As to the Muslims and the believers in general, they consider such words explicit unbelief, opposing the basic elements of faith. They want us to equate Abu Lahab with Abu Bakr, and Abu Jahl with Omar Ibn Khattab, because they are equal according to the nationalist balance, but the Qur'an says: "Not equal are the owners of the Fire and the owners of the Garden" (Surah 59, Verse 20.), "ls he who is a believer like unto him who is and evil-liver? They are not alike" (Surah 32, Verse 18).

They want to deny us our interest in issues such as that of the Muslims of Kashmir, or that of the Muslims of Ethiopia, or that of the Muslims of The Soviet Union (20 million Muslims). At the same time, they themselves see nothing against their support for the Hindu Pagans against the Muslims. They also have no qualms about supporting the Greek Catholics in Cyprus against the Turkish Muslims, or supporting the Russian or Chinese Communists against the Muslim minorities whose numbers reach scores of millions (We have seen in the last few years that they have motivated the Russian conquest of Muslim Afghanistan, and stand in the front along with the conquerors against the heroic Muslim fighters who are defending their faith, land and honour.).

Third: We object to the nationalists' separation of religion from society and state. The nationalists call in general for a secular state and they confine religion to a narrow scope which does not go beyond the relationship of man to his God (this is only in the case when they recognise the existence of religion and its continuity). As to the role of religion in the guiding of the society, the regulation of the state, and the organisation of life, it is considered as a backwards situation, which is fought by all nationalists. One of them explains the function of Arab nationalism as follows:

"It fights ignorance, poverty, illness, tyranny and all forms of chauvinism except, national chauvinism. It separates religion from politics, and disallows men of religion from practising it. It also teaches the Arab, wherever he is, to be fanatic about two matters: his nationalism and righteousness."

What led them to that is that they have applied to Islam in the MiddleEast, what they have applied to Christianity in the West, and this is a fatal error. Islam is not like Christianity in its nature, history and its relation with society and life on earth. The Qur'an is not like the Bible, the mosque is not like the church and the scholars of Islam are not like the men of the church.

Christianity does not have a stated legislation of the state, or organisation of life. It is only a faith, a prayer and a code of individual behaviour. Its Bible is only a set of advice for the sake of instilling hope and fear in people.

All this did not prevent the church from interfering with the matters of goveand politics. It did not leave to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and

to Allah what belongs to Allah. It stuck its nose in everything. It backed kings, emperors and nobility against the lower social classes. So when the fires of revolutions broke out, they burnt the kings and the priests at the same time. The call of the revolutionaries was "Choke the last king with the guts of the last priest".

The interference of the church did not confine itself to the matters of government and politics, but reached even the fields of science and intellect. The church adopted every old theory, and fought everything that was new, and called for the assassination and corruption of the men of science and intellect.

The religion of the church (I am not saying the religion of Christ, because westerners did not know the religion of Christ at all) erected itself as an enemy of life, progress, science, freedom, justice and equality. So it became imperative for the westerners, as they were awakened by a whiff from the east through Andalusia and the crusades, to stand and fight for life, progress, science, freedom, brotherhood, justice and equality. They had to confront the enemies of all these qualities, who were unfortunately the representatives of the church there. It was natural and normal that this light which was spreading over that stagnant obscurity wins, and that people proclaim, after their victory, the removal of religion from daily life, and its separation from the government of the country and the guidance of the state.

So, can we allow this hateful dark period of history to be put over our heads, and that our religion bears the defects and mishandling of another religion in another country.

From its beginning, Islam was based on observation, thinking, the glorification of writing and reading, the distinction between those who work and those who do not, the denial of imitation and inertia and the following of thought, perseverance and passion. Throughout the history of Islam, there has never been any real conflict between religion and science, between imitation and rationalism or between legislation and wisdom.

This religion has never stood against life, light and progress, in fact it was the heart which provided the body with blood, the sun which provided society with light, and water which makes of every person a living being. The scholars of Islam themselves have never stood together to support a tyrant government or an unjust government. Instead, they were in general the leaders of the people in their big fights against invasion from outside and tyranny from within.

