الصراع على القدس وبيئتها الاستراتيجية | مع المقدسي د. محمد المختار الشنقيطي

0:00 The sectarian map was very different from the sectarian map today. Iran was Sunni, true, during the Crusades. True, the Iranians, and this is what many people do not know. The first nine centuries of Islam, the Iranians were Sunni, before the Safavid era arrived, exactly. They converted to Shiism at the hands of a Turkish family, the Safavid family, and at the hands of Arab jurists, the Shiite jurists of Jabal Amel. The Crusaders were not like the Westerners today. They were fools and did not know anything about the map of society or its sects. As far as they were concerned, they were all Muslim infidels. Infidels, meaning they were Muslims, not Christians. They targeted everyone, Sunnis and Shiites, and

0:45 they even targeted the Eastern Christians. He considered them outside the strategic map, outside the religion, or at least heretics, because the Eastern Christians were Orthodox and the Crusaders were Catholics. Yes, Saladin, how did his intellectual and ideological school contain those who were of a belief that, in his estimation, is now a belief? In his estimation, for example, the Sunnis of today, by God, this is a belief. Invalid How How How this school of thought, the doctrinal school, was able for 16 years while he was in Egypt to absorb this doctrinal school, even after that, he changed the sermon, changed the call to prayer, and returned it to the Sunni path in strange matters in history, always that although the Imami Shiites today write

1:33 very bad books against Saladin, it is true, but the Imami Shiites in the days of Saladin were allies of Saladin, the Imami Shiites in Aleppo were allies of Saladin, the first to write a book about Saladin in the biography of Saladin is Yahya bin Abi Tayl Al-Halabi, a Shiite from the Shiite leaders in Aleppo, but he was very close to the Ayyubid court and wrote the book “The Treasure of the Believers from the Biography of King Saladin”, the first book written about the life of Saladin, Saladin contained all Muslims, Sunnis and Shiites, they fought in one trench against the Crusaders, Saladin Al-Ayyubi and the leaders

2:19 in general who unite the nation cannot be those who think with a single mentality, but rather they must have a broad horizon and then have the ability to arrange priorities clearly Saladin’s heart is clearly attached to Jerusalem, and this is a very important point in, in, in, I mean, in this conversation and in this context, the Crusader experience that took place, the conqueror came from outside, Saladin from outside the kingdom. Yes, today, in your reading of the scene, will the conqueror be from outside, or is this battle that we are living through the beginning of the internal battle that will erupt from the shores of the Mediterranean heading towards Jerusalem? No, it is a wound, it is a wound in my body. I cannot

3:06 close my eyes at all because of this wound. There is no room for sleep and idleness at all. If you have such a wound, this is from the psychological and moral aspect. As for the geostrategic aspect, from the political and strategic geography aspect, the strategic environment surrounding Jerusalem is what will liberate Jerusalem, because the conflict over Jerusalem is not a local conflict. It was not in the past during the days of the Crusaders or during the days of the British, and it will not be a local conflict today. It was a comprehensive conflict. It is a conflict between two civilizations. It is not a conflict over geography only, but it was a conflict over anything, let’s say ideas and civilization and so on. A conflict.

3:52 On the place and the place and the meaning and the faith and everything is frankly harmful in the true sense of the word Peace be upon you, may your evening be blessed and a sincere Jerusalemite greeting to you wherever you are and a greeting also to our people in Jerusalem, my guest in this meeting, Professor Dr. Muhammad Mukhtar Al-Shanqiti, Professor of International Affairs at Qatar University. All greetings to you, sir. May God welcome you. Welcome to this hosting and we are very happy and I convey my happiness, meaning the happiness of the people of Jerusalem and everyone who is interested in the issue of Jerusalem, with this blessed meeting. May God bless you, O Lord. Welcome, sir, who brought us to you is the mother of all issues, the

4:39 issue of Jerusalem, this disputed issue, the secret of which has been present in the conscience of Islam and Islamic thought since the conquest of the Romans. Tell us about this blessed issue in the Let us say the Islamic geography of the issue of Jerusalem within this data In the name of God and praise be to God and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of God. May God bless you and be with you and welcome to you and you have honored and enlightened and the reasons It is a pleasure and a joy to be with you in this conversation, especially in talking about Jerusalem. Since you have started with the defeat of the Romans, let us connect Jerusalem a little with the international issue,

5:26 because Jerusalem is always a big issue. When the Holy Quran alerted the Muslims that the Romans were defeated and that the Persians would be defeated in a few years, this was a warning, and God knows best, that a state of strategic vacuum would arise and that the Muslims would be the ones to fill this vacuum. When international powers quarrel, this sometimes gives an opportunity, but when two international powers are involved, it gives an opportunity for a third force to enter the conflict and rise. Yes, the Chinese express this in their strategic thinking when they say, “ Watch the fire from across the river.” Meaning, if

6:13 war breaks out between parties, each of which is an enemy to you, do not interfere in it. Ambush and wait. Leave a thick barrier between you and the fire, a river, and wait until the parties are exhausted. After that, enter into the arena and the battlefield becomes… Even some of the commentators, including Ibn Ashur, may God have mercy on him, pointed to this wisdom, that God Almighty alerted the Muslims that the Romans were defeated and the Persians would be defeated in… A few years ago, a space of a calf for you, of course, where did the Persians and the Romans meet when the Romans met the Quds? Jerusalem in Islamic political geography has a special place

7:00 in the heart of Islamic geography, meaning the Islamic world from the geographical aspect, even if you type the Islamic world in Google, it will appear to you in the form of a giant bird, right, especially the land Islamic world if we leave out the one extending from Mauritania, even the one extending from the scholars, they used to say from Fergana to Ghana, from Fergana to Ghana, yes Fergana is now in Uzbekistan and Ghana, of course in West Africa, Ghana is not the Republic of Ghana now, but Ghana was the Sultanate of Ghana, including Mali, part of Mauritania, and part of Senegal. The important thing is the land Islamic world if we leave out the maritime Islamic world, which is Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Malian peoples in the

7:49 Pacific Ocean, the land Islamic world is shaped like a giant bird, its head in Anatolia, its heart in the Arabian Peninsula, meaning that it includes the Levant and Iraq, and it has two wings, a right wing, east, in South Asia, and a left wing, west, in North Africa, meaning a wing that begins from Azerbaijan and Iran in the east to the borders of China is beautiful and a western wing that starts from Egypt and Sudan in the west to the Atlantic Ocean. If you look at this bird, you will find Jerusalem, which is at the heart of Islamic political geography. In no way can the

