Protect Democracy & Expose Western Liberal Democracy

Posts tagged ‘Arabs’

The Three Abrahamic Messages Belong to Punt Lands Peoples Only


It does not make any sense to assume that God address far away nations in foreign language, with foreign messengers and scriptures written in foreign language. Defining the peoples of Punt Lands region is very important and essential to understand the true three Abrahamic holy messages and scriptures.

Abrahamic messages seem to belong to the peoples of Punt Lands only, and to no others. The rest of nations must have had their own heavenly messages in their own languages and they lost them. God do not permit nations to leave their messages and take any of the Abrahamic messages or other foreign message.

Punt Lands is very ancient region; and ancient Egyptians and Sumerians knew Punt well since the beginning of history writing. Punt was a very important economic partner and a major source for various important and valuable commodities. Sumerian and ancient Egyptian history prove this since 3000 BC

Punt Lands region is like a bean, with two lobes separated by the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The eastern lobe of Punt is the western and southern coasts of the Arabian Peninsula, and it is the home of the Magan civilization (Makkan), which is Mecca and Yemen, and was not in Oman as all scholars claim. The eastern part of Punt has strong links with the eastern side of the peninsula, which is the region of Najd, Dammam, the UAE and Oman, in which the Dilmun civilization was established.

As for the western part of Punt, it extends from southeast Egypt to northern Somalia and includes the Beja, Tigray, Afar and Somali homelands. The western and eastern part of Punt shared the Meluhha civilization, with its center at Luhha port in western Yemen. Meluhha is not in the Indus Valley as all scholars claim

Relations, communication, and lineage between East and West Punt were very strong, permanent, and very easy, and it was done by several simple means. Therefore, the ancient Arabs in Yemen and the Hijaz are supposed to be among the peoples of Punt; and their kin are the Beja, Tigray, Afar and Somali

The messenger Abraham and those before and after him and the children of Israel knew and relied on camels in their lives. The homeland of single hump camel, dromedary (Camelus dromedarius), is on the western side of Punt. This is also supported by references to the types of goods, the walled city, heritage and practices defining the home of Idris, Hud and Ibrahim (Enoch, Hud and Abraham), and Noah, Adam and all their descendants. Strong evidences suggest that they were from the Somali part in the western Punt Lands, specifically in an area called Hud in the Ogaden region of today’s Ethiopia.

From the Ogaden region began the migration of the Israelites and they took refuge around Lake Tana in the Gondar region. Then they fled to the Simien mountain range, where Moses received the Torah in Ge’ez. God ordered the Israelites to go and live in the Afar Triangle; in which they established the Kingdom of Israel around the Temple of Solomon, and its capital was Jerusalem.

In fact, Adam was the father of the nations of Punt only, and not the father of all humanity, as claimed by the Jewish OT. Turkic Mongolians also inserted their claims into the prevailing Turkic version of the Message of Muhammad, known today as Islam. Turkic Islam is not at all the true Abrahamic message of Muhammad, which was never called Islam. Actually, all divine uncountable messages in the universe lead and guide to the same Religion. None of the messages, including Muhammad’s message is the Religion itself. Islam is the name of the Religion in Arabic. The Religion is much older than the three Abrahamic messages, and even older than the Sun itself.

Therefore, every nation on the globe and in the universe has their own first father, who grew out of the soil and water of their homelands, just as the seed sprouts by the power of God and breathed into it by the Spirit of God. As for the claimed mass migrations of peoples and tribes, these are myths invented by the Hyksos gangs and the gangs branched off them. The Hyksos were East Asian Akkadians and West Asian Amorite gangs that invaded the region and justified their invasions and aggression as mass migrations of peoples and tribes.

Consequently, Noah and all his descendants groups, the Semitic, the Hamitic, the Cushitic, and others who survived the Deluge, which was confined to the south of Punt, did not inhibit the whole world.

Turks, Persians, Amorites, Romans, Jews and Sabaeans propagate myths, at the same time they accuse the Children of Israel of false claims. Indeed, there are false myths, but they are in fact Jewish, and not Israelite. Too many false claimed falsified and obscured the Abrahamic messages, and turned them into fake international religions.

The biggest myth made by East and West Asia gangs, Jews and their partners, the Turks, Persians, Romans, Sabaeans, and Amorites, is the claim that the first Jews, who were in fact a rebranding of Hyksos gangs, were among the children of Israel who are in fact from Punt Lands’ peoples.

The prevalent and well-known religions are not of the true Religion and they are not of the Abrahamic messages, but rather they are distortion, forgery and kidnapping of Abrahamic messages, each of which claims to be a religion. East and West Asian gangs who are descendants of the Turkic Mongolian and Amorite Hyksos invented those so-called religions.

The Turkic Mongolian gangs are the Persians, the Turks, the Hebrews, the Sabaeans and the Romans, plus other gangs they made. What are currently prevalent are a Turkic version of Moses’ Message, a Turkic version of Yeshua’s Message and a Turkic version of Muhammad’s Message. Turkic versions claim to be world religions, but indeed, they are against the messages of Moses, Yeshua and Muhammad messages, and against the nations and the Religion.

Jerusalem, the Temple of Solomon and the Kingdom of Israel were never anywhere near the Levant. Yeshua was born in Aelia Capitolina of the Jebusite. Palestinians do not challenge Jewish claims for two reasons: first, Palestinians are also settlers. They settled in West Bank during the Late Bronze Age Collapse in 1177 BC; while early Jews brought Palestinians of Gaza from the Mediterranean coasts following the invention of Jews in Babylon in 580 BC and their invasion and colonization of lower Ugarit, west of Assyria.

The second reason is that the Palestinians are cooperating to maintain the claim that the early Jews were Israelites is to support the Palestinian claims that they are indigenous Arabs and seek sympathy, support and assistance. In fact, the disputed region does not belong to neither the Jews nor the Palestinians. The Disputed region west of Assyria is actually south Ugarit and part of Lebanon. The real Israel, Israelites, Jerusalem and the Temple of Moses all are in the west side of Punt.

