Arabs do not exist according to revelatory research by Orientalist historian Mohammad Samasadin Megaliomatis

Άραβες δεν υπάρχουν!
Η ανατρεπτική
αποκάλυψη του
Οριενταλιστή
Ιστορικού καθ.
Μουχάμαντ Σαμσαντίν
Μεγαλομμάτη
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2018/0
8/14/άραβες-δεν-υπάρχουν-η-ανατρεπτική-
απο/
============================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής –
Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη,Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή
Αυτοκρατορία

Έχω επανειλημμένα τονίσει ότι ζούμε σε
μια εικονική πραγματικότητα βασικό
στοιχείο της οποίας είναι η ψευτοϊστορία,
την οποία οι δυτικές αποικιοκρατικές
δυνάμεις (Αγγλία, Γαλλία κι Αμερική)
επέβαλαν κατάλληλα προσαρμοσμένη κατά
τόπους, έτσι όπως αντιστοιχεί στα
συμφέροντά τους. Οι παραμορφωτικές
παραστάσεις ετοιμάστηκαν εδώ κι
εκατοντάδες χρόνια, ή μάλλον για να είμαι
πιο ακριβής τα τελευταία 400-300 χρόνια.
Οι Κλασικές Σπουδές, οι Ανατολιστικές
(Οριενταλιστικές) Επιστήμες κι οι
υποκλάδοι τους, όπως εκτείνονται από
Ιστορία κι Ιστορία Θρησκειών έως
Γλωσσολογία, Φιλολογία, Εθνογραφία,
Ιστορία Πνεύματος, Ιστορία Τέχνης, κι
Αρχαιολογία αποτελούν τα παραμορφωτικά
εργαλεία μέσα από τα οποία πλάθονται (και
στη συνέχεια επιβάλλονται από διπλωμάτες,
καθηγητές, πράκτορες, και μια πλειάδα
κατά τόπους υποτακτικών, πληρωμένων
οργάνων, και καλοθελητών) άπειρες

διαστρεβλώσεις ικανές (με την χρήση της
απαραίτητης κατά τόπο στρατιωτικής,
πολιτικής, πνευματικής ή αστυνομικής
βίας) να αλλοιώσουν ολότελα τον χαρακτήρα,
την εκπαίδευση, την παιδεία και την
ταυτότητα ενός λαού / έθνους.
Σε άλλα κείμενά μου αναφέρθηκα στην
ανυπαρξία κουρδικού έθνους, κάτι που
επίσης πληροφορήθηκα από άρθρα κι
αναλύσεις του κ. Μεγαλομμάτη, ο οποίος
έχει ζήσει, σπουδάσει, ερευνήσει, εργαστεί
κι εκτεταμένα περιηγηθεί σε όλες τις χώρες
από το Μαρόκο και τη Μαυριτανία μέχρι
την Τανζανία, τη Σομαλία, το Πακιστάν, το
Ουζμπεκιστάν και το Ανατολικό
Τουρκεστάν (Σινκιάν – βορειοδυτική Κίνα),
κι ακόμη πιο ιδιαίτερα στην Ανατολική
Τουρκία, την Συρία, το Ιράκ και το Ιράν.
Περί τίνος πρόκειται;
Για ένα σύνολο περίπου 10 διαφορετικών
εθνών κι εθνοθρησκευτικών συνόλων, με
πολύ ή λίγο διαφορετικές γλώσσες, με τρεις
διαφορετικές γραφές, με διαφορετικές

θρησκείες, με διαφορετικές παραδόσεις, και
με αποκλίνουσες προοπτικές κι
ενδιαφέροντα, οι δυτικο-Ευρωπαίοι και
Βορειο-Αμερικανοί αποικιοκράτες κι
οριενταλιστές συνέλαβαν την δήθεν έννοια
ενός κουρδικού έθνους και την πρόβαλαν με
πολλά υλικά ανταλλάγματα σε
στρατολογημένους αφελείς νέους που
πίστεψαν ότι, αν άκουγαν τον Γάλλο, τον
‘Άγγλο ή τον Αμερικανό στρατιωτικό
ακόλουθο στη Βαγδάτη, στην Τεχεράνη, στη
Δαμασκό ή στην Άγκυρα, θα γίνονταν
υπουργοί κη ηγέτες μιας νέας μεγάλης και
πλούσιας χώρας που θα ήταν εξ ολοκλήρου
‘δικιάς’ τους.
Όλα αυτά τα έθνη κι εθνοθρησκευτικά
σύνολα ονομάζονται διαφορετικά ανάμεσά
τους στις γλώσσες τους κι η λέξη ‘Κούρδοι’
(αραβικά Ακράντ) ήταν πιο παλιά μια
συγκεφαλαιωτική ονομασία στα αραβικά
αναφορικά με πολλά διαφορετικά έθνη που
ζούσαν στον Ζάγρο και στον Αντίταυρο.
Μαζί με ένα ψευτο-έθνος πάει και μια

ψευτοϊστορία, κι αυτήν την παρασκευάζουν
συστηματικά οι αποικιοκράτες
οριενταλιστές.
Αυτό ακριβώς κατέδειξα σε πρόσφατο
κείμενό μου αναδημοσιεύοντας παλαιότερο
εκτενές και διεξοδικό άρθρο του κ.
Μεγαλομμάτη. Νάτο:
Οι ‘Κούρδοι’ δεν έχουν σχέση με τους
Μήδους! Ο Ιρανολόγος καθ. Μεγαλομμάτης
εκμηδενίζει την οριενταλιστική παραχάραξη
της Ιστορίας
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/20
18/08/08/οι-κούρδοι-δεν-έχουν-σχέση-
με-τους-μήδ/
Ακριβώς το ίδιο συνέβηκε με όσους σήμερα
αποκαλούμε μέσα στην άγνοιά μας ‘Άραβες’.
Μόνο που αυτή η παραχάραξη ιστορίας δεν
ξεκινάει πρόσφατα όπως συμβαίνει με την
περίπτωση των Κούρδων (‘Κουρδολογία’
υπάρχει σε πανεπιστήμια της Γαλλίας μόνον
από την δεκαετία του 1980 κι εκεί
επιχειρείται να τεθούν υπό μία οροφή

γλώσσες, γραφές και θρησκείες τρομερά
διαφορετικές μεταξύ τους).
Η σύνθεση του νεώτερου ψευτο-έθνους των
Αράβων πάει τόσο πίσω όσο κι εποχή του
Ναπολέοντα και της εκ μέρους του
κατάληψης της οθωμανικής επαρχίας της
Αιγύπτου.
Να λοιπόν πια είναι η ιστορική
πραγματικότητα, την οποία αποκαλύπτει ο
κ. Μεγαλομμάτης:
– Οι Μαυριτανοί, Μαροκινοί, Αλγερινοί,
Τυνήσιοι και Λίβυοι είναι Βέρβεροι, δηλαδή
Χαμίτες (ενώ οι ιστορικοί Άραβες των
χρόνων του Μωάμεθ ήταν Σημίτες).
– Οι Αιγύπτιοι είναι Κόπτες, δηλαδή
απόγονοι των αρχαίων Αιγυπτίων οι οποίοι
ήταν Χαμίτες, ενώ μια μειοψηφία στην
Αίγυπτο είναι Νούβιοι.
– Οι Σουδανοί είναι Κουσίτες, δηλαδή ένα
ανατολικό χαμιτικό φύλο, απόγονοι των
αρχαίων Κουσιτών και Μεροϊτών που είχαν
διαμορφώσει αμέσως νότια της Αιγύπτου

μια μεγάλη αυτοκρατορία που στην γλώσσα
τους ονόμαζαν Κας ενώ οι αρχαίοι Εβραίοι
αποκαλούσαν Κους κι οι αρχαίοι Έλληνες
Αιθιοπία (που είναι άσχετη με την
Αβησσυνία – κι αποτελεί παραχάραξη της
ιστορίας η μετονομασία της τελευταίας στο
δεύτερο μισό του 20ου αιώνα).
– Οι Σύριοι, Λιβανέζοι, Παλαιστίνιοι,
Ιορδανοί, Ιρακινοί, Κουβεϊτιανοί, Καταρινοί
κι Εμιράτοι, όπως κι οι αραβόφωνοι της
νοτιοανατολικής Τουρκίας και του
νοτιοδυτικού Ιράν είναι Αραμαίοι.
– Κι οι Υεμενίτες κι οι Ομανίτες είναι
ακριβώς όπως το όνομά τους δείχνει μη
Άραβες, απόγονοι των αρχαίων Υεμενιτών
κι Ομανιτών, των οποίων οι προϊσλαμικές
γραφές έχουν ανακαλυφθεί κι
αποκρυπτογραφηθεί πιστοποιώντας ότι
είναι ολότελα διαφορετικές από τα αραβικά.
Αναδημοσιεύω στη συνέχεια ένα τεράστιο
και πολύ αναλυτικό άρθρο του κ.
Μεγαλομμάτη αρχικά δημοσιευμένο το
2014.

