Peace be upon you, dear friends.

This article presents an opinion that differs from the one expressed by our brother Yassine Mezaga in his article.

Before discussing the issue of “Sandika,” I would like to address our respected brother “Abdrabbo Al-Awwal” and sincerely apologize to him. I never intended to interfere with his contribution or disrupt the website in any way. Quite simply, I had not noticed his name or his comment. As soon as I finished reading Yassine’s article, I hurried to express my own opinion regarding his description of Sandika as a “disgrace.”

Later, by pure coincidence, I discovered that you had already raised a similar point under the name Abdrabbo. Therefore, please accept my apologies if you thought I was trying to involve you in a dispute with others, particularly with Yassine, or to disturb the functioning of a website that I have considered, for many years, my favorite online space.

The administrators of this website are, to me, brothers and friends, and I have had the honor of contributing, directly or indirectly, to its development on several occasions.

The name I used was merely a pseudonym, chosen in order to favor the exchange of ideas over personal affinities or disagreements.

I wished to raise several questions, or rather reflections, that I asked myself and which already contained part of the answers. I believe that Yassine understood both my intention and yours and responded with courtesy, focusing on the substance of the debate rather than on the issue of pseudonyms.

In any case, I discovered in Yassine, may God increase his knowledge, a calm and thoughtful man who engages ideas respectfully and defends his convictions sincerely. This is why I took a particular interest in his response.

Based on your long reply, dear Yassine, I would like to clarify a few points of my own. According to my understanding, my ideas may not have reached you exactly as I intended, or perhaps they were interpreted differently. That does not bother me. On the contrary, it reinforces my belief that any message is often understood incompletely, exaggerated, or even reversed. This is precisely why dialogue is essential.

Through this website, we have begun a process of communication, and our ideas will undoubtedly continue to interact and develop through our contributions and those of the readers.

First Point

I never intended to evaluate the Islamic conquests or compare them with colonial empires. The issue of conquests and imperialism is a separate debate, although I acknowledge that it is related to our topic. In fact, I would argue that it lies at the root of the current debate surrounding Islam and the West.

Second Point

From the outset, I invited you to reverse the perspective and consider how you would react if countries hostile to Islam were to decide to destroy Arab or Muslim landmarks. The Alhambra was only one example among many.

I am not debating the cultural, architectural, or civilizational value of such monuments, nor the positive role they play, compared to what you described as a mere “tin structure.” Rather, I am speaking about the historical value that each monument holds within its own time and space.

For me, every historical landmark possesses intrinsic value, regardless of differences in prestige or function. In both cases, its destruction would amount to a crime against history.

We should have preserved the structure, regardless of the purpose it once served under colonial or occupying powers, and then adapted it to the needs of a new era. In this way, we would preserve history, memory, and place while giving it renewed significance.

Personally, I would have preferred to see Sandika transformed into a cultural center, containing lecture halls, a multidisciplinary library, a museum, offices for educational and literacy associations, and facilities for sports clubs such as karate and judo.

Located near the center of town, it would also have been an ideal place for public gatherings, elections, vaccination campaigns, national celebrations, and religious festivities.

That was the message I intended to convey to both you and the readers.

I do not know whether you ever had the opportunity to visit this landmark and its now-vanished surroundings. It is difficult to imagine the large built and open spaces it offered, and the many services it could have continued to provide to the residents of Ahfir and beyond. Instead, it was demolished and divided into plots of land, which