Actually, the hatred of the people of the region for colonialism is a healthy and legitimate phenomenon in itself; and does not by necessity mean hatred of all that is western or of western progress. In fact, countries with a rich heritage of civilization and history such as Egypt, Greater Syria and Iraq were able to combine a hatred of colonialism with a sincere admiration for progress, thus showing a true understanding of 'progress' as distinct from 'westernisation', and exhibiting a refined and enlightened social conscience.

The alternative would have been to indiscriminately admire both colonialism and progress as one entity, which would have been a demeaning and humiliating phenomenon that could only lead to the death of many things that we hold dear.

However, it would be a mistake to assume that all countries in the region are the same; what I said applies to societies with a history rich in culture and civilization, namely those I have mentioned and others in the Arab West (Morocco, Tunisia and Libya), and to a lesser extent, the coastal regions of the Arabian Peninsula whose geo-political situation has rendered them more open to the outside world than those situated in nomadic fashion in the interior. The harsh geo-political conditions of the latter can only give rise to a rigid, inflexible and insular tribal mentality that xenophobically refuses the "Other" (whoever this Other may be).

The history of hatred of these desert communities towards anyone who differs from them in religion or thought is common knowledge; this animosity, contrary to what some may think, is not a consequence of the Hanbali form of Islam (the Ibn Taymeya interpretation) that they embrace; rather, this rigid school that was categorically refused by the Muslim world at large could only find acceptance in this desolate region. Indeed, for more than a thousand years the ideas and edicts of Ibn Taymeya (with all their harshness, bigotry and hatred of non-Muslims) found no adherents in Egypt, Syria and the Arab West, for how could the descendants of such highly evolved civilizations accept isolation from the rest of humankind?

Mohamed Ibn Abdel Wahab had laid down the broad outlines of his call (I shall not call it a school of jurisprudence, for the man was simply a missionary, not a theologian) by 1798, a year which witnessed the first confrontation with the West in modern times, namely Napoleon's campaign into Egypt.

The first years of the fledgling Saudi state (soundly crushed by Ibrahim Pasha in 1818), and the second Saudi state (which came to an end in 1891) were marked by an obdurate rejection of modernity and of all signs of modern civilization, combined with hatred of non-Muslims and indeed of all Muslims who did not follow the same tenets. The Egyptian or Syrian Muslim who saw nothing wrong in singing, for example, was considered by the first and second Saudi states to be no better than an infidel. And when the Brotherhood (the Brotherhood of Najd) fought against King Abdel Aziz for allowing the signs of modern civilization such as radio and the motor-car into the Kingdom, as well as permitting foreigners into the Arabian Peninsula (bearing in mind that this was during the twentieth century), they were simply giving vent to the archaic tenets and beliefs of a system of jurisprudence that had no place in modern times, and could have survived nowhere except in a terrain of this kind whose geographic features imposed its isolation.

The ideas of the Wahabi school are typical of a superstructure (thought) born of a specific infrastructure (the geo-political and economic features of the Najd desert), and adherents to this school cannot conceive that no other place on earth would have put up with such beliefs. They are living proof of the truth of Marx's conclusion, derived from the theories of both Feuerbach and Hegel, that there is a definite link between the ideas and beliefs of a community and the infrastructure (geographical and economical) in which it lives.

In my hands at this moment is a Saudi edict stating that purchasing flowers to send to a sick person is "haram' - sinful - because it is a custom that has come to us from the "infidel countries". This is just one example, and might seem to some to be trivial but is not, because it discloses a mentality that blindly rejects anything that comes from outside its own narrow confines. It also reveals the laughable contradictions inherent in this type of thought: sending flowers is declared a sin because "it did not form part of the Islamic way over the centuries"! As if travelling by plane or car or using a computer - or indeed, using the sophisticated modern weapons that these people use against their so-called enemies - were part of the "Islamic way over the centuries"!

Any Muslim (outside the insular world of Ibn Taymeya) would feel nothing but revulsion for the mentality that could spew forth this type of ruling - edict No. 21409 dated 29/03/1492 (the Hijra year according to the Muslim calendar) - and comprising terms such as, "this is but a custom that has come to us from the Infidel Countries and has been adopted by those of weak faith who have fallen under their influence..."

A mindset that fights flowers, the symbol of beauty, goodness, friendship, innocence and love across all cultures. Flowers, the names of which in many languages denote a host of beautiful, uplifting meanings. Only the narrow-minded mentality of these nomadic tribes could wish to turn us into a culture of flower-haters!

If this is the way these people view non-Muslims, it is no wonder that from time to time they should churn out warped individuals who indiscriminately open fire on the signs of modern civilization and on foreigners ("infidels") who are "desecrating" the soil of the Arabian Peninsula (using weapons made by the said infidels!)

To conclude, I can only repeat that a hatred of colonialism is a normal, healthy and positive phenomenon; any alternative would be shameful and demeaning. However, those countries in the region secure in a long history of civilization have no aversion to modernization and progress and certainly no hatred of foreigners; they simply do not want progress to become the equivalent of "westernisation", and rightly so; it is a positive stance that indicates both dignity and wisdom.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that the followers of a certain sect do indeed unequivocally hate anything outside their own narrow world. Mohamed Aly (the founder of modern Egypt) sent an army led by his son to the Arabian Peninsula to fight these fanatics, and in 1818, their leader was brought back to Egypt, tried, and executed. In the 1920s, the founder of the third Saudi dynasty took up arms against them as a result of their psychopathic obsession with fighting any signs of modern civilized life.

What is needed today is for modern, enlightened Saudis to realize that their problem lies primarily in addressing a distorted mindset that has no place in today's world - or indeed in any place or time. It is not fitting that they should have to live with the kind of edict that prohibits a woman from driving a car - and that is just one example.

I am not aware that there is any Koranic text that impedes Saudi Arabia from forming a new entity for jurisprudence that could select as its source far more enlightened and civilized schools than those of Ibn Taymeya and Ibn Hanbal. To compare the value of the said Ibn Taymeya with learned men of distinction such as Ibn Hanifa or Averoess would be equivalent to comparing a camel as a means of transport with a Rolls Royce...!

This, in brief, was a general outline of the words spoken by me before a gathering of distinguished men and women of learning at one of the most prominent American universities in the North East of USA.

For more of Tarek Heggy's writtings in English, please visit www.t-heggy-site-contents.org and for Tarek Heggy's writings in French please visit www.metransparent.com/authors/french/tarek_heggy.htm.