“When asked for what sin he (the child) was slain.
everyone will know what he has prepared for himself.”
Surat al-Takvir, 9-14
This article, titled The Circle of Damnation, consists of four parts: I. General, II. Israel, III. Hamas and IV. Conclusion. For the sake of brevity, we are publishing only I. General and II. Israel in this article. In the next publication, we will present Hamas III and Conclusion IV.
I. General
In the wake of the events of the past few days, the region known as the Middle East has been thrown into turmoil for the last centuries. The first and most urgent thing that needs to be done in this chaos and turmoil, where children, women, the elderly, animals, plants and defenseless beings are suffering unimaginable pain and destruction, is to keep these beings away from these acts of destruction and to save them. This is unquestionably a priority, especially for children. No child is an essential member of the circles of destruction that the so-called adults have woven among themselves over the years. Every child born is an innocent born outside the record of these and similar circles, and a “new one” free from all worldly conditions. All of the circles of destruction of the discrete are, without exception, “old”. Moreover, by making the innocent pay the price for their internal causes, these rings of destruction have first and foremost and only attacked “innocence”. But any attack on innocence cannot have any valid basis. No ideology, no political necessity, no belief, no opinion disguised as science can justify such a crime. The actual contact of a case in the circle with an innocent person depends only on the innocent person’s actual contact with the place of origin. Otherwise, the circle and its cause is a post-hoc construct with no original connection to the innocent child born, and it has no right to attack the child born, and therefore innocence. It has no such right, nor can it consider it an essential member of its cause. Therefore, the attack on innocence and the destruction and “use” of innocence is pure treason and a pure crime of universal nature in terms of birth. Moreover, this crime and betrayal is also a massacre of peoples against their own saviors, in the sense that every born child is the true basis for legitimately changing and reforming the cultural environments they are born into. In terms of destroying their own saviors, this crime and betrayal is also sheer folly. Unadulterated treachery, unadulterated crime and unadulterated stupidity can only occur in one place at the same time: The gathering of the damned.
In this article, The Circle of Damnation, we attempt to examine the conditions for the formation of this circle of damnation from the point of view of the right of a child to be born. In this way, we want to briefly and lucidly illustrate this cursed persecution of innocence. In this article, we will confine ourselves to presenting these principles in the form of concluding propositions. It is up to the reader to go into thoroughly grounded detail and find the implicit correlations and implications. For this to be the author’s responsibility, a much longer and voluminous article would have to be written.
First of all, the following point should be made: Every child born on earth and into the culture on earth comes from a place that is external to the earth and the culture on earth. Therefore, children and other beings who live life on the basis of birth do not originally belong to the earth and its cultures. To say otherwise is contrary to the concept of “birth” and “being” based on “birth”. If it is understood that the concept of being based on birth is the basis for “change”, “existence” and the existence of the “universe” in this sense, the importance of expressing this caution in the first place can be seen immediately. This is because the universe and all that pertains to the universe cannot be removed from the register of “origin-based existence”, and therefore one cannot speak of a “universal existence” and a justification basis by ignoring “origin-based existence”.
What can be justified without existing? It is essential to constitute existence first. Existence is constituted first on the basis of birth and then on the basis of formation. Birth precedes becoming. An example of existence that comes with birth is children being born.
The existence of the universe and the culture in the universe is essentially dependent on birth and existence based on birth. Therefore, the ultimate existence of the universe and culture in the universe depends on the establishment of birth and birth-based existence. The universe and the culture in the universe, for example, the Middle East and the political conflicts in the Middle East, is a circle of existence that comes into being after its own origin, that is, after the existence based on birth. Therefore, it is impossible to take the universe and the culture in the universe as the basis of existence in general, and especially of “born being”. Therefore, when thinking or acting on beings, no one has the right to propose anything that contradicts the concept of “birth” and “being based on birth” or to rely on incomplete ideas in a way that ignores it. Without understanding this ontic framework, there is no point in talking about law, politics, faith or thought. Birth is the fundamental basis of all beings born on earth. Every child (or every being) “born” on earth is under the record of “original birth”. However, the earth and all kinds of cultures on the earth, such as the Middle East and the conflicts in the Middle East, owe their existence to the original birth, but they come into existence by entering into a circle of “formation”. The original birth is outside this circle of “formation”. In short, the universe and culture are in the circle of “formation” and every child born is in the circle of original birth. The circle of original birth is external to the circle of becoming, and the circle of becoming is dependent on the circle of birth for its existence. It is impossible to understand these points without distinguishing between birth and becoming. We have mentioned the distinction between birth and becoming, and the related distinction between the universe and the cosmos, in the article titled “The Dawah of the Jahiliyyah -II”. From there, one can understand what our approach to this issue is.
The circle of birth is outside the circle of formation. What is actually born comes from outside the universe and culture in the circle of “formation”. Therefore, every child born comes from a place external to the culture on earth, and its essential belonging depends on this external place. This is true for every identity that comes by birth. Like the Prophets, for example. Prophets are similar to born children in this respect.