Προσέξτε τον τίτλο: ‘Αραβικό ‘Εθνος Απάτη:
Παρασκευασμένη για να παραχαράξει την
Ισλαμική Ιστορία και να καταστρέψει
Ποικίλα Έθνη που παραμορφωτικά
ονομάστηκαν Αραβικά’.
Ο Έλληνας ιστορικός κι ανατολιστής έχει
συγγράψει μεγάλο αριθμό άρθρων σχετικά
με το θέμα, οπότε θα επανέλθω.
Arab Nation Hoax:
Geared to Falsify
Islamic History &
Ruin Varied Nations
disfiguratively
Named Arab
By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin
Megalommatis

Aramaean high priests of Mithras – Wall
painting of the "temple of the Palmyrene
gods", which was one more Mithraeum

excavated at Dura Europos, near Abu
Kemal, Syria
http://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/
2014/09/09/arab-nation-hoax-geared-
to-falsify-islamic-history-ruin-varied-
nations-disfiguratively-named-arab/
In an earlier article
(https://www.academia.edu/24272352/T
here_is_no_Kurdish_Nation_it_is_a_Freemas
onic_Colonial_Orientalist_Hoax), I
explained the reasons for which there are
no Kurds, and that the notion of a
Kurdish nation is a Freemasonic
Orientalist hoax geared to put under an
impossible umbrella many different
nations spanning from Anti-Taurus
Mountains to Syria, Mesopotamia and the
Zagros Mountains.
The Hoax of a Kurdish Nation is not
however the first of this kind. The first
Orientalist hoax was that of the Arabic
Nation. This forgery dates back to the late
18th and the 19th centuries and served

as an example in the aforementioned
article.
By misinterpreting historical processes,
by concealing historical evidence,
by disorienting regional academics from
having a wide spectrum understanding of
their fields,
by diverting them from several related
academic fields and disciplines, and
by machinating in a way to mislead
regional universities, faculties of
humanities, staff members and
researchers and ultimately keep them at
an academically underdeveloped level
and disconnected from one another,
… the colonial academia and diplomats
make sure that a vast confusion and
deception prevail in the minds of targeted
nations only to serve as the wrong
foundation for further theoretical,

intellectual, ideological and political
disorientation.
I then briefly expanded on the Arab
Nation Hoax, before focusing on the
identity, the socio-political milieu,
attitude and targets of the diverse nations,
which for the needs of the Kurdish
Nation Hoax became ‘Kurds’.
The revelation of the non-Arab identity
of the misfortunate nations that have
been labeled ‘Arab’ by the Orientalist
forgers triggered the interest of several
readers, who wrote to me, because they
had heard totally different presentations
while studying in different universities
in the region. To answer their questions
and illuminate the topic more
extensively, I decided to come up with a
summarizing, yet all-encompassing text
which, although unable to fully cover the
subject, offers a panoramic view of the
fundamental historical realities and their
existing dimensions and ramifications.

I will therefore first re-publish the part
of the previous article which concerned
the Arab Nation Hoax, then quote the
questions included in the mails that I
received, and finally expand properly.
Who are those who have been fallaciously
labeled ‘Arabs’?
The Arabic-speaking part of the
populations of Mauritania, Morocco,
Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Western
Egypt are indeed Berbers, who gradually
forgot Berber languages and spoke Arabic
exclusively, because they accepted Islam,
and consequently made of their religious
language their sole language. This was a
long process and the Arabization
phenomenon was only of linguistic
nature – not ethnic, not cultural.
Similarly, Egyptians are not Arabs, but
Hamitic Egyptians or ‘Copts’, if you want,
who in different eras accepted Islam and
gradually abandoned Coptic language.
Egypt south of Assiut was still Christian

for almost 300 years after Prophet
Muhammad died. Today, there is no
ethnic difference between Christian and
Muslim Egyptians; literarily speaking, the
country is inhabited by Christian Copts
and Muslim Copts.
In the same way, the ethnic origin of
today’s Sudanese is Kushitic (Kushites
being a branch of the Hamitic nations) or
Nilo-Saharan; Sudan’s Kushites are
Arabic-speaking natives, because after
accepting Islam, they gradually
abandoned Christian Sudan’s Makurian
and Alodian Kushitic languages, which
were later forms of Meroitic. i.e. the pre-
Christian Sudan’s language which was
written in hieroglyphic and linear
characters.
Linguistic Arabization is indeed a very
recent phenomenon for Sudan’s Kushites,
because the Christian state of Makuria
lasted until the 14th c. and the Christian
state of Alodia collapsed only in the late

16th c. On the other hand, the Nubians
in the North and other Nilo-Saharan
peoples in other parts of Sudan preserved
however their languages down to our
times, as Arabic is merely a religious
language to them.
More importantly, the Arabic-speaking
part of the populations of SE Turkey,
Syria, Iraq, SW Iran, Lebanon, Palestine,
Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Emirates
and the Saudi extreme North are not
Arabs but Aramaeans (a Semitic nation)
who gradually forgot their own Syriac
Aramaic language (a major language of
Patristic Literature and an international
language across the land routes of trade
between the Mediterranean World, East
Africa, India, and China) and spoke
Arabic because they accepted Islam. Their
linguistic Arabization was a gradual
phenomenon characterized by the
affinity of the two languages (Syriac
Aramaic and Arabic) and the similarity

of the two writing systems, as Arabic
originates from Syriac Aramaic.
Last but not the least, the Yemenites and
the Omanis are not Arabs, but indigenous
Yemenites and Omanis who, after
accepting Islam, gradually abandoned
their pre-Islamic languages, namely
Sabaean, Hinyarite and Hadhramauti,
etc. and spoke Arabic. Two modern
Yemenite indigenous languages, notably
Mahri and Socotri, are descendants of the
Ancient Yemenite languages that were of
course categorized as Semitic. Mahri is
spoken in Hadhramaut (Mahra) and in
North Somalia, whereas Socotri is the
only native language in the island of
Socotra.
The pre-Islamic Yemenite languages are
documented with a great number of
epigraphic texts dating to back to more
than 1300 years before the arrival of
Islam; they were written in the
indigenous writing that had nothing to

do with the pre-Islamic Arabic writing
which appears only 300 years before
Islam and is provenly a deformation of
Syriac Aramaic.
Reactions and questions from readers
Simply amazing, dear Dr. Shamsaddin!
I am astonished with your deep
knowledge of the region and its history of
ethnic components. But, as far as I know
from the History of the Middle East that
we have been taught at Al-Bayt
University (Jordan), even before the
Islamic expansion (al-futuhat al-
islamiyya), some Arabic tribes did come
out of Arabian Peninsula to live at the
Northern parts, such as Palestine and
Jordan. Or, at least, after the Islamic
expansion, most of the tribes of Adnan
(Northern Arabs) or Madar and Qahtan
(Southern Arabs from Yemen) moved to
Iraq, Sham and Egypt with the armies

and settled there. So, that is one of the
reasons why
the autochthonous populations were
Arabized.
The Qahtan tribes or the Yemenites settled
mostly in Iraq, and the Madar tribes
inhabited mostly Sham (Levant). And
even after their Islamization, these tribes
carried with them some of the historic
enmity that pre-existed between them
and which was revived in the wars
between Ali and Mua’wiyyah, and later
in the wars between the
Umayyad dynasty and the Shia
(partisans) of Ali and his successors. This
is known in the books of literature and
history as the hate or enmity between Ahl
al-Sham and Ahl al-Iraq.
So, I am little bit perplexed hearing that
the Arab populations are hoaxes of
Orientalist Freemasons. But, of course, I do
not exclude that possibility, because that
waste region cannot be homogeneous,

especially knowing that it has been
always a crossroad of different peoples,
kingdoms and civilizations throughout
history.
General Outline of the
Response
Thank you for your commentary, dear
friend! Basically, you make four points.
You first speak about subjects of Oriental
History taught in a Middle Eastern
university. This is addressed here:
I. ABOUT UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN
ISLAMIC EXPANSION & ISSUES RELATED
TO ARABS
You subsequently refer to the wider area
of SE Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine,
Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, and SW Iran before,
during and in the aftermath of the
Islamic Expansion phenomenon, so

basically late 6th and 7th centuries CE.
This is discussed here:
II. THE PRESCRIBED, HIDDEN NATION:
THE ARAMAEANS
III. INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS AND
INVADING ARMIES IN THE EARLY
ISLAMIC EXPANSION
IV. ISLAM: THE CULTURAL
ARAMAIZATION OF THE ARABS
and
V. THE EARLY ISLAMIC INVASIONS: FIRST
MISREPRESENTED AND DISFORMED BY
THE WESTERN ORIENTALISTS, SECOND
USED IDEOLOGICALLY & POLITICALLY
BY THE COLONIAL GANGSTERS
You then mention Ancient Yemen and the
Yemenite migrations. This is answered
here:
VI. ANCIENT YEMEN AND ANCIENT
ARABIA

