately realize that the level is far lower than that attested during similar encounters in 8th- 9th c. Baghdad, 10th c. Umayyad Andalusia, Fatimid Cairo, 13th c. Maragheh (where the world’s leading observatory was built) or 14th c. Samarqand, the Timurid capital.
It was absolutely clear at the time of Manuel II Palaeologus and Bayezid I that neither Constantinople nor Bursa (Προύσα / Prousa; not anymore the Ottoman capital after 1363, but still the most important city of the sultanate) could compete with the great centers of Islamic science civilization which were located in Iran and Central Asia. That’s why Gregory Chioniades, the illustrious Eastern Roman bishop, astronomer, and erudite scholar who was the head of the Orthodox diocese of Tabriz, studied in Maragheh under the guidance of his tutor and mentor, Shamsaddin al Bukhari (one of the most illustrious students of Nasir el-Din al Tusi, who was the founder of the Maragheh Observatory), before building an observatory in Trabzon (Trebizond) and becoming the teacher of Manuel Bryennios, another famous Eastern Roman scholar.
The text of the Dialogues must have been written several years after the conversation took place, most probably when the traveling emperor and diplomat spent four years in Western Europe. For reasons unknown to us, the erudite emperor did not mention the name of his interlocutor, although this was certainly known to him; if we take into consideration that he was traveling to other kingdoms, we can somehow guess a plausible reason. His courtiers and royal scribes may have translated the text partly into Latin and given copies of the ‘dialogues’ to various kings, marshals, chroniclers, and other dignitaries. If this was the case, the traveling emperor would not probably want to offer insights into the Ottoman court and the influential religious authorities around the sultan.
Alternatively, the ‘unknown’ interlocutor may well have been Amir Sultan (born as Mohamed bin Ali; also known as Shamsuddin Al-Bukhari; 1368-1429) himself, i.e. none else than an important Turanian mystic from Vobkent (near Bukhara in today’s Uzbekistan), who got married with Bayezid I’s daughter Hundi Fatema Sultan Hatun. Amir Sultan had advised the sultan not to turn against Timur; had the foolish sultan heeded to his son-in-law’s wise advice, he would not have been defeated so shamefully.
Benedict XVI made a very biased use of the historical text; he selected an excerpt of Manuel II Palaeologus’ response to his interlocutor in order to differentiate between Christianity as the religion of Reason and Islam as the religion of Violence. Even worse, he referred to a controversial, biased and rancorous historian of Lebanese origin, the notorious Prof. Theodore Khoury (born in 1930), who spent his useless life to write sophisticated diatribes, mildly formulated forgeries, and deliberate distortions of the historical truth in order to satisfy his rancor and depict the historical past according to his absurd political analysis. Almost every sentence written Prof. Khoury about the Eastern Roman Empire and the Islamic Caliphate is maliciously false.
All the same, it was certainly Benedict XVI’s absolute right to be academically, intellectually and historically wrong. The main problem was that the paranoid reaction against him was not expressed at the academic and intellectual levels, but at the profane ground of international politics. Even worse, it was not started by Muslims but by the criminal Anglo-Zionist mafia and the disreputable mainstream mass media, the likes of the BBC, Al Jazeera (Qatari is only the façade of it), etc.
I will now republish (in bold and italics) a sizeable (600-word) excerpt of the papal lecture that contains the contentious excerpt, also adding the notes to the text. The link to the Vatican’s website page is available below. I will comment first on the lecture and the selected part of Manuel II Palaeologus’ text and then on the absurd Muslim reaction.
VI. Excerpt from Benedict XVI’s lecture given on the 12th September at the University of Regensburg under title ‘Faith, Reason and the University–Memories and Reflections’
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις – controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺνλόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.[4]
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.[7]
Notes 1 to 7 (out of 13)
[1] Of the total number of 26 conversations (διάλεξις – Khoury translates this as “controversy”) in the dialogue (“Entretien”), T. Khoury published the 7th “controversy” with footnotes and an extensive introduction on the origin of the text, on the manuscript tradition and on the structure of the dialogue, together with brief summaries of the “controversies” not included in the edition; the Greek text is accompanied by a French translation: “Manuel II Paléologue, Entretiens avec un Musulman. 7e Controverse”, Sources Chrétiennes n. 115, Paris 1966. In the meantime, Karl Förstel published in Corpus Islamico-Christianum (Series Graeca ed. A. T. Khoury and R. Glei) an edition of the text in Greek and German with commentary: “Manuel II. Palaiologus, Dialoge mit einem Muslim”, 3 vols., Würzburg-Altenberge 1993-1996. As early as 1966, E. Trapp had published the Greek text with an introduction as vol. II of Wiener byzantinische Studien. I shall be quoting from Khoury’s edition.
[2] On the origin and redaction of the dialogue, cf. Khoury, pp. 22-29; extensive comments in this regard can also be found in the editions of Förstel and Trapp.
[3] Controversy VII, 2 c: Khoury, pp. 142-143; Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241. In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.
[4] Controversy VII, 3 b–c: Khoury, pp. 144-145; Förstel vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.6, pp. 240-243.
[5] It was purely for the sake of this statement that I quoted the dialogue between Manuel and his Persian interlocutor. In this statement the theme of my subsequent reflections emerges.
[6] Cf. Khoury, p. 144, n. 1.
[7] R. Arnaldez, Grammaire et théologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue, Paris 1956, p. 13; cf. Khoury, p. 144. The fact that comparable positions exist in the theology of the late Middle Ages will appear later in my discourse.
VII. The problems of the academic-theological background of Benedict XVI’s lecture
It is my conviction that Benedict XVI fell victim to the quite typical theological assumptions that Prof. Dr. Ratzinger had studied and taught for decades. However, the problem is not limited to the circle of the faculties of Theology and to Christian Theology as a modern discipline; it is far wider. The same troublesome situation permeates all the disciplines of Humanities and, even worse, the quasi-totality of the modern sciences as they started in Renaissance. The problem goes well beyond the limits of academic research and intellectual consideration; it has to do with the degenerate, rotten and useless mental abilities and capacities of the Western so-called scholars, researchers and academics. The description of the problem is rather brief, but its nature is truly ominous.
Instead of perceiving, understanding, analyzing and representing the ‘Other’ in its own terms, conditions and essence and as per its own values, virtues and world conceptualization, the modern Western European scholars, researchers, explorers and specialists view, perceive, attempt to understand, and seek to analyze the ‘Other’ in their own terms, conditions and essence and as per their own values, virtues and world conceptualization. Due to this sick effort and unprecedented aberration, the Western so-called scholars and researchers view the ‘Other’ through their eyes, thus projecting onto the ‘Other’ their view of it. Consequently, they do not and actually they cannot learn it, let alone know, understand and represent it. Their attitude is inane, autistic and degenerate. It is however quite interesting and truly bizarre that the Western European natural scientists do not proceed in this manner, but fully assess the condition of the object of their study in a rather objective manner.
In fact, the Western disciplines of the Humanities, despite the enormous collection and publication of study materials, sources and overall documentation, are a useless distortion. Considered objectively, the Western scientific endeavor in its entirety is a monumental nothingness; it is not only a preconceived conclusion. It is a resolute determination not to ‘see’ the ‘Other’ as it truly exists, as its constituent parts obviously encapsulate its contents, and as the available documentation reveals it. In other words, it consists in a premeditated and resolute rejection of the Truth; it is intellectually barren, morally evil, and spiritually nihilist. The topic obviously exceeds by far the limits of the present obituary, but I had to mention it in order to offer the proper context.
It is therefore difficult to identify the real reason for the magnitude of the Western scholarly endeavor, since the conclusions existed in the minds of the explorers and the academics already before the documentation was gathered, analyzed, studied, and represented. How important is it therefore to publish the unpublished material (totaling more than 100000 manuscripts of Islamic times and more than one million of cuneiform tablets from Ancient Mesopotamia, Iran, Canaan and Anatolia – only to give an idea to the non-specialized readers), if the evil Western scholars and the gullible foreign students enrolled in Western institutions (to the detriment of their own countries and nations) are going to repeat and reproduce the same absurd Western mentality of viewing an Ancient Sumerian, an Ancient Assyrian, an Ancient Egyptian or a Muslim author through their own eyes and of projecting onto the ancient author the invalid and useless measures, values, terms and world views of the modern Western world?
As it can be easily understood, the problem is not with Christian Theology, but with all the disciplines of the Humanities. So, the problem is not only that a great Muslim scholar and erudite mystic like Ibn Hazm was viewed by Benedict XVI and Western theologians through the distorting lenses of their ‘science’, being not evaluated as per the correct measures, values and terms of his own Islamic environment, background and civilization. The same problem appears in an even worse form, when Ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Hittite, Iranian and other high priests, spiritual masters, transcendental potentates, sacerdotal writers, and unequaled scientists are again evaluated as per the invalid and useless criteria of Benedict XVI, of all the Western theologians, and of all the modern European and American academics.
What post-Renaissance popes, theologians, academics, scholars and intellectuals fail to understand is very simple; their ‘world’ ( i.e. the world of the Western Intellect and Science, which was first fabricated in the 15th and the 16th c. and later enhanced progressively down to our days) in not Christian, is not human, and is not real. It is their own delusion, their own invalid abstraction, their abject paranoia, and their own sin for which first they will atrociously disappear from the surface of the Earth (like every anomalous entity) and then flagrantly perish in Hell.
Their dangling system does not hold; they produced it in blood and in blood it will end. Modern sciences constitute a counter-productive endeavor and an aberration that will terminally absorb the entire world into the absolute nothingness, because these evil systems were instituted out of arbitrary bogus-interpretations of the past, peremptory self-identification, deliberate and prejudicial ignorance, as well as an unprecedented ulcerous hatred of the ‘Other’, i.e. of every ‘Other’.