8:35 conflict over Jerusalem be isolated from the conflict. This large bird on this huge bird on this giant bird or this this Islamic map, in addition to its proximity to the sensitive nerve of the Islamic map as well, and the sensitive nerve in this map is the straits and the seas, meaning the Suez Canal, Bab al-Mandab, Bosphorus, Dardanelles. This region, these straits, are also the nerve of this this Islamic geographical map. It is very beautiful. Now, in your research that you conducted in your doctorate, it was about the impact of the Crusades on Sunni-

9:21 Shiite relations. Yes, now, in the circumstances that we live in, it is no longer Sunni and Shiite, but rather Sunnis and Shiites, and Sunnis have dispersed into sects and ideas. Likewise, the Arab countries, we did not think that they would end after Sykes-Picot into countries that are still rooted. In us and present in us until we became, meaning that this has a south and a north. Yes, in light of these circumstances, how can these countries come together? How can these ideas unite in service of the Holy House until that day, the day of liberation? Let me return to the subject of the message. In fact, when I wrote my message or began to think about choosing its subject, it was during the days of the American invasion of Iraq, shortly after the

10:07 American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Read 20 years ago, yes, I almost began writing it in 2006. This period, of course, was the moment of the outbreak of massacres and sectarian division in Iraq. In addition to the displacement of sects in this moment, it was displaced to the entire Islamic body. So I said, let me see a little bit of a historical lesson in what happened. I found that the conflict over Jerusalem during the days of the Crusades. Of course, the sectarian map was very different from the sectarian map today. Iran was Sunni. It is true that during the days of the Crusades, the Iranians were Sunnis, and this is what

10:55 many people do not know. The first nine centuries of Islam, the Iranians were Sunnis before the Safavid tide reached them exactly. They are them. They converted to Shiism at the hands of a Turkish family, the Safavid family, and at the hands of Arab jurists, the Shiite jurists of Jabal Amel. As for the Iranians, they are Persians. They were truly Sunnis for nine centuries until the Safavids came to them from Azerbaijan. During this period, Shiism was widespread in the Levant, especially in northern Syria. Northern Syria witnessed three Shiite states, specifically in Aleppo. Aleppo was present in it. The Hamdanid state remained, then the Uqayli state, then the Mirdas state. The last of them was the

11:42 Mirdas state, which was eliminated by the Seljuk Sultan Barsal. This is one of the strange things. Some people deal with these matters as if they were permanent constants. They are in fact moving maps. Tripoli, which is now the center of trust for Sunnis in Lebanon, had a prosperous Shiite state. The Banu Ammar state in Tripoli was the most prosperous Shiite state in the Levant. The most prosperous Shiite state in the Levant is the Banu Ammar state in Tripoli because it is a stronghold of Sunnis in the midst of the Shiite movement. Exactly what the Crusaders destroyed, of course Egypt during this period was Shiite Ismaili or ruled by the Fatimids, meaning it was Shat, so Fatimid or

12:31 Ismaili Shiism began in the Qian and then spread east until it controlled Egypt and began to struggle with the Abbasids over the Levant. Imami Shiism spread from Iraq until it expanded greatly in the Levant, and Iran was Sunni. Anyway, it was a state of being torn apart. In any case, what is important in our subject is that the Crusader aggression increased the tearing apart of the Sunni-Shiite state in the beginning, then united it in the end. This is what I noticed, meaning when I studied, when I first started drawing, I drew the sectarian map on the eve of the Crusades. I mean, what was the sectarian map?

13:18 Iran is Sunni, Iraq is divided between Sunnis and Shiites, Shiites are divided between that thing, divided between Sunnis and Shiites, in the north Shiites and in the south Sunnis, and Egypt is ruled by an Ismaili-Fatimid elite, and the majority of the people are Sunnis. This was the map when the Crusaders came. In the beginning, it prevailed. Political selfishness and sectarian selfishness among Muslims, Sunnis and Shiites, Sunnis and Shiites. Yes, the first thing the Fatimids said was, “This is an opportunity for us to cooperate with the Franks. This will remove the creeping Seljuk danger from the east, from Baghdad.” Because the Seljuks wanted to seize Egypt from the Fatimids, so

14:03 they sent them delegations, but of course it was of no use. The Crusaders were not like the Westerners today. They were foolish and did not know anything about the map of society or its sects. As far as they were concerned, they were all Muslims, infidels. Infidels, they were Muslims, not Christians. So they targeted everyone, Sunnis and Shiites, and they even targeted the Eastern Christians. They considered them outside the strategic map, outside the religion, or at least heretics, because the Eastern Christians were Orthodox, and the Crusaders were like cake. Yes, so the Fatimids realized that their bet that they could benefit from the Crusaders was a failure. This is an illusion, but it led to a state of increased disintegration in the

14:52 beginning. After that, everyone began to realize that this was an existential threat to everyone. And the rapprochement began, of course, after the first Crusader shock. The first decades were a period of real shock. The Crusaders first stormed Anatolia, committed massacres in Nicaea, destroyed Antioch, advanced and slaughtered people in Maarat al- Numan in Syria. They built the Emirate of Rawh, which is now the city of Urfa in southeastern Turkey, and an Emirate in Antioch. Then they moved to the Levantine coast and destroyed what was destroyed. Then they came to Jerusalem and committed the greatest massacre there. Of course, when they conquered Jerusalem, its ruler was originally Fatimid, and he

15:38 surrendered it and was withdrawn at night. No, to be fair, he was a murderer. I mean, they actually resisted them. They put up a strong resistance and a long siege. Then, then, the defenses collapsed afterwards. They actually resisted and their people even in Ashkelon. The Fatimids resisted the Crusaders in Ashkelon. It was part of the Fatimid control. In any case, after this first shock, which lasted for approximately 40 years, there was no serious resistance and there were skirmishes. A little resistance. Seriousness began 40 years after the shock. It was started by the Turkish Turks from Mosul. Then came the