You finally discuss issues pertaining to
homogeneity of the wider region. This is
commented here:
VII. HOMOGENEITY vs. HETEROGENEITY
IN THE MIDDLE EAST
What follows is the main part of my
response as per the above structure. Bear
in mind, if you please, that this is merely
a synopsis.
The Dimensions of Early
Islamic History Falsification by
Western Orientalist Academia
and the False Concept of
Arabization (proper response to
readers’ questions)

I. ABOUT UNIVERSITY STUDIES
IN ISLAMIC EXPANSION &
ISSUES RELATED TO ARABS
You say “we have been taught at Al-Bayt
University (Jordan), even before the
Islamic expansion (al-futuhat al-
islamiyya), some Arabic tribes “.
Within the context of modern academic
disciplines, to give an example, there is
‘History of Ancient Egypt’, and there is
‘History of Egyptology’!
The history of the modern academic
disciplines per se is an important field to
also study, if one desires really in-depth
understanding. Several stages of
knowledge acquisition and synthesis have
passed ever since Champollion deciphered
Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Rawlinson
decoded Assyrian-Babylonian cuneiform.
Many mistakes have been corrected in the
process; and many alterations have been
added! Such fields as History of

Assyriology, History of Iranology, History
of Indology, History of Islamology, etc.
reveal a tremendous amount of insightful
as regards how we came to conclude what
he have drawn until now as conclusion
in each of the aforementioned fields.
With the colonial presence active and
destructive on Ottoman soil under many
different forms, one can easily understand
that the Western Orientalism did not
reflect a genuine interest for discovery of
the past and exploration but soon turned
out to be a multi-layered tool against the
past, the present and the future of the
Orient. In a way, it was a real robbery of
the Oriental past, and by this I don’t
mean the criminal, illegal and only
provisory transportation of Oriental
Antiquities in Western museums,
libraries, institutes, research centers,
universities, palaces, public places,
auction houses, and ultimately privately
homes.

The worst robbery occurred at the
theoretical, academic, intellectual,
educational and cultural level. The
collection of a sizable material record of
Oriental Antiquities and its study and
interpretation turned soon out to be not a
true reflection of the historical past but a
false projection of Western concepts, ideas
and theories into the past under study.
The new academic disciplines of
Orientalism, instead of properly and
effectively rectify the earlier acquired
material record of ‘Classical’ (the term is
false) Greco-Roman Antiquities, were
only adjusted to it to help it expand.
The ensued ‘systematized falsehood’ was
not only diffused among the Western
countries (due to the phenomenon of
academic competition in an era of acute
nationalisms) but also enforced in the
colonial academic and educational
institutions that emerged – with the deep
involvement of the colonial Orientalist

academia – in all these fake countries.
But, by accepting the Western
‘systematized falsehood’, the modern
Oriental students and scholars (who were
formed under supervision of the Western
Orientalists) only gravely undermined the
importance of their countries’ past,
severely minimized the value of their past
in their nation-building process, and
finally contributed to the formation of
fake modern Oriental nations that are
detached from their past and left without
a diachronic cultural identity.
Here, it is good to remember the French
expression ‘bon pour l’ Orient’ (lit. ‘good
for the Orient’) which implied that the
product under discussion was not to be
consumed or used in the Occident (by
Westerners – due to its lower quality
specifications)! All colonial academic
institutions that were setup by Western
academia on the soil of Ottoman
provinces and in other Oriental lands

were not proper copies of the Western
universities and did not diffuse the same
quality and depth of knowledge. Their
Orientalist masters allowed these
institutions to teach / diffuse in the
Orient only the portion of their
knowledge that would not make the
Oriental academic institutions able to
rival with their own Occidental
establishments.
Above all, these colonial academic-
educational institutions were guided by
their Orientalist masters to diffuse
academic knowledge altered in a way
that it would not be easy for the Oriental
students (Algerian, Egyptian, Lebanese,
Sudanese, Yemenite, Iraqi, Iranian,
Pakistani, Indian, etc.) to realize that the
Western ‘systematized falsehood’ –
deliberately, viciously, and against all
declared Western academic values –
diminished the value of the Orient and
the achievements of the Oriental

civilizations in order to subordinate them
to the Western historiography (the values
of which – quite contrarily – were
extremely maximized to appear as global).
Several scholars like Edward Said
criticized Orientalism, whereas others
like Martin Bernal (in his monumental
‘Black Athena’) attacked the Western
‘systematized falsehood’ at its very
epicenter, demonstrating that the
‘Classical’ civilization was subordinated
to the Oriental civilizations. But to no
avail!
In the universities of Jordan, Egypt, Iraq,
Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Turkey, Iran,
Pakistan, all the staff members keep
promoting – pathetically, idiotically and
self-disastrously – the colonial
‘systematized falsehood’ that prevents
them from really assessing the greatness of
the Orient in its correct dimensions, from
truly evaluating the historical truth and
continuity of the Orient, and from

detecting the detrimental harm that the
Western system, which they studied
(either in Paris or in Madinah), has done
to their own countries, their nation-
building process, and their historical
heritage.
However, the issue is far wider and
permeates all disciplines of Humanities.
In fact, behind Pan-Arabism (a false
theory the beginning of which is retraced
back to Jurji Zeydan and his Nahda
movement) is hidden the (exported to the
respective lands of the Orient) version
‘bon pour l’ Orient’ of the Western
discipline of Arabology. But the origin of
the Arabic studies in Western universities
goes back to the 18th c.! The Western
‘systematized falsehood’ took more than a
century to produce Pan-Arabism.
One can expand up to writing books and
books, but here suffice it to say that the
‘systematized falsehood’ is a perplex and
multileveled affair. It does not only

involve inaccuracies within one specific
specialization field, but it also entails a
severe detachment of each specialization
field from other related fields. It goes up to
the level of …. prohibition of an entire
academic discipline! Once, I published an
article – plead for a forbidden science:
Aramaeology.
Because, to come closer to the subject
under discussion, if a student wants to
focus on the early Islamic expansion,
while studying Arabic language and
literature and History of Early Islam, s/he
has also to take compulsory courses on
a) Aramaeans in the Eastern Roman
Empire and in the Sassanid Iranian
Empire,
b) Political History of the Eastern Roman
Empire,
c) Political History of the Sassanid
Iranian Empire,
d) Political History of Pre-Islamic Yemen,

e) Copts in the Eastern Roman Empire,
f) Ancient Yemenite language and
literature (which is fallaciously called
‘South-Arabian’, a ridiculous term
coined by the masters of the ‘systematized
falsehood’),
g) Syriac {do not confuse the Christian
Aramaic language that is called ‘Syriac’
with the modern adjective ‘Syrian’ which
is used in relation with the modern fake
state of Syria} Aramaic language and
literature,
h) Christian Kingdoms in Sudan,
i) History of theological disputes in the
Eastern Roman Empires,
j) Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran and
Central Asia,
k) History of Northern – Northwestern
Africa form Carthage to the Islamic
Arrival.