Another grand delusion made by Turkic religions is the claim that Life has a beginning and an end. The reality is Life in the Universe is eternal and runs in infinite number of limited cycles, with each cycle runs with multiple concurrent and disconnected worlds. What is really of limited duration with beginnings and ends are the life in these cycles and not the Life in the Universe. Earth is just a particle of Universal dust; and its existence, life and its divine messages are of no Universal significance at all. God, the Religion, and the Universe existed and will remain forever

Meluhha is Port in Yemen not in the Indus Valley


Meluḫḫa or Melukhkha is the Sumerian name of a prominent trading partner of Sumer during the Middle Bronze Age. Its identification remains an open question, but most scholars associate it with the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). They for a very long time ignored the reasonable possibility suggesting it is in Punt Lands. The discovery of the real Meluhha will ruin the Biblical myth that Sheba was in Yemen not in Tigray Region

Asko Parpola identifies Proto-Dravidians with IVC and the Meluhha people mentioned in Sumerian records. According to him, the word “Meluhha” derives from the Dravidian words mel-akam (“highland country”). It is possible that IVC people exported sesame oil to Mesopotamia, where it was known as ilu in Sumerian and eḷḷu in Akkadian. One theory is that these words derive from the South Dravidian 1 name for sesame (eḷḷ or eḷḷu). However, Michael Witzel, who associates IVC with the ancestors of Munda speakers, suggests an alternative etymology from the para-Munda word for wild sesame: jar-tila. Munda is an Austroasiatic language, and forms a substratum (including loanwords) in Dravidian languages. Asko Parpola relates Meluhha with Mleccha who were considered non-Vedic “barbarians” in Vedic Sanskrit.

Sumerian texts repeatedly refer to three important centers with which they traded: Magan, Dilmun, and Meluhha. The Sumerian location of Magan is now accepted to be the area currently encompassing the United Arab Emirates and Oman. Dilmun was a Persian Gulf civilization which traded with Mesopotamian civilizations, the current scholarly consensus is that Dilmun encompassed Bahrain, Failaka Island and the adjacent coast of Eastern Arabia in the Persian Gulf. But, actually Magan is Makkan which is Makkah.

In an inscription, Sargon of Akkad (2334-2279 BCE) referred to ships coming from Meluhha, Magan and Dilmun. His grandson Naram-Sin (2254-2218 BC) listing the rebel kings to his rule, mentioned “(..)ibra, man of Melukha”. In an inscription, Gudea of Lagash (21st century BC) referred to the Meluhhans who came to Sumer to sell gold dust, carnelian etc.. In the Gudea cylinders (inscription of cylinder A, IX:19), Gudea mentions that “I will spread in the world respect for my Temple, under my name the whole universe will gather in it, and Magan and Meluhha will come down from their mountains to attend”. In cylinder B, XIV, he mentions his procurement of “blocks of lapis lazuli and bright carnelian from Meluhha.” There are no known mentions of Meluhha after 1760 BC.

Meluhha is also mentioned in mythological legends such as “Enki and Ninhursaga”: “May the foreign land of Meluhha load precious desirable cornelian, perfect mes wood and beautiful aba wood into large ships for you”— Enki and Ninhursaga

In one of his inscriptions, Ibbi-Sin mentions that he received as a booty from Marḫaši a Meluhha red dog: “Ibbi-Sîn, the god of his country, the mighty king, king of Ur and king of the four world quarters, his speckled Meluḫḫa ‘dog’, from Marḫaši brought by them as tribute, a replica of it he fashioned, and for his life he dedicated it to him (Nanna).” — Meluhha dog inscription of Inni-Sin.

The qualifier used to describe the dog can be read either dar “red” as an adjective, or gun3 “speckled” as an intransitive verb, and interpretations vary based on these two possible meanings. It is thought that this “red dog” could be a dhole, also called “Asiatic red dog”, a type of red-colored dog native to southern and eastern Asia. The Ethiopian wolf (also called the red jackal) is another candidate, it supports the theory that Meluhha is to be found either in Africa, somewhere near Egypt.

Various figurines of exotic animals in gold or carnelian are thought to have been imported from Meluhha. Many such statuettes have been found in Mesopotamian excavations. The carnelian statuette of an Asian monkey was found in the excavation of the Acropolis of Susa, and dated to circa 2340 – 2100 BC. It is thought that it may have been imported from India. It is now in the Louvre Museum, reference Sb5884.

Towards the end of the Sumerian period, there are numerous mentions in inscriptions of a Meluhha settlement in southern Sumer near the city-state of Girsu. Most of the references seem to date to the Akkadian Empire and especially the Ur III period. The location of the settlement has been tentatively identified with the city of Guabba. The references to “large boats” in Guabba suggests that it may have functioned as a trading colony which initially had direct contact with Meluhha.

It seems that direct trade with Meluhha subsided during the Ur III period, and was replaced by trade with Dilmun, possibly corresponding to the end of urban systems in the Indus Valley around that time.

According to some accounts of the Akkadian Empire ruler Rimush, he fought against the troops of Meluhha, in the area of Elam: “Rimuš, the king of the world, in battle over Abalgamash, king of Parahshum, was victorious. And Zahara and Elam and Gupin and Meluḫḫa within Paraḫšum assembled for battle, but he (Rimush) was victorious and struck down 16,212 men and took 4,216 captives. Further, he captured Ehmahsini, King of Elam, and all the nobles of Elam. Further he captured Sidaga’u the general of Paraḫšum and Sargapi, general of Zahara, in between the cities of Awan and Susa, by the “Middle River”. Further a burial mound at the site of the town he heaped up over them. Furthermore, the foundations of Paraḫšum from the country of Elam he tore out, and so Rimuš, king of the world, rules Elam, (as) the god Enlil had shown…” — Inscription of Rimush. Gudea too, in one of his inscriptions, mentioned his victory over the territories of Magan, Meluhha, Elam and Amurru.