The foolish Western European academic-intellectual establishment failed to realize that it is absolutely preposterous to extrapolate later and corrupt standards to earlier and superior civilizations; in fact, it is impossible. By trying to do it, you depart from the real world only to live in your delusion, which sooner or later will inevitably have a tragic end. Consequently, the Western European scholars’ ‘classics’ are not classics; their reason is an obsession; their language and jargon are hallucinatory, whereas their notions are conjectural. Their abstract concepts are the manifestation of Non-Being.
VIII. Benedict XVI’s biased approach, theological mistakes, intellectual oversights and historical misinterpretations
Benedict XVI’s understanding of the Eastern Roman Empire was fictional. When examining the sources, he retained what he liked, what pleased him, and what was beneficial to his preconceived ideas and thoughts. In fact, Prof. Dr. Papst did not truly understand what Manuel II Palaeologus said to his Turkic interlocutor, and even worse, he failed to assess the enormous distance that separated the early 15th c. Eastern Roman (not ‘Byzantine’: this is a fake appellation too) Emperor from his illustrious predecessors before 800 or 900 years (the likes of Heraclius and Justinian I) in terms of Christian Roman imperial ideology, theological acumen, jurisprudential perspicacity, intellectual resourcefulness, and spiritual forcefulness. Benedict XVI did not want to accept that with time the Christian doctrine, theology and spirituality had weakened.
What was Ratzinger’s mistake? First, he erroneously viewed Manuel II Palaeologus as ‘his’ (as identical with the papal doctrine), by projecting his modern Catholic mindset and convictions onto the Christian Orthodox Eastern Roman Emperor’s mind, mentality and faith. He took the ‘Dialogues’ at face value whereas the text may have been written not as a declaration of faith but as a diplomatic document in order to convince the rather uneducated Western European monarchs that the traveling ‘basileus’ (βασιλεύς) visited during the period 1399-1403.
Second, he distorted the ‘dialogue’, presenting it in a polarized form. Benedict XVI actually depicted a fraternal conversation as a frontal opposition; unfortunately, there is nothing in the historical text to insinuate this possibility. As I already said, it is quite possible that the moderate, wise, but desperate Eastern Roman Emperor may have discussed with someone married to a female descendant of the great mystic Jalal al-Din Rumi (namely Bayezid’s son-in-law, adviser and mystic Emir Sultan). Why on Earth did the renowned theologian Ratzinger attempt to stage manage a theological conflict in the place of a most peaceful, friendly and fraternal exchange of ideas?
This is easy to explain; it has to do with the absolutely Manichaean structure of thought that was first diffused among the Western Fathers of the Christian Church by St Augustine (in the early 5th c.). As method of theological argumentation, it was first effectively contained, and it remained rather marginal within the Roman Church as long as the practice introduced by Justinian I (537) lasted (until 752) and all the popes of Rome had to be selected and approved personally by the Eastern Roman Emperor. After this moment and, more particularly, after the two Schisms (867 and 1054), the Manichaean system of thinking prevailed in Rome; finally, it culminated after the Renaissance.
Third, Benedict XVI tried to depict the early 15th c. erudite interlocutor of the then hostage Manuel II Palaeologus as a modern Muslim and a Jihadist. This is the repetition of the same mistakes that he made as regards the intellectual Eastern Roman Emperor. In other words, he projected onto the ‘unknown’, 15th c. Muslim mystic his own personal view of an Islamist or Islamic fundamentalist. Similarly, by bulldozing time in order to impose his wrong perception of Islam, he fully misled the audience. As a matter of fact, Islam constitutes a vast universe that Prof. Dr. Papst never studied, never understood, and never fathomed in its true dimensions.
In fact, as it happened in the case of the Eastern Roman Emperor, his interlocutor was intellectually weaker and spiritually lower than the great figures of Islamic spirituality, science, wisdom, literature and intuition, the likes of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Al Qurtubi, Mohyi el-Din Ibn Arabi, Ahmed Yasawi, Al Biruni, Ferdowsi, Al Farabi, Tabari, etc., who preceded him by 150 to 500 years. But Benedict XVI did not want to accept that with time the Islamic doctrine, theology and spirituality had weakened.
The reason for this distortion is easy to grasp; the Manichaean system of thinking needs terminal, crystallized forms of items that do not change; then, it is convenient for the Western European abusers of the Manichaean spirit to fully implement the deceitful setting of fake contrasts and false dilemmas. But the 15th c. decayed Eastern Roman Orthodoxy and decadent Islam are real historical entities that enable every explorer to encounter the multitude of forms, the ups and downs, the evolution of cults, the transformation of faiths, and the gradual loss of the initially genuine Moral and vibrant Spirituality. This reality is very embarrassing to those who want to teach their unfortunate students on a calamitous black & white background (or floor).
All the books and articles of his friend, Prof. Theodore Khoury, proved to be totally useless and worthless for the Catholic theologian Ratzinger, exactly because the Lebanese specialist never wrote a sentence in order to truly represent the historical truth about Islam, but he always elaborated his texts in a way to justify and confirm his preconceived ideas. Prof. Khoury’s Islam is a delusional entity, something like the artificial humans of our times. Unfortunately, not one Western Islamologist realized that Islam, at the antipodes of the Roman Catholic doctrine, has an extremely limited dogmatic part, a minimal cult, and no heresies. Any opposite opinion belongs to liars, forgers and falsifiers. As a matter of fact, today’s distorted representation of Islam is simply the result of Western colonialism. All over the world, whatever people hear or believe about the religion preached by Prophet Muhammad is not the true, historical, religion of Islam, but the colonially, academically-intellectually, produced Christianization of Islam.
Fourth, in striking contrast to what the theologian Ratzinger pretended through use of this example or case study (i.e. the ‘discussion’), if Benedict XVI shifted his focus to the East, he would find Maragheh in NW Iran (Iranian Azerbaijan) and Samarqand in Central Asia. In those locations (and always for the period concerned), he would certainly find great centers of learning, universities, vast libraries, and enormous observatories, which could make every 15th c. Western European astronomer and mathematician dream. But there he would also find, as I already said, many Muslim, Christian, Buddhist and other scholars working one next to the other without caring about their religious (theological) differences. This situation is very well known to modern Western scholarship, but they viciously and criminally try to permanently conceal it.
This situation was due to the cultural, intellectual, academic, mental and spiritual unity that prevailed among all those erudite scholars. Numerous Western European scholars have published much about Nasir el-Din al Tusi (about whom I already spoke briefly) and also about Ulugh Beg, the world’s greatest astronomer of his time (middle of the 15th c.), who was the grandson of Timur (Tamerlane) and, at the same time, the World History’s most erudite emperor of the last 2500 years. However, post-Renaissance Catholic sectarianism and Western European/North American racism prevented the German pope from being truthful at least once, and also from choosing the right paradigm.
IX. The lecture’s most controversial point
Fifth, if we now go straight to the lecture’s most controversial point and to the quotation’s most fascinating sentence, we will find the question addressed by Manuel II Palaeologus to his erudite Turkic interlocutor; actually, it is rather an exclamation:
– «Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached»!
This interesting excerpt provides indeed the complete confirmation of my earlier assessments as regards the intellectual decay of both, Christian Orthodoxy and Islam, at the time. Apparently, it was not theological acumen what both interlocutors were lacking at the time; it was historical knowledge. Furthermore, historical continuity, religious consciousness, and moral command were also absent in the discussion.
The first series of points that Manuel II Palaeologus’ Muslim interlocutor could have made answering the aforementioned statement would be that Prophet Muhammad, before his death, summoned Ali ibn Abu Taleb and asked him to promise that he would never diffuse the true faith by undertaking wars; furthermore, Islam was diffused peacefully in many lands outside Arabia (Hejaz), notably Yemen, Oman, Somalia, and the Eastern Coast of Africa. In addition, there were many Muslims, who rejected the absurd idea of the Islamic conquests launched by Umar ibn al-Khattab and actually did not participate.
We have also to take into consideration the fact that, in spite of the undeniable reality of the early spread of Islam through invasions, there has always been well-known and sufficient documentation to clearly prove that the Aramaeans of Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine, the Copts of Egypt, and the Berbers of Africa, although fully preserving their Christian faith, preferred to live under the rule of the Caliphates and overwhelmingly rejected the Eastern Roman imperial administration, because they had been long persecuted by the Constantinopolitan guards due to their Miaphysite (Monophysitic) and/or Nestorian faiths.
On another note, the Eastern Roman Emperor’s Muslim interlocutor could have questioned the overall approach of Manuel II Palaeologus to the topic. In other words, he could have expressed the following objection:
– «What is it good for someone to pretend that he is a follower of Jesus and evoke his mildness, while at the same time violently imposing by the sword the faith that Jesus preached? And what is it more evil and more inhuman than the imposition of a faith in Jesus’ name within the Roman Empire, after so much bloodshed and persecution took place and so many wars were undertaken»?
Last, one must admit that the sentence «Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new!» would have been easily answered by an earlier Muslim mystic of the Golden Era of Islam. Actually, this statement is islamically correct and pertinent. The apparent absence of a spectacular response from the part of Manuel II Palaeologus’ Muslim interlocutor rather generates doubts as regards the true nature of the text. This is so because he could have immediately replied to Bayezid I’s hostage that not one prophet or messenger was sent by God with the purpose of ‘bringing something new’; in fact, all the prophets from Noah to Jonah, from Abraham to Jonah, from Moses to Muhammad, and from Adam to Jesus were dispatched in order to deliver the same message to the humans, namely to return to the correct path and live according to the Will of God.
Related to this point is the following well-known verse of the Quran (ch. 3 – Al Imran, 67): “Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists”. It is therefore odd that a response in this regard is missing at this point.
It is also strange that, at a time of major divisions within Christianity and more particularly among the Christian Orthodox Eastern Romans, the ‘unknown’ imperial interlocutor did not mention the existing divisions among Christians as already stated very clearly, explicitly and repeatedly in the Quran. Examples:
“You are the best community ever raised for humanity—you encourage good, forbid evil, and believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book believed, it would have been better for them. Some of them are faithful, but most are rebellious”. (ch. 3 – Al Imran, 110)
“Yet they are not all alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright, who recite Allah’s revelations throughout the night, prostrating in prayer”.
