Professor Abdullah Ibrahim analyzes the “rust of Sudanese political thought” The guest of this dialogue shortens the distances for you, hovering between "white sheets" and "black sheets", and in the meantime, he casts for you clever expressions with dense embroidered connotations, each of which is suitable to be a stand-alone title, and you are confused about making the foreground of any of them, as if they are guiding beds. Professor Abdullah Ali Ibrahim also chose amazing titles for his books, stories, and plays, such as: “If I Were from Mazen,” “The Pricking with Words,” “The Forgetting of Books,” “Abeer of Places,” “The Jarh and the Gharnouq,” and “Creative Exhaustion.” "," Overflow of Memory ", and "The Rust of Sudanese Political Thought"; During this meeting, he formulated his vital ideas for us in a sweet and abundant language, which makes reading them fun and funny, although Sudan's discourse is full of affairs and grievances. The eighty-year-old writer and historian toured us in this meeting about history, culture, and human society, as well as analyzing politics and daily events. A professor of the history of Africa and Islam at the University of Missouri, USA, does not shy away from discussing the events that he calls "daily sociology", where "every day you measure what you know about your people in terms of facts as they happen," making daily facts "rules for change." In this context, the "professional" – who has many stripes, and was part of the Communist Party – likes to compare the similarity of the political and social nature of tyrannical regimes, or what he calls "the unity of dictatorial lineage", and sees a priority in investing in education, civil and civil society, and Sufi orders from In order to complete the process of democratization, which he considers the main issue in the Arab world, to dialogue: The title is the threshold of the text, and a culture page on Al-Jazeera Net presented <a href="https://www.aljazeera.net/culture/2020/10/27/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B5-%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%B1-%D9%8A%D8%BA%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9">a window that reflects on the "addressing"</a> of Arab writers and writers as an attempt to inform the reader of some of the secrets of writing. The titles of your amazing and beautiful books caught my attention. Tell us some of the secrets of the titles. Thank you for your words of praise. In my opinion, writing is a process of accumulating formulas; You always strive to store formulas, and these formulas are like bricks in the building, and the titles come to you when you store them and settle in your awareness and you consciously make sure that you collect the formulas, so do not collect the words individually, but collect a complete formula, for example, "If you were from Mazen." In the writing profession, she singles out cards for these formulas that she writes and memorizes. And next to me now are cards in English for some forms, because you express in forms and not in single words. I do not have a technique to say about the source of the titles, but I make sure throughout what I read that I have extracts from these formulas, and I stop at them, meditate on them, and establish relationships between them. For example, in English, I take the phrase and try to find the closest phrase to it, so that the translation is not random and arbitrary. From your own culture, you find something devoid of meaning. I abbreviate and say that choosing titles is a language workshop. [embedded content] There is a problem in our country and in Sudan with interest in education. What do you think of the current reality of education? I have a philosophical question: What is the value of education that we spend on? Education did not remove ignorance from us and did not remove limitations and narrow-mindedness. As you can see, there is a problem in education that I prioritized a lot of my work in criticizing the curriculum and criticizing the basic educational structures. And in the circumstances of the prolonged civil war, the conflict was at the expense of all services, including education, so you see that spending is focused on defense and even on emergency and rapid support for the army. You called it "appendix in the state"? Yes, all of this was done at the expense of education, health, development in the countryside, and so on. We are a country whose biggest investment was in the war, and those who decide the budgets are the war generals who decide how much to spend on this and that. But unlike the underprivileged of the people, those with the ability of the elite avoided that poor educational fate to private schools and to education abroad. In many Arab countries, such as Syria and Yemen, the war also came at the expense of education. You mentioned the countryside in your speech, and we hear this reading a lot in analyzing current events. How do you see the duality of center and periphery in Sudan from the perspective of sociology? We have a historical problem between the center and its margins, which began in 1955 (immediately after independence) in what was known as the rebellion of the Southern Division in the south of the country. Sudan Liberation Movement began with a rebellion in 1983 led by officer John Garang, who allied with the rebels and established the armed movement); Because it made this call (protest against marginalization) a supra-southern call that touched Darfur, the Nuba Mountains, the Blue Nile, and even the north itself, so this became a way of looking at the Sudanese predicament, and it is summed up in the claim “We are on the margins, and you are in the center, and we want to change the image of the center on the basis of citizenship … etc. [embedded content] This situation is undeniable, there is a center that affects everything, even in the city itself there is a margin in the center and a margin in the different parts of Sudan, and this is reflected in