In summary my friend, the authentic nationalist -as described by these - is the one who discards religion from his reckoning, puts it on the shelf, or stores it in the storage of the wasteful consumer and, who does not benefit from it. The authentic nationalist does not commit himself in anyway towards religion, its values, beliefs and commandments. There is nothing that prevents him from borrowing from the materialists their way of explaining existence, from Epigorus his theory to explain morality, from Freud his theories to explain behaviour, from Marx his theory to explain history, from Durkheim his theory to explain social relations, from Sartre his ideology of literature and life. He never takes the time to ask himself whether these theories and ideas agree with Islam or not. It is obvious, that if they had known that these theories and ideas oppose Islam and Islam opposes them, they would have stuck to them tightly, and would have turned their backs on Islam.

Fourth: We oppose nationalists in their attempts to divide the Muslim nation, of which Allah wanted to make one single nation as stated in His Glorious Words: "And lo! This your religion is one religion" (Surah 23, Verse 52). "Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for humanity" (Surah 3, Verse 110).. "Thus We have appointed you a middle nation" (Surah 2, Verse 143) They wanted to divide this one nation into many, opposing each other and fighting over territorial borders. They also wanted to boast of ignorant fanaticism, and glorify brotherhood other than religious brotherhood, and other than Muslim brotherhood which Allah equated with faith in His Book. He even made of it His proof and token, and stated: "The believers are naught else than brothers" (Surah 49, Verse 10) and then He also said: "O ye who believe! yye obey a party of those who have received the Scripture, they will make you disbelievers after your belief"( Surah 3, Verse 100.). Meaning that after your brotherhood and your unity you will separate and fight, thus equating unity with faith and separation with unbelief, because it leads to it. In the authentic Hadith it is stated: "It is sinful for Muslims to insult each other, and unbelief to fight each other". "After my time, do not become unbelievers who cut each other's throat". These two Hadiths were quoted by Muslim. He also says: "If two Muslims meet with their swords, both killer and killed will go to hell" Then he was asked, "we understand the fate of the killer, but how about the killed?" "He had the intent to kill his opponent. " And this is agreed upon.

The logic of nationalism allows Muslims to fight each other. It also allows for them to spill each other's blood, because of the quarrels between the different groups, as we witnessed in the fight between Arabs and Turks in the First World War, under the manipulation undertaken by the English and even under their leadership. Even more surprising, we saw from close quarters the fight of the Arab nationalists with the Kurdish nationalists in Iraq.

If at the beginning of your comments you started by invoking the name of Allah, as an Arab, and by distancing yourself from the weak national minorities which tear the Arab nation apart, and weaken its entity, and erect obstacles between them, the same logic should dictate to you, as a Muslim, to invoke the name of Allah again and to distance yourself from narrow nationalism which tears apart the unity of the Islamic nation, and weakens its entity, be that nationalism Arab, Toranian, Persian or other.

Fifth: The notion of nationalism is a pre-Islamic and backward notion, which denies religion, and any religion, Islam or other, denies it.

That it is pre-Islamic, is because it revives chauvinism, which is one of the special features of the pre-Islamic period, and from which Islam and its Prophet distanced themselves completely as the Prophet (PBUH) said: "There is no one from us who advocated chauvinism, there is no one from us who fought for chauvinism, and there is no one from us who died for chauvinism " .

Revival of pre-Islamic chauvinism consists in the glorification of one's parents and pride in one's grandparents, even if they are viewed by Islam as the most unbelieving of the non-believers, the most sinful of the sinful, and the most deserving of the pains of hellfire, damned be such fate, like the ones who glorify Pharaohs such as Ramses, or Abu Jahl and his likes from the Arabs.

Al Tirmidii and Abu Dawud quoted Abu Hurayrah stating that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "Let those who boast of their dead parents to stop doing so, as their parents are the coals of hell, or in the eyes of Allah, Glory and Majesty to Him, they may be less than the scarabeus who pushedfaeces with his nose. Allah, Glory and Majesty to Him, has moved from you the insult of the pre-lslamic period, i.e. its boastfulness, and its pride in parents. Parents are either obeying believers, or wretched unbelievers and people are the sons of Adam, and Adam was born from dirt".