(ch. 3 – Al Imran, 113):
To conclude I would add that elementary knowledge of Roman History, Late Antiquity, and Patristic Philology would be enough for Benedict XVI to know that
– in its effort to impose Christianity on the Roman Empire,
– in its determination to fully eradicate earlier religions, opposite religious sects like the Gnostics, and theological ‘heresies’ like Arianism,
– in its resolve to exterminate other Christian Churches such as the Nestorians and the Miaphysites (Monophysites),
– in its obsession to uproot Christian theological doctrines like Iconoclasm and Paulicianism, and
– in its witch hunt against Manichaeism, …
… the ‘official’ Roman and Constantinopolitan churches committed innumerable crimes and killed a far greater number of victims than those massacred by Muslim invaders on several occurrences during the early Islamic conquests.
So, when did the Christian Church encounter Reason and when did it cease to be ‘unreasonable’ according to the theologian Pope Ratzinger?
One must be very sarcastic to duly respond to those questions: most probably, the Roman Church discovered ‘Reason’ after having killed all of their opponents and the so-called ‘heretics’ whose sole sin was simply to consider and denounce the Roman Church as heretic!
If Benedict XVI forgot to find in the Quran the reason for the Turkic interlocutor’s mild attitude toward the hostage Manuel II Palaeologus, this is a serious oversight for the professor of theology; he should have mentioned the excerpts. In the surah al-Ankabut (‘the Spider’; ch. 29, verse 46), it is stated: “And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner”.
Similarly, the German pope failed to delve in Assyriology and in Egyptology to better understand that the Hebrew Bible (just like the New Testament and the Quran) did not bring anything ‘new’ either; before Moses in Egypt and before Abraham in Mesopotamia, there were monotheistic and aniconic trends and traits in the respective religions. The concept of the Messiah is attested in Egypt, in Assyria, and among the Hittites many centuries or rather more than a millennium before Isaiah contextualized it within the small Hebrew kingdom. Both Egypt and Babylon were holy lands long before Moses promised South Canaan to the Ancient Hebrew tribes, whereas the Assyrians were the historically first Chosen People of the Only God and the Assyrian imperial ideology reflected this fact in detail. The Akkadian – Assyrian-Babylonian kings were ’emperors of the universe’ and their rule reflected the ‘kingdom of Heaven’.
If Etana and Ninurta reveal aspects of Assyrian eschatology, Horus was clearly the Egyptian Messiah, who would ultimately vanquish Seth (Satan/Antichrist) at the End of Time in an unprecedented cosmic battle that would usher the mankind into a new era which would be the reconstitution of the originally ideal world and Well-Being (Wser), i.e. Osiris. There is no Cosmogony without Eschatology or Soteriology, and nothing was invented and envisioned by the Hebrews, the Greeks and the Romans that had not previously been better and more solemnly formulated among the Sumerians, the Akkadians – Assyrian-Babylonians, and the Egyptians. There is no such thing as ‘Greco-Roman’ or ‘Greco-Christian’ or’ Greco-Judaic’ civilization. Both, Islam and Christianity are the children of Mesopotamia and Egypt.
And this concludes the case of today’s Catholic theologians, i.e. the likes of Pope Benedict XVI or Theodore Khoury; they have to restart from scratch in order to duly assess the origins and the nature of Christianity before the serpent casts “forth out of his mouth water as a river after the woman, that he may cause her to be carried away by the river”. All the same, it was certainly Prof. Ratzinger’s full right to make as many mistakes as he wanted and to distort any textual reference he happened to mention.
X. The educational-academic-intellectual misery and the political ordeal of today’s Muslim states
Quite contrarily, it was not the right of those who accused him of doing so, because they expanded rather at the political and not at the academic level; this was very hypocritical and shameful. If these politicians, statesmen and diplomats dared speak at the academic level, they would reveal their own ignorance, obscurantism, obsolete educational system, miserable universities, nonexistent intellectual life, and last but not least, disreputable scientific institutions.
The reason for this is simple: not one Muslim country has properly organized departments and faculties endowed with experts capable of reading historical sources in the original texts and specializing in the History of the Eastern Roman Empire, Orthodox Christianity, Christological disputes and Patristic Literature. If a Muslim country had an educational, academic and intellectual establishment similar to that of Spain or Poland, there would surely be serious academic-level objection to Benedict XVI’s lecture. It would take a series of articles to reveal, refute and utterly denounce (not just the mistakes and the oversights but) the distorted approach which is not proper only to the defunct Pope Emeritus but to the entire Western academic establishment; these people would however be academics and intellectuals of a certain caliber. Unfortunately, such specialists do not exist in any Muslim country.
Then, the unrepresentative criminal crooks and gangsters, who rule all the countries of the Muslim world, reacted against Pope Benedict XVI at a very low, political level about a topic that was not political of nature and about which they knew absolutely nothing. In this manner, they humiliated all the Muslims, defamed Islam, ridiculed their own countries, and revealed that they rule failed states. Even worse, they made it very clear that they are the disreputable puppets of their colonial masters, who have systematically forced all the Muslim countries to exactly accept as theirs the fallacy that the Western Orientalists have produced and projected onto them (and in this case, the entirely fake representation of Islam that theologians like Ratzinger, Khoury and many others have fabricated).
If Ratzinger gave this lecture, this is also due to the fact that he knew that he would not face any academic or intellectual level opposition from the concerned countries. This is so because all the execrable puppets, who govern the Muslim world, were put in place by the representatives of the colonial powers. They do not defend their local interests but execute specific orders in order not to allow
– bold explorers, dynamic professors, and impulsive intellectuals to take the lead,
– proper secular education, unbiased scientific methodology, intellectual self-criticism, free judgment, and thinking out of the box to grow,
– faculties and research centers to be established as per the norms of educationally advanced states, and
– intellectual anti-colonial pioneers and anti-Western scholars to demolish the racist Greco-centric dogma that post-Renaissance European universities have intentionally diffused worldwide.
That is why for a Muslim today in Prof. Ratzinger’s lecture the real problem is not his approach or his mistake, but the impermissible bogus academic life and pseudo-educational system of all the Muslim countries. In fact, before fully transforming and duly enhancing their educational and academic systems, Muslim heads of states, prime ministers, ministers and ambassadors have no right to speak. They must first go back to their countries and abolish the darkness of their ridiculous universities; their so-called professors are not professors.
Here you have all the articles that I published at the time in favor of Benedict XVI; the first article was published on the 16th September 2006, only four days after the notorious lecture and only one day after the notorious BBC report, which called the Muslim ambassadors to shout loud:
Over the past decades, the Uyghurs have gradually become one of the most favorite topics of the distorting propaganda undertaken by the Western colonial powers; it is a pity that a great and historic nation turned out to be the indispensable mascot of every disinformation and misinformation campaign carried out by the Western mainstream media and by some of the leading social media in the Internet. More recently, themes related to the illustrious Turanian nation were promoted to the forefront of the clash between China and the corrupt, ailing and worthless Western world.
However, in the case of the Uyghur nation and their land, i.e. the Tarim Basin, the lies diffused nowadays only pale if compared to the methodically established in the 19th c. and systematically expanded ever since academic fallacies about the Uyghurs, all the Turkic nations, Central Asia, Siberia, China, India, Iran, the so-called Middle East, and in general, the History of Asia. The same concerns of course Africa as well.
Each and every historical distortion is due only to the evil political needs of the colonial powers, i.e. their attempt to subdue the world, by fooling the others in various ways that the colonial academia are not ashamed to call ‘Orientalism’, ‘Humanities’, and ‘unbiased science’. That’s why only very few scholars today have an idea about the true dimensions of the colonial falsehood, the extent of the historical falsification, and the disastrous targets that the colonial powers attempted through their enormous academic fallacy. This unfortunately concerns also the Uyghurs themselves because, due to various circumstances occurred over the past 300-400 years, they have been detached from their past and dissociated from part of their extraordinarily remarkable historical-cultural heritage, thus failing to achieve a proper nation building process.
————————————————————————
Uyghur Civilizationconstitutes one of the most fascinating parts of the Turanian and Oriental Cultural Heritage; more than any other nation in the World History, the Uyghurs developed civilization through five (5) different religions: Tengrism, Buddhism, Manichaeism, Nestorian Christianity, and Islam.
Buddhist Uyghur princes depicted on wall paintings of Bezeklik Cave 9Manichaean Elects (priests) as depicted on walls of the Manichaean temple at Qocho Wall painting from the Qocho Church; a process of Nestorian priests commemorating Palm Sunday (7th-8th c.)The famous map featured in Mahmoud al Kashgari’s masterpiece Diwan Lughat al-Turk (“Compendium of the languages of the Turks” / 11th c.), which is a monumental work that shows the advanced level of scholarship that the Uyghurs had reached among all Turanian and Muslim nations.The tomb of Mahmud al Kashgari, one of the most illustrious Uyghur scholars and erudite academics – Kashgar, Eastern Turkestan/XinjiangUyghur Christian Nestorian priests, architects and merchants built the Daqin Pagoda-Church in Xi’an, the ancient Chinese capital Chang’an, during the 11th c.The travels of the Uyghur Nestorian Chinese diplomat Rabban Bar Sauma (13th c.)
—————————————————————————-
Ignorant and idiotic people, who believe the lies of the criminal gangsters of the Western countries against China and accept the Western propaganda about the so-called oppression or persecution of the Uyghurs in Eastern Turkestan by the Chinese authorities, are the disgrace of the human race, and they will soon have to pay an enormously high price for their ignorance and idiocy. This concerns also several foolish politicians in Turkey, notably Mansur Yavaş, the mayor of Ankara, and Meral Akşener, the head of Iyi Parti, who recently took disastrous positions against China, therefore only proving that they are on the CIA payroll.
Their sick sentimentalism and evil rhetoric heavily damage Turkey’s national interests, which are irrevocably linked with China. Not one Turk can today possibly support and defend positions that help -in any sense- Turkey’s enemies, namely US, UK, EU, NATO, Canada, Australia and their likes. Either both, Mr. Yavaş and Ms. Akşener, will return to common sense or they will contribute to the disastrous failure of Turkey, which has been the quintessence of the miserable and anti-Turkish AKP governments’ policies since 2002.