The aforementioned are 11 (eleven)
courses in total that should be compulsory
for a syllabus of 28 courses leading to a
Bachelor of Arts in History of Early Islam.
Certainly, the above eleven courses are not
offered in the respective faculties of the
regional universities from Morocco to
Uzbekistan to Indonesia! Why? Because all
the universities – be they state, private or
religious – in the wider region of Islam
are mere colonial products and therefore
not one among their staff members
commands a comprehensive knowledge
covering all aspects related to the History
of Early Islam. Consequently, no one can
put the correct syllabus down on a piece
of paper.
II. THE PRESCRIBED, HIDDEN
NATION: THE ARAMAEANS

In this subject, the support offered to the
Arabization fallacy is epitomized in the
following words: “some Arabic tribes did
come out of Arabian Peninsula to live at
the Northern parts, such as Palestine and
Jordan. Or, at least, after the Islamic
expansion, most of the tribes of Adnan
(Northern Arabs) or Madar and Qahtan
(Southern Arabs from Yemen) moved to
Iraq, Sham and Egypt with the armies
and settled there. So, that is one of the
reasons why
the autochthonous populations were
Arabized.
Here, reading these few lines, one gets the
impression that, in the middle of the 7th
century, Mesopotamia (there was no ‘Iraq’
by that time – in fact, this was a new
name just brought to use by the invading
armies), Syria-Palestine, and Egypt were
almost … uninhabited!
Also, the aforementioned lands are
wrongly divided in the above manner. In

fact, these lands did not belong to
independent countries; at the times of
Prophet Muhammad’s early life, they
were parts of the Eastern Roman Empire
and the Sassanid Iranian Empire. But the
local populations were basically
Aramaeans (in the Asiatic part of the
territories referred to) and Egyptians –
Copts (in Egypt). Because of the constant
Roman – Iranian wars, the borderlines
between Syria and Mesopotamia used to
change almost every year, but the local
population was always Aramaean.
The Aramaeans spread first from the
desert to the neighboring lands of the
Fertile Crescent around 1100 BCE and,
after they were organized in several small
kingdoms for many centuries, they were
successively ruled (at times partly and at
times entirely) by the Sargonid Assyrian,
Nabonid Babylonian, Achaemenid
Iranian, Macedonian, Seleucid Syrian,
Arsacid Parthian, Roman, Sassanid

Iranian and Eastern Roman Empires. In
few cases, there were some relatively
small, independent Aramaean states in
the Late Antiquity (539 BCE – 622 CE,
i.e. the period going from the rise of
Achaemenid Iran to the rise of Islam),
such as Urhoy, Hatra, Palmyra, Adiabene
and Rekem/Petra.
Centuries before the arrival of Islam, the
Babylonians, the Phoenicians, the
Philistines/Palestinians, and the Jews
had been progressively assimilated among
the more numerous Aramaeans. For most
of the cases, Euphrates (Furat) river was
the border between the Romans/Eastern
Romans and the Sassanid Empire of Iran,
so we are rather on the safe side, if we
generalize saying that regularly Syria –
Palestine was Eastern Roman (the term
‘Byzantine’ is another fallacy diffused by
the promoters of the ‘systematized
falsehood’) and Mesopotamia was Iranian.

In the eve of the early expansion of Islam,
very sizable cities existed in the
territories mentioned. Among the greatest
cities of Eastern Roman Syria and
Palestine, we count the following:
Antioch (Antakya in Turkey’s province of
Hatay) – the main rival of Alexandria
(although Antioch was in the inland)
After having been the capital city (323-
64 BCE) of the vast Seleucid Empire (that
stretched from Central Turkey to India
and, following the formation of Arsacid
Iran at 250 BCE, only from Central
Turkey to the Persian Gulf – always
including Syria and Palestine) that was
the main rival of the Egyptian state of the
Ptolemies for about 250 years, Antioch
became a major city – patriarchate of
Eastern Christianity.
This means that Antioch was as big and
as important as only Constantinople,
Rome and Alexandria within the entire
Roman Empire, Eastern and Western.

However, more importantly, Antioch and
Alexandria represented the two strongest
and opposite to one another theological
schools of Christian Theology. More on the
subject:
http://www.monachos.net/library/index.p
hp/patristics/themes/244-two-schools-
alexandria-and-antioch
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/cei.stm
To better visualize the School of Antioch
– School of Alexandria antithesis, it is
quite advisable to compare it with the
four schools of jurisprudence (madh’hab
of fiqh) in Sunni Islam, namely those of
Al Shaffi’i, Abu Hanifa, Malik bin Anas,
and Ibn Hanbal. But there was bitter
theological rivalry between the two
Christian cities, and it was due to even
greater differences at the underlying level
of thought structure & systematization,
and logic & logic philosophy.

Why does one need to expand to all this?
Because the historical falsification as per
which the aforementioned areas were
arabized imposes any objective researcher
and scholar to duly contextualize the
event of the early Islamic expansion. To
fully demonstrate that the term
‘arabization’ constitutes the epitome of
colonial falsehood, one has to place the
early Islamic invasions (and the ensuing
settlement of certain populations in the
areas under discussion) within the correct
context. However, any historical event
exists only within a context and without
it, it is void and null.
At the times of Prophet Muhammad, the
population of only one city, namely
Antioch, was much larger than the entire
population of all the Arabs together
(anything between double and triple). Yet,
the Arabs were then inhabiting a sizable
area, notably the mountains of Hedjaz
(the Western part of the Peninsula

between Yemen and the Gulf of Aqaba)
and the desert (the central part of the
peninsula).
The same is also valid for Alexandria in
Egypt, and for Tesifun (Ctesiphon) in
Sassanid Mesopotamia (south of today’s
Baghdad), which was at the time one of
the two major Iranian capitals (Iran had
always many capitals at the same time)
along with Istakhr, which was located
beyond the Zagros Mountains in Fars
(near today’s Shiraz).
Beyond Antioch, there were many other
sizeable cities in early 7th c. CE Syria –
Palestine:
Edessa of Osroene or Urhay (today Urfa in
SE Turkey), which had earlier been the
capital of the Christian Aramaean
Kingdom of Osroene (132 BCE to 214 CE)
and then excelled as one of the most
important cities-centers of Christianity
worldwide

Harran (or Carrhae)
Beroea (today’s Aleppo – Haleb in Syria)
Apamea (near Hama in Syria) – former
treasure city of the Seleucids and an
important Christian center
Emessa (Homs in Syria)
Tadmor / Palmyra – one of the wealthiest
and most sizable Aramaean states that
was also one of the most important trade
centers of the ancient world as it was
located on geostrategic position in the
land trade routes between the
Mediterranean world, Iran, India, Egypt,
Central Asia, and China
Laodicea (Latakiyeh in Syria)
Damascus
Bostra (today’s Bosra in Southern Syria
close to the Jordanian border)
Tyr (major Phoenician city of the coast)
Sidon (major Phoenician city of the coast)

Byblos (major Phoenician city of the
coast)
Beirut
Heliopolis (Baalbek in today’s Lebanon)
Caesarea of Palestine (known as Caesarea
Maritima – south of Haifa on the coast) –
a major Christian center
Jaffa / Joppa – a major coastal city and
an important religious – literary center
for both, Christianity and Judaism
Jerusalem
Samaria (today’s Nablous) – the old
capital of the ancient state of Israel that
consisted of the ten tribes of the Hebrews,
whereas the state of Judah regrouped the
other two tribes. The local population was
Chaldaean Aramaean and constituted the
earliest Aramaean settlement in Palestine,
as they were transferred from Southern
Mesopotamia by Sargon Emperor of
Assyria immediately after he invaded the

Israelite capital and transported the
entire population of Israel to the NE
confines of the Assyrian Empire (722
BCE).
Tiberias (Tabariyyah – on the coast of the
homonymous lake in NE Palestine)
Philadelphia – Decapolis (Amman in
Jordan)
Here, we cannot mention either Rekem –
Petra (capital of the Aramaean
Nabataean kingdom / 168 BCE – 106
CE) or Hegra – Mada’in Saleh (second
capital of the Nabataean kingdom)
because they both were progressively
abandoned after the collapse of the local
Aramaean kingdom.
The above list is not exhaustive. Smaller
cities like Jerash in Jordan or Apollonia
of Palestine are not included. To establish
a complete topographical list of the local
towns, villages and hamlets, one would
include thousands of inhabited places.

The total population of Eastern Roman
Syria – Palestine must have been around
5-6 million people in the early 7th c. CE.
At those days, the Eastern Roman Empire,
according all serious approximations,
totaled 20 to 25 million people living in
today’s South Balkans, Turkey, Syria-
Palestine, Egypt and North Africa.
The same concerns Mesopotamia in its
totality – either totally controlled by the
Sassanid Iranian Empire or shared at
times between the Iranians and the
Eastern Romans. There were many
densely populated cities except the vast
capital, Tesifun (Ctesiphon). It is rather
safe to claim that Mesopotamia was more
populous than Syria – Palestine, as this
had always been the case. The Sassanid
Empire totaled a population larger than
that of the Eastern Roman Empire as it
also controlled Central Asia and the
North of India; it was however less
centralized. According to some estimates,

in the early 7th c. CE, the Sassanid
Empire totaled 25 to 30 million people.
III. INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS
AND INVADING ARMIES IN
THE EARLY ISLAMIC
EXPANSION
In face of the above mentioned, the
inhabitants of Arabia in the early 7th c.
CE did not total more than two to three
hundred thousand (200000-300000)
people. We know this as we know the
approximate population of the cities
where Prophet Muhammad lived or
moved to, and the number of fighters who
were engaged in battles that took place in
order to prevent Prophet Muhammad’s
rise of influence.
In any case, key Greek and Roman
historical records dating back to the 1st
and the 2nd centuries of the Christian

era provide us with significant details as
regards Arabia, and the documentation
we get from them is quite sufficient for
estimations, considerations and
comparisons. Texts like the Periplus of the
Red Sea (composed by an Alexandrian
Egyptian merchant and captain around
70 CE) and the Geography of the Egyptian
Alexandrian scholar Ptolemy (around the
middle of the 2nd c. CE) are in this case
as valuable as the geographical references
to the area made by the great Roman
scholar Pliny the Elder in his Natural
History (Historia Naturalis).
It is to be always kept in mind that for
several centuries the Roman Empire
controlled a vast part of today’s Saudi
Arabian territory (its NW corner) and
more particularly the city – harbor of
Leyke Kome (‘White Town’) which is
identified with modern Umm Lajj on the
coastland – although identification with
al Wajh would be more conservative.

