The tāghūt ‘Abdullāh of Jordan raises the jāhilī flag of his great-great-grandfather
“Sharīf” al-Husayn in al-’Aqabah where the crusader T.E. Lawrence first planted it.
Al-Husayn’s family quickly lost Syria to the French
(one of their former allies), Iraq to other more
“ideological” Arab nationalists, and Hijāz to the
apostates favored by the British, ‘Abdul-‘Azīz Ibn
Sa’ūd and his sons. The British realized ‘Abdul‘Azīz and his sons could not and would never call
for further expansion of their kingdom outside
of their crusader designated territory under the
claim of a “caliphate,” contrary to al-Husayn
and his sons who – due to their Qurashī lineage
– had entertained the idea of a “caliphate,” albeit
a nationalist one built by crusaders. The British
thereby betrayed the nationalist “caliphate” they
themselves had once supported.
The various apostate puppet regimes set up by the
crusaders after the colonial era all have modified
versions of the first flag designed by Mark Sykes,
sometimes using three of the four original colors.
The “Arab Revolt” flag was the father of flags that
today represent different Arab nationalist states
including Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait,
Libya, Sudan, Syria (both regime and revolution),
United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Palestine,
various Arab nationalist movements in regions of
Somalia, Morocco, Mali, and Iran, as well as the
apostate Ba’th party and its apostate Naqshabandī
“army.”
22 HISTORY
These jāhilī flags essentially represent the crusaders,
their apostate agents, Arab nationalism, and the
puppet tawāghīt loyal to the crusaders.
This brief history should spell out a number of
lessons:
1) The crusaders do not have a problem with
flattering their allies by propagating “Islamic”
symbolism or allowing their allies to do so, as long
as it is tainted with some nationalism.
2) The crusaders rely upon the strategy of “divide
and conquer.” They break up Muslims’ lands
through nationalism, partisanship, and other
forms of jāhiliyyah. They might even support the
supposedly “more Islamic” party against the more
secularist parties, if they feel the latter are not capable
of preserving their interests in the region, like they
supported the false “Salafī” ‘Abdul-‘Azīz against
the Sūfī al-Husayn. And this is what is expected in
Shām. As the Free Syrian Army has failed to secure
any Western interests whereas the “Islamic” Front
has succeeded, the “Islamic” Front will most likely
win the greater favor of the crusaders through their
Gulf and Turkish mediators.
3) The crusaders do not have a problem in