The scarabeus is an earthly creature and it pushes faeces with its nose. This is an example of insignificance and baseness, and in the eyes of Allah, being proud of one's unbelieving fathers who are no more than hell's coals and the fuel of fire is even lower than that.

A trustworthy man has related that one of the enthusiastic nationalists, called his son Lahab, so that people may call him Abu Lahab in order to revive the name of a pre-Islamic Arab leader: "The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish" ( Surah 111, Verse 1.). Tomorrow, we may hear that someone called his soJahl so that he may be called Abu Jahl; fohas its own ways.

And that it is backwards, is because it is an extension of tribal inclinations, and support for the fanaticism to the kinsfolk and calling for its support be it right or wrong. This is taking man extremely backwards, at a time when the only ties were those of the clan and when it alone guided and led the person according to its prejudices and traditions. After that the allegiance of man moved from the clan to the nation, then the divine religions took man to horizons that are higher and more convivial, and those are the horizons of universal humanness.

Emery River says in his book The Question of Islam, under the chapter 'The defamation of religion': "Worship of the nationalist state reached its peak in the fascist countries". But the misrepresentation of religion and its use for nationalist purposes were noticed in every nation.

The sacred and principled factor in Christianity is that it is universal and its principle is that people were born equal before God, and they submit to one God, and one law, which applies to all. This was a revolutionary idea in the history of humanity. The emergence of the nationalist state prevented this idea from having a principled influence.

At the time the new nations started to be established, the national feeling in the western world started to take priority over the Catholic feeling. The church had been divided and became even more divided into other sects, each of which supported the newly born high ideal of the nation.

It became recognised in every country that the nationalist policy is a Catholic policy, the Catholic churches became nationalist institutions, which backed the tribal instincts of the nationalist spirit. In thousands of churches, the Catholic priests and the Protestant preachers invoke God and ask him to glorify their country and to minimise others, even if this was in extreme contradiction with the highest ideals of religion that man had received.

The universal moral principle is neither moral nor universal, if it is only valid within groups that are isolated from other people. Therefore, the commandment 'though shalt not kill' cannot possibly mean that it is criminal to kill one of your compatriots, but that it is a virtue to kill a citizen of another country.

This kind of evolution can be witnessed in all three monotheistic religions. The unity that was preserved by the Qur'an for centuries amongst the Islamic peoples of different origins is now gone and the Muslim community is now divided into many small nationalities. Thus, the advocates of the Turkish League aim at the unification of specific Turkich ethnic groups, the advocates of the Arab League aim at the unification of the Arab peoples.

The Muslims in India say: "We are Hindu first, and then we are Muslims", and everybody has forgotten the universal feature that was the basis of the great religion of Islam. This situation is not confined to the Catholics and Muslims only, even the earliest unificators, the Jews, have forgotten the basic tenet of their religion, which is that it is universal. They want to worship with emotions which are characterised by their own nationalism, and their own national state.

No matter what kind of oppression or torture and no matter what extent thereof can one be subjected to, it cannot permit the rejection of a universal message defending nationalist feelings, which is another name for tribalism, which is the source of all their miseries.

It should be borne in mind that the greatest danger to the future of humanity is when it reaches the level of distortion which has blemished the universal faith of unity.

Without its influence, it would have been impossible for human freedom to establish itself in the democratic community, or that it remains, and there is no way to rescue the human community without universality. So, if the Christian churches do not return to their central principle, and consider it as such in all their dealings, then it will disappear before a new universal faith. This will emerge from within ruins and pains, which are caused by the appearance of nationalism which will no doubt emerge.

Sixth: The advocates of nationalism do not stop at the separation of religion and life. They stand in a position of enmity towards the Muslim faith, and opposition towards any strong Islamic movement, which works towards the return of an Islamic system, and calls for a return to its commandments, and principles, and unity under its flag. This enmity from nationalists towards Islam is logical for two reasons:

One: This enmity and opposition is a natural consequence of the introductions that we mentioned earlier in view of the fact that they are elements of a crisis of the nationalist movements or linked to them. Such a crisis resides in the prioritisation of the nationalist link over the relationship that is based upon religion, the minimisation of Islamic brotherhood, the call for a non-religious secular state, and opposition to Islamic unity, and the splitting of the Islamic nation into smaller nations and ethnic groups which oppose each other.