education, health and pension. And the error here is how will you change the image of the center? Here is the disagreement, "There are those who decided to change it by force, and I need to change it by force." Those who wanted to change it by force took the path of armed war, such as Garang and the armed movements in Darfur, and unfortunately they committed what they committed, and their project is one of the failed projects as you see in southern Sudan and the armed movements, because they are movements that wanted to solve the issue by force, and this force drove it to what it pushed it to do. I believe that building rules among the people – unions and federations – is what the Sudanese are famous for. It means adopting rules among the people, not being a "Guevara" who carries a gun and does not care about anything else, and becomes a human being in a camp, for this is the dispute. The problem exists, but how do we change the image of the historical center in Sudan so that it accepts the realities of the existence of many cultures, religions, realities, and required citizenship? So the difference is in the means. In 1965, a turbaned sheikh, a political leader, called for opposing the elections, and his supporters in eastern Sudan took this issue seriously and assaulted the voters. He was tried and told to call for a boycott of the elections by force. strong book). I am bringing this back to show you how to build your language and bring this back when you are dealing with Sudan. Nice use of literary language in political affairs! Yes, this is necessary, because politics is culture.<blockquote> The political education in which you grew up, which is taking care of the daily realities, that is, you build rules for change during the daily events that people need to link together for the success of change</blockquote> Your involvement in daily work is remarkable, as there are intellectuals who rise above and who do not delve into current events! This is a result of the political education in which you grew up, which is taking care of the daily realities, that is, you build rules for change during the daily course of events, which people need to link together for the success of change. If you consider change as merely climbing a mountain to fight the government, then this does not result in anything useful. We need emitting. I call this "everyday sociology". Every day you measure and know facts about your people as they happen. For example, if a problem occurred in the countryside between two tribes, I care about this incident from the perspective of sociology, while the rest gather to sabotage it. They only say that this is a vague class struggle, and they do not try to delve into it; For them, the matter is that this is a phenomenon of Bedouins in the countryside, and you can expect anything from them, but I am trying to find the reasons for the conflict, for example: Does it revolve around the land, the show, or what? This is what I call the historical sociological view, which I miss in much of our cultural work. Some are satisfied with the political incident and the rivalries, and none of them penetrates into the sociology of the incident.<blockquote> Every incident where it occurred is a sociology, but it travels to the world as news. I am with the incident, not the news</blockquote> Every incident, wherever it occurred, is a sociological science, but it travels to the world as news. I am with the incident, not the news, when the issue of slavery in Sudan was raised. Did you write a book about "slavery in Sudan"? This was about not being satisfied with the news, but rather turning to reality because the latter is sociology, and this is life. If you want to change the reality of slavery, you should stand on its social subtleties in its environment. Sudan has a great history of civil, trade union and civil work, but we wonder now: Where are the unions, federations and even parties in what is going on? Trade union experience and trade union tradition were razed, and it was these forces in whose midst we grew up, and events such as <a href="https://www.aljazeera.net/opinions/2011/10/20/%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A3%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B1-1964-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7-%D9%8A%D8%B7%D9%90%D9%84-%D9%81%D9%8A">the October Revolution</a> took place in its context (it rose against the regime of Lieutenant General Ibrahim Abboud and overthrew his regime in 1964).<blockquote> A dictatorship does not arise unless it announces the dissolution of parties, the dissolution of unions, and the dissolution of trade unions. The three dictatorships of 1958, 1969, and 1989 are the best evidence. There is a rivalry that arose between the military and conservative forces against unions and parties. In other words, there is no democracy left. This is the reality.. the reality of bulldozing</blockquote> A dictatorship does not arise unless it announces the dissolution of parties, the dissolution of unions, and the dissolution of trade unions. The three dictatorships of 1958, 1969, and 1989 are the best witness. There is a rivalry that arose between the military and conservative forces against unions and parties. In other words, there is no democracy left. This is the reality.. the reality of bulldozing. The other thing is that the Sudanese civil opposition forces – especially during the period of al-Bashir (the ousted President Muhammad Omar al-Bashir) – chose the armed struggle in their mind, and they had no ability to do so, but they were dragged behind the armed fighters, whether Garang or Khalil (Ibrahim Khalil) or others, and left What she knows is trade union work, and she claimed that it cannot be done "because these Muslim Brotherhood are demons", and they have the ability to discover this work and destroy it, so they fled from this trade union arena. [embedded content]<blockquote> “From the trade union to the forest,” this phrase I wrote down, and it became a phrase very indicative of this migration from the trade union traditions to the forest, and what happened in the forest happened. This explains to you why the unions were absent, because the crews that were standing, organizing, mobilizing and struggling were the ones who decided that the forest was the solution.