This means: Born children do not belong to the earth and its cultures, their causes, interests, conflicts and other games. Rather, born children belong to the original place of birth that encompasses the earth and its cultures; their homeland is this original place and the place on earth that was formed on the basis of this original place. Those who, having lost their original birthplace, are incorporated into the cultures of the earth and base their existence on them, do not have such a homeland. In other words, they are essentially “stateless”. Like Israel, for example.
This verdict, the “statelessness verdict”, is not a verdict that can be understood, criticized and at the same time defended through narrow interpretations of politics, philosophy, theology, international relations and law, or through narrow interpretations called Middle Eastern analysis. In order to understand this verdict, it is necessary to recognize the child who is born, and to take its eye for an eye. Let’s say this much.
Secondly, let me make this point: The existence of something cannot be understood without taking the concept of “identity” as a basis. In order to understand, see and know something, it is necessary to find its “identity”. Identity is divided into two: a) essential identity, b) non-essential identity.
A fundamental identity is an identity whose formation and internal foundations depend on the original body and, in this sense, on birth. Therefore, an essential identity has a real “interior”. An identity without a real interior has an interior, but this interior is formed depending on the exterior of that identity; in this sense, it is a false interior. The main problem of identity issues is related to the concept of interior and depends on the ability to distinguish between a “false interior” and a “real interior”. An identity with a false interior is not a genuine identity. Therefore, its “internal foundations” are not legitimate and universal.
Israel’s identity lacks legitimate internal foundations. This is because its internal foundations are based on theology-based religion and other patterns of Jewish history. These, however, are not intrinsically internal. As a result, Israel has no essential interior, that is, it has no essential identity. Israel, on the other hand, bases the internal foundations of its existence on its claim to a fundamental identity. These points apply “exactly” to Hamas. The current circle of Israel and Hamas is a circle of oppression in which the insides are interlocked and the “essential entities” they encircle are plunged into unsolvable troubles. Other structures in the Middle East and external structures with influence over the region are also elements of this circle.
Let us try to open the circle by talking briefly about Israel and Hamas.
II. Israel
One of the main elements of the current circle of damnation in the region called the Middle East is the pseudo-state called Israel. The existence of this pseudo-state is based on several points. These points are;
- The theology-based religion called Judaism,
- Historical-cultural writing of Jewish identity from a chronological perspective,
- The opportunities provided by nearly two centuries of economic-political organization called Zionism,
- Land acquired through purchase and, to a large extent, occupation as well as international political manipulation,
Seeking a pseudo-legal basis for a de facto presence resulting in armed superiority over these territories, or the imposition of a de facto presence
can be briefly summarized as follows. It is sufficient to consult the relevant sources to see their elaboration. However, to encompass these points in the way we have done here, it is insufficient to consult the sources in question. For example, to understand the nature of the theology-based religion called Judaism, it is insufficient to read what is described in the literature. To understand its nature, it is necessary to look outside the record of the literature.
These points briefly summarized above should be divided into two: internal justification and external justification. In this way, the open side of the issue of being internal can be seen a little more clearly. The essence of the internal justification of Israel’s existence
- Theology-based religion,
- It is the cultural conditions under which Jewish identity writing takes place and its reflexes in a changing world.
In its external foundations,
The effects of the organization called Zionism in the context of political-economic capabilities,
Ultimately, there is the political-legal-military imposition of a de facto presence in the Middle East.
All kinds of relations with elements in the region (e.g. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran, the Palestinian Authority and others) and the utilization of the influence of elements outside the region (e.g. the United States, Britain, Soviet-era and post-Soviet Russia and the United Nations) on the region should be considered as part of this external core.
The current Israel exists because of these two aspects.
The questioning of Israel’s existence should be based on both the internal and external foundations given above. If the legitimacy of these foundations is not found along with the questioning of the internal foundations, Israel remains only an economic-political-military structure, and the interior that it constitutes for itself is nakedly under the sway of this external structure. In the case of questioning the external foundations, and in the case of questioning the externalized Israel, which, deprived of internal foundations, has an interior only according to its exterior, the legitimacy of these external foundations will be sought. If no such legitimacy can be found, then Israel will be nothing more than a structure with a “de facto” existence, which is imposed tyrannically through pseudo-legal or power supremacy.
One cannot begin to understand the Israeli issue and find a basis for dealing with it until all these points are clearly and unambiguously clarified.
Simply put, without elaborate justification, Israel is a pseudo-state without an interior, existing on the basis of imposition and tyranny.