On the contrary, sticking to Kemal Ataturk’s secular concepts, principles and practices, today’s Turkey can become instrumental in solving the Uyghur problem, in offering Beijing great assistance and effective advice in the matter, and in dragging the embattled Uyghur nation far from the useless pseudo-Islamic theological indoctrination, which has been diffused -in a most nauseating and disgusting manner- by the ignorant, uneducated and villainous sheikhs and pseudo-professors of Al Azhar, Madinah and other similar, backward and pseudo-Islamic universities of today’s decayed Islamic world.
Better than anyone else, Turkey’s Kemalists, and more particularly the members and the deputies of CHP (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi), are in a position to convincingly explain to the Uyghurs the worldwide unique achievements made by Kemal Ataturk and to pull them far from the evil manipulation undertaken by the colonial Western countries against -not only the Uyghurs but also- all the Turanian nations.
————————————————————-
When different maps of Eastern Turkestan / Xinkiang uploaded in different versions of the Wikipedia reveal the hidden intentions of scheming colonial diplomats
Eastern Turkestan / Xinjiang autonomous region of the People’s Republic of ChinaDzungaria (in red) and the Tarim Basin (in blue) are the two parts of XinkiangUyghurs, Han Chinese, and Kazakh: Xinjiang nationalities by prefecture – Date: 2000The entry East Turkestan of the English version of the Wikipedia features this ridiculous map, which has no historical credibility, but it only shows the territories that the CIA and the State Department order the so-called ‘World Uyghur Congress’ to publicly demand for secession! This treacherous organization terribly harms the interests of the Uyghur Nation.
———————————————————————
If today’s Uyghurs believe -in any way- even a single word uttered to them by the monstrous, paranoid, disreputable and criminal statesmen, military, politicians, diplomats, agents, academics, analysts, journalists, etc., they will all fall victims of a scheme providing for the cynical utilization of their nation, and in the process they will bring upon themselves their destruction. Any sort of contact, communication, association or cooperation between the Uyghurs and any representative of the US, UK, EU, NATO gangsters will only end with the fatal and total eradication of the Uyghur nation, and the only responsible will be the naïve Uyghur pundits and activists who thought it possible to communicate with the leeches and the parasites of the Western world.
It has nothing to do with ‘religion’, and it is as simple as that: the inhuman monsters, who rule the US, UK, EU, NATO, etc., do not give a damn about the Uyghurs and their lives, let alone their souls. Already, these evil governments and their insidious academia abominably disfigured and deliberately minimized the History of Uyghur Nation in a shameful manner, concealing major achievements of the illustrious Turanian nation. The demented, inhuman and devilish atheists, who rule London, Paris, Brussels, and Washington D.C., do not care whether the Uyghurs pray in the mosques or fast in Ramadhan; under other circumstances, they would be pleased to throw thousands of insulting caricatures of prophet Muhammad inside the Uyghur mosques and thus profane them. They only care to generate problems to their principal rival: Beijing.
That’s why the gangsters of US, UK, EU, NATO, etc. use the Uyghurs like their most worn out shoes. The descendants of a major Turanian nation should not therefore fall victims of the fetid and bestial pedophiles of the West, who first pay some millions of dollars to the Uyghur traitors of the ‘World Uyghur Congress’, and then calmly enjoy their abnormal lives, destroying young children’s lives.
———————————————————————————-
Who pays the bill for the World Uyghur Congress and for all the lies published in Western mass media against China?
Those who pay one category of their puppets, namely the atheist and Zionist cartoonists, to publish disreputable cartoons ridiculing prophet Muhammad, …
View of the premises of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, in Paris, France, 02 November 2011, after they suffered destruction due to an incendiary bomb attack overnight. According to Police sources the fire started around 01.00 am. Charlie Hebdo had published a special edition on 02 November related to the Arab Spring, renaming the magazine Charia Hebdo for the occasion, in reference to the Ennahda Islamist party victory in Tunisia and the transitional Libyan executive’s statement that Islamic Sharia law would be the country’s main source of law. The cover featured a cartoon of the Mohammed, saying: ‘100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter!’.
those who pay another category of their puppets, namely the Islamic extremists and terrorists to fire-bomb the offices of the newspapers that published the disreputable cartoons …
….. are those who pay the otherwise ‘good Muslims’ and ‘patriotic Uyghurs’ of the World Uyghur Congress to betray their nation, their religion, their history and their heritage, just for … a fistful of dollars!
And how do the world’s most criminal countries, France, England and the US, i.e. the states that perpetrated the world’s most abhorrent crimes, happen to care now about the nonexistent ‘genocide of the Uyghurs’ after they exterminated all the American Indians and the African and Asiatic nations that they colonized?
Only idiots and fake Muslims believe these lies – only to end up in the Hell that they deserve.
————————————————————————————–
The present series of articles will shed light on the evil deeds and the criminal plans that the mendacious and duplicitous Western ‘supporters’ of the Uyghurs have long carried out and it will underscore the imperative need for a cordial alliance between Turkey and China, which will reshape the world and ditch the anomalous, colonial West in the landfill once for all.
Contents
I. The Dispute about the Uyghur Past and Heritage
II. A Brief Diagram of Uyghur History
III. Eastern Turkestan: the Clash of Terms for the Center of the World
IV. Turkey: the Turanian and the Islamic World’s Foremost Example as a Secular State
V. Islam: turned to a Theological System, Islam does not exist anymore as Religion VI. China and the Problems of Eastern Turkestan – Xinkiang
VII. Kemal Ataturk: the Only True Salvation for today’s Uyghurs
I. The Dispute about the Uyghur Past and Heritage
Uyghurs ( ئۇيغۇرلار- Уйғурлар /Uygurlar/維吾爾/ Уйгуры) are one of the most ancient and most important Turanian (Turkic) nations; as per a conventional, flawed and Western colonial linguistic classification, Uyghur belongs to the Karluk category of Turanian languages, like Uzbek. On the contrary, Turkmen, Turkish, Azeri and other languages belong to the Oghuz (Oğuz) branch of Turanian languages, whereas Tatar, Kazakh, Kyrgyz and several other languages form the Kipchak (Kıpçak/ Кипчак – Кыпчак) group of Turanian languages.
Uyghur History covers four (4) millennia documented in several languages and an endlessly increasing material record; however, it has been detrimentally distorted by Western colonial explorers and academics, notably English and French, since the time of what was termed as the Great Game. This ominous term denotes basically the 19th c. antagonism of primarily German, Russian, English and French Orientalists, explorers, scholars, secret agents, diplomats and statesmen for the fabrication of the borders that each great power wanted to impose in a vast area to which none of these powers was related (Russia reached that area only by invading other kingdoms and empires).
The Great Game: the Afghan Emir Shir Ali between the Russians (bear) and the English (lion)
The various borderlines that were envisioned by the respective headquarters and expressed only the wishes of Berlin, St. Petersburg, London and Paris needed to be backed-up by aptly, properly and systematically falsified historiography, and consequently, History ‘had’ to be written in a way so that it can be adjusted to each of the aforementioned political interests that were opposite to one another. That’s why several gangsters and thieves, like ‘Sir’ Aurel Stein, masqueraded as scholars, crossed many thousands of kilometers and penetrated in dangerous deserts to search, find and distort/misinterpret antiquities first. The entirely fake science of ‘geopolitics’ was also fabricated at that time only to theorize the nonsensical colonial claims raised by every white racist criminal. There are no historical lines that can possibly divide Asia. The true historical process, as documented in written sources and the archaeological material record, totally discredits every hypothetical line drawn by any biased ‘political scientist’.
It is crucial at this point to underscore the fact that the useless Ottoman Empire, although primordially concerned by the aforementioned developments, was totally absent from the Great Game, pretty much like the ailing Qajar Empire of Iran. The roots of the Asiatic Great Game could to some extent be attributed to the Napoleonic scheme of an eventual French-Russian alliance geared in order to invade the then still expanding English colonial force in South Asia (the so-called ‘India’). As it can be understood, the collapsing and terminating Mughal Empire (Gorkanian) was (in the early 19th c.) at the brink of extinction due to the ceaseless plots and colonial wars undertaken by Portuguese, Dutch, French and English against it, whereas in Qing China, the emperors Jiaqing (嘉慶帝; 1796-1820) and Daoguang (道光帝; 1820-1850) were only a shadow of their formidable predecessor Kangxi (康熙帝; 1661-1722), and their rule over the land of the Uyghurs was only nominal. So, none of the four great historical Asiatic empires (Ottomans, Iranians, Mughal and China) could be able to withstand or divert the colonial onslaught.
Speaking of today’s Uyghurs, I felt obliged to briefly divert my presentation to issues pertaining to the Great Game for a simple, yet crucial, reason; the outcome of the Great Game determined what we know today as ‘borders’ in the vast lands of Central and Eastern Asia. And as I already said, it also shaped to great extent what is today taught in universities worldwide as History of Asia or Uyghur History. Several modern scholarly juxtapositions and polarizations about various points of Uyghur History are only the result of the systematic, sophisticated and insidious distortion of Asiatic History by Western colonial academia. This is so because tons of deliberately falsified data and material record have not yet been duly refuted and rejected, but they still constitute harmful traps that disorient researchers from a correct and proper conceptualization and contextualization of the historical sources.
Turghun Almas (Тургун Алмас/ تۇرغۇن ئالماس/吐尔贡·阿力玛斯; 1924-2001), a great Uyghur scholar who was persecuted because of his secessionist misinterpretation of Uyghur History, supported the thesis of 6000+ years of indigenous Uyghur History in Eastern Turkestan. Official Chinese historical interpretations associate today’s Uyghurs with the Tiele people, who were part of the vast Hiung-Nu (Xiongnu /匈奴 / Хунну) tribal, confederate Empire, some of whose descendants became later known as Huns in Central Asia, Western Siberia, and throughout Europe. The Hiung-Nu are a major part of China’s History and the Hiung-Nu wars with Han China (133 BCE-89 CE) shaped China as we know it.