Two: These nationalist entities within our Islamic world are no more than seeds which have been planted, tended and grown by preachers and colonialists. The students who were recruited at the beginning to work for this cause were not Muslims and were used to bring down the Islamic Government in Turkey. Turkey had ridiculed the Christian West at one point in history, and then it knocked at the doors of Vienna in 1673. These students were also recruited in order to put a halt, through the creation of these new nationalist movements, to any aspiration to a future Islamic unity. It is no surprise, then, to see people like Antoine Saadah advocating a Syrian nation, Salama Muusa advocating an Egyptian nation, Michel Aflaq and George Habash advocating an Arab nation. It would be trying to make unnatural impositions if we demanded from these staunch Christian advocates allegiance to Islam, to the message of Islam and the brotherhood of Islam.

This danger started with the Toranian nationalist movement, which was adopted by the Party of Union and Progress, in Turkey, and ended by separating the Arabs from the State of Caliphate and by the break out of war between Muslim brothers, who were killing each other under the conception, leadership and guidance of unbelieving and crusading colonialists. The issue of the Arab revolution and the role of Lawrence within it is a living example.

The nationalist Turanian chauvinism bore fruit, so the Caliphate was cancelled, the great Islamic philosophy was destroyed, and the great Islamic nation was split into tiny nations and smaller entities which were related to many groups and nations, which cannot frighten anybody.

My friend said: But, weren't these ideas born within the Islamic nation, under the conception of the Muslim sons of the nation, and thus why do we link these ideas to foreign colonialists and make of these ideas the illegitimate daughters and not our legitimate daughters?

I responded: These ideas were effectively imported to our countries, and our enemies undertook with their own hands the planting of these ideas into our land, but were tended by their students and supporters and the slaves of their civilisation. So what we say is not of pure fabrication, but is recognised by these foreigners themselves and by the individual nationalists. This is also supported by history, reality and comparison between yesterday and today.

Professor Bernard Lewis, the chairman of the Department of History, at the School of Oriental and African Studies in the University of London, states: "The Ottoman Empire was the last and longest lasting great world Islamic empires which governed the Middle-East since the time of the Rightly Guided caliphs. The basic allegiance of Muslim was to Islam, and to the state, which embodied the political reality of Islam, and to the Caliphate, which earned its legal character through allegiance throughout time, and which managed people's affairs. The opponents, rebels andrevolutionaries endeavoured to change ministers and governors and even the whole governing body, but attempted to change the basic allegiance to the state of Islam and the unity of its identity'' (In the book The West and the Middle-East, pp. 108-109.).

When, he discusses the Arabs and their attitude within the Ottoman Caliphate he states: "They were aware of the fact that their language, culture, historical recollections of the Turks, but they never showed any serious interest to withdraw from the Ottoman state, never opposed the existence of a Turkish sultan. On the contrary, it is likely that they would have been estranged by the presence of some other person at the head of the Ottoman state. The idea of the establishment of the state on the basis of land and nationalist nation a strange and foreign idea to them to the point that the word 'aralua' does not have an equivalent in the Arabic language. Even the name Turkey was only invented recently by the Turks and it is of European origin. As to the Arabs, they have not invented a new expression, they only used the expression which refers to the Arabic Peninsula" (. The West and the Middle-East, pp. 109-110).