</blockquote> And I give you the phrase of one of the opponents. He wrote that he was active in trade union work and benefited from such and such, then he joined an armed movement, and he said, "From the union to the forest." forest what happened. This explains to you why the unions were absent, because the crews that were standing up, organizing, mobilizing and fighting were the ones who decided that the forest was the solution. They were waiting for Garang to liberate Khartoum, or they were waiting for the movement of Abdel Wahid (the head of the Sudan Liberation Movement in Darfur, Abdel Wahid Nour), and they came to Khartoum reconciled in the end and not in favor of their historical allies, such as Garang and <a href="https://www.aljazeera.net/2004/10/03/%D9%86%D8%B5-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A-%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A3%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7">the Democratic Assembly in Asmara</a> and others, who pledged allegiance to Garang and walked behind him until Saleh al-Bashir And the SPLM threw its allies on the side of the road to coordinate with Al-Bashir, and approved the National Security or Security and Intelligence Law with him, despite the objections of its allies. The late thinker Abu al-Qasim Haj Hamad (1941-2004 AD) paid special attention to Sufi orders, and saw that they transcend ethnic and tribal components, and he believed that they could provide a comprehensive model, and that they were influenced by African experience, what do you think? It is true that <a href="https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2015/8/12/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A">the Sufi orders are transient</a> , such as the Khatmiyya order (a Sufi order founded by Muhammad Othman al-Mirghani al-Khatim in 1817) that you see in the north and west of Sudan. This is what binds the parties to the country to each other, and this is what makes the nation in the end. Some people say that they are against sectarianism because it divides, I say that it does not divide because it divides within the limits of its controversy and discourse, but it connects Sudanese groups that feel bridges between them. Sufism well managed itself. There is the experience of the colonial period between <a href="https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2002/12/20/%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%81%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%82">the Ansar</a> and the Khatmiyya groups, which gave people a feeling that the rivalry is sterile, but the people who belong to the two methods are Sudanese of the first degree, because they know each other over distances. [embedded content] But being from African experience, I do not agree with Hajj Hamad, who is my friend, and I have a broad comment on what he wrote, because Sufism is essentially Islamic and similar and identical, whether in Sudan or Iraq, for example. But what about the question of the conflict between Arabism and Africanism in Sudan? This is a major and profound challenge. The question is: how to address it? Some people said that it can only be solved with weapons, as I mentioned, to break the image of the center, but this was not a solution, and it complicated what was already complicated, and an entire state like Darfur fell victim to this madness, and the entire south is a theater of conflicts that are not currently based on Arabs and Africans, but were founded on a movement An armed group that grew up and did not improve control and linkage between itself, and control and linkage towards its people and its audience, and it broke loose. There are no longer Arabs and there are no longer any Africans; They became killers, each killing the other. Are scenarios of separation again possible in the current reality? I rule this out because no voice was raised from the West, the Sudanese West wants its rights, even Hamidti demands governance, and the comparison with the South is subjective because the South is a part attached to the homeland for a long time, meaning that the British did not introduce the South into the image of Sudan except years before independence, throughout their reign they were They arrange for his separation. The secession of the south that took place after the referendum is the improved version of the secession that the British worked for throughout their existence. Was Darfur also an independent region in view of the history of the Sultanate? There was the Sultanate of Fur, but this was the time of the sultanates, and there was a dispute over Kordofan between the Funj Sultanate (Sinnar) in central Sudan and the Sultanate of Darfur. This means that there is a common history, and the conflict itself is part of the common history and does not necessarily have to be a history of harmony. Before the arrival of the Turks in 1821 AD, there were battles between the Funj state (central Sudan), i.e. the Khartoum region, and the Fur sultanate, battles in the Al-Obeid region, and another battle in the Nuba Mountains region between the Funj and the Kingdom of Taqli (a country in the Nuba Mountains in the center of present-day Sudan) and the caravan routes and movement between them and so on. [embedded content] Darfur was coming late after the invasion, I will give you an example; The British conquered us in 1898, then joined Darfur in 1916, that is, it took more than 16 years away from Sudan under the rule of its own sultanate, but it paid tribute to the British government in Sudan, as if the British had told the people of Darfur that we will leave you alone, but you are subordinate to us, subordinate