Similarly, we know very well that
Sassanid Iran occupied the entire
coastland of the peninsula in the Persian
Gulf (i.e. the coastlands of the modern
states of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Emirates and Oman) where the
indigenous population was Aramaean.
On the other hand, we have also to keep
in mind that Najran belonged to Yemen
and was inhabited by Yemenites, who are
not Arabs, and the same concerns the
Omanis. Only the desert and the central
part of Hedjaz were inhabited by Arabs
in pre-Islamic times. Makah at the times
of Prophet Muhammad was an
unimportant village of 5-6000 (five to
six thousand) people. Yathrib (later
known as Madinah) was one of the few
big cities of the Arabs or even the biggest,
but it still could not even be compared to
one of the aforementioned big cities of
Syria, Palestine or Mesopotamia.

Sargonid Assyrian and Nabonid
Babylonian control was extended over
Yathrib which is first known thanks to
Mesopotamian cuneiform literature more
than 1200-1300 years before the
emergence of Islam. Named Yathribu, the
then small and peripheral city was the
location of the summer palaces of the
Nabonid kings, probably because of the
prevailing weather conditions and the
mild summers.
At this point, it is easy to recapitulate.
The pre-Islamic migrations of Arabian
Peninsula tribes to Syria and
Mesopotamia (Eastern Roman Empire and
Sassanid Iranian Empire) are rather a
matter of legend and not a proper
historical record. Although it is certain
that they happened, they were rather
migrations of reigning families, which is
very common across History; they were
indeed accepted and welcomed locally by
indigenous populations oppressed by

foreign occupation soldiers, as the
Aramaeans were heavily taxed and
persecuted by the Eastern Roman and the
Sassanid Iranian administrations.
The emigrated populations do not
therefore represent but a small number of
fighters and their families, and this
means in every case only a few thousands
of people (3000 – 5000) at the most. But
even if we accept the hypothesis of the
emigration of an entire tribe, again the
number cannot be higher than 15000 or
20000 people, which is a tremendously
high number of people moving, but still
of minor importance for the millions of
indigenous settled populations, namely
the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Syria,
Palestine and Egypt. The settlement of
immigrated populations may perhaps
acquire some importance at the strictly
local level, e.g. the area where they
exactly settled. But again, in this case, it
is crystal clear that the immigrated tribes

were sooner or later assimilated to the
settled populations that they encountered
in their final area of settlement.
However, any tribe originating from
Ancient Yemen was not Arabic but
Yemenite tribe, so quite different; this
will be discussed later in this article.
It is however true that, after the Islamic
invasions, many soldiers settled in diverse
places, and mainly in the area of the first
capitals of the Caliphate, namely Syria
(Damascus) and Mesopotamia (Baghdad),
if not for any other reasons only to ensure
the new Islamic state’s administration and
defense.
But who and how many were all the
soldiers of the early Islamic armies – and
when?
Only correctly formulated questions can
lead to correct conclusions. And to
properly approach and understand the
subject of the early Islamic armies, we

need to answer the above, tripartite
question. Why? Because a great part of the
existing confusion / misperception of the
event hinges on exactly this point: not all
the details concerning the soldiers of the
early Islamic armies were properly
studied and taken into account, when the
verdict was announced in favor of the
arabization.
Many view indeed the event of the early
Islamic invasions as a one-moment
monolith. That’s pretty absurd or
deliberately / suspiciously wrong. A
historical event that spans over 20 years,
from the 630s to the 650s (to limit it to
its main part), represents the historical
evolution of an entire generation. In other
words, it is not an event anymore, but
rather a historical process.
This automatically means that the ethnic
(racial) composition of the early Islamic
armies changed progressively from 633-4
to 640, to 645, to 650. As one victory

succeeded another from 633 to 711, a
certain number of indigenous people in
Palestine, Mesopotamia, Syria, Iran,
Egypt, Anatolia, Caucasus, Central Asia,
North Africa, India and in the Iberian
peninsula adhered to Islam, and started
participating in the next stage of the
expansion.
What follows is a brief presentation of
how and why this happened in a way
that is still concealed from most!
After the Arabs accepted the Prophet
Muhammad’s calling, Ali preached in
Yemen’s (then new) capital Sanaa in 630,
two years before the Prophet died, and all
the Yemenites and the Omanis accepted
Islam peacefully. As Yemen and Oman
were provinces of Iran, it is very
remarkable that even the Iranian chief
administrator accepted Ali’s preaching.
Yemen had a much larger population
than Arabia itself, as ancient records
clearly evidence; texts like the Periplus of

the Red Sea, Ptolemy’s Geography, Cosmas
Indicopleustes’ Christian Topography
(written only 20 or 30 years before
Prophet Muhammad’s birth), and the
much hated by the biased Freemasonic
Orientalist scholarship text ‘Laws on the
Homerites’, i.e. the legislation of the
Ancient Yemenite state of Himyar by
Saint Gregentios, Archbishop of Taphar
(dating in the 1st half of the 6th c. CE)
include extensive and valuable
information in support of the
aforementioned estimates of population.
This means that at, until the death of
Prophet Muhammad, Ali had already
brought to Islam more people than
Prophet Muhammad himself! At those
days, the entire population of Yemen may
have totaled 1 to 1.5 million people, thus
outnumbering the Arabs by 5:1 to 7:1.
The fact that Yemenites are totally
dissociated from Arabs ethnically,

linguistically and culturally will be
discussed later.
The normal consequence of the above
realty is that, when the wars started
between the Islamic Caliphate on one side
and the Eastern Roman and the Sassanid
Iranian Empires on the other, the very
early Islamic armies (633-639) consisted
of Arabs, Yemenites, Omanis, and few
Persian and Roman new converts and
proselytes (the likes of Salman al Farsi,
etc.). Following the acceptance of Islam by
non Arabs, Yemenites and others, it was
very common for Arabs to give Arabic
names or nicknames to the new converts
and proselytes (thus, for example, Salman
al Farsi was also called ‘Abu Abdullah’),
but this did not make of them Arabs – in
anything.
However, at a later stage, when the
Islamic armies fought at Nahavand (in
the Zagros Mountains that separate
today’s Iraq from Iran) and besieged

Alexandria in Egypt (642), the combat
forces were made of Arabs, Yemenites,
Omanis, and Aramaeans from Syria,
Palestine and Mesopotamia – areas that
had just been invaded few years ago,
during the period 633-639. In just 5
years after Islam went out of the
peninsula, a very remarkable part of the
Islamic armies (1/4 to 1/3 by modest
estimates) was composed of soldiers who
were not native Arabic speakers.
Subsequently, in the later stage of the
Islamic expansion (650-711), Persian
soldiers may have fought in Spain, and
Egyptian soldiers may have fought in
Northern India. So, Arabs became
progressively a minority in the Islamic
armies. At that level, the personal names
of the soldiers mean absolutely nothing,
because to Copts, Aramaeans, Persians,
Berbers and others, adhesion to Islam
meant immediate acquisition of Islamic
personal names in Arabic.