Turghun Almas
Their heirs are the so-called White Huns (‘Ebodalo’ in Bactrian/厭帶夷粟陁 – Yethailito/Εφθαλίται-Hephthalites/Эфталиты), who formed various kingdoms in Bactria, Sogdiana and the entire Tarim Basin (Eastern Turkestan). Although vassals of the Rouran Khaganate (see below), they were formidable warriors and defeated the Sassanid armies of Iran several times. The Hephthalites contributed greatly to Civilization, Spirituality and Art, being the enlightened rulers who sponsored superb and majestic monuments like the Qizil Caves of the Tarim Basin (Caves of the Thousand Buddhas) and the Buddhas of Bamiyan (Afghanistan).
However, trying to demonstrate, who arrived first in a specific territory, in order to subsequently issue historicity claims is the least successful method for anyone to get rid of the Anglo-French colonial Orientalist scheme, and of its implications. It is essential to first understand the nature of the Ancient Turanian History and second outsmart the colonial distortion of the History of Asia.
Turanians were nomads or semi-nomads whose acts demonstrate that they were absolutely convinced that home-dwellers were sinners and degenerate people unable to attain the ancestral human originality because of their attachment to one only location. The difference, opposition and clash between Turanian nomads and settled populations are the real axis around which revolves the History of all Turanian nations. This is attested in historical sources, in the archaeological material record, and also in epics, legends and every literary effort of mythologized History. With this in mind, one can comprehend the entire History of Asia far better and perceive the interaction between the Northern Chinese and the Turanians as a historical process that concerns the same family of nations. Actually, many historical and literary sources view the Northern Chinese as simply settled Turanians, and this can provide far better insight into the violence of their wars. In this regard, the Han – Hiung-Nu wars constitute an early episode of the permanent phenomenon of Turanian nomad-settler polarity.
On the other hand, the colonial perfidy in misinterpreting historical evidence and in contextualizing it as per the colonial interests of England and France is easy to assess; it merely constitutes a reflection of their own attitude at the political-international level. Since they viciously generate all types of divisions at the political level, they deliberately proliferate divisions at the academic-scholarly level, when writing down the history of lands that they hate enough to viciously distort, fittingly adjust, and totally subordinate it to the fallacy that they diffuse as their own, ‘Western’ or ‘European’, History. Western Orientalists played therefore with ethnic names, personal names, toponyms, and the vocabulary of languages that they deciphered.
Although it is very well known that an ethnic group can have many diverse names in different historical sources written in several languages, colonial academic forgers intentionally multiplied the historically recorded (in various languages under different names) ethnicities in order to deprive several nations from
a) a past that the Western colonial academics did not want to attribute to them,
b) a presence in remote locations that they did not want to acknowledge to them,
and
c) an achievement that was ‘too great’ so that the Western schemers possibly concede it to all those nations that they viewed hatefully and enviously for their past, cultures, civilizations and achievements.
The subsequent fabrication of, otherwise nonexistent, pseudo-historical nations (which are only the duplicate of other nations known under different names) is a method that was widely used by Western Orientalists in order to disfigure the History of Asia. This fact had a disastrous impact on Uyghurs, China, the History of Uyghur, and the History of China as these topics are presently taught in universities and manipulated in politics.
An example in this regard is offered by another ‘stolen’ part of the Uyghur heritage: the Yuezhi (月氏/ Юэчжи; 3rd c. BCE – 4th c. CE), who became later known as divided (Great Yuezhi and Lesser Yuezhi), are not different from the Hiung-Nu but only constitute a part of them. They clashed with them and they migrated only to be further divided in their migration. But the Yuezhi and the Hiung-Nu were indeed Turanians, and they constitute an authentic part of Uyghur History, pretty much like they are an inalienable part of the History of China, which de facto comprises and is partly identical with the History of Turan.
Eurasia in the time of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty 141-87 BCEHan China expansion in the ‘West’, the Xiongnu, and the Yuezhi at the end of the 2nd c. BCE and the beginning of the 1st c. BCE
The supreme stage of the colonial historiographical distortion contains the disgrace of white racism; this took the monstrous form of excessive Indo-Europeanization of everything. How this was processed is easy to unveil: Friedrich W. K. Müller, a famous German Orientalist of the Deutsche Turfanexpeditionen (German Turfan expeditions) associated the Yuezhi with the Tocharian nation (Τόχαροι/ Тохары/吐火罗人) of the Ancient Greek historical sources. The problem exploded when other Western European Orientalists did not want to identify the Tocharians of Eastern Turkestan with the Tocharians of Bactria, whose language they had arbitrarily identified as ‘Indo-European’.
In brief, they wanted to Indo-Europeanize an essentially Turanian/Chinese continent of which Europe constituted in reality the tiniest, the most unimportant, and the only barbaric peninsula whereby every form of culture and every portion of civilization came from the Orient, i.e. the Asiatic mainland, with significant African additions.
The Uyghur Manichaean Sermon from Manichaean manuscript unearthed in the legendary German Turfan expeditions
Um Ihre eigene Suche zu starten und die erforderliche Bibliographie zu finden:
為了開始您自己的搜索並找到必要的參考書目：
Kendi araştırmanıza başlamak ve gerekli kaynakçayı bulmak için:
Чтобы начать собственный поиск и найти необходимую библиографию:
In order to start your own search and to find the necessary bibliography:
Sampul tapestry from the area of Khotan, today at the Museum of Urumqi, Eastern Turkestan/Xinjiang – 1st c. CE; it depicts a Yuezhi soldier.
II. A Brief Diagram of Uyghur History
Uyghur History apparently involves a very wide range of sites, monuments and historical sources, starting with the famous Tarim mummies that are dated in the 1st half of the 2nd millennium BCE. The modern Uyghur nation was progressively formed following first, the numerous Turanian migrations that determined World History for several thousands of years, and second, the expansion of the Han dynasty of China in the ‘West’, which corresponds to the eastern confines of what we call nowadays ‘Central Asia’. Han expansion in the West is the result of the victorious wars of the Han kings against the Hiung-Nu.
Tarim mummies
However, we cannot discuss of proper ‘ Chinese expansionism’ in the way we use this term in Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Phoenicia-Carthage, Iran, Rome, the Eastern Roman Empire, and several Islamic caliphates, empires and kingdoms; it was rather a ceaseless effort to bring order, peace, balance and security to a vast area that was incessantly crisscrossed by migrants, raiders and nomads. Even the expeditions of Ban Chao reflect rather an effort of mercantile interests and diplomatic contacts with other orderly kingdoms, and not a real, genuine effort of militarily undertaken territorial expansion. The wider Tarim Basin was not literarily annexed to China, but rather viewed as a ‘protectorate’. Several preponderantly Turanian kingdoms prospered there for many centuries, succeeding to one another, under only nominal Chinese authority; they constitute the early phases of Uyghur History because, Turanian or not, they have been progressively assimilated, ethnically and culturally, into the Turanian Uyghurs.
Uyghur History and Cultural Heritage encompass the various small Turanian kingdoms that prospered under Chinese tutelage during the last century of the 1st millennium BCE and the first half of the 1st millennium CE, namely the kingdoms of Qiemo (且末), Loulan (or Kroran / كروران/楼兰), Khotan (于闐), Shule (疏勒) in Kashgar, Gaochang (高昌/ of the Jushi people /車師; in the area of today’s Qocho), the kingdom of Kucha (كۇچار /龜茲) which was described in the Chinese Annals as the strongest and largest among the “thirty-six kingdoms of the Western Regions”, and many other states.
Tarim Basin in the 3rd century CE
Colonial historiographers erroneously Indo-Europeanize the pre-Khaganate (First Turkic Khaganate: 552-603) historical periods of Ancient Asia; otherwise, they could not further support the theory of ‘Turkic migration’. This theory is entirely fabricated in order not to disrupt many Orientalist fallacies concerning the history of many different nations and lands that colonial academia intentionally dissociated from Turanians, due to entirely racist political reasons. The phenomenon of Turanian movements across all parts of the Asiatic continent (‘Europe’ included) is true, but it antedates the 6th c. CE, which is the very false date that colonial historiographers comfortably set for the above mentioned purposes. For instance, the Rouran Khaganate (330-555) cannot be dissociated from the Turanian History, and there are many Chinese historical sources testifying to this, because they ostensibly and repeatedly associate the Rouran with the Hiung-Nu.
Rouran Khaganate First Turkic Khaganate / Göktürk Kağanlığı – 575 CEDas erste Kaganat der Kök-Türken im Jahr 575Shoroon Bumbagar tomb: Göktürk period – 7th c., MongoliaThe famous bilingual Bugut inscription (from the Guden Sum temple, which was built at the end of the 17th c.) dates back to the times of the First Turkic Khaganate (ca. 584 CE): this is the part written in Sogdian. Tsetserleg, MongoliaTurkic knights depicted on the wall paintings of the Maya Cave (section 3) in the Kizil Caves of Eastern Turkestan that date back to the times of the Buddhist Uyghur kingdom of Kucha (not to be confused with Qocho) 6th c. Western Turkic Khaganate (On-Ok: 581-742) and Eastern Turkic Khaganate (Oguz: 581-645) Western Turks visit the king Varkhuman of Sogdiana in Afrasiyab (Samarkand) at ca. 650 CE Western Turkic Khaganate Second Turkic Khaganate (682-744)
After the First Turkic Khaganate was divided into Western Khaganate (581-742) and Eastern Khaganate (581-645), after the Tang China campaign against the Eastern Turks (629-630), after the defeat of the Western Turks (657), and after the rise and fall of the Second Turkic Khaganate (682-744), the Uyghurs rose in prominence. The Uyghur Khaganate (744-840) was the first and only Manichaean state in the World History. Following its decline, a certain number of smaller kingdoms were formed, notably those of Khotan and Qocho (843-1132; also known as Kara-Khoja), before they were all gradually absorbed within the Afrasiab (Kara-Khanid) Khanate (840-1212). This confederate Turanian kingdom expanded also westwards in Transoxiana (Υπερωξειανή / ما وراء النهر – Mawarannahr / мавераннахр), in today’s Uzbekistan, and the ruling dynasty adhered to Islam. Around the middle of the 10th c., we attest to a process of systematic diffusion of Islam among the Uyghurs.