Identification with the Indus Valley. Most scholars suggest that Meluhha was the Sumerian name for the IVC. Finnish scholars Asko and Simo Parpola identify Meluhha (earlier variant Me-lah-ha) from earlier Sumerian documents with Dravidian mel akam “high abode” or “high country”. Many items of trade such as wood, minerals, and gemstones were indeed extracted from the hilly regions near the Indus settlements. They further claim that Meluhha is the origin of the Sanskrit mleccha, meaning “barbarian, foreigner”.

Texts of 2200 BC indicate that Meluhha is to the east, suggesting either the Indus valley or India. However, other texts documenting the exploits of King Assurbanipal (668–627 BC), long after the IVC had ceased to exist, seem to imply that Meluhha is to be found either in Africa or Arabia, somewhere near Egypt. Clearly, many scholars are using false reasoning to protect Jewish Biblical myths and hide the location of real Israel

Meluhha also appears in these texts, in contexts suggesting that “Meluhha” and “Magan” were kingdoms adjacent to Egypt. In the Rassam cylinder, Ashurbanipal writes about his first march against Egypt: “In my first campaign I marched against Egypt (Magan) and Ethiopia (Meluhha), and Taharqa, king of Egypt (Muṣur) and Nubia (Kûsu), whom Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, the father who begot me, had defeated, and whose land he brought under his sway.” In this context, “Magan” has been interpreted as “Muṣur” (ancient name of Egypt) and “Meluhha” as “Meroe” (capital of Nubia). Meluhha was mentioned by Ashurbanipal in the Rassam cylinder in 643 BC, as a territory associated with Egypt, probably Meroe (column 1 line 52)

In the Hellenistic period, the term was used archaically to refer to Ptolemaic Egypt, as in an account of a festival celebrating the conclusion of the Sixth Syrian War, or in reference to the campaigns of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Egypt (“Antiochus the King marched triumphantly through the cities of Meluhha”).

Very useful to find Sargonic scripture stating that Meluhha is 240 marching hours from Mari in Sumer. My suggestion it is the Yemeni port of Luhhayah (me- Luhha) is very strong. For Magan it could be (Makkan) which is the current Makkah. Melluha also means black land or land of blacks

After the sack of Ur by the Elamites and subsequent invasions in Sumer, its trade and contacts shifted west and Meluhha passed almost into mythological memory.

I am sure that my discovery of the place of Meluhha is correct and a very significant breakthrough in history

One very note is that probably the Akkadians, who are in fact Turkic Mongolian bandits just like Persians who colonized Iran, used the term Meluhha to point to blacks or slaves. This indicates that calling a place in Sumer Meluhha means slaves’ camp The true history of Arabs, Punt Lands, Iran, Sumer, Ugarit, Egypt and Yemen were deliberately obliterated and twisted by Turkic Mongolian bandits and their Amorite partners. I strongly believe the Hyksos who caused the Second Collapse Period in Kmt were alliance of expelled Akkadians on horse-back together with Amorites infantry who caused the First Collapse Period in Kmt

The alliance of East and West Asian bandits of Turkic Mongolian and the Amorites from the Levant, have been hostile to the Arabs and the Tigrayans since the time of King Solomon and their colony D’mt in 1000 BC. Now they are fighting and destroying the Arabs and the Tigrayans at the hands of the Houthis and the elites of Amhara, Tigrinya and Oromo. This aggression can be stopped by establishing counter alliance between the Yemeni Arabs and the Saudis with Tigray. The coalition can liberate Yemen and then liberate Ethiopia and Eritrea by working together. Read the true history of a Meluhha and Magan civilization in 2500 BC in Yemen and Mecca, when the Arabs and the Tigrayans were powerful and prosperous brothers and allies. Tigrayans, Yemen and Saudi Arabia must not miss this wonderful opportunity to restore the freedom, development and security of their people

Patriots and Arabs Must Support Saudi Kingdom’s Efforts to Liberate Yemen from Houthis


The people of south, east and west Yemen are the only Arabs and they are the only Yemenis. And the Houthis are neither Arabs, nor Yemenis, nor believers in Muhammad’s message

Yemeni unity means the occupation and expansion of Sabaean foreign bandits of Turk, Persians, Jews, and Amorite Bedouins, and their seizure of power and land.

The Sabeans occupy the Yemenis and plunder the Arabs, the original and owners of the country and their ancient kingdoms on the western and southern coasts for 3500 years.

The Yemeni Arabs are the brothers of the Saudis. Yemen is the eastern side of the Punt Lands, and they are brothers and relatives of the Beja, Tigray, Afar and Somali

ضرورة دعم الوطنيين والعرب لجهود المملكة السعودية لتحرير اليمن من الحوثيين

شعب جنوب وشرق وغرب اليمن هم فقط العرب وهم فقط اليمنيين. والحوثيين ليسوا عرب ولا يمنيين ولا مؤمنيين برسالة محمد

والوحدة اليمنية تعني إحتلال وتوسع عصابات سبئين أجانب ترك وفرس ويهود وعموريين أعراب وإستيلائهم علي السلطة والأرض

والسبئيين محتلين لليمنيين وينهبوا العرب أصل واصحاب البلد وممالكهم القديمة علي السواحل الغربية والجنوبية منذ 3500 سنة

واليمنيين العرب هم أشقاء السعوديين. واليمن هو الجانب الشرقي لبلاد بونت السمراء وهم أشقاء وأقرباء البجا والتجراي والعفر والصومال

Ancient Relations between Fulani, Jews, Turks, Bedouins and Berbers


The Fulani are only tool and associates of the Jews, Bedouins, Turks and Berbers in West and East Africa. And the gangs of West Africa are called Sudanese, while all the indigenous peoples in all regions of the southern Nile Valley are never Sudanese. The Fulani were named Sudanese by Muhammad Ali the Turkic Albanian, who brought them from West Africa in 1820 to hunt slaves, plunder and occupy

Among the most dangerous policies and practices of the Fulani in the colony of Sudan and Africa since the Funj 1500 AD, the Turkish 1820 AD and Mahdiya 1884 AD are promoted the following:

  1. Confusing the Arabs with the Bedouins and claiming that the Arabs and not the Bedouins are in conflict with the Africans and claiming that the Jews are among the children of Israel
  2. The claim that the rulers of the Fur, the Baggara, the Ja’alyeen and the Bani Amer are Arabs and Ashraf, while they are Fulani, Amorite Bedouins, Berbers and Turks
  3. The claim that the blacks of them represent the free patriotic Africans and that they are the owners of a homeland in all countries while they are aggressors against all the nationalities and peoples of West and East Africa
  4. Covering up and participating in the crimes of ancient and modern slavery in which they participated strongly and benefited from it along with the Turks, Jews, Bedouins and Berbers
  5. A claim that their strange spread in Africa is motivated by the spread of religion, preaching, jihad and pilgrimage, while it is for conquest, slavery and looting
  6. A claim that faith in the Muhammadian message is incompatible with defending the nation against religious invaders and their falsification of messages and religion
  7. Using Islamist Bedouin activities as an Arab-Islamic identity against patriotism and originality
  8. Proliferation, infiltration and the seizure of power under several names and within many nationalities to conceal their existence and activity
  9. The use of forgery and corruption of religion, history, identity, violence, terrorism, deception, religious, political, academic and media fraud
  10. Their long-standing continuous cooperation with Jews, Turks, Bedouins, and Berbers against all local nationalities and peoples of the region, religion and history.

American Negroes are from the same formation and history of the Black Fulani and Sudan in the south of the Nile Valley, since the emergence of the Funj, Fur Kira, Turkish, Mahdiya, Condominium, Sudanization, Inqaz and Janjaweed.

West African gangs were enslaved and used by the Turks, Bedouins, Jews and Berbers, and shipped to their colonies in the Americas as soon as the Jews, Bedouins and Turks were expelled from Spain and Portugal, which was called Andalusia in 1492 AD. And the Turks, Jews and Bedouins used them in cotton plantations and crime in the Americas, just as they used them in the provinces of the southern Nile Valley since the Funj, the Turkish, the Mahdiya, and the Condominium

The Hyksos used the West African Fulani gangs to destroy the state of the kingdoms of the Kerma civilization in 1000 BC and establish the colony of Kush in 785 BC. They also used them for plunder, slavery, the conquest and occupation of Kmt (ancient Egypt), participation in the Hebrews’ war against the Sumerian Assyrians, the conquest of the Levant, and the Turkic-Mongolian Akkadian support for the invention of the Jews during the 25th dynasty

Turkic Mongolian Bandits in the Middle East, North and West Africa


Here is a map of Turkic Mongolian invasions and resulting bandit groups from 2400 BC until the appearance of the Jews in 580 BC

Certainly, Turkic Mongolian bandits from the Altai Mountains in western Mongolia, eastern Kazakhstan and northern Uyghurs have made intense invasions westward to Africa.

This is beside two other axes, the first to the Sarasvati River (Sindh) with Iran and the other to Eastern Europe with the Caucasus and Anatolia.

This resulted in the emergence of several gangs of their own making, including:

1- The Hurrians

2- The Akkadians

3- Hyksos

4- Libyans

5- Fulani

6- Kordofan

7- Kush

8- Arameans

9- The Kassites

10- The Jews

11- The Sabeans

12- D’mt (Eritrea)

This is in addition to the permanent Turkic Mongolian partners who are the Amorites who participated with the Turkic Mongolians in making the Bedouins (the enemies of ancient Arabs who are closer to the Abyssinians in features, culture, history and lineage).

The Bedouins are much related to the Jews who actually a later invention of the Hyksos who first became the Mitanni and the Kassites in Subar and Sumer. From this mix appeared the Hebrew. The origin of the Hyksos goes back to the Akkadians and the Turkic Mongolians.

In fact, the ancient Arabs, and the Arabic Language, were extensions of the peoples of Punt (the Horn of Africa). Also, from the peoples of Punt came the true Israelites, who were Ge’ez speaking Africans and totally different from the Jews who are East Asiatic.

Relationships between Amorites and Hyksos with the Invention of Jews


These are some brief conclusions I reached from analyzing the history of the Arabian Peninsula and the Fertile Crescent. Wishing to discuss them in a calm and objective manner.

The Amorites are the Bedouins and they are not Arabs, but they learned Arabic after their conquest of southern and western Arabia and the transition and connection between the north and south of the Arabian Peninsula.

The Ugarites are neither Amorites, nor Bedouins, Sumerian, or Assyrians. They had a distinct civilization, but the Amorites overthrew it and formed among them the Mitanni and the Arameans.

The Kassites appeared and disappeared suddenly and did not leave a trace in Babylon because they were of the Bedouin Amorites, but they returned to form a colony in Babylonia after they brought down the Assyrians

Turkicmongolians were gangs of male horse raiders who came from East Asia and allied with the Amorites first as displaced groups and then as infantry mercenaries to penetrate the four directions

Turkicmongolian horsemen, along with Amorite foot soldiers, went west and invaded northern Kmt; and together they formed the Hyksos

Turkicmongolian horsemen, along with Amorite foot soldiers, went south and invaded southern and western Arabia; so they formed the Sabaeans.

Turkicmongolian horsemen, along with Amorite foot soldiers, went east and invaded the Akkadians; so they formed the Babylonian Kassites

Turkicmongolian horsemen, along with Amorite foot soldiers, went north and invaded the Ugarites in, so they formed the Arameans. And then with the Hyksos after their expulsion from Kmt in 1523 BC they formed the Mittani.

Kmtian, Assyrian, and Ugaritic monuments, and before them the Sumerian, assert that the Arabs, the Hebrews, the Jews, the Israelites, the stories of al-Tanakh, the Arabic language, and the Hebrew language, all these did not exist in the north of the Arabian Peninsula and the fertile crescent before 580 BC. Archaeology does not deny that the Arabs and the Arabic language were confined to their ancient original homeland in the southern and western coasts only.