This is the way Muslims were, be they Turks or Arabs, before the ghost of National non-religious state haunted them. See how this wretched ghost infiltrated the ranks of Muslims? The same historian states: "Ethnic nationalism infiltrated the Muslim world from central and eastern Europe through various hands". Most of the first carriers were Dutch and Austrian refugees. When they first went to Turkey, after their revolution failed in the year 1848, a large proportion of them stayed there, and adopted Islam, and held important posts in the Ottoman state. One of them was Count Constantin Burzisky, who named himself later on Mustapha Jalal Eddin Pasha (!). In 1869 he published in Istanbul a book in French entitled The Turks Yesterday and Today. In the book there is a large section which consists of a report to the Sultan about the problems of the city in the Empire, and suggestions as to how to solve them. There is also a historical section which contains a study undertaken by European Orientalists about the ancient history of the Turkish people. This study confirms the positive and creative role of the Turks in history. Burzisky also made every effort to establish that the Turks are from the white race, like the other peoples of Europe, and they belong to what he called the Aryan Turanian race. He also worked toward the importation of a Polish-type nationalism and putting it in a Turkish mould. What helped him in such work is the exposition of the findings of European Orientalists who had undertaken research in Turkish affairs. These findings reached the Turkish society through different means, and had an important influence on the Turkish people, especially in the field of the evaluation of Ancient Turkish history, the belief in its distinguished identity and its deserved place in history. The Turks were more forgetful of their past history than were the Arabs and Europeans. The only identity they identified themselves with is Islam, but the Orientalists - deliberately or undeliberately - helped the Turks retrieve their lost national identity, and advocate a new Turkish movement" (The West and the Middle-East, pp. 126-127.)

This attitude was initially not accepted by the Muslims when it first appeared, they denied it and fought it with great force and frankness.

When the Albanian nationalist movement started in 1912, it brought with it a protest campaign led by the poet Mohammed Akif, the Muslim nationalist who was an opponent of the movement of nationalist states. He was of Albanian origin. He said: Your religion is Islam, so what is this tribal nationalism? Are the Arabs better than the Turks or are the Ladh better than the Circassians and Kurds? Are the Persians better than the Chinese? What distinguishes them? What has preoccupied your minds? Are you dividing the Muslim world into smaller and numerous parts?

The Prophet himself discredited tribal chauvinism. The Turks cannot live without the Arabs, and whoever says other than this is foolish. The Turks are considered by the Arabs as their right eye, and their right hand. So let Albania be a warning to you. What is this insane politics, and what is this evil aim? Hear it from me, I am the Albanian. I will not say more than this. I am sorry about my afflicted country" ( op.cit. pp.l35-136.).

The Muslim Hindu poet and philosopher Mohammed Iqbal was in the same stand as Mohammed Akif. He realised very early the entry of this cancer in the Muslim body, and warned about its danger and bad influence. He said: "The idea of a nationalist state invaded us since the days when the notion of nationalist state was known neither in India or in the Arab world. Through my readings of the writings of European authors, I felt clearly since the beginning that the plans of the European colonialist aimed at advocating nationalist states in order to instil division within the ranks of people, because that is a lethal weapon, which they needed greatly. This need dictated the call for the principles of a nationalist state in Muslim countries, according to the European tenets. The aim was to destroy the existing religious unity among Muslims".

My friend said: If we call for Arab nationalist states, for example, we would solve a problem, that is more complicated than the tail of the bear. This is the problem of the non-Muslim Arab, who lives with us in our houses and on the same land, shares with us the happy and sad events, and shares with us our hopes and our pains. Within nationalist unity religious differences disappear, and the tribal knots are untied. So there would be no reason for anybody in the Arab world to say 'I am Muslim, or I am a Christian', everybody would just say: 'I am an Arab'.

I then said: That would be a real solution the day the Muslim sets his Islam aside, and the Christian sets his Christianity aside, and each one of them lives without religion. As long as the Muslim remains a Muslim, his religion will impose on him to have greater loyalty to it over any other loyalty, and faith in it over any other faith. He would also sacrifice for its sake every relationship and link that people hold onto. Suffice us as evidence for this Allah's Almighty verse: "Say: if your fathers, and your sons, and your brethren, and your wives, and your tribe, and the wealth ye have acquired, and merchandise for which ye fear that there will be no sale, and dwellings ye desire are dearer to you than Allah and His messenger and striving in His way: then wait till Allah bringeth His command to pass. Allah guided not wrongdoing folk" (. Surah 9, Verse 24.) and the Prophet's (PBUH) Hadith: "You become a believer only when you love me more than you love your father and your son and all other people." Anciently, the motto of the Muslim Arab was: "My father is Islam and I have no father but Islam; whenever they are proud of Qays and Tamim".