Asia around the year 600 CETang dynasty China at 669 CEUyghur KhaganateUyghur Khaganate
This phenomenon continued also when the Qara Khitai (1124-1218; also known as Great Liao) supplanted partly first and entirely later the Afrasiab / Kara-khanids. As a matter of fact, the Buddhist Qara Khitai dynasty was a family of tolerant Turanians who ruled over a population that was Muslim in its majority; they prevailed across vast territories in Central Asia, Central Siberia, and Eastern Siberia, also establishing an alliance, in the ‘West’, with the Turanian Muslim dynasty of Khwarazm (which controlled parts of today’s Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Iran). Muslim, Buddhist, Nestorian Christian, and Manichaean Uyghurs coexisted for several centuries, under either non-Muslim or Muslim dynasties.
Kara-Khanid Khanate at 1006 CEThe Kara-Khanids and their powerful NE neighbor, the Yenisei Kyrgyz KhaganateThe Buddhist Turanian Qara Khitai Empire and the Uyghur Khanates of Turfan and KansuThe maximum expansion of the Qara-Khitai
At the times of the Turanian Mongol Empire (1206–1368), the Chagatai Khanate (1225–1340s), the Uyghurs were incorporated into these vast nomad states, and the Chinese imperial authority over them was only nominal, even during the Turanian Mongol ‘Yuan’ dynasty (1272-1368). Following the Chagatai division into Western Chagatai Khanate (1340s–1370) and Eastern Chagatai Khanate (also known as Moghulistan; 1340s–1680), the Uyghurs were either incorporated into the latter or ruled by various local dynasties; they were still followers of different religions, who coexisted peacefully within a culturally unified environment fostered by common interests, activities and means of communication.
Genghis Khan, his movements and his immense empire The Chagatai Khanate was divided into Western Chagatai Khanate (1340s–1370) and Eastern Chagatai Khanate (also known as Moghulistan; 1340s–1680); this map shows Moghulistan at ca. 1370.The Chagatai Khanate was divided into Western Chagatai Khanate (1340s–1370) and Eastern Chagatai Khanate (also known as Moghulistan; 1340s–1680); this map shows Moghulistan at ca. 1490.
The existence of several prosperous Uyghur kingdoms highlights the spiritual-cultural pluralism that prevailed among them at those days; among them the most important are the Kara Del kingdom (1389-1513), which was predominantly Buddhist, the Islamic Turpan Khanate (1487-1690), which entered into wars with Ming China (1368-1644), the Islamic Yarkent Khanate (1514-1705), as well as the Khojas of Kashgar and of the six cities (Altishahr). Due to the divisions among the branches of Khoja Islamic mysticism, following the troubles they had with Tibet, and after the intervention of the extremist Oirat Turanian Buddhists (rather known as the Dzungarian khanate), the Uyghur lived a real nightmare during the Dzungar – Qing China wars (1687-1757).
East Asia at 1616The Chinese-Muslim Uyghur-Russian alliance against the powerful, extremist Buddhist Dzungar Turanian Khanate (1687-1757)China at the time of the extremist Chinese-Christian Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864), which was instigated by the uncontrolled, vicious activities of the American Protestant missionaries and their local puppets, notably Hong Xiuquan
The successful result of the many, consecutive Chinese campaigns against the Dzungar extremists pacified the Uyghurs and determined to great extent the borders of Modern China, allowing also the possibility of several local Muslim rulers to fully govern their realms as vassals of the Qing monarch. It was only then that the last Buddhist Uyghurs renounced their religion. In fact, the Dzungar genocide was the result of an Islamic Uyghur – Chinese alliance. However, the relations worsened when the Manchus controlled China; various atrocities ended up in the Afaqi Khoja holy war (1759-1866), which is at the origin of all posterior problems between the Uyghurs and the Chinese authorities.
Turkestan divided between Russia and China: Russian-Chinese borders and Russian administrative provinces of Western Turkestan in 1900The Chinese-Russian borders in the area of Semirechye (Семиречье), i.e. the ‘Seven Rivers Region’, which is today part of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan
Um Ihre eigene Suche zu starten und die erforderliche Bibliographie zu finden:
為了開始您自己的搜索並找到必要的參考書目：
Kendi araştırmanıza başlamak ve gerekli kaynakçayı bulmak için:
Чтобы начать собственный поиск и найти необходимую библиографию:
In order to start your own search and to find the necessary bibliography:
The territories of the precarious, secessionist First East Turkestan Republic in 1933-1934The territories of the precarious, secessionist Second East Turkestan Republic in 1944-1949
From my correspondence with an African American who intends to study Egyptology and learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics in order to explore issues related to African Originality, Identity, Integrity and Spirituality. Although I am Muslim, I am convinced that Ancient Egypt, Egyptian History, Religions & Divine Sciences, if sought after in an unbiased and non-colonial academic manner, constitute – for any African – a more direct path to Truth than today’s decayed Islam.
After all, the monotheistic aspects of Ancient Egypt were tantamount to real and true Islam for millennia before Prophet Muhammad was born, and this was the quintessence of his preaching. Ancient Egyptians’ Sacred Texts revealed the same spiritual and material reality as the Holy Quran. And this truth was concealed by both, the Jesuit – Freemasonic – Zionist elites and today’s ignorant, idiotic, fake Islamic, and Satanic sheikhs, who are the globalist elite’s most dangerous tools.
The Triple Anubis: the Divine Aspect of Justice in the Nether World
Dear friend,
Thank you for your interest, consideration and patience!
There are still unanswered points in your letter about Pharaoh Narmer. You said: “I have many questions about this Great Man and his successors. I want to learn where did they draw upon knowledge from?”
This is a subject related to Cognitive Science; in fact, it is as if you ask how the Ancient Egyptians of the first half of the third millennium BCE knew the right method to efficiently build the great pyramid, the correct procedure to transform the body of a deceased into a mummy, the best technique to illuminate cavities hewn deeply inside the rock, and plenty of other similar exploits.
Modern Academic Scholarship’s Ignorance and Widespread Confusion
Modern Egyptologists solemnly declare that they have no answers to questions about similar topics. I still remember that my former professor in Sorbonne and the College de France, the late Jean Leclant, a leading Egyptologist and Permanent Secretary of the French Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, once in a rather recent interview said that the technique used for the construction of the great pyramids was “a secret of the Ancient Egyptian state”. This says much and nothing at the same time.
In fact, the constituent elements of the Modern Western Science do not allow anyone to respond to the above questions and to many other similar queries. This is irrevocable; you can be sure that there will never be an answer to those topics, without an overwhelming rejection of the foundations of the Modern Western Science.
No modern scholar can describe the magnificent use of Djed, because of the prevailing materialistic fallacy.
When I refer to this system (‘modern western science’), I don’t hint at Humanities alone; I involve all disciplines: Natural Sciences, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Music, Mathematics, etc. I also include very important sciences of which the modern academic establishment does not accept their reality, ingenuity and identity. As example, I offer you the entire aggregation of Spiritual Sciences (‘Divina Studia’ in Latin) that the modern materialistic academic establishment obstinately denies to accept.
Of course, the limited scope and the inherent fallacy of the Modern Western Science are basically due to the fact that it is the product of a simplistic, materialistic viewpoint that not only considers the separation of the material universe from the spiritual universe as possible, but also denies the existence of the spiritual world.
Venerating the magnificent Djed
Inseparability of the material and the spiritual universes
There are two points that you must take always into consideration:
First, all major ancient civilizations down to the Islamic Golden Era (8th – 12th c. CE) accepted as indispensable element of science, knowledge and wisdom the inseparability of the material and the spiritual universes, and identified as supreme enquiry for humans the exploration of the existing parallels between the two universes.
For the Ancient Egyptians and for all other civilizations’ leading explorers, wise elders, and spiritual mystics, the modern western science is indeed a villainous antihuman deception. I don’t say ‘would be’ but ‘is’, because this is a fact and not an eventuality; the remaining evidence of the ancient civilizations, in and by itself, denies the purpose, the scope, the approaches, the methods and the essence of the modern Western scientific establishment, definitely viewing it as the useless result of a low level fallacy.
In other words, the great pyramid of Khufu (Cheops) in itself is a proof that modern scholarship is devious, self-deceiving and deceptive. It is not a matter of quantitative but qualitative difference; the modern scientific establishment is lower, went adrift, and will never be able to deliver the great masterpieces that the Oriental Antiquity did.
Balancing electromagnetic fluids by means of Ankh
Not only today’s scientific establishment cannot achieve what ancient scholars did, but in its totality it is genuinely unable to understand how the great mystics and the erudite priests of the Oriental Antiquity managed to deliver the masterpieces that they did. The impediment of the devious modern establishment is the disregard of the spiritual universe and the erroneous, calamitous assumption that it does not exist.
Representation of the celestial part of the universe perceived in its analogies with the respective part of the spiritual universe
Deviate Modern Science opens the Way to Confusion
Second, because of the mistaken nature of the modern scientific establishment, many real questions are left unanswered, as you already know, and this contributes to an enormous confusion that brings forth only disaster to all humans. We know very well that any time in History confusion prevailed, the civilization collapsed and disaster hit the land in confusion. In fact, confusion is sick and evil; however, confusion is overwhelming in our days.
The celestial part of the universe in its vitality
There is an incredible amount of confusion about the ‘knowledge’ of the Ancient Oriental scholars, wise men, and high priests. Due to this disorientation, various men exposed to negative spiritual activities come up with evil and inhuman theories, which further damage our collapsing societies. I cannot herewith provide a list of fake interpretations concerning the pyramids and their constructors, but I am sure that you have an idea about the theory of the extraterrestrials which appeared only in the last century; according to this evil and nonsensical theory, non-humans are accredited with the construction of the pyramids.