For example, the victory inscription of the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire “Aššur-aḫa-iddina” (Esarhaddon) of 671 BC does not mention any presence of Arabs, Jews, Hebrew, or Israelites, in any of realm of his empire. Likewise, the monuments of the 24th and 26th dynasties of Kmt show no indication of Arabs, Jews or Israelites in the regions of eastern to Kmt.

Jews, Judaism, Hebrew, and Tanakh, known as the Hebrew Torah, were inventions that occurred in 580 BC in Babylon, by an alliance made up of Turkicmongolian expelled Hyksos, who overthrew the Assyrians and occupied Babylon with their Amorite Bedouin mercenary partners, and Arameans; in addition to a small group from the Ethiopian tribe of Judah.

The group of Judah is the one that provided them with the stories of Abraham, the Israelites, Solomon, the Message of Moses, and the characters before them, as a material reformulated in the Tanakh to claim historic and religious right in the lands of Canaan; and the presence of the land of Israel and Beit-ha-Maqdash (the Holy House i.e. the Temple of Solomon) in it; as well as a claim that the Jews are Israelite, and that the Israelites had been exiled for 430 years in Kmt.

There is no doubt that Syria and Lebanon are subject to dispute and conflict between the Canaanite Ugandan civilization and the nomadic Amorite Bedouin since about three thousand five hundred years ago. This is precisely what is trying to impose nomadic Amorite Bedouin culture in the name of Arabism, the Arabic language, Bedouin Islam contradictory to and different from the Message of Muhammed to Arabs; as well as imposing Roman and Aramean Christianity, which is contradictory to and different from the Messages of Jesus and Moses to Ethiopians.

The subject here is about gangs that were the first to use the horse to invade in the 1800’s and destroyed the Scythian civilizations and the Saraswati (Sind) civilization, the Iranians and the Sumerians, and they were called the Bedouin empires, but it is wrong to call them a Bedouin civilization.

Turkicmongolians is a term that I had to make because there is no equivalent term to describe these gangs, from which other gangs emerged that invaded Sumer, the Ugarites, the Kmt, the Arabs, the Hittites, North Africa, Kerma and Punt.

The Sabaeans were made as a result of invasions and colonization by the Bedouin Amorites from the Syrian deserts. They were not Arabs at all, and genuine Arabs were their victims. Bedouin Amorites were the ones who invented false Arab genealogy with concepts of Al-Arab al-Ba’ida, “The Extinct Arabs” for the ancient Arabs.

Sabaeans claim the original pure Arabs, “Al-Arab al-Ariba”, i.e. Qahtani Arabs, for themselves in Yemen; and the Arabized Adnanites Arabs, for the tribes along the Western coast of Arabia, Northern Arabia and Iraq. Arabized Arabs were actually Qedarites which was a largely nomadic Amorite tribal confederation, not much different from the Qahtani colonizers of Arabs in Yemen.

Sabaean mythology identified Qahtan with the Yoqtan (Joktan) son of Eber (Hūd) in the Hebrew Bible. According to Amorite Bedouin claims, the Qahtanites are pure Arabs, unlike the Adnanites who are “Arabized Arabs”.

In many ways the Hyksos created the Jews; and the Bedouin Amorites created the Sabaeans, and together the Jews and Sabaeans colonized and stole the identities and history of Ethiopian Israelites and their neighbors the ancient Arabs.

Just compare these two maps to discover how much deception survived 2600 years.
My Punt-Lands Hypothesis of the interpretation of the Mosaic Torah and the history of the Children of Israel

Compare Punt-Lands Hypothesis with what the academic, religious and media institutions offer. They mention the history of the Hyksos, of whom the Jews appeared after 950 years, and affixed it to the Children of Israel who had nothing to do with the Jews. And the world believed this naive lie for 2,600 years.

Earliest Signs of Eritrea Departing Punt


Fattovich found three distinct ceramic traditions in a part of Punt

Fattovich found three distinct ceramic traditions in a part of Punt

It came to my understanding as an idea and now a hypothesis that the Arabian Peninsula and Punt Land came under very strong Turkic Mongolian settlements and slavery since 1600 BC and became well-established around 1000 BC. This was part of a very wide Turkic Mongolian raids and expansions.

This transformation is what resulted, among other disasters, in the downfall and disappearance of ancient Arabs, Punt, and Kerma. It also led, with the involvement of Persians (who are also of Turkic Mongolian colonization of Iran) to the replacement of the genuine religious Law of Moses with a political Turkic Judaism in 530 BC.

The initial settlements in the Red Sea region created Saba’a of Yemen (which is totally different and centuries later from Sheba of Punt Land) and also D’mt. These two Turkic regimes assisted in the formation of Kush in Kerma (ancient Nubia) and all of them were slavery and gold based businesses.

The disintegration of Punt separated the Beja and formed secessionist identities which formed, with later Ottoman role, the present states.

The introduction of horses as military weapon; FGM; homosexuality; face and body tattoos; and the symbols of Moon, Sun, bull head, and cross of Tengrism are among the most common features of Turkic Mongolian settlements and they could be used to identify them.

I support my hypothesis with the following argument:

Excerpts from “Reconsidering Yeha, c. 800–400 BC”

Here are excerpts from an article, by late Professor Rodolfo Fattovich (Trieste 1945 – Rome March 23, 2018) in African Archaeological Review · December 2009. Published online: 28 January 2010
by Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

[Abstract

Yeha, in Tigray, is the most impressive site with evidence for South Arabian influence dating to the first millennium BC in the northern Horn of Africa (Eritrea and northern Ethiopia). The evidence from this site was used to identify a ‘Pre-Aksumite’ or ‘Ethiopian-Sabean’ Period (mid-first millennium BC) when an
early Afro-Arabian state apparently arose in the region. A ‘Pre-Aksumite Culture’, characterised by South Arabian elements, was also suggested as a distinctive archaeological culture in northern Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, recent fieldwork in these countries suggests that a Pre-Aksumite culture actually did not exist and South Arabian features were restricted to a few sites, which were scattered in a mosaic of
different archaeological cultures in the first millennium BC. This hypothesis is tested through a comparison between the ceramics from Yeha and those from Matara and other sites of the first millennium BC in Tigray and Eritrea.]