16:25 Zanj as well, and they were Turks from Mosul, who was Imad al-Din Zanj and his son, Nur al-Din Mahmud, may God have mercy on him. And a renaissance began, or the beginning of a seed for a strong Islamic resistance. And the seed of unity began as well, as Nur al- Din took control of Damascus, so he united Damascus with one part of western Iraq and northern Syria. Of course, he took control of Aleppo over Damascus, and this made it into a bloc in western Iraq and northern and central Syria. They even began to

17:10 correspond with the Fatimids to cooperate against the Crusaders. Then came Saladin, and the unity project was completed. Saladin brought together the Sunnis and the Shiites. The strange thing is that I have never come to any conclusion about strange things in history. Although the Imami Shiites today write very bad things against Saladin, it is true, but the Imami Shiites in the days of Saladin were allies of Saladin. The Imami Shiites in Aleppo were allies of Saladin. The first person to write a book about Saladin in the biography of Saladin is Yahya bin Abi Tayy al- Halabi. He was a Shiite from the Shiite leaders in Aleppo,

17:56 but he was very close to the Ayyubid court and wrote the book “Kanz al-Mu’minin min Sirat al-Malik Saladin”, the first book written about the life of Saladin. Saladin contained everyone. First, the question is how did he find shelter? What exactly? How did he contain everyone? The banner was clear to him. This was not the time for conflict, neither with the Ismaili Shiites nor with the Imami Shiites, but rather he raised a banner that included everyone. The first thing he did, of course, was work as a minister for the Fatimids. True, for 16 years he was in Egypt and he refused. Nour al-Din was pressuring him to get rid of al-Adid, the last of the Fatimid imams.

18:43 Saladin said no because he wanted to carry out the matter, to achieve the matter in a wise way, that if the end of the Fatimid state was announced and loyalty to the Abbasid state was declared, an elite would revolt against it. An elite with interests in the state would benefit from it, of course, meaning the deep state, as we say now. So, he said the matter needed time until it was a matter. There was alienation and understanding between him and Nour al-Din. In a hurry, and Saladin, because he was in the field and knew the map best, the political and human map in Egypt, said, “No, there is no need to rush.” He waited until Al-Adid died a natural death, or rather, he did not die in reality, but

19:29 about a week or two before Al- Adid’s death, after the pressure on Saladin intensified, he announced the end of the Fatimid state and announced the sermon. The sermon was over. What happened was a funny comment by Saladin. They say that after he announced the sermon to the Abbasids, Al-Adid died a week later, so Saladin said, “If I had known that he would die, I would not have changed the sermon.” I mean, I could have waited for one of Saladin’s people who hated Al-Adid. They said, “If you had not changed the sermon, he would not have died.” So he died like a city. It is possible. In any case, Saladin contained the Fatimid state in

20:19 Egypt, integrating it into the nation again. He contained the Imami Shiites in northern Syria, and the majority of the people of Aleppo, northern Syria, were Shiites. He contained them, and everyone began to return to their Sunni roots because the Levant and Egypt are originally Sunni countries, and Sunnism preceded them. Shiism in it was superficial Shiism, whether Ismaili in Egypt or Imam in... Allow me to make a point, this is very important. Yes, Saladin, how did his intellectual and doctrinal school absorb it, to include those who are of a doctrine now in the estimation that it is a doctrine, it may mean in the estimation of, for example, the Sunnis today, by God, this is a false doctrine. How, how, how was this

21:04 intellectual school and doctrinal school able, in 16 years while he was in Egypt, to absorb this doctrinal school, even after that, he changed the sermon, changed the call to prayer, and returned it to the Sunni path because Saladin was from the people of the Sunnah and the community. Today we are Sunnis without a community. This is our problem today. I mean, the concept of the Sunnah and the community is important, and the connection between the two words, Sunnah and the community, a simple definition of the idea. Yes, the people of the Sunnah and the community are a historical reality. It is an umbrella for the majority of Muslims. It includes the Salafis and the Khalifis, the jurist, the theologian, the hadith scholar, and others. I mean, therefore, it was always a broad, loose banner that accommodated

21:52 everyone, and one of the principles of the people of the Sunnah and the community within them was to preserve the community with... The nation and outside of them we do not excommunicate anyone from the people of the Qiblah meaning openness to everyone who says there is no god but Allah. This school of thought, no matter how much you differ with him in the details of the creed, in many of the details of the creeds, Muslims differed on them and will continue to differ on them, and it does not take people out of the religion. Therefore, the majority of Sunni scholars have never excommunicated the Shiites, the Imami Shiites, nor the Shiites at all. The disagreement between them was in excommunicating the Ismaili Shiites. Some of them, or the majority of them, say that this is Batiniyyah, they appear as Imam al-Ghazali says, he says that

22:39 Ismaili Shiism in his book The Scandals of the Batiniyyah says that its outward appearance is rejection and its inward aspect is pure disbelief. He distinguished between rejection and pure disbelief. Yes, these are Rafidis, but they are not disbelievers. As for pure disbelief, it is pure disbelief. The Ismailis, with even the Ismailis, Sunni scholars also made a distinction between them. For example, al-Dhahabi speaks about one of the Fatimid Ismaili sultans or imams in Egypt and says, “In him and in him is religion and Islam in general.” Unlike his heretic father, meaning he distinguishes between him and his father, each one of them was an imam of the Fatimid imams. It is beautiful, so he even distinguished between the son

23:24 and the father, meaning that detail helps with fairness and generality. This always leads to injustice in any case. As for Salah al-Din, Salah al-Din also came from this Sunni Ash’ari background from which he came, which is the Ash’ari school, the school of jurisprudence. There is something in the history of religions called the fusion doctrines. Your secretary, doctor, or your secretary, meaning that the Ash’ari doctrine was an umbrella that included theologians, hadith scholars, and Sufis. They combined them. They said that Sunni Sufism and heretical Sufism combined the science of theology and did not reject it completely, but they used it, and so on. Salah al-Din

24:10 was a Sunni Ash’ari Shafi’i Muslim, and he was even a fanatic of the Shafi’i doctrine, but he was also open to other doctrines, including the Shi’ite doctrines. The second is that he is a political man, so for him there are priorities. The priorities are the external attacking enemy. It is necessary to unite the Muslims’ opinion against him. Our problems and our differences will be resolved later, or we will resolve them until With dialogue, with thought, with thought, the idea confronts the philosophy of Saladin, and I wrote an article about this. The philosophy of Saladin is that you confront thought with thought and confront aggression with the sword. He did