to Sudan, we do not have Time and resources to turn to you, so judge yourselves so that we can think of what to do with you, and indeed they annexed the region in 1916 and it became part of Sudan. Any arguments based on the late accession of the Darfur region to indicate that it was independent are incorrect arguments. Darfur was not like that. When you pay tribute, that means dependence. In light of the heavy prices in the current reality, how do you see the horizon of change in culture, society and politics in Sudan? And what's the way out? What is happening now is all part of the nation's experience in building itself, and I do not condemn it myself. Some people denounce it and say why have we become like this, when we are supposed to be better than this? I say we are like this because we are better. We have a cause in building a civil and democratic state. This story does not happen overnight.<blockquote> All of this is on the way to a democratic transition, even what is taking place now, because there are groups of military men sitting on extraordinary resources and refusing to think that there can be a democratic civil state.</blockquote> Is this the path of a democratization process? All this is on the way to a democratic transition, even what is happening now, because there are groups of military men sitting on extraordinary resources and refusing to think that there can be a democratic civil state. But now we see that the danger comes from Hamidati, because he does not have a definition of the modern state, and this is our problem with him. Some say we remove Al-Burhan and Hamidati and solve the problem, and I ask: We remove Hamidati to where? Can you remove the proof because he is an officer in service and has a pension, but what is the law that governs the removal of Hemedti? And if Hamidati is gone, who will come after him? Brothers? And there is a commercial, economic and banking institution. You do not only integrate soldiers. Will you integrate an economy as well? [embedded content] We are in the midst of complications committed by the Salvation State in order to extend its life and left us what we call in Sudan "the funeral of the sea". This we call the funeral of the sea until we bury it. The funeral of the sea comes as cattle and is carried by the Nile stream. Rescuing and burying it becomes a duty for the people of the villages from which its owner hails, and they have no fault in the story. This is a death that we have no hand in. It happened in another place, then the river carried the victim for us, and we, with our Islam and our religion, and so on, will swim towards it, carry it, bury it, pray for it and have mercy on it. Also, a heavy indication, do you see the conflict in the Arab world due to what some call a "cultural civil war"? We grew up in the aftermath of the Arab renaissance, through Egypt, through people like Zaki Naguib Mahmoud, Taha Hussein, and Akkad, and we were associated with democracy in Egypt at the time of monarchy, no matter what you say about it, then the period of Nasserism came with some Arab momentum, revival, left, and so on, and then it became clear that the main issue in the world Arabic is democracy. What we are in the clutches of now is that there are forces that do not want to think that people’s energy is exploding in development and renaissance. Egypt is an example in front of you. It did not wake up unless it was hit by the dictatorship that befell it. We are in a period of a ruling class in very many parties. Rule has become for them with strength and wealth. In this sense, the armies turned to be the nation itself for the army, not the army for the nation! Then it ended for armies not belonging to the nation; Private armies. Every year, we despise the tyranny of "white sheets" at the expense of "black sheets". These are keywords. This is from Abu Tammam's house, but he also sided with the "white people", saying that "there is clear doubt and suspicion in their bodies"! He laughs.. These people were receiving money, they were waiting for gifts, this is what happened, we are now in the worst condition, a condition that has not happened to us, I have not lived a short time. We started with Al-Aqqad and Taha Hussein, then we walked on Nasiriyah here and there, then I went on the path that I saw, and now we no longer enjoy thinking; The Sudanese person who carries an idea at this moment is a "cheer" for a military soldier. [embedded content] Is the military class the handicap? Political life is militarized, and the civilian is forced to be under service. You bring him as a minister, but he does not do the work of a minister. There is a depression. Speaking of the end of politics, what is the role of the intellectual now? The intellectual no longer cherishes anything, he is in distress, and his salvation from it is to break this climate and see where he belongs, whether he belongs to a party, a regime, or the public. I look at my first book, in 1968, and I gifted it to my father and mother, and said, "I am the blunt palate of owls." My maternal grandfather was described in this capacity in a poem, You are the palate, which is the voice, the voice of the helpless, and the owl that does not know this from that, so he described my grandfather as "the voice of the voiceless." Is this the role of the intellectual? Yes, this is it, and not to snoop around the authorities and beg them and advise them and so on. You intellectual is a man of matters of power: family power, power in the state, power in the party. I have tried to question the authority of the party, the state and the university, the institution and its formation. This meaning has been absent because some intellectuals have become in a state of merging with power, and this is the defect. People do not see what is beyond this devastation, and that is why they are satisfied with this, and they say, “O our brothers, you brought this back to us.” Some saw devastation, like the story of our master Moses.