[General Remarks

The archaeological evidence I have tentatively reviewed in the previous pages suggests the following:
First, indigenous sedentary people with at least three distinct ceramic traditions occupied central Tigray (Yeha I, Sefra Abun, Sefra Turkui and Aksum region), Agame and Akkele Guzay (Gulo Makeda, Sobea and Matara VIII–V) and Hamasien (‘Ancient Ona’), respectively, in the early first millennium BC. Cattle herders were also moving at the margins and across these regions at this time, and most likely contributed to the development in an exchange network among them, and between the communities on the highlands and those in the lowlands and coastal regions (see Finneran 2007: 92–8).

The culture historical meaning of these three main ceramic traditions is still unknown. They might represent either three variants in pottery manufacture by the same people with a common subsistence economy and settlement pattern (and perhaps language) or three separate populations (see also Curtis 2009). The ‘Ancient Ona Culture’ in the Greater Asmara region (Hamasien) might be ascribed to a separate population as this culture is characterised by some specific features, such as ritual stone bulls heads, which do not occur in the other regions (Schmidt 2009).

Moreover, an alignment of six collapsed monoliths with roughly rectangular crosssections at Keskese might suggest that this was an important ceremonial centre in the early first millennium BC, and may point to the emergence of a hierarchical society in Akkele Guzay at this time. These monoliths are in neither a South Arabian nor Aksumite style and may thus be ascribed to a local tradition (see also Curtis and Habtemichael 2008: 321–3).

The way the populations living in these three main regions interacted with each other is uncertain as well. At present, there is no sure evidence of any interaction between the populations living in Eritrea and Tigray in the early first millennium BC. A few fragments of red-orange coarse ware like that of Yeha I in central Tigray have been collected on the surface at Keskese in Akkele Guzay and might suggest some contacts between these regions (Fattovich 1980: 35), but this evidence is much too scarce to be conclusive. Red-orange coarse ware like that of central Tigray was also collected in sites of the lowlands near Kassala, and may suggest contacts between these regions in the early first millennium BC.

The occurrence of the same types of vessels at Matara (IV–III), Gulo Makeda, Yeha (Yeha II), Hawlti and Kidane Mehret suggests that a common ceramic tradition spread over Akkele Guzay, Agame and central Tigray in the mid-first millennium BC (Fattovich 1980: 50–4). This might indicate greater interaction between the populations inhabiting these regions, through either massive circulation of ceramics
within a more intense exchange network or movement of female potters in both directions as a consequence of marriages. Black-topped polished ware was a major component of the ceramics, suggesting a possible origin of this tradition in Akklele Guzay and Agame rather than in central Tigray, where red-orange ware most likely disappeared.

The ‘Ancient Ona’ people in Hamasien indisputably maintained their ceramic tradition (and thus perhaps a specific cultural identity) at this time. The occurrence of jars in the style of the ‘Ancient Ona Culture’ at sites in Akkele Guzay and central Tigray, as well as a geometric bronze filigree seal comparable to specimens from Yeha II, Hawlti and Sobea at Mai Chiot may point to some contacts with the regions
to south and east of Asmara (Schmidt et al. 2008: Fig. 6.42; Leclant and Miquel 1959: Pl. LVIII; de Contenson 1963b: Pls. XLII b, LIII a; Anfray 1963a: Pls. CLII hk, CLIV e-h). Moreover, a few fragments of storage jars from Sembel (Tringali 1978: Fig. 24c), which are similar to those of the Jebel Mokram group in the western Eritrean-Sudanese lowlands, as well as fragments of Ona jars from sites near Agordat (Brandt et al. 2008), and Ona-like small stone and clay bulls’ heads from Sabir near Aden (Buffa and Vogt 2001: fig. 3.3) may suggest contacts both with the western lowlands in Eritrea and Sudan and with the coastal regions of Yemen.

Finally on this point, the occurrence of different ceramics at Yeha III and the late ‘Pre-Aksumite’/early Aksumite (according to Anfray’s chronological sequence; Anfray 1967) occupation at Matara may suggest the re-emergence of two separate ceramic traditions in central Tigray and Akkele Guzay in the late first millennium BC.

Second, so far, ceramics in a South Arabian style occur only in sites of central Tigray, Agame and Akkele Guzay, and form a minor (almost insignificant) component of the pottery assemblages at these sites (Fattovich 1980). These ceramics thus do not support the presence of any consistent South Arabian community on the Ethiopian/Eritrean highlands in the first millennium BC. Most of them may also be local imitations of South Arabian prototypes, such as bowls with a ring-foot and possibly the so-called ‘amphorae’ (see Phillipson 2009).

In any case, these pots may suggest that both the people of central Tigray and those of Agame and Akkele Guzay had some contacts with the populations of southwestern Arabia beginning in the early first millennium BC. Ceramics in a South Arabian style occur in the earliest strata at Yeha (Yeha I), where they may be contemporary to the construction of a small temple probably in a South Arabian (Hadramawt?) style in the eighth century BC (Robin and de Maigret 1998; see also Manzo 2009). A few fragments of big jars similar in the style to those from Sabir (Aden) were collected in the lower strata at Matara (Anfray 1966; Fattovich 1980: 76, 84), and may point to contacts with the coastal regions of Yemen in the early first millennium BC. These contacts are also supported by rock inscriptions in the region of Qohaito recording the names of individuals (not ‘tribes’ or colonists) who penetrated from South Arabia into central Eritrea as early as the ninth or eighth centuries BC (Ricci 1994). So far, however, there is no archaeological evidence of their presence, suggesting they were completely amalgamated with the local population(s).

Bowls with a ring-foot and the so-called ‘amphorae’, which were typical of Yeha I, also occur in the ceramic assemblages of Yeha II and Matara IV–III suggesting that they were incorporated into the common ceramic tradition of central Tigray, Agame and Akkele Guzay in the mid-first millennium BC, but represent an insignificant component of this tradition (Fattovich 1980: 51–52).