24:56 not fight the Shiites, he did not even defeat the Ismailis, but he contained them intellectually, even Al-Azhar. You know, when the Fatimid state ended, Al-Azhar was the most important Islamic advocacy institution, their school, their school for spreading their doctrine. He did not close Al-Azhar immediately, but rather built another mosque and made it a center for Sunni culture. That is, a kind of circumvention to avoid conflict and a strategy of circumvention until he besieged Al-Azhar and contained it. The idea is that Saladin Al-Ayyubi and the leaders in general who unite the nation cannot be among those who think with a single mentality, but rather they must have a broad horizon and then

25:43 have the ability to arrange priorities clearly. Saladin’s heart was clearly attached to Jerusalem, so much so that he had a ready pulpit, that is, a pulpit ready since the days of Nur al-Din, at least from Aleppo to Jerusalem, for the sake of Jerusalem, and his entire life. So, if someone reads the book of Ibn al-Shaddad, Baha’ al-Din Ibn al- Shaddad, who is the judge of Saladin He judged his army and wrote a beautiful book about him, which is Al-Nawader Al- Sultaniyya. I mean, you find that this man has no concern like the jihad to liberate Jerusalem. He

26:28 doesn’t even have his family and children in Damascus. He could sit for a very long time without seeing them or them seeing him, despite his heart’s attachment to them, as Ibn Shaddad says. His heart was attached to his children, but he had no home except the backs of horses and the shade of tents, so that no door would be broken for him until Jerusalem was liberated. Therefore, he forgot all the small battles. He didn’t forget them, but even the sectarian battles, the sectarian battles are intellectual issues that are confronted with ideas, not with fighting between the people of the Qiblah. I mean, enough, let us fight intellectually and show whoever has a false belief, we show him its falsehood, and whoever has an innovation, we show him that it is an innovation. And people

27:14 change. History witnesses that people change. Those who were Sunni yesterday, like the Iranians, have converted. Now they are the heart of Shiism. And those who were Shiite yesterday, like the northern region of Syria or like Ismail of Egypt, they also converted to Sunnis and returned to Sunnism. Among them and Iraq, which is the source of Shiism and there is always a conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. The conflict there is also dynamic, meaning it is always dynamic. There may be periods when the majority, like Baghdad, is Sunni, and periods when the majority, like Baghdad, is Shiite. There are cities that are always controlled by Shiites, like Hilla, and there are always Sunni cities like Mosul. There are cities that are intertwined and we are fighting over them, etc. But they are dynamic maps. If we understand that they are

28:00 dynamic maps and that beliefs change, ideas change, and convictions change, we know that we must fight intellectual battles with thought and fight military battles with the sword. Now we differentiate and confuse between this and that. The external attacking enemy is the one that must be confronted with the sword. As for the conflicts among the nation, no matter how high the degree of disagreement, they must be resolved with thought. This is what Saladin taught us, the truth. This is the lesson of Saladin Ayyub. I mean the language. Let us say that the owners of doctrines and ideas, even the scattered ones, must unite around one idea,

28:45 which is the liberation of Al-Aqsa Mosque and prayer in Jerusalem. Yes, if the banner of Jerusalem does not unite us, if it does not unite the Muslims today, then Unite them, what other flag? Never aggression. The attacking enemy is always an opportunity to unite the internal ranks. This is Arnold Toynbee’s theory: challenge and response. If the nation faces an external challenge, it responds to it by uniting its internal ranks. Sunni and Shiite Muslims fought in one trench against the Crusaders. They fought in Aleppo, Sunnis and Shiites together. They fought in Damascus, Sunnis and Shiites together. They fought in Tripoli. Tripoli was the Shiite state ruled by the Banu Ammar. The

29:31 Crusaders besieged it for seven years. There is no siege in the history of Islam longer than the siege of Tripoli. Oh my God, but who was Ibn Ammar seeking help from to save himself from the siege? He sought help from the Sunnis in Damascus and went himself to Baghdad seeking help from the Sultan and Caliph, who were also Sunnis, because this is an existential issue. So, if the existence of the nation is in danger, all these details must be overcome. It does not mean that they have disappeared. The doctrinal and jurisprudential differences between Sunnis and Shiites exist and will remain. Their disagreement in the political theory of the Imamate will remain. Their

30:17 disagreement in their interpretation of the early history of early Islam and the view The parallelism that is viewed through the historical memory, the parallelism exists and will remain. Their disagreement on doctrinal issues exists, such as the occultation among the Shiites, the infallibility of the imams, and many other matters. Their disagreement on the sources of legislation themselves even exists. The Shiites consider the words of the imams to be part of the legislation, while we consider them even if they are imams. Their words are the best of the best. The most we can say is that they are from the traces. If they are great imams from the followers, for example, whether they are from the Household of the Prophet or other than the Household of the Prophet, their words are from the traces and not from the hadith and not from the legislation. The disagreements exist and will remain, but this does

31:02 not mean that we should destroy the nation. These disagreements should be dealt with by working on them with ideas. Ideas are beautiful, and thinking is the correct approach, and it is what changed them in the past. If and when they change in the future, it will suffice for us to know this challenge and for the nation, as individuals and ummah, to feel this challenge and enter into this conflict. The first thing the enemy works on is tearing apart the internal ranks and the theory of divisions. This theory has prevailed since the days of the Romans. The English, of course, applied it and became famous for it, but h In fact, the word is a Roman origin from the days of the

31:48 Roman Empire. Divide and conquer, or achieved. They do not say divide and conquer. Even in English, they say divided conquer, meaning divide and conquer. In order to conquer a nation, you need to begin by dividing its internal ranks. We are an Islamic nation today. A nation that has been violated. A nation that has been violated. Gaps have opened up in it from every side, and external enemies are invading from every side. These enemies did not invade it except by tearing it apart internally. Did the British enter the region except by coordinating it? Of course, they did not enter except by coordinating it. In the first place, tearing the Ottoman Empire apart is what opened the door to the conflicts that we are still living today,