If the Christian remains a Christian, his religion also dictates to him that he makes his relationship with it stronger than any other relationship. In the book of Luke, it is said: "He who loves his father or his mother more than me does not deserve me, and whoever loves a son or a daughter of his more than he loves me, he does not deserve me either!" When Christ was told once: that his mother and brothers were outside waiting to talk to him; he said: My mother? Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? Then he pointed to his disciples and said: you are my mother, you are my brothers". Also, when one of his disciples asked to take leave in order to go and bury his father, he said to him: "Follow me and let the dead bury the dead."

Then, we can say that stating that the nationalist state issue has solved the problem of the differences between religions within the same nation is completely superficial and it is a case of political hypocrisy, which is interested solely in propaganda and information, not in the radical solution of problems.

My friend then said: "How do we solve the issue ofthe non-Muslim minorities in the Arab society." I replied, "In the same way as it has been solved over the last thirteen centuries or m. In other words, each person should stick to his own religion and its instructions, observe its rituals, under neither coercion, injustice nor hypocrisy. But the right of the majority of the people to be governed by the legislation of their choice should be maintained. This legislation should also coincide with its conscience and with its faith. Everyone from the minority and the majority - in this situation should be covered by the umbrella of the spirit of brotherhood, forgiveness, and fairness in rights and duties. This is not only political flattery, or social hypocrisy. It is a religion which does not allow the Muslim to violate it or ignore it, except if he is blinded by passion or delusion.

Islam, as far as the Muslim is concerned, is a religion, a faith and worship. As far as the non-Muslim is concerned, it is a culture and a civilisation. Thus, there are some famous Christians who called for the application of the legislation with more enthusiasm than that of some Muslims, such as the famous Syrian leader Faris Al Khuri, former Syrian Prime Minister (Refer to the chapter entitled 'Islamic minorities and the Islamic solution' in our book The certainties of the Islamic solution and the ambiguities of the secularisation advocates).

This is our solution for the non-Muslim Arab, so tell the advocates of the nationalist state, how do you, nationalists, solve the issue of the non-Arab Muslim within the nation and outside?

You have called for nationalism for the sake of millions of non-Muslims within the Arab world, and you have forgotten that there are more millions of non-Arabs who live in this nation. Examples of these are the Kurds in Iraq and Berbers in North Africa. The only way to solve their problem is by a call for Islam and Islamic brotherhood. The example of the Kurds in Iraq is a tough lesson for the advocates of nationalism if they were knowledgeable.

And you have lost, for the sake of these few millions of non-Muslim Arabs, the allegiance of hundreds of millions non-Arab Muslims in Asia and Africa. These constitute the natural friends of Arabs, or even their full brothers in reality. This is because Islam is liable to impose on them the love of Arabs and their preference over themselves, since the Prophet who sent to them and to the rest of the world compassion is one of them. The Glorious Book came in their own language, and it is from them that the first protectors of Islam and its first leaders came. It is they who have brought them the light of Islam and the guidance of the Qur'an. It is in their land, that is the Arabs, that is located the Qaa'ba, the holy shrine, towards which every Muslim turns his face five times a day as an obligation from Allah, and he goes there at least once in his life, in response to Allah's order. It is also in the Arab land that we find the mosque of the Prophet (PBUH), and his noble shrine, and the Aqsa Mosque which Allah Blessed.

In the same way as the non-Arab Muslim is ordered by his religion to learn of the Arabic language what is necessary for him to make his worship authentic, and lead him to master it so that he can recite the Book of his God, and quote the Tradition of his Prophet. It is also necessary for a group of them to become experts in Arabic so that they may master their knowledge of religion, and enlighten their people.

The truth is that Islam Arabises the non-Arab Muslim, it Arabises his mind and his heart first, then it endeavours to Arabise his tongue and language. So if the African side includes today the great majority of Arabs - and they are from elsewhere than the Peninsula - that is only from the influence of Islam which entered that land - Egypt, Sudan and the region of the Arab Maghreb - and so, it moved them from their nationalities and their languages and old religions to a new religion and a new language - the religion of Islam and the language of the Qur'an.