Given that for many long millennia of civilization and spirituality not one man advanced this aberration, but when the corrupted Mankind entered the final stage of its collapse (20th c.), everyone started writing absurd and silly novels or fake academic work to possibly ‘prove’ that the extraterrestrials built the pyramids, created the humans by means of DNA manipulation in monkeys, and similar nonsense, I conclude that a gigantic fraud is underway and that these inhuman theories are promoted by vicious circles implementing antihuman plans and the extinction of the Mankind.
Your question still remains unanswered and I have now to first illuminate the major stumbling block that prevents you and others from clearly assessing how the spiritual, priestly, academic and intellectual establishment of Narmer’s Egypt knew what they knew and whether they needed to literarily learn what they knew.
Late Antiquity Egyptian Study and Interpretation of the Heliopolitan and the Hermupolitan religious – theological systems
Today’s Mankind: Sunken & Drowned in an Ocean of Evil Evolutionism
Darwinism has indeed affected far more sectors than Natural Sciences and Anthropology. It affected History and History of Religions; it reduced Mythology and Metaphysics (Philosophy) to low level fairytales for children. Even worse, it produced a fallacious diagram about the historical evolution. This is a major trouble.
According to this fallacious diagram, which is accepted by Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists alike, man knew few things in the Neolithic (and even fewer in the Mesolithic and the Paleolithic). I must now say that these three terms are fake and they originate in the vicious desire of materialists, evolutionists and atheists to impose the sick theories of their perverted minds and their historical forgeries as a worldwide accepted dogma. I don’t expand on this, as it is vast and irrelevant to your question. Subsequently, these academics interpret Ancient History as a scheme whereby man progressed from lower civilizations to higher throughout the last five – six millennia. For the needs of their forgery, ‘earlier’ meant ‘lower’.
Revealing the spiritual power to the initiates, the Hierophant acted as a vessel of transmission.
This is the most monstrous distortion of the Ancient Oriental History, because we know very well that the Egyptians of the times of Akhenaten (ca. 1350) were not in a position to construct a pyramid as great as that of Khufu (Cheops). And this is one example out of many possible. So, there was an evident decline, a fall, and a decadence in Egypt from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BCE and this continued onwards to the 1st millennium BCE. Vicious materialistic pseudo-historians are not ashamed in taking fake measures, when establishing their theories according to which there was progress and not decay in Egypt (or Mesopotamia) from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BCE; they argue that for instance Thutmose III developed a strong army and was able to acquire vast lands in both, the Sudan and Canaan, i.e. territories that were out of the ‘smaller’ kingdom of Khufu and Khafra (Chephren). Same for Ramses II! But they fail to explain why no pharaoh dared to choose again Khafra (‘His Radiation is Ra’) as his name in the 2nd or the 1st millennium BCE!
On the other hand, when it comes to Senwosret (Sesostris) III, Egyptologists reject Egyptian and later sources describing in detail the military campaigns of the Pharaoh who reached deep in Sudan’s South and also campaigned far beyond Canaan in Anatolia (Turkey) and Scythia (southern Ukraine). How do they proceed? When it comes to genuine (: contemporaneous) historical sources in Egyptian hieroglyphics, they misinterpret them, playing with toponyms. When it comes to posterior historical sources in Ancient Greek and Latin, they pretend that those texts are mythological and not historical of character. Shameful but regular for colonial academia: they don’t want to accept the reality that numerous Oriental monarchs occupied large territories or campaigned in Europe.
Even worse, they link the fallacious diagram of constant progress and rise across three millennia of Oriental History with another, colossal falsehood, the so-called Greco-Roman world, which they describe as ‘Classical’ (from Latin ‘classicus’ meaning ‘of higher class’). Classics is a fallacy that antedates the formative years of Orientalism; it goes back to the Renaissance, when heinous and Anti-Christian intellectuals shaped the erratic idea that the pre-Christian Antiquity of the Greeks and the Romans was ‘superior’ to the Christian civilization. This is another vast topic, but I will not expand, because it is unrelated to your question.
Positive (right) and negative (left) electromagnetic fluids
Linking the evolutionist diagram of the Ancient Oriental History to the distorted presentation of the Greco-Roman civilization and then adding to the diagram the Christian times’ period, the Renaissance, and the Modern times is the way modern scholarship composed a monstrous, bogus-historical dogma only to serve the purpose of preconceived evolutionism. Hidden behind all lies, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, concealments, and forgeries elaborated within all branches of Humanities, and more particularly History and History of Religions, lies the supreme target: the imposition of the evolutionist theory on the entire mankind. That’s why History looks so inconsistent to many. For this reason people don’t find the whole diagram as trustworthy, and scholars fail to respond to simple questions.
The Undeniable Truth: the Lost Great Past – ‘Earlier’ means ‘Higher’!
Even worse, all authentic historical sources directly contradict and categorically reject the modern academic establishment’s false representation of facts and mistaken interpretation of textual and archaeological evidence. And this is systematically concealed by all historians and historians of religions.
Channeling or containing the energy
Ancient Greek and Roman poets, philosophers, historians, and writers considered the Ancient Orient as the origin par excellence of all valuable forms of Knowledge, Science, Erudition, Wisdom, Spirituality and Potency. And they were very right in their conviction, because the ancient Greek and Roman temples were mere kiosks, if compared to the immense temples of Assyria, Babylonia and Egypt.
The Oriental temples were at the same time high places of cult and faith, universities; monasteries for theological disputes; seminars in Symbolism, Mythology, Eschatology, Messianism and Transcendental Wisdom; research centers; laboratories; observatories; libraries; museums; oracles and centers for divination studies; administration centers for agricultural and urban planning; artistic ateliers; philosophical schools; conservatories; meditation venues; and spirituality circles whereby – and in absolute contradiction with lesser and later edifices of posterior civilizations – the Great Hierophant used to make full revelation of the Sacred Spiritual Power (‘the mysteries’) in front of the selected apprentices who had passed their initiation with success.
Analyzing the spiritual matrix and the five elements
Contrarily, ancient Greek and Roman temples were tiny buildings dedicated to cult, with no spirituality, no mysteries, no knowledge, and no hierophants. That’s why the first Greek philosophers went all to the Oriental temples to study: in order to return back to their cities and oppose the ignorant, uneducated, dark and evil clergy of their low, small and useless temples.
In either Mesopotamia or Egypt, the identification of the site where a new temple had to be erected was the result of extensive research in geographical determinism (in order to understand the particular nature and traits of the place) and the outcome of high level spiritual studies and investigations that specified the exact correspondence between the topographical location and its spiritual counterpart. Nothing of the sort occurred in the case of the Greek and Roman temples, because those priesthoods did not have a clue about the sciences and the knowledge of the Oriental priesthoods.
And yet, when we study Ancient Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian texts of the first half of the first millennium BCE, we are immediately confronted with the veneration and the respect with which the then authors spoke about their past that they always identified as higher, better, more powerful, more luminous, and utterly golden. The great grandfather of Assurbanipal became Emperor of Assyria in 722 BCE, after overthrowing Shalmanaser V, and selected as his own imperial name that of Sarrukinu (Sargon) of Akkad, who had reigned 1600 years earlier. In fact, all Assyrian Emperors and Babylonian Kings in their rivalry attempted to reconstruct the ideal, superior and perfect Empire of Sargon of Akkad.
Sargon of Akkad & Sargon of Assyria (below right)
Throughout all the sacred texts in either Mesopotamia or Egypt we get the impression that the antediluvian times were a period of greater strength, intuition and prosperity. The distinction made by modern Western scholarship between mythological and historical texts is overwhelmingly annulled by all the historical texts of the Ancient Oriental nations that make it very clear that their authors viewed as also historical the texts that modern Western scholarship categorizes as ‘mythological’ and that they considered the spiritual and divine realm as inextricably inherent to the material world.
The greatest of the Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian Emperors compared themselves with the Epic hero Gilgamesh and tried to duly train themselves to stand as strong opponents of the maledicted hero, who in turn failed forever to reach the paradisiacal level of Ut-Napishtim, the archetypal figure of Noah, the vanquisher of the Flood.
Gilgamesh as represented in Neo-Assyrian bas-reliefs and Cuneiform tablet with the Flood Epic Atrahasis (another name for Utnapishtim)
The search for the ideal, higher, sublime past marked not only the first but also the second millennium BCE. The Narrative of the Shipwrecked is a great mythical text of the Ancient Egyptians, written at the times of the Middle Kingdom (ca. 2100 – 1750 BCE), that consists in the first worldwide mention of the mythical Atlantis. The term ‘Atlantis’ is used by Plato almost 1500 years after the Ancient Egyptian text was first composed, but the concept of Atlantis (the Utopia before the Deluge) is identical and its origin is found in the Narrative of the Shipwrecked. The text sets the story at the times of the antediluvian Old Kingdom (ca. 2750 – 2250 BCE); the description concerns the ideal, perfect and infallible world before the Flood, which ended abruptly.
Hieratic text & Hieroglyphic transliteration: The Narration of the Shipwrecked
The Reconstitution of the Oriental Myth: the Semiotics of the Spiritual Truth
With the above introduction, I intended to show that, if we try to read original ancient texts, without projecting onto them our world’s preconceived aberrations, mistakes and deceptions, we will discover clearly the reality that I shared with you in my earlier emails: the History of the Mankind is a History of Falls.
This automatically answers your question about the knowledge that Narmer and his times’ wise elders had and how they acquired it. Earlier means higher, better and stronger. Advancing backwards, we will reach the Assyrian – Babylonian Adapa, the first Man. The name itself is at the origin of the Biblical – Islamic Adam. Adapa was created by Ea, the divine aspect of Wisdom and Love (among the five elements, this aspect corresponds to the Soft Waters).