We know from crosschecked sources that
even in the critical middle stage of the
Islamic expansion (640-650), the Islamic
armies were not numerous (ex. 30000
soldiers in the battle of Nahavand). Even
if we suppose that all of them were Arabs
(and we know that they were not), that
all of them settled in only one of the
newly invaded lands, for instance Syria
(and we know that they did not limit
themselves in only one), again we have to
admit that their numbers were so
minimal that they were finally
assimilated among the indigenous
populations, i.e the Aramaeans or the
Copts, the Berbers and others.
IV. ISLAM: THE CULTURAL
ARAMAIZATION OF THE
ARABS

As regards the Arabization falsehood,
there may be two more points to discuss,
e.g. linguistic arabization and cultural
arabization. Academia and intellectuals
supporting the Orientalist hoax often refer
to these points that are however null.
Linguistic arabization does not mean or
imply anything; within few generations
and quite recently, African Americans
became English native speakers in the US,
and they forgot their past native
languages that they were still speaking
when they forst set foot on American soil.
However, they did not become Indo-
Europeans, or to put it more specifically
Anglo-Saxons, as regards their ethnic
origin. Neither can one ascribe them to
the average English or White American
culture.
To some extent, the arabization hoax
survived for so long, only to confuse
everyone and have political ramifications
of calamitous character (Pan-Arabism,

Arab Nationalism, etc.), because there was
something important missing in the
syllabuses of departments specializing on
History of the Islamic World.
As a matter of fact, it is very wrong to
study Early History of Islam as only
Political History or History of Religion –
and this is what happened until now
either in the West or in the fake states
that were formed after the dissolution of
the major powers of the Islamic World, i.e.
the Ottoman Empire, Safavid Iran, and
Mughal India. In fact, the most important
dimension of the Early History of Islam,
which remains highly disregarded and
unstudied, lies within the field of History
of Civilizations (and Cultures) – a far
wider field whereby every religion is
widely contextualized and highly
parameterized.
Actually, if we intend to study the diverse
acculturation phenomena that took place
in the 7th c. CE onwards due to the

preaching of Islam by Prophet
Muhammad, we have to focus primarily
not on the Aramaeans and the Yemenites,
but on the Arabs. In critical terms of
Cultural Studies that have to apply in
this case, the Arabs by accepting Islam,
were profoundly, drastically and
irrevocably aramaeanized and fully
acculturated among the Christian
Aramaeans. Islam viewed (not within the
narrow context of religion but) as Culture
was the most complete rejection of the
earlier Arabic culture, legends,
narratives, cults, beliefs, attitudes and –
generally speaking – behavioral system.
Aramaean culture, legends and
narratives, as evoked by the new religion,
replaced Arab culture following the
preaching of Prophet Muhammad.
It is only because of the biased, anti-
Islamic attitude of the West that scholars
and researchers specializing in Early
History of Islam did not notice that, before

and after Hijra, the opponents and
enemies of Prophet Muhammad did not
reject a new religion (because Islam had
not yet been fully articulated) but
disparate religious ideas and concepts
(those preached by one of their
compatriots who was neither a local
magistrate nor a priest of an already
known religion) that – all – constituted
the foremost rejection of what had been
known among as Arab culture. In fact,
they reacted and opposed his teachings
because what he evangelized was alien to
their nomad Arab culture and drastically
opposed their behavioral system to which
they wanted to stick.
Ages old, anti-Islamic hatred and hidden
political motivations against the entire
Islamic World were the reasons for which
18th and 19th c. Orientalists and
Islamologists deliberately left vast fields of
research and exploration unexploited and
unstudied, because it was crystal clear to

them that the end result would not
correspond at all to their prefixed ideas
and pre-arranged conclusions. As it
happened, 20th c. Islamologists continued
advancing on the footsteps of their
predecessors and in the process a wide
area of academic exploration remained
terra incognita.
To put it correctly, at the times of Hijra
(622 CE), Islam was actually a ‘new’
religion only to Arabs – not to
Aramaeans! Almost all the subjects
discussed within the Quran and the
Hadith at the times of Prophet
Muhammad were known to Aramaeans
(either exactly as preached or slightly
different), but not to Arabs. By this, I
don’t mean that the verses of the Quran
were already known in the very form in
which they were uttered, but that the
underlying concepts, stories, and
narratives, as well as the ensuing

mindsets, mentalities, attitudes and
behaviors preexisted.
In this regard, there are plenty of
examples. The entire cosmology of Islam,
the narratives about the Creation, the
expulsion from the original Paradise, the
deviance of the early mankind, the
morals of the Sodom and Gomorrah
people (as reprimanded and castigated by
God in the story of Lot / ch. 26, 160-
171), and the Flood (involving Prophet
Noah – Nuh), the stories about the
Pharaoh, Moses (Musa) and the Exodus,
about Jonah, and the moral concepts and
values that they represent, the rejection of
the Christian theory about Jesus’ divinity
(which had already been rejected by the
great Christian theologian and
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople
Nestorius 130 years before Prophet
Muhammad was born), a great number of
religious practices involving prayer,
prostration, fasting, etc., the ensuing

ethics and morals, attitudinal and
behavioral systems preexisted among
Aramaeans.
Particularly, the Nestorian Aramaeans’
values, behaviors, knowledge, science and
esthetics heralded in a way Prophet
Muhammad and, after the diffusion of
Islam beyond the peninsula, took the
central part and played the main role in
the rise of the Islamic Civilization. Arabic
writing is in fact a later deformation of
the Syriac Aramaic writing. For this
reason, early Islam did not appear to the
Christians of the times of Prophet
Muhammad as another, distinct, religion
but rather a new form of heresy or a
radical reassertion and rehabilitation of
Nestorianism.
The implantation of Aramaean culture
among Arabs through Islam and the early
acculturation of the Arabs among the
Aramaeans were the main reasons for
which the populations of Syria, Palestine

and Mesopotamia were immediately
favorable to the Islamic armies and did
not support the defense of the country to
which they belonged – either Eastern
Roman Empire or Sassanid Iranian
Empire.
V. THE EARLY ISLAMIC
INVASIONS: FIRST
MISREPRESENTED AND
DISFORMED BY THE WESTERN
ORIENTALISTS, SECOND USED
IDEOLOGICALLY &
POLITICALLY BY THE
COLONIAL GANGSTERS
The aforementioned reality has been
concealed at a global academic –
educational – intellectual level, because
it severely harms the ‘systematized
falsehood’ that Western academia wanted

to impose and did actually impose
worldwide as regards the early Islamic
expansion.
At this point, one must take into
consideration that the imposition of the
‘systematized falsehood’ did not occur
only in Western universities and in the
derivative establishments setup in
colonized countries but also within the
so-called Islamic universities (the likes of
Al Azhar and Madinah universities)
whereby misleading, constrained and
trimmed, de-contextualizing syllabuses
exist only to obscure students and
perpetuate the prevailing ignorance of the
real History of Islam among Muslim
academics.
As per the promoted and imposed Western
‘systematized falsehood’, the Islamic
expansion phenomenon is called ‘Muslim
/ Islamic invasions’ or rather ‘Islamic /
Muslim conquests’ (the last option is the
title of the Wikipedia entry), and it is

depicted as involving extensive bloodshed,
fierce battles, and cruel attitudes that
were supposedly imposed on an otherwise
peaceful Christian Mediterranean world
by some barbarians. In other words, Islam
is depicted an external threat and an
impending danger, whereas quite
contrarily all the constituent elements of
the Islam can be found on Eastern Roman
territory.
In this regard, it is useful to add that
Oriental Christianity has also been
deliberately kept unknown to all Western
Christian schoolchildren and students
(with the exception of the very few
researchers who begin their specialization
in this topic only in their postgraduate
studies). It is definitely paranoid for a
Western schoolchild and student to be
given through their general education
more info about India, Buddhism, and
China than about Constantinopolitan
Orthodoxy, Coptic and Syriac

Monophysitism, East Aramaean
Nestorianism, and Oriental Christianity.
This hiatus is deliberate and serves the
Western academics, who are the promoters
of the ‘systematized falsehood’, to firmly
dissociate and disentangle Islam from the
Christian world. This viciously
contradicts all the historical evidence. It
is therefore not just a lie, but a criminal
falsehood geared to be a time capsule for
repetitive use any time the Freemasonic
political establishment of the corrupt West
intends to tarnish and demonize Islam.
And the aforementioned analysis of the
fact that the Orient was never arabized
but, quite contrarily, the Arabs have been
aramaeanized through Islam clearly
demonstrates that the Western negative
portrait of the early Islamic expansion is
totally false. Islam as Culture and
Civilization was developed under
determinant Aramaean impact and was
never an external factor to Christians.