In terms of existence on the basis of birth, no one has the right to exist through imposition and tyranny. At the same time, it is impossible to actually exist in these ways. Therefore, anyone who seeks to exist only through imposition and supremacy of power is doomed to disappear with the change of circumstances. These circumstances are, of course, fluid. Israel has no choice but to remain stable in the face of these changing conditions by building an internal foundation for itself. However, as we have said above, it is impossible to accept that Israel has a legitimate interior without questioning the theology-based religion and Jewish identity writing that is its internal foundation. If, as a result of questioning these, it is revealed that this interior is fundamentally unfounded, it will also be revealed that Israel does not constitute an interior for itself. In other words, Israel would then be found to be essentially without an interior. Israel without an interior would exist only according to external conditions. And a hollow Israel that exists according to external conditions is bound to disappear one day because of the nature of external conditions.
It should not be forgotten that the Jews were one of the first societies in history to have formed an “identity” for themselves on the basis of “tribal” and “monotheistic religion” as an “interior”. The current pseudo-state of Israel has formed Israel as an exterior face based on this interior with the contribution of two centuries of Zionism and the dirty history of the so-called superpower states. Demonstrating that this interior has nothing to do with the original interior, that is, the origin-based interior, would leave the Jews, who came to prominence through their first interior, without an interior, contrary to what they claim. If this can be done, then it can be shown, for example, that the Prophets, who were originally internal, were not Jews. In other words, it would be shown that the Jews have nothing to do with the Prophets. What remains is only a Jewish identity as far as chronological and other social and psychological writing can establish it. Since these also have nothing to do with the “inside”, the Jewish identity is now “re-presented” as “without the inside”, as opposed to the form it has presented so far. That is to say, the “inside” that it was before is found to be a fake. Thus, it becomes clear who is one of the impostors throughout history.
An identity without an interior cannot survive. In other words, in order to exist, it has to constitute an interior, that is, it has to constitute a primary identity. In this way, it can find the right to legitimately defend itself.
In fact, this situation is general. Any kind of structure comes into existence if and only if it has an original interior. In this way, it has a foundation on which it can defend itself in its original existence and on which it can continue its existence in changing conditions. Any society that lacks such an internal foundation cannot survive. Unfortunately, such an understanding does not exist in current international relations, political theories and practices, and the parameters of international law. Therefore, it is impossible to constitute a “society in principle” on the basis of existing international relations, political theories and practices, and the parameters of international law. Moreover, without the basis of an understanding similar to the one that we have put forward or have put forward for these parameters, it cannot be expected that a valid and sustainable order can be established among the societies of the earth with these parameters. In other words, international organizations, such as the United Nations, do not have the ability to produce a lasting solution, both in general and in the Middle East in particular, without taking these understandings as a basis. Even the United Nations itself has no internal structure. The foundations of the United Nations, which was established under the conditions of World Wars I and II, under the guidance of insincere structures such as the British, the Americans and the Soviets, which were only externally powerful, and within a narrow framework such as being against the Germans, are crippled in terms of not being able to encompass the nations with a universal and internal meaning. In other words, the United Nations was born crippled. None of the subsequent revisions have been capable of substantially amending this disability. The Security Council, one of the sanctioning powers of the United Nations, is no less dangerous in terms of this disability than, for example, Israel. Let us say no more in order not to prolong the subject. What we have said is not something that can be essentially understood only through political history and international law.
Demonstrating that Israel’s internal foundations cannot be foundations in the sense that they are supposed to be would fundamentally destroy Israel’s very existence. All that remains is an exterior that moves according to changing circumstances. In other words, if we destroy what is thought to be internal, Israel is destroyed from within. Destroyed from within, Israel’s external existence is dominated by external conditions.
The way to destroy Israel from within depends on awakening the “children” in Israel. That is to say, waking up those who were originally born and reminding the insular Israel, which uses them as an interior, that they are not in fact an interior, makes the destruction of Israel from within inevitable. And such destruction is not of the same nature as Israel’s destructiveness. Because Israel’s destructiveness is based on its false interior and its unstable exterior. Destruction in the sense we are talking about, on the other hand, derives its legitimacy from the “born child”, which is universal in nature. This child is, for example, the child born in Israel. The Jew, for example, is someone else who was originally born. For example, it is Moses, who was originally born as a human being, and it is the Kalām on which he is based. We will say no more.
Israel considers its Jewishness and what Jews have experienced in history to be the intrinsic basis of its existence. It asserts this foundation as an interior of a universal nature. But this is not what Israel’s interior is. Contrary to what it tries to show, Israel’s interior, contrary to what it tries to show, is the slaughter of the “original born”, which is universal in nature.
Israel, which today is slaughtering a natural born being, the “child”, was previously slaughtering another natural born being, the “Prophets”.
In the end, Israel is an illegitimate, illegitimate, identity-less, identity-less, false, tyrannical state that substitutes its own illegitimate identity as an “interior” for the ones it slaughters, that is to say, it asserts its neurotic interior, that is, itself, as having “universal grounds” by attacking those who are truly universal, but in fact it is illegitimate, interior-less, identity-less, false, tyrannical, and it is inevitable that one day it will be destroyed by those it slaughters.
That’s all for the Israel part of the Circle of Damnation for now. In the next article, we will address Part III on Hamas and Part IV on the Conclusion.