32:36 100 years later. Even controlling Jerusalem was not possible without tearing the Ottoman Empire apart. This was clear to Durr Herzl, who spoke about it in his diaries. It was clear to Sultan Abdul Hamid, who spoke about it in his diaries. I mean, if Sultan Abdul Hamid and Durr Herzl agreed on anything, they agreed on one idea, that there is no way to control Jerusalem without tearing it apart. The Ottoman Empire Sultan Abdul Hamid wrote this in his memoirs and Ted Herz wrote memoirs after his meeting with the Sultan and the British did it when the British wanted to occupy Jerusalem the first thing they did was occupy the environment surrounding Jerusalem when they occupied

33:22 Jerusalem in 1917 General Lambe Lambe when he entered 30 years before that they occupied Egypt 33 years before that they occupied Egypt then they occupied Iraq and the coasts of the Gulf meaning they occupied Basra in 1914 the beginning of the First World War you surround Jerusalem when you occupy Egypt you occupy Iraq you occupy the coasts of the Gulf what is left the rest of the northern front which is the Ottoman Empire what remains is to tear the Ottoman Empire apart and this is what they succeeded in through Lawrence of Arabia and Gertrude Bell and other

34:11 spies who played with and this leads us to talk about Jerusalem within the strategic geography in which it lives and it is called you the geography of the crescent east of the Mediterranean yes it is true Jerusalem is as it began it is in the heart of the big bird of the big bird of the Islamic world the map of the Islamic world but the region is not called The strategic environment, what they now call the strategic environment, meaning the direct strategic environment that influences Jerusalem and is affected by what happens to Jerusalem, is the environment of the Eastern Mediterranean more than any other region in the Islamic world. What is meant by the Eastern Mediterranean is

34:57 the Eastern Mediterranean Crescent, which is the eastern half of the shores of the eastern half of the Mediterranean, which is Egypt, the southeastern Mediterranean, the Levant, western Iraq, the eastern Mediterranean, and the Anatolian countries, the northeastern Mediterranean. Therefore, the first thing the Crusaders did when they wanted to control Jerusalem was to tamper with this strategic environment. Jerusalem cannot be controlled unless it is affected by the surrounding strategic environment, which is the Eastern Mediterranean Crescent. Jerusalem cannot be liberated unless the surrounding strategic environment, which is the Eastern

35:42 Mediterranean Crescent, recovers. This is the greatest historical lesson that I have reached through studying the history of the Crusades, the history of contemporary colonialism, and everything I have studied regarding the subject of Jerusalem and the Arab East leads to this result. Let us take an example from the Crusaders, for example. The Crusader movement began in France in 1095 AD with a speech by Pope Urban II. The famous in his country of Flirm in France called on the Catholic Christians and the Christians of the whole world to rise up to seize Jerusalem from the Muslims. The masses moved and the leaders and feudal

36:28 lords moved in a huge human wave, most of it by land and some by sea, some by sea, starting from Marseille, the French city of Marseille and Marseille, as they called it, the sea to Cyprus to the Italian islands to Cyprus and then to the coast of the Levant, but the great wave by land and by land from France stormed Eastern Europe and then reached Anatolia, and Anatolia, of course, was still Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, even though the largest part of Anatolia was under Islamic control. The important thing is that the Crusaders were on their way to Jerusalem. The first thing they did was storm Anatolia and commit

37:16 massive massacres against the Muslims of Anatolia. The first city they struck was the city of Nicaea, which they completely destroyed. Then they marched on the city of Antioch and slaughtered it. Then they began to enter the Levant and Iraq from Antioch. A branch of it branched off east to the west of Iraq and established the Principality of Edessa, which is now in the southeast. Turkey, the city of Urf, southeast, and the second branch headed south and marched on Maarat al-Numan and committed a terrible massacre there, and then began marching on the Levantine coast towards Jerusalem. Before they reached Jerusalem, they had committed horrific massacres in Anatolia,

38:04 horrific massacres in western Iraq, and horrific massacres on the Levantine coast. Then came the great massacre in Jerusalem itself, Jerusalem. Well, after they took control of Jerusalem, they headed to complete their control of the crescent. They headed to Egypt, and they tried to invade Egypt many times, and this was due to Saladin. This is the reason that made Saladin come to Egypt, which is that Egypt became in danger, even the Fatimids began to seek help from Nur al-Din, so Saladin sent to them with his uncle, al-Din Asad al-Din Shirkuh, and so on. The famous story, excuse me, the witness in this crusader wave struck Anatolia, then struck the Levant, then struck Egypt. These are the regions of the eastern Mediterranean Crescent. The British had the same

38:53 thing, the same school. The British had their eye on Jerusalem, but they did not go to Jerusalem immediately. The first thing they did was lay hands on Egypt, and then after That was on Iraq and the coasts of the Gulf, then they began to play to control Jerusalem, they allied with the nobles of the Hijaz and began to move their players until the Prophet came and stormed Jerusalem in 917, and the year did not end until they announced the Balfour Declaration in November 1917. The Zionists have the same thing. We have the

39:39 Crusader experience. We have the British experience, and we have the Zionist experience. The Zionists, when they set their eyes on Jerusalem, the first thing they realized was that without tampering with the strategic environment, there is no room. So they tried with their own game. They do not have an empire like the British, nor a military force like the Crusaders, but they have money. So they went to Sultan Abdul Hamid and asked to buy Palestine from him in exchange for paying the debts of the Ottoman Empire, establishing a central bank for the Ottoman Empire, and he refused. When he refused, Theodor Herzl wrote in his memoirs, and I give the text to the students, meaning the text of Theodor Herzl’s words versus the words of the Sultan. The Sultan

40:25 agreed on the same result. The Sultan says that he was ready to give him a weak offer. Al-Shara Al- Quds said I told him no this is a holy land and my ancestors watered it with their blood and it is a holy Islamic land and they will not give up blood for a price and leave you a boxer but he says the Sultan says if the Ottoman state ends you can take it for free as if he sees what will happen in the future and Herzl writes about the same meeting after my meeting with the Sultan I became convinced that it is not possible to control Jerusalem except by changing the regime in the Ottoman state or dismantling the Ottoman state or

41:12 entering it into a war that it will lose or entering it into an international crisis or all of that together and this is exactly what happened in 1909 after that a few years and the Sultan’s dress 1900 14 World War I began and in it the Ottoman state was torn apart and the British handed Jerusalem to Palestine for the Jews so the witness the summary of this historical presentation is that Jerusalem is at the heart of a conflict in the heart of Islamic geography Jerusalem cannot be separated from its strategic environment and it is the crescent of the eastern Mediterranean and it is organically linked to this strategic environment that includes Egypt, the