Finally, these vessels completely disappear in the ceramic assemblages of Yeha III, suggesting they were no longer used in the late first millennium BC when a new (proto-Aksumite) ceramic tradition emerged in the region of Aksum (Fattovich 1990, 2004; Fattovich and Bard 2001).

Third and last, at present, only the ceramics of Yeha II and Matara IV–III, ascribable to a common tradition of central Tigray, Agame and Akkele Guzay, can be safely associated with monuments, votive altars, offering tables and inscriptions in a South Arabian style (Fattovich 1990).5 All other sculptures, inscriptions and votive altars in a South Arabian style, which are usually dated to the mid-first millennium BC on a comparison with possible prototypes in Yemen, have been recorded out of context, and thus cannot provide any firm cultural or historical information. We can tentatively assume they were associated with a few ceremonial centres scattered from central and eastern Tigray to central Eritrea (Fattovich 1990, 2004), and were possibly contemporary with the sites with ceramics similar to those of Yeha II and Matara IV–III. These artefacts suggest that a powerful elite emerged in the highlands, most likely in the mid-first millennium BC, and adopted some South Arabian symbols as a manifestation of their power (Fattovich 1990; Curtis 2008; Manzo 2009). A few votive altars with inscriptions apparently recording individuals from Yemen (Saba) may suggest that some South Arabians, maybe traders or craftsmen, were living in Tigray as well (Schneider 2003: 613).

Conclusion
An exhaustive synthesis of the cultural history and the social, economic and ideological transformations in the early- to mid-first millennium BC is still premature as most of the northern Horn of Africa is archaeologically unexplored and the collected evidence is mainly from surface surveys (see e.g., Fattovich 2005: 12–15; Curtis 2008).

The very scarce archaeological data we have may only suggest that two different ceramic traditions merged into one common tradition in the region from Aksum to Matara, and a major ceremonial centre with monumental buildings in a South Arabian style and an elite cemetery was located at Yeha in the mid-first millennium BC. Two separate ceramic traditions again emerged in the same region when Yeha
declined in the late first millennium BC (Yeha III).

This evidence might reflect the development of a hierarchical society, most likely at a state-level of complexity, which was characterised by the manufacture of similar ceramics and the use of symbols of power in a South Arabian style, in central Tigray, Agame and Akkele Guzay in the mid-first millennium BC. However, the identification of the Tigrean/Eritrean ceramic tradition of the mid-first millennium
BC with a specific polity, such as D‘MT, is questionable in the absence of a more detailed analysis of the rate of similarity between the ceramics in the single sites, which might support or reject the existence of a discrete archaeological culture, and a proper archaeological context for most buildings and artefacts in a South Arabian style in the region.]

To download the full article “Reconsidering Yeha, c. 800–400 BC” by late Professor Rodolfo Fattovich from researchgate.net click HERE

Are Arabs and Hebrews Antisemitists?


Are Arabs and Hebrews Anti-Semitists

Are Arabs and Hebrews Antisemitists?

There are simple questions but difficult to answer.

If the Arabs and the Hebrews are Semites, and sure they are, would it be right to call their unending deep animosity, hostilities and killings to each other as “Antisemitism”?

And if it is so how come?

But if not why others are labeled “Antisemitists”?

What is really “Antisemitism”? and why it is exclusive to suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews and does not include Arabs who are Semites too?

Why the World and the media have to bother too much about such distracting conflict?

Don’t we have more serious issues?

Gulf Arab States Must Be Democratized Now


Heads of States of the Gulf Cooperation Council GCC

Heads of States of the Gulf Cooperation Council GCC

The world know very well that fair, free and transparent governance is essential demand and right for all nations without exceptions. The USA, France and Britain are increasingly imposing non-peaceful and military changes to Arab states and to North and West Africa. Gulf Arab states, like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, are instrumental in the western new invasive policy of bringing freedom, justice and democracy to other Arab states like Syria, Egypt and Yemen.

These agent countries are increasingly bullying and threatening Arab governments that are considered unfriendly with NATO and western military intervention under resolutions crafted in the UN similar to what they did in Libya. They are blustering while they are rejecting reforms in their countries and protecting the most corrupt Arab regimes. This new western intrusive policy is actually not driven by the great principles freedom, justice and democracy; nor by the legitimate aspirations of the people of the targeted countries.

The West and their Gulf agents are indeed just working on regime change with the objective of appeasing and engaging Islamists and, more importantly, bringing into power regimes that shall be “business friendly” with the USA, France and Britain. The war on terrorism was an expensive fiasco so the west decided to shift to a new policy of engagement and cooperation with terrorism. Western interests are the actual objectives; and not the values and principles of freedom, justice and democracy.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates and the rest of Gulf Cooperation Council are way behind in the areas of freedom, justice and democracy. These countries are absolute monarchies and sheikhdoms where nepotism, exclusion and non-compliance with most universal declarations are the basis of their governance. Their records in human rights, labor rights, non-discrimination, non-segregation, freedom of expression, freedom of faith, government transparency, wealth control, gender, equal opportunities, civic institutions, separation of powers, elections,  rule of Law, and partisan politics are indeed very appalling; if non-existence altogether.

Ironically, the governments targeted by Gulf Arab States are by far better than them despite these governments are well below the accepted local and universal standards.

What are really needed in these Gulf Arab States are the following:
1.    Formation of elected and influential legislative parliaments;
2.    Separation of powers, legislative, executive, judiciary, and monarchy;
3.    The rule of law and equal opportunities;
4.    Guarantees and protection for political opposition;
5.    Limit the number of terms of head of state, first minister, or any public officer;
6.    Allowing peaceful demonstrations and labor strikes;
7.    Legitimize the formation of political parties;
8.    Free private press and media;
9.    Regular, free, fair and monitored elections;
10.    Draft and referendum state constitution;
11.    Regulate peaceful system for transfer of powers;
12.    Endorsing and implementing all major universal declarations;

Without implementing, or at least just starting, such essential long overdue reforms Gulf Arab States cannot and must not try to preach or act as instruments for bringing freedom, justice and democracy to any country in the world. And if they are unwilling to implement these reforms then the world must engage other countries with better records; like India, South Africa or Brazil.