Even more importantly, the most original
Christians of the early 7th c. CE and
those, who had more direct and correct
info about the preaching of Prophet
Muhammad, did not hesitate to either
adhere to Islam or remain Christian and
reject the Eastern Roman rule. This is of
colossal importance because, in full
rejection of the Freemasonic Orientalist
colonial evilness and lies, it means that
for the true Christians, the Islamic rule,
administration and ‘political power’
(being wrong the term is used only
conventionally here) is definitely
preferable to the devious and evil Roman
or Western control.
In addition to the above, the assumption
of ‘a pre-Islamic peaceful Christian world
which was interrupted by Islam’s
conquering armies’ contradicts all
historical sources, being viciously false,
heinous and criminal because of its
implications. Before the arrival of Islam,

the Perso-Roman wars were not the only
conflict in the wider region. Within the
Roman Empire, many theological disputes
ended in ceaseless conflicts and
bloodshed. The rise of Arianism against
official Roman Christianity in the 4th c.
CE resulted in endless wars, fights, cruel
oppression, and hundreds of thousands of
dead. Donatism, considered as another
heresy, turned North Africa to a
permanent battlefield and to a land of
oppression in the 4th and the 5th
centuries.
Starting already in the 2nd and the 3rd
c. CE, Marcionism and Docetism were
considered as heretic theological schools
and therefore persecuted. However, they
survived across many centuries only to
give birth to other theological schools
which, under strong Gnostic impact,
contrasted with Roman and
Constantinopolitan Christianity, leaving
even significant traces within Islam.

The prominent position offered to Jesus by
Mani in his new religion (Manichaeism
– Manawiyah in Arabic), which was
preached in Ctesiphon (the Iranian
capital at Mesopotamia) 400 years before
Prophet Muhammad, confused
Christianity while offering the newly
risen Sassanid dynasty an excellent tool
to attract Christian populations to a
religion that incorporated elements of
Gnosticisms, Christianity, and
Zoroastrianism. Manichaeism had an
extraordinary expansion, without war,
through trade and ideological
mobilization, from the Atlantic to the
Pacific.
Despite the great impact that
Manichaeism had across the Roman
Empire, it was bloodily persecuted, and
the same occurred later in Iran as well,
when Mazdeism (a reinstatement of the
Zoroastrian orthodoxy) prevailed among
the Sassanids. Persecuted Manichaean

communities from NW Africa, Egypt,
Mesopotamia, Iran, Central Asia, and
China left a voluminous material record
without which it is absolutely impossible
to assess the History of the Orient and
therefore the History of the Islamic
Caliphates. Even at its greatest expansion,
Islam did not cover an area as large as
that where Manicheans were dispersed
worldwide – although they seldom
controlled the administration of a
country.
The two strongest theological opponents of
Official Christianity managed finally to
control the patriarchates of Antioch and
Alexandria in the 5th c. CE.
Monophysitism is today the original form
of Christianity accepted by the Copts, the
Western Aramaeans (in Turkey, Syria,
Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan), the
Armenians, the Georgians, and the
Abyssinians. Monophysitism is actually a
derogatory term given to Monophysites by

their Roman and Constantinopolitan
opponents; whenever mentioned across
this text, it is used conventionally.
The correct term would be Henophysitism;
as theological system, it was the
theoretical ‘child’ of the School of
Alexandria. Following the rejection of the
majority decision at the Council of
Chalcedon (451) by the Monophysites, the
schism became definite between the
patriarchates of Rome and Constantinople
on one side and those of the East on the
other. Subsequently, Eastern Roman
soldiers carried out plans of terrible
persecution against the local populations.
In few words, Monophysitism rejects the
official Christian dogma that Jesus as
Christ (Messiah) had two natures, i.e.
divine and human, and stipulates that
Jesus had only one. divine and human,
nature.
On the other hand, Nestorianism was the
theoretical ‘child’ of the School of

Antioch and was rejected in both, the
Council of Ephesus (431) and the Council
of Chalcedon. Eastern Aramaeans
accepted Nestorianism overwhelmingly
and Iranian Christians adhered to the
dogma of Nestorius in their totality.
Nestorius launched the Great Church of
the Orient outside Roman territory and
in the beginning many Nestorian
Aramaeans moved from Eastern Roman
Syria to Sassanid Iranian Mesopotamia.
The result was that after the middle of
the 5th c. CE (so, only 130 years before
Prophet Muhammad’s birth), all the
populations of the Eastern Roman Empire
east of today’s Central Turkey rejected
flatly the official religion of
Constantinople.
Nestorianism spread across Iran to
Northern India, Central Asia, and China
leaving evidence for more than 1000
years after Nestorius, who is also believed
to be a Saint by the Christians of Malabar

in Southwestern India. At the antipodes of
Monophysitism, Nestorianism makes clear
that Jesus had only a human nature,
being thus far closer to Islam than any
other system of faith.
The fight of the terms took the forefront
place of the polarization with the
Nestorians introducing for Virgin Mary
the term ‘Christotokos’ (Mother of the
Christ) in flat rejection of the official
Constantinopolitan term ‘Theotokos’
(Mother of God). Anti-Eastern Christian
persecutions in the Eastern Roman
Empire and the Sassanid Iranian Empire
were as severe as the incessant wars
between the two strongest states of the then
known world.
All these perplex, multifaceted and
endless strives came to an end and
different religions and denominations
coexisted peacefully within the early
Islamic caliphates (the Umayyad and the
Abbasid dynasties). The rise of the Islamic

Caliphates was a most beneficial event
not only for those among the Aramaeans,
the Persians, the Copts and the Berbers
who accepted the new faith but also –
and this is far more important – for those
who preferred to remain Monophysitic
Christian, Nestorian Christian,
Manichaean and other and live under
Islamic Rashidun (and later Umayyad
and Abbasid) Caliphate rule rather than
Eastern Roman tutelage or Sassanid
Iranian scepter. This is clearly evidenced
by texts like the Ta’rikh Batarikat al-
Kanisah al-Misriyah by Severus ibn al-
Mukaffa, Coptic bishop and historian, or
the Chronicle of John of Nikiû.
And this is exactly what the ‘systematized
falsehood’ of the West does not want
known to anybody about Islam. Even
centuries after the Islamic expansion, the
Oriental Christians preferred to live
safely, securely, productively and
peacefully under the Islamic Caliphate’s

administration rather than to be exposed
to the heavy taxation, persecution and
cruelty of Constantinople or Rome. This is
not strange at all. Anti-Islamism did not
exist among the Christians of the early
Islamic times; the wars fought were only
due to the fact that the
Constantinopolitan imperial power did
not fully and irrevocably accept the
permanent loss of their Oriental
provinces.
Only much later, Anti-Islamism became
an influential political attitude in
Western Europe; this happened only after
the Pope of Rome, due to his military
ineptitude, economic weakness, and
political fragility was placed under
Frankish political tutelage. The rise of the
barbarian Frankish kingdom and the
prevalence of Franks in Rome (800 CE)
led to the First Great Schism (867 CE)
between Constantinople and Rome, which
was another Frankish trickery carried out

in order to fully place Rome under
Frankish control and offer the barbarian
Franks the chance to alter / corrupt the
Catholic Church of Rome from inside.
Only after these developments, Anti-
Islamism appears in Western Europe as a
tool of Frankish political propaganda.
In fact, the earliest texts of the Eastern
Roman Empire that mention the
explosion of Islam in Arabia (Chronicle
Paschale and the Chronicle of
Theophanes the Confessor) presented Islam
as rather a Christian heresy, not an
independent religion. This shows the
religious – cultural vicinity of the two
systems and, at the same time,
demonstrates that the constant wars
between the Eastern Roman Empire and
the Islamic Caliphate between the 7th
and the 11th centuries reflected basically
economic and political interests and not a
radical religious opposition or rejection.

This is another key dimension of Oriental
History that the modern Western falsifiers
want the entire world not to know.
VI. ANCIENT YEMEN AND
PRE-ISLAMIC ARABIA
Speaking about the Southern,
Southwestern, Southeastern and Eastern
confines of the Arabian Peninsula, one
has to totally and irrevocably dissociate
Yemen and Oman from the Pre-Islamic
Arabs. The Ancient Yemenites and
Omanis were not Arabs, and their
languages were very different from
Arabic, although they all were Semitic
languages. Similarly, modern Yemenites
are not related to Arabs in any sense,
because Yemen accepted Islam without
ever being occupied by a single Arab
soldier. The so-called phenomenon of the
Islamic invasions did not occur in Yemen,
Oman, Somalia and the entire Eastern