42:00 Levant, Iraq and Anatolia and Jerusalem cannot be liberated Without this environment recovering, this leads us to the philosophical question: Will we liberate Jerusalem or will Jerusalem be liberated? An important and always asked question: Is it the general that affects the specific, or is the specific that affects the general? I believe the relationship is truly dialectical, meaning both influence and are influenced. Everything we accomplish on the path to liberating Jerusalem is a liberation for the nation because it awakens the nation, because the wound of Jerusalem is a specific wound, a very deep wound, and it is a sensitive chord

42:48 in the Islamic self. Nothing puts more pressure on the Muslim conscience in the modern era than the pain of the wound of Jerusalem. Therefore, this pressure on this wound stirs and awakens the entire sleeping nation. In this sense, Palestine will be liberated, and we will not liberate it. In the psychological and moral sense, yes, Palestine is the one that will remain awake. This issue helps in reviving this nation precisely. It is not a wound, it is a wound in my body. I cannot close my eyes at all because of this wound. There is no room for sleep and inactivity at all. If you have such a wound, this is from the psychological and moral aspect,

43:35 but from a strategic and spiritual aspect. Geopolitics and strategy The strategic environment surrounding Jerusalem is what will liberate Jerusalem because the conflict over Jerusalem is not a local conflict. It was not in the past during the Crusaders or during the British, and it will not be today a permanent local conflict. It was a comprehensive conflict, a conflict between two civilizations. And it was not just a conflict over geography, but it was a conflict over anything, let’s say ideas, civilization, etc. A conflict over place, status, meaning, doctrine, and everything. It is a conflict of civilization in the full sense of the word. Israel, by the way, is very similar to the ancient Crusader state.

44:24 That is why the Israelis study the history of the Crusades very carefully and they fear the consequences of the Crusader project a lot. There are Israeli traitors, and I have gone back to some of them, like Brawer, for example, or Benjamin Kedar and others who specialize in the history of the Crusader wars, Israelis, and they fear the articles that happened. They wrote many books and held many conferences, including a conference on the war over the Battle of Hattin alone. They held an international conference on it in the nineties, and it was published in the book The Horn of Hattin, The Horns of Hattin. If you do not read what the Israelis write about… The Crusades find the obsession that haunts them is whether our fate will be the fate of those who have common interests. Of course, they are

45:12 aware of the similarities and I have a long lecture on this Crusader movement and contemporary Zionism, the similarities and differences. Among the similarities is that the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, like Israel, is a strange plant, peoples of diaspora of humanity who came from Europe, as is the case with the Jews today. They controlled a narrow strip of land that had no geographical or demographic depth. This was the death of the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the Crusades. It had no

45:58 geographical or demographic depth. Israel today is the death that exists within it. It has no geographical or demographic depth. Third, this statelet in both cases derives its reasons for survival from external support. It does not have an internal power capable of survival in both cases. You see in both cases that the ancient Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem depended on the Crusader pilgrims visiting Jerusalem and the charity of the Crusader sponsors. This means the human and financial support coming from Europe. The same situation today, and the same situation today, were it not for Today, the Western support, especially the American one, gave Israel no value at all and no survival. You have all the similarities, and therefore what I fear most among

46:44 Israeli historians is the Crusades. They say we are definitely similar to this group, so will our fate be the same as theirs? This is the basic question for them, and therefore you know that they do not study much the Crusader emirates, the four days of the Crusades, the emirate of Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli, and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not interested in being keen on the Kingdom of Jerusalem. No, they do not study the history of Edessa, nor the history of Crusader Antioch, nor even Crusader Tripoli. What is most important to them is the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the equipment of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This is a very important point in, in, in, I mean, in this conversation and in this context, the Crusader experience that took place, the conqueror came from outside, Saladin, from outside the kingdom. Yes,

47:31 today, in your reading of the scene, will the conqueror be from outside, or is this battle that we are living through the prelude to the internal battle that will erupt from the shore of the Mediterranean heading towards Jerusalem? This is a very important question because you reminded me that I studied Saladin’s army. The composition of the army, oh my God, where did Saladin’s army come from? It is not really one army. It is 13 armies, 13, 13, and they all came from a country, from the strategic environment that we talked about. 13 from the environment. 13 armies came from 13 cities. What are these cities? Among them are Iraqi cities today, Mosul and Erbil. Erbil. Two armies came from Mosul and Erbil.

48:19 Kurds. Yes, of course, Saladin himself was Kurdish. Among them are Turkish cities today, such as Edessa, Diyarbakir, and Mardin. Among them are Syrian cities today, Aleppo and Damascus. Of course, Damascus is the capital of Saladin himself. Homs and Hama are four Syrian cities. Among them are two Jordanian cities today, Amman and Karak. Among them are two Egyptian cities today, Cairo and Ismailia. These thirteen cities are Egyptian cities today, Jordanian cities today, Syrian cities, Iraqi cities, and Turkish cities. All of them came from an army of Saladin’s armies. All the armies that struck the decisive blow in the Battle of Hattin gathered at Lake

49:06 Tiberias. The witness in this is that this environment, this Jerusalem, cannot be separated from the environment. Strategy: I am not in favor of jumping over the strategic environment, and I see that what the Palestinians can do today as a people suffering from this occupation is not required of them to liberate Palestine. They are required to stand firm on the ground, to keep the flame of the cause alive and the concerns, to occupy the enemy, and not to grant him legitimacy until it recovers through strategy, because true liberation will not begin except with joint action within this entire

49:53 strategic environment, and the entire nation is behind it as a supporter, just as Israel is behind it, of course, because in the end it is a conflict between two civilizations. It is not a local conflict, as we said. You are not facing 6 million Jews in Palestine. You are facing 300 million Americans and 500 million Europeans at least in this war. In this war, so calculate for us how many countries, meaning 28 European countries plus America plus the Anglo-Saxon countries in general, Canada and New Zealand. I mean the Western Christian peoples, especially the Protestants, you cannot confront them with a

50:39 little shame, a little humiliation from the believers. These believers open the way, they preserve the flame of the cause, they remain The issue is alive, they keep the issue alive, they occupy the enemy and make him lose sleep, but it is not the decisive battle. The decisive battle requires a favorable environment, a very important strategic environment in this. Therefore, I say that if the strategic environment recovers, Israel will end up withering away, even without a war, it will wither away. Imagine if the Egyptian revolution had continued today, and Egypt had been ruled by an Islamic democratic government since 2012 until today, and it is allied with Turkey, and the Syrian revolution had won