We have seen in Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria and other Islamic countries in Asia and Africa, that there are groups and organisations which undertake the teaching and spreading of Arabic for the sake of their love for Islam, and for the cause of the Qur'an. Those who have visited these countries (I wrote this before I visited these countries and witnessed that myself) and mingled with its Muslim population told us that many of them wish to abandon their local language, and make Arabic the language of their daily communication and the official language of their country.

It is important to note here several lines from a valuable thesis on the problems of the teaching of Arabic in Nigeria, which was written by one of its loyal Muslim scholars. One of those who were blessed by God to have the opportunity to learn Arabic and also to be in charge of teaching it. His name is Professor Adam Abdullah Al Aluudii. He states in his thesis entitled 'The positive influence of Arallic on Islam': "Islam is distinguished over all other religions by the complete integration of the Arabic language into it. This situation accepts neither analysis nor disengagement. It is rare to find in the history of religions one that has contributed to the spreading of a language as is the case of Islam. The same distinction has allowed the Arabs the position of leadership, which is not disputed by any other nationality from the Muslim world no matter how strong is its faith, its understanding of the Qur'an, and faith in Islam. The Arabs stand for Islam - yesterday, today and tomorrow - in the same position as the soul does for the body, and the head for the arms. The following adage is absolutely correct: "If the Arabs are disgraced, Islam is disgraced, if the Arabs are glorified, Islam is glorified".

"The Arabic language spread with the spread of Islam, thus Arabic predominated Romance in Syria, and Farsi in Iraq, Copt in Egypt, Berber in Northern Africa. Islam has removed their native language from the cells of their tongues, and taught them Arabic, which they enjoyed, mastered and through it became Arabised as was Ismail, God's blessings upon him, the first Arabised Arab. As a result, Arabic coexisted hand in hand with the national languages in some countries like India, Turkey and Western Africa."

As to the theory advocating the separation of the Arabic language and Islam, it is the same as that which advocates the separation of religion and state. This first appeared in the Muslim world in a weak fashion, and soon became an important issue arousing many apprehensions, in the same way as an evil starts small and then becomes a blazing flame after the b'owing of the winds."

What made the African and Nigerian like the Arabs secularise his language? What made him prefer Arabs over his folks, and prefer their language over his? Why did he make of them the leaders in the Muslim world in the east and the west of the earth? It is Islam alone. It is surprising how we sacrifice our links with all the Muslim peoples in Asia and Africa, and we present their brotherhood and love to us as a sacrifice on the altar of nationalism.

I visited Turkey after the June 1967 Defeat, I found that the brotherly people of Turkey, especially its men of religion, was boiling with anger against the Jews and in support of the Arabs, in spite of the efforts that colonialism and Masonism and others made in order to tear apart the links between the Arabs and the Turks.

I was also told by some members of the delegation of Iraqi scholars, who were visiting the Islamic countries after the disaster of 1967, how they were greeted by thousands and tens of thousands of people who were advocating holy war, and demanding to be given the opportunity to contribute with their blood and participate in the saving of the first of the two kiblahs and the Third of the Sacred Mosques. This delegation was hardly able to free itself from the thickness of the enthusiastic and angry crowds.

It happened that one member of the delegation was lecturing in one of the celebrations in Pakistan about the brotherhood equality advocated by Islam, how it equated between the Arab and the non-Arab, and how it made them as equal to each other as are the teeth of a comb. One of their leaders stooand said, "As far as we are concerned, we say that the Arabs are our masters, our guides, those who brought Islam to us, and without them we would have been pagans."

Professor Liwaa' Mahmood Shayit Khitab relates that the Afghan Ambassador to Baghdad said to him after the June 1967 defeat "When Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan fell in the hands of the Afghan tribes which surrounded it from each side, its people were acclaiming "Our masters the Arab have been defeated, the Jews have occupied the Noble Quds, and that led us to the holy war. They arrested the Afghan Foreign Minister, and tried to slaughter him like they would slaughter a lamb".