The Assyrian – Babylonian Epic of Adapa (Adam)
In Egypt, as I said in a recently published correspondence, there was never one religion but many different religions that only misleadingly are presented by modern Egyptologists as just one religion; this is due to the fact that the spiritual, cosmological and theoretical differences among these systems were definitely greater than the divergences between Christianity and Islam (https://www.academia.edu/34439637/In_Ancient_Egypt_at_any_given_moment_there_was_never_one_Egyptian_Religion). However, none of the main Ancient Egyptian religions (the Heliopolitan, Hermupolitan, Memphtic and Theban systems) expanded much on the Creation of Man, and quite rightfully. Even within the Biblical context, the Creation of the World matters; the creation of the Man is a secondary episode. The religious – theological system that gives greater focus on the Creation of Man in Ancient Egypt is that of Khnum, the ram-headed god of Elephantine island at Aswan. For the Creation of the Man, it involves clay and the potter’s wheel. To help you understand what this means, I only state that it clearly shows that in reality the potter’s wheel antedates the first physical man!
Khnum creates the First Man
However, irrespective of the spiritual and theoretical background related to the myths about the Creation of the Man, it was always clear to the Ancient Oriental peoples that the early life in the Garden of God(s) was the supreme stage of the Mankind, which was lost when the early humans were forced out (the first fall). The vicinity of the Holy Tree (the Tree of Life) was a condition that always characterized the ancient Oriental nations’ effort to recapture and reconstitute the early, ideal stage.
We can therefore fully understand that both the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians viewed the Creation of the Man and the Mankind’s early stage as the supreme condition that humans ever experienced. And this is how it truly happened.
Scene around the Holy Tree
God did not create a silly and scared humanoid who (or that?) had to incessantly be on the run in order to avoid the leopard and the lion, the wolf and the jackal. As created, Man had supreme spiritual power and ability to live at a totally different level. Indicatively, although animals were created before Adam, it is he who was asked by God to name them! Giving the name to an already created being is tantamount to having absolute power over it; the early man did not need to study about the trees and the plants that surrounded him, because absolute knowledge of everything was inherent to him as per the code of the Creation.
Full knowledge of, and absolute power over, natural phenomena and meteorological conditions were only some of the early man’s capacities. Complete understanding of the structure of the universe and of the Earth, communication with all the spiritual hierarchies and the material beings, and impeccable moral conscience were some of his characteristics. The early man was able to live without eating, sleeping and having sexual intercourse. His spiritual and material power was formidable, and this was exactly what great mystics, high priests, and wise elders of later periods tried to recapture after the series of early setbacks (as symbolized by the expulsion from the Paradise, the Flood, the Babel Tower, etc). Every setback and fall meant always a direct loss of spiritual potency, knowledge, and intuition, and this brought about loss of intellectual accuracy and confusion.
Not only the man was different at that stage, but also the animals, and they did not eat one another – at all. In Kom Ombo, they managed to keep domesticated crocodiles until very late. We can safely infer the aforementioned, because it is known that, after the End of Times and the anticipated re-constitution of the early ideal world by Etana – Ninurta – Horus – Tasmisu – Shosyant – Maitreya – Messiah – Christ – Mahdi (and any other mythologized or theologized figure of Ultimate Savior), the wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together; and a little child will lead them. 7 The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest. 9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (Isaiah XI, 6-9). If the re-constituted ideal society after the elimination of the Evil comprises of this description’s details, we can assume that this was also the ordinary life before the falls started.
The Assyrian – Babylonian Eschatological – Messianic Myth (:Prophecy) of Etana
The fight between the Messiah (Horus) and the Antichrist (Seth) as depicted …
on the walls of Horus’ Temple at Edfu: The Antichrist is depicted as crocodile …
or hippopotamus.
Please notice the excerpt’s last sentence! Isaiah’s reference to waters (: soft waters) covering the sea makes surely no sense to you. But it would definitely make sense to Pharaoh Narmer and his times’ wise elders, high priests, and average people. This is due to the fact that the world was very different before the Flood. That’s why it makes sense that you ask me about the stars playing a role in Narmer’s decision making process. This will be the topic of my next response.
Excerpts from my correspondence with a Tunisian reader about the ‘Ancient Egyptian Religion’
Question
Many thanks dear Friend for your long email,
I’m from Sfax, and by chance I worked about Ramsenites a kind of stories widely spread in north africa. You are specialized also in old languages and I have a question about the representation in old egypt about Amoon sun-rise coming from the east Arabia? with smell of perfume and myrrh, is it true that rulers of old egypt were from yemen? So by the way what is the new traduction of this word in hieroglyphic (Cf. enclosed)
Response
You ask me about Ancient Egypt and Amun of Thebes.
I believe sometimes many Orientalists trying to do the best did the worst! And the result is that they confused the rest of the world.
So, I fully agree with Edward Said’s criticism and even I wrote about it.
I feel sorry that Egyptologists flooded the world with wrong terms, really! No bad intentions involved, but when someone is not attentive and watchful, misreading is caused with incalculable consequences. Very simple terms are very mistaken indeed. You say ‘Ancient Egyptian Religion’ (I don’t speak of you but in general): first mistake!!!!
Today, we distinguish Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.
In Ancient Egypt, at any given moment, there was never one Egyptian Religion.
Different priesthoods developed tremendously divergent interpretations of the Divine Order, the Spiritual Universe, the Creation, the Material Universe, and the human society; in doing so, they had contradictory world views, moral and spiritual principles, and narratives; they then conceptualized the reality in opposite manners.
Yes, there is one Egyptian Civilization, one Egyptian Culture, but many Egyptian religions; and by this of course I don’t mean Aten, Akhenaten and the Atonic Religion, but the systems that antedated Akhenaten for more than two millennia and which survived the Amarna revolution.
There were different religious (and imperial) capitals, opposite centers of spiritual-religious systems, and conflicting priests and followers.
It is very wrong to describe the totality of the Ancient Egyptian religions as polytheistic. There were several monotheistic systems for which there were no gods, but one God and many attributes of God. This is very different from what modern concise presentations of the Ancient Egyptian faiths state. And of course there were also polytheistic systems in Ancient Egypt, and there were constant clashes among the followers of the opposite systems. In those fights, all the monotheists sided together against all the polytheists, but this does not mean that there was just one monotheistic and one polytheistic systems; there were more.
Because of this, initiation rites helped all those priesthoods solidify and perpetuate themselves through the ages by hiring new adepts who would then become high priests, generals, land lords, prominent noblemen, top administrators, and pharaohs.
And by using a sophisticated language, which contained a vast field of semiotics, they set up systems of perception and understanding that were impressively and incredibly multilayered: these supreme spiritual and mental constructions that are unmatched by today’s top scientific disciplines, philosophies and ideologies were the original forms of the Ancient Myth.
Then, an agricultural laborer perceived one myth as x; but an initiated priest, scribe, general, administrator perceived the same myth (i.e. the same narrative) as x2; then a higher initiate perceived the same myth as x3; an even higher initiate as x4; a great mystic as x105; and the great high priest as x100.
The Heliopolitan system (Ennead) was a markedly monotheistic system in its origin and until the crepuscular times of the Egyptian civilization.
If one only studies the names of the divine aspects that are the elements of this system, one understands immediately that they were not conceived as ‘gods’; example: Osiris, Wser, meant ‘the Well Being’. Of course, it was cut to pieces by Satan, i.e. Seth; and it disappeared among men. This is exactly what the Bible and the Quran describe as our Forefathers’ expulsion from the Paradise. The Well Being is not anymore with us. But the Biblical and Quranic descriptions are lower, poorer and weaker.
Ignorant or devious scholars of our times insist that Hathor is a … goddess! How silly! This aspect of the Divine Order may well have been perceived as a ‘goddess’ in late times of the Egyptian civilization (such as the 1st millennium BCE), but in the original myth – which represents the absolutely truthful perception of the spiritual and the material reality – Hathor was not a goddess. How silly is it to consider as ‘goddess’ an entity whose name in Egyptian Hieroglyphics meant exactly “the House of Horus”?
The same concerns the Hermupolitan system (Ogdoad).
Contrarily, the Memphitic theology (around Ptah) was totally polytheistic.
And so was the Theban Trinity, which is the aboriginal Trinity in the History of the Mankind.
As I already said, there were many clashes among the various Ancient Egyptian systematic theologies; as the different religious – spiritual systems were structured with impenetrable temples, initiates, adepts and followers, the only chance to harm an opposite system was either to elaborate composite forms of the Divine (in order to acquire the credibility of another theological system’s element and in the process alter the original faith of the system in which the targeted element belonged), such as Amun Ra (of the Theban priesthood), or to attribute deviate characteristics or different, degraded perception to an element of the opposite priesthood’s system.
In this manner, and with the progressive rise of polytheism, the earlier aspects of the Divine ‘became’ gods for most – but all – of the Ancient Egyptians during Ancient Egypt’s later periods.
But at the very original stage, anthropomorphism and zoomorphism in the conception of the divine world related to the lower spiritual (or astral) sphere and had nothing to do with primitive tribes’ totems and polytheistic rituals, as materialist propagandists claim while impersonating professors and academicians to the detriment of the Mankind.
Only deep and extensive experience in the spiritual spheres can allow someone understand what it means – as example – that the Divine Aspect of Wisdom (i.e. the Wisdom of God) has to represented as a human’s body with an ibis’ head (like Djhawty – Thot). Material(istic) scholarship is genuinely incapacitated to understand – let alone explain – this theoretical approach, which originates entirely from spiritual spheres.
So, what you ask me about Amun Re is a later (dating back to the times of the New Empire at the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE), composite form and has no originality in the 3rd millennium. In its origin, Amun as a Theban polytheistic god has no relationship with solar ideologies. When the Theban priests composed the form Amun Re, they did it in order to set up an imperial ideology and doctrine, while at the same time isolating / alienating the Heliopolitan monotheistic priesthood from the imperial headquarters at all levels, spiritual, theological, administrative and local. During most of the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE, Iwnw (Heliopolis) was a marginal and destitute religious center; however, it managed to keep polytheists at bay.
Amun Re certainly appropriated solar attributes of the Heliopolitan Ra, and was therefore said to rise in the Orient.
megalommatiscomments 