51:26 today at the hands of its people and ruled by its people, which is the Palestinian people. There is no people, I mean, intertwined with the Palestinian people, it is more organically than the Syrian people. What would have been Israel’s fate? Nothing. Israel would have ended because half of its people would have fled and half of it would have demanded and raised the white flag. Therefore, I have never seen the Zionists more terrified at any moment than they were during the days of the Arab Spring revolutions, and the word that is most often repeated on their tongues is the strategic environment, transformations of the strategic environment, transformation of the strategic environment, transformation, strategic infinite. You are the American journalist. The famous Zionist, Tamas Friedman, I

52:13 remember writing an article in the New York Times at the time, in which he said, “I have never feared for the fate of Israel in my life as much as I fear for it today, in the days of spring.” Yes, why? For the profound change in the strategic environment, this leads us to Israel’s view of the state that extends from the Euphrates to the Nile. This is this large map that we found on the shoulders of some of the soldiers killed in the last battle. Did they view it in this framework because this strategic environment will protect that kingdom, far from the religious circumstances that they believe in? I think we need to distinguish in this between propaganda and… Of course, since they draw a huge map, 90% of it is

53:01 just propaganda, of course, and to raise morale. They know that they cannot build this great kingdom, a vast state. They do not have the demographic and geographical depth that would enable them to do so in the first place, and they cannot, but they can put up a slogan to mobilize it or bring a map, and the circumstances of normalization do not allow them to do so. It does not give them demographic depth. No, they do not have it. Even if you gathered all the Jews of the world They can’t even populate this land. How many are all the Jews in the world? 14 million. All the Jews in the world are 14 million or 14 million and a half. To be a ruling elite means a ruling elite, and this is 14, 14 million. That means to rule a country 90% of which are Arab Muslims. This is impossible. This is in South Africa. They couldn’t. How can they

53:48 do it? No, on the one hand, on the other hand, there is propaganda. I think we don’t need to. We just need exaggeration. In addition to propaganda, in this, no, they were humiliated and less than that, as Abu Sufyan Khuza’ said, they were humiliated and less than that. I mean, they were humiliated and less than that. The total number of Jews in the world is 14 million, and at most, the statistics are 16 million. All the Jews in the world on the face of the earth are more than half of them. No, no, they need Israel and they don’t believe in Israel. And those of them who are in Israel, half of them are afraid and think about leaving and going to California, Florida, and New York because they saw that their cousins ​​there were more comfortable than they were. So, what is the intelligence of the Zionist journalist Thomas Friedman? Again,

54:38 excuse me, I have been out of Corona for a while. In the long story, I mean, Shaik is from the intelligence of the Zionist journalist Thomas Friedman. He once wrote in his book, From Beirut to Jerusalem, that the presence of the Americans is a condition for the existence of Israel, but they are also an existential threat to Israel. It is strange. He said, why? He said, of course, because they are important to the existence of Israel. This is clear because they are the largest source of financial, diplomatic, political and military support for Israel due to the efforts of American Jews. But what does it mean that

55:25 they are a threat to the future of Israel? He said, because their situation provides the Jew in Israel with a better model than the model he has in Israel. So when a Jew in Israel thinks, he compares his situation to that of a Jew in America in New York, Florida or California, comfortable, full of money, controlling Congress, controlling the world of finance and the media, controlling it. He says, of course, I am comfortable. Therefore, he said, the danger of American Jews is a danger to Israel because they provide a model for the Jews of the world that is better than Israel. So the Israelis are a strange plant without roots, and Israel is a

56:13 country that does not have demographic or geographic depth. It is a state whose survival depends on external support, like a small state, a small state, or a kingdom. Jerusalem is completely Crusader, and the moment the external support is cut off, it begins to wither automatically, but this external support will not be cut off without the strategic environment recovering. If the strategic environment surrounding Palestine was strong, the Arab and Islamic environment was strong. This external support would not have dared to continue, because America has interests that will not be able to continue in this in the future, were it not for the state of fragility

57:01 and fragmentation, the political fragmentation, the conflict between the rulers and the ruled, the sectarian conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites, political selfishness, weakness, neglect, and the many diseases that this environment is suffering from now. Within these contexts, we said that the goal or the basic demand of the people of the land, the people of Jerusalem and its environs, is to remain on the land and remain steadfast and occupy the enemy within the strategic environment from Egypt to Anatolia. In these contexts, what is required of them until that moment in which this environment will recover? They are required to recover in contexts, in the context of Jerusalem and interaction with the people of Jerusalem. Of course, it is again that we seek to liberate Jerusalem, and Jerusalem was liberated at the

57:49 same time. The people of the environment, the people of This strategic environment surrounding Palestine has a double duty, of course, because they are the one interacting on the line of fire. Secondly, the more they interact with the issue of Jerusalem, the more it helps them to liberate themselves from the shackles of selfishness in which they live, because Jerusalem is a banner, an honorable banner, an effective banner, a banner that shakes the Muslim conscience in its depths and shakes the peoples in their depths, a banner of unification, unification, Islamic unification with the secular, with the Sunni, with the Shiite, and with all the sects of the nation. I mean, it is possible to differ on everything except Jerusalem. Therefore, this banner also creates a personal benefit, a

58:37 personal interest for the peoples to raise the banner of Jerusalem in order for that to help them in self-liberation. This is one of the meanings that Jerusalem is the one that will be liberated. What is required of these peoples is to liberate themselves, but the banner of Jerusalem helps in self-liberation for these peoples, and if these peoples are liberated, then liberating Jerusalem will be the easiest thing. It is enough for us to know that nine months of Dr. Morsi’s rule, may God have mercy on him, was a short period, and he did not have the crisis of military power and the deep state in Egypt. However, the people of Gaza received tremendous support in these few months, a period of strength for the revolutionaries in Libya, and they were also able to obtain from them