The support for the Arab from the Muslims was not limited to the peoples only. It spread to the leaders and presidents who are not moved by nationalist or atheist biases. The Pakistani President Mohammad Ayyub Khan said, "We have two problems, the problem of Palestine and the problem of Kashmir, and we will not recognise Israel even if the Arabs did so. The late Nigerian leader and Prime Minister martyr Ahmed Oubellelou was asked by the editor of a newspaper, Would you accept to confront the Israeli Foreign Minister? He replied, "Yes, with one single condition, that I get to shoot him". Mr. Adan Abdullah, the President of the Republic of Somalia said, "Israel is our fiercest enemy, and we would not be satisfied with less than pushing it into the Ocean" (These passages were quoted from newspapers by Liwaa' Khitaab in his book The way to victory in the battle of vengeance, p. 471.).

If the governments of some Islamic countries have ties with Israel, then that is the fruit of the tree of the nationalist secular ideology which is cursed in the Qur'an and the Tradition. The closer these governments got to Islam the closer they got to the Arabs and the farther they became from Israel.

It is certain that the attitude of all the Muslim peoples are with the Arabs in their heart and their mind, no matter what the attitude of their governments towards the Arabs or Israel is. So is it in our interest or is it reasonable that we lose the support and help of five hundred million Muslims in the Islamic world for the sake of a few million non-Muslims in the Arab World? The language of numbers says no and again no.

Then I said to my friend: "Do you want me to be frank with you?", He said, "As they say, ease is in being frank". Then I replied: "If you want me to be frank, I will say that most non-Muslims in the Arab world do not distinguish very much between Arabhood and Islam. Arabhood in their minds is confused with Islam, not distinguished from it. In these people's minds Islam is Arab and Arabhood is Islamic. The theoretical distinction between the two does not convince them. And the argumentative persuasion does not satisfy them. Those of them who are well-meaning towards Islam are also well-meaning towards Arabhood. Those who are ill-meaning towards Islam, are scared from it, or feel hatred towards it, have the same feeling towards Arabhood."

"Do you want me to give you an example?". My friend said: "Yes, examples explain abstract ideas, and dot the i's." I said: "You might remember Anton Saadah, the founder of the Syrian nationalist party, who is known for his frank enmity towards Arabhood and Arab nationalism. Do you know the underlying secret of this enmity? He has explicated it somewhat in some of his articles and statements, as when he said in one of his published articles in the twelfth volume in the series of social and national research the following:

As I stated earlier, I consider Islam to embrace also Christians and wise men; therefore Mohammedan partisanship, I mean Islamic Mohammedanism, is the new backwardness coating for Arab Nationalism, and I brought two basic pieces of evidence. The Arabic Language and the Mohammedan religion, which were spread by the Arab and Mohammedan conquest."

Relating Islam to Mohammad and considering Muslims to be Mohammedans is one of the ideas of Orientalists and preachers as it is wellknown.

In one of his lectures which was included in the Newsletter of Instructions and Explanations of the ideology, he states, that there is a world named the Arab World, and the reason for calling it thus is basically linguistic and religious. So there is a world that is of Arabic tongue and we can thus proceed and say, a world that is Arab by religion because it took much from the environment, needs and psychology of the Arabs. It is the most important factor that links between the nations of the World of the Arabic Language. p. 113.

One of the strangest psychological hang ups and its influence on this man is that he used to plead for the unification of Syria and Iraq under the name of the 'fertile crescent'. He adopted this name and used it for several years. And then in the last few years of his life, he felt like fighting this idea and its name with a heated article entitled: 'We are Syrian, not Fertile Crescentinians'. What is the reason for this? He remembered that the crescent is considered in Europe as a symbol of Islam. So, he figured that the advocates of the unification under the Fertile Crescent only leaned towards this idea under the influence of religious chauvinism and Mohammedan Partisanship.

This is how you can realise, dear friend, that neglecting Islam in order to please the non-Muslim minority in the Arab world has the following consequence: that the Muslims lose their Islam without gaining the nonMuslims, while the true Muslim is one who does not sell his religion even to own the east and the west. He does not buy the wrath of God even with the satisfaction of the entirety of the earth dwellers. So how can he sell his religion for an impression which has no reality, and with a mirage that the thirsty man sees as water until he gets to it and finds that it is nothing ?