African coast – at all! And no Arabs
settled in Yemen under any circumstances
whatsoever.
Ancient Yemen developed its own syllabic
writing system at least 1000 years before
the first pre-Islamic Arabic texts are
attested in Hedjaz (and this happens as
late as the middle of the 3 rd c. CE). The
Ancient Yemenite kingdoms of Saba
(Sheba), Qataban, Awsan, Ma’in, Himyar,
and Hadhramawt are documented by the
unearthed epigraphic evidence and they
were also constantly referred to in
Ancient Assyrian, Babylonian, Iranian,
Greek and Roman historical sources.
Oman was always an Iranian province,
and we have attested Iranian occupation
of Yemen in both, the Achaemenid period
(550-330 BCE) and the Sassanid times
(224-651 CE). Few years, after the Roman
annexation of Egypt and the death of
Cleopatra (30 BCE), Octavian sent the
Roman fleet as far as Aden to destroy that

wealthy city-harbor that controlled the
Indian Ocean maritime trade and
imposed heavy taxes on all products sent
from India and East Africa through the
Bab al Mandeb straits of the Red Sea to
Alexandria and the Mediterranean world.
Describing harbors, navigation details,
trade centers, and products across the sea
route of the trade (plus its land and
desert extensions/ramifications) between
the Mediterranean World, East Africa,
India, Central Asia, Indochina-Indonesia,
and China, the text Periplus of the Red
Sea (written around 70 CE) offers a
dramatic contrast between civilized
Yemen and Arabia.
In an article titled ‘Civilized Yemen vs.
Barbaric Arabia: the Historical Divide
will shape the Future’, published in
Buzzle (6 August 2005), I included an
English translation of the text, and I
analyzed extensively the specific excerpt

of this text. I republish the excerpt here as
well:
Starting by paragraph 19 of his text, the
author describes the navigation at the
Eastern edge of the Red Sea. He refers to
Leuke Kome (“White Town”) as the first
harbour and port of call on the sailor’s
way to the south. Since the departure is
given not from Arsinoe (Suez) but Myos
Hormos (the Mouse’s Bay), which
corresponds to al Ghardaq – Hurghada in
the Egyptian Red Sea coast, and the
distance mentioned is 1000 to 1500
stadia (1 stadium equals 185 m), we
deduce that Leuke Kome must be
identified as the modern coastal town Al
Wadjh.
The text refers to the Roman military
presence (“ekatontarchos”: a centurion,
officer leading 100 Roman soldiers),
Roman fiscal presence (“paraleptes tes
tetartes”: a customs officer dispatched in
order to get 25% of the passing

merchandise as tax), as well as a land
road to the Aramaic Nabataean capital
Rekem / Petra of King Malichus
(certainly Malichus II). The Roman
garrisons ensured safety for the land
trade, since the main part of the
merchandises (sent to Rekem and further
on to Jerusalem, Damascus, Antioch, or
Palmyra) was transported from Yemen by
sea to Leuke Kome. Who were the
inhabitants of that place? Since Leuke
Kome does NOT belong to ‘Arabia’, we can
deduce that they were probably
Aramaeans, possibly of the highly
civilized Nabataean branch, since the
text makes a striking differentiation
between them and the Arab inhabitants
of the coast immediately in the south of
Leuke Kome.
According to the Periplus of the Red Sea,
civilization ends at Leuke Kome, and
starts again around Mouza that is in the
modern Yemenite Red Sea coast. What lies

between them is the realm of Arab
barbarism according to the author of the
text (paragraph 20), which reads as
follows:
“Immediately after this port (Leuke Kome)
starts Arabia, which is extended
alongside a large part of the Red Sea. It is
inhabited by various peoples and tribes,
whose languages differ either a little or
totally. The coastal zone features many
groups of huts of the fish–eaters, whereas
the inland includes hamlets and
pastures, being inhabited by a people
who speak two languages and have a
perverted character. These people rob
those who deviate from their sailing just
in the middle of the sea, and come
nearby their coasts. They arrest all the
shipwrecked, so that they make later use
of them as captives.
That is why the Kings of Yemen attack
them, and hold many of them as
prisoners. They are called Canraites (note:

this is the single time this term was used
in Ancient Greek literature). Truly, any
sort of navigation nearby the coast of
Arabia is particularly dangerous, and
this area is characterized by a lack of
ports and offers few possibilities of
anchorage, being full of perilous rocks,
difficult of reach because of the rocky
precipices, and awful from any viewpoint.
That is why when we sail south, we
navigate in the open sea, and as fast as
possible, until we reach the
Katakekavmene Neso (‘Scorched Island’).
Immediately after that island, there are
plenty of lands inhabited by civilized
people, who have large cattle, and use
camels for their trade and
transportation”.
Here we are already among the ancient
Yemenites! The Katakekavmene Island can
be identified with Farasan islands,
slightly north of the Northern Yemenite

borderline. The text enters then
paragraph 21, as follows:
“Beyond these areas, in the last bay of the
coast that is extended on our left during
our navigation, lies Mouza, which is an
official (“nomimon”: controlled by the
state) port of call. If we follow the correct
navigation line to the south, it lies in a
distance of 12000 stadia from Berenice.
The city is exclusively inhabited by
Yemenites, captains and mariners, and is
burgeoning with commercial activity (lit.
“the trade is exceeding”) since it plays a
vital role in the commerce up to
Barygaza, and in this business the Mouza
people use their own equipment”.
I think that further comments are not
needed. As a matter of fact, in the middle
of the 1st c. CE when the Periplus was
written, the merged kingdoms of Saba and
Himyar had replaced Qataban, and
controlled the entire Somali coast of
Eastern Africa as colony (from the Horn of

Africa to approximately the area of Dares
salaam in today’s Tanzania). Similarly,
the kingdom of Hadhramwt had the
island of Socotra as colony. Yemenites had
excellent navigational skills and know
how, having been the undisputed masters
of the Indian Ocean navigation for almost
1500 years before the arrival of Islam.
Whenever we refer to Islamic times’
navigation between the Arabian
Peninsula and Eastern Africa up to
China, we mean that it was almost
exclusively in the hands of the Yemenite
Muslims, who by accepting Islam started
using Arabic and gradually abandoned
their native language. They were called
Arabs, but in fact they were not Arabs.
However, in today’s Hadhramaut, Socotra
and North Somalia (Bossasso), two
languages originating from the Ancient
Yemenite languages have survived.
Hundreds of thousands of people are
native in these languages. Last but not the

least, the decipherment of the Ancient
Yemenite writing was done through
constant comparisons with Ge’ez which is
the writing system of the Ancient
Abyssinians and at the same time the
religious language of the Christian
Abyssinian state of Axum. In fact, Ge’ez is
a late Yemenite writing and the striking
similarities helped scholars rapidly
complete the decipherment of the Ancient
Yemenite writing. This is not strange at
all because the Abyssinians are just a
Yemenite tribe that crossed the Red Sea
and settled in the African coast in the
second half of the 1st millennium BCE.
The name Habashat has been attested in
Ancient Yemenite epigraphic evidence as
well.
VII. HOMOGENEITY vs.
HETEROGENEITY IN THE
MIDDLE EAST

Speaking about the entire area of the
Ottoman Caliphate (the term ‘Middle East’
being false and racist), one would
however be wrong to conclude, in spite of
the aforementioned, that the region has
lacked homogeneity either historically or
presently.
Homogeneity does not exclude
diversification. And diversification does
not mean heterogeneity.
In fact, before 500 years, there was an
excellent, remarkable homogeneity among
all peoples and nations inhabiting the
vast area between Morocco and Indonesia,
prior to the arrival of the Western
European colonial powers. To move from
the Atlantic coast to Buddhist Myanmar
in 1530, one needed to cross only three
borders, namely those between: a) the
Berber Moroccan kingdom and the
Ottoman Empire, b) the Ottoman Empire
and Safavid Iran, and c) Safavid Iran and
Mughal India.

And despite all possible local wars among
Muslim governments or conflicts between
Muslims and followers of other religions
in the wider region of the Islamic world,
there was never hatred and evilness as
much as after the arrival of the alien
intruders, who came from Western Europe
after they had already rejected
Christianity and replaced it with
Freemasonic Satanism in the backstage of
politics back in their countries.
It is only the presence of the French, the
English, the Dutch, the Spaniards, the
Portuguese, the Belgians, and the
Americans that opened Pandora’s Box in
Asia, Africa and America, turning high
civilizations to utmost misery,
excruciating poverty, abject materialism,
fratricidal wreckage, and compact
barbarism. They found a world that
looked almost like a Paradise, and they
turned it to the worst version of Hell.

Κατεβάστε το άρθρο του κ. Μεγαλομμάτη σε
Pdf:
https://www.academia.edu/24440061/Ar
ab_Nation_Hoax_Geared_to_Falsify_Islamic_
History_Ruin_Varied_Nations_disfigurative
ly_Named_Arab_by_Prof_Muhammad_Sha
msaddin_Megalommatis

Arabs do not exist according to revelatory research by Orientalist historian Mohammad Samasadin Megaliomatis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Arabs do not exist according to revelatory research by Orientalist historian Mohammad Samasadin Megaliomatis

Similar to Arabs do not exist according to revelatory research by Orientalist historian Mohammad Samasadin Megaliomatis (20)

More from Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

More from Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (16)

Arabs do not exist according to revelatory research by Orientalist historian Mohammad Samasadin Megaliomatis