59:24 tremendous qualitative support for Gaza. They obtained tremendous support from Sudan before the crisis in Sudan worsened. The more the nation recovers, the closer it is to the moment of liberating Jerusalem. The more the nation strives to liberate Jerusalem, the more likely it is to recover. Its recovery revolves around speed and patience between the assumption of the reins of the Zengid sultanate by Nur ad-Din Zengid in 541 AH until Saladin conquered Jerusalem. After that, in 588 AH, what was the Ramla Peace Treaty took place, and the country calmed down during this period of 46 years. How can that mentality endure this

1:00:11 long patience in the world of politics and politicians today? And when we talk about the elites, let us say that those who bear the responsibility of liberating Jerusalem, you find them quickly dissolving into the concerns of life, dissolving into the internal conflicts in these countries, and forgetting that connection. The word that I said, I said that Saladin had set a major strategic goal, which is to liberate Jerusalem today. Today’s politicians and elites, let’s say the Islamic ones, or the elites who want to liberate Jerusalem, what is required of them within these contexts so that this patience, this feasibility, and this ember under the ashes remains until the liberation of that land? Everyone spends from what God has given him and everyone prepares himself. There is an important rule in the

1:00:58 science of jurisprudence among Muslim scholars of jurisprudence that says: If it is impossible to carry out the duty, the discourse moves to achieving its means. Meaning, if I cannot carry out the duty today, I do not walk and sleep and say I cannot, no, but I must prepare myself to be able to carry out the duty. Meaning, if it is impossible to carry out the duty, the discourse moves to achieving its means. So, if we cannot liberate Jerusalem today, our efforts must be directed towards building the means that enable us to liberate Jerusalem. Meaning, it is the duty of everyone to do what they can today and to improve their means that make them

1:01:43 able to give more and offer more for the sake of liberating Jerusalem and everything useful in this. Liberating the country from tyranny is the biggest step we need to liberate Jerusalem and liberate the country from tyranny because political selfishness is destructive to nations, even in the days of the Crusaders. Meaning, the Crusaders did not benefit from anything more than what they benefited from Political selfishness was prevalent among the small princes in the Levant, Egypt, western Iraq, and southern Anatolia during that period, because many of these princes were cooperating with the Crusaders, and some of them gave them gifts, money, and guides, even the guides who showed them the way to Jerusalem were

1:02:30 Arabs and Muslims from the sons of this environment, because everyone said, “I myself, I myself, and you Crusaders, why don’t you attack my castle? I will leave it. You want Jerusalem, fine. I will give you money, I will give you guides, a road map, and the road map and everything, and go.” And this happened a lot on their way to Jerusalem. This kind of political selfishness must be liberated from the nations, because any effort to liberate the nation from political selfishness, from political sectarianism, from dependence on the influence of international power is all a mistake in the direction of liberating the house within an understanding of the possible, within an understanding of the possible. What is the

1:03:15 political and social state that the elites are required to create so that they are able to, let us say, embrace the idea of ​​liberating Jerusalem? What we need most today is Independence of strategic decision If the countries surrounding Palestine today had independent strategic decision making, all the equations would have changed. Let me speak frankly, the political elites, let us say today, are telling you, I am... I am working now on the issue of Jerusalem, but I am far from the strategic decision that you are graciously making, which is mortgaged to politics. Get close to it. If you are far from it, then get close to it. This is the meaning of: if it is impossible to carry out the duty, then the speech should move on. And if the other party does not accept the approach of the one who has these

1:04:03 ideas. Is the world taken except by force? In the first place, God does not give you charity by getting close to the political decision, nor does anyone give you charity by giving you political space. Yes, a ruler may give you crumbs in order to contain it, of course, within what Sheikh Ghannouchi - may God relieve his distress - calls the rule of a third, a third, and a lot. In an American theory, Islamists should be allowed to participate in power within the limits of a quarter or a third at most, meaning parliamentary elections, they get a quarter or a third at most in the government. They can get a third of the ministers, a quarter or a third at most, and so on. A third is a lot, and a third is a lot, as in the hadith of the Prophet, “A third is a lot.” So America used to say, “

1:04:49 Give them charity by a third, and a third is a lot.” Of course, there are those who deal with the living forces in the nation with this logic, and there are those who deal with them even with the logic of eradication. They do not deserve a third or 1% and not 1 in 000 I originally went outside the framework, but politics is not sermons, but rather stances and balances of power. Whoever deals with politics with the logic of sermons is an educator, not a politician. He might be suitable to be a philosopher, a political preacher, a political critic, or a political poet, but he is not a politician in the practical sense. Politics is a feature, it is a game of power. First and foremost, it is defense. Whoever enters politics knows that it is defense and a struggle of power.

1:05:35 Let those who deal with politics on the basis that it is speeches, sermons, and slogans enter. This has nothing to do with politics. This is the problem with many Islamists, that they deal with politics as educators and not as politicians. Politics is neither sermonizing nor educating. There is a difference between the logic of acquisition and the logic of defense. The preacher’s mission and logic are the logic of acquisition. He addresses the enemy, and the friend addresses the enemy. A friend in a way that he wants to win him over, to win his heart. The politician, not the politician, the logic of politics is

1:06:24 overcoming and acquiring. Yes, but this is the concept of acquisition. As for politics, it is not acquisition. Politics is a struggle, so we need the living force in the nation to know that politics is a struggle of power and struggle. No one will challenge the balance of power. He hands you the reins of power and the reins of the state, with faith and hope. No, but the world is taken by force. How far is the political and social situation today, especially for Islamists and those with renaissance ideas that lead to the liberation of Jerusalem? How far it is from this scene that you mentioned, or how close it is. I believe that the Arab Spring revealed to us that we were

1:07:10 living in a world of naivety, visions and dreams, because we first thought that political transformation was easy, and it is not easy. We thought that people with interests and those clinging to the depths of countries could give them up easily, and this is not the case. We thought that the international power had accepted to adapt its interests to the interests of our peoples, and we knew that this is not true, and all of this is from naivety, because it dealt with politics with the logic of preaching, education, advocacy and gain in general, and not dealing with it as a

1:07:58 motivation and a struggle of power. So if we realize that it is a struggle of power And then we began to get closer, and I believe that the lessons were painful, and that’s okay. I mean, losing a battle is not losing the war after aborting the spring. Did it contribute to, I mean, truly contribute, without bias toward the past, that by God, we were with the spring or we were not with the spring. Did the spring bring us closer to the liberation of Jerusalem, or did it abort the project? The spring brought us closer to the liberation of Jerusalem

…