The Arab League, the African Union and the UN must put the goal of democratization in the Gulf Arab states on top of their agendas and a main essential requirement for bilateral and international cooperation.

The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times


The Age of Deception by Mohamed ElBaradei

The author of this book is the Nobel Prize laureate, Egyptian law scholar and diplomat, and the former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for three successive terms from 1997 to 2009, Mohamed ElBaradei. He declined to avail his services  for a further fourth term in the IAEA; and the IAEA Board of Governors was split in its decision regarding the next director general. After several rounds of voting, on July 3, 2009, Mr. Yukiya Amano, Japanese ambassador to the IAEA, was elected as the next IAEA director general.

The following book review was written by George Perkovich, Director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and co-editor of “Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate.” The book review was posted on The Washington Post on 21 April 2011.

This book was published by Metropolitan Books (in 352 pages),
(April 26, 2011).

George Perkovich said in his review:
[Mohamed ElBaradei fought the Bush administration over the war in Iraq, blocked it from attacking Iran, and for his efforts received harassment from American hardliners and, eventually, the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, having retired from the International Atomic Energy Agency, he plans to run for president of Egypt. He has interesting stories to tell, and he tells them with verve.

Like other presidential aspirants, ElBaradei places himself in a flattering light and takes the popular side of issues voters care about. But “The Age of Deception” is more than a campaign biography: Written before the recent Egyptian upheaval, it reaches far beyond the politics of Cairo. The struggles ElBaradei waged in Iraq, North Korea, Iran and Libya to shape the international management of nuclear technology represent a central dynamic of the 21st century.

Will rule of law trump unilateralism? Can a progressive international order be built when states differ over which rules should be strengthened and how they should be enforced, and when rulers in North Korea, Burma, Syria and Iran reject norms that others respect? ElBaradei’s vivid narrative brings these and other big questions to life.

“I am totally against wars,” a 12-year-old Spanish girl named Alicia wrote to ElBaradei after he received the Nobel Prize in 2005. “I thank you very much for your efforts to try to avoid the war in Iraq. Despite the fact that your strategy, based on dialogue, was absolutely not to the liking of the USA, you knew how to stay firm and you showed that there were not nuclear weapons in Iraq, even while gaining the hate of the most powerful country.”

Alicia sums up“The Age of Deception” in many ways. ElBaradei repeatedly describes the nuclear infractions of North Korea, Iran, Libya and other nations and then insinuates that the United States should be blamed for scaring them into misbehaving or impeding him from working out fair-minded solutions with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For example: The Iranians “were busily undermining the very solution they had worked so hard to achieve,” he writes after learning in 2006 that officials of former president Mohammad Khatami’s administration planned to attack the new president Ahmadinejad politically if he agreed to a deal with Washington. “I sighed. Tehran had been spending way too much time watching D.C. politics, I thought.” And: North Korea is “isolated, impoverished, feeling deeply threatened by the United States but nonetheless defiant.”

Libya had in the 1990s secretly bought uranium enrichment equipment and a blueprint for a nuclear weapon from the infamous network of Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan. This had not been detected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but by British and American intelligence. ElBaradei was briefed before the story broke in December 2003. “I was told,” he writes, “that the genesis of the Libyan nuclear weapon program — and Gaddafi’s other WMD programs — was in retaliation for the April 1986 U.S. bombing raids during which Gaddafi’s adopted daughter, Hannah, was killed.” One is left to wonder whether he thought the Libyan terrorist attacks weeks earlier that killed Americans on TWA flight 840 and in the La Belle disco in Berlin were irrelevant, for he does not mention them. He does describe meeting Gaddafi who “spoke earnestly of his desire to develop Libya.”

Young Alicia tapped into ElBaradei’s wishful credo in another portion of her letter. “I hope that in the conflict with Iran you are luckier and that things get solved by using dialogue and not through arms,” she wrote. “And that the politicians of the USA accept the opinion of the UN.” But the world is not as nice as 12-year-old girls wish. Some states are ruled through violent repression, and even if their leaders are willing to compromise on some things, they may not accept peaceably the enforcement of international rules they violate, including resolutions of the U.N. Security Council.

Iran’s leadership is portrayed as fearful of the United States and very difficult to deal with. Still, ElBaradei insisted that Tehran would significantly constrain nuclear activities that could be used for military purposes if only Washington would take “yes” for an answer. ElBaradei makes no mention of the Iranian strategy revealed by the Khatami government’s chief negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, in a July 2005 interview. Rowhani, an urbane cleric since displaced by President Ahmadinejad, declared, “wherever we accepted suspension” of a nuclear activity, “we thought about another activity.” When Tehran suspended work on uranium enrichment at Natanz, it “put all of [its] efforts” into uranium conversion at Esfahan. This stall-and-advance, bait-and-switch approach continues today.

ElBaradei offers no insight into what can and should be done when unaccountable leaders refuse to accede to the requirements of the IAEA or the U.N. Nor does he address the possibility that despotic regimes cling to nuclear-weapons capability to protect their rule against domestic and foreign pressures for change.

The high-minded dialogue ElBaradei repeatedly calls for is not always sufficient, leaving the reader to wonder what then? Certainly, the United States should be more committed and supple in its diplomacy. Washington needs to realize that the states it fears are even more fearful of its power and judgment. But that is far from sufficient to solve the tough nuclear cases. President Obama, despite his Nobel credentials, has been unable to resolve the nuclear impasse in North Korea and Iran, or to persuade France, Russia, China, Pakistan and others to join him in moving towards a world without nuclear weapons.

ElBaradei displays an enmity toward Western nuclear-armed states that is sometimes overt and sometimes subtle, sometimes deserved and sometimes unfair. A fascinating mix of emotions and calculations seems to animate his analysis. Anyone wishing to glimpse some of the central tensions in 21st-century international diplomacy should read “The Age of Deception.”]

%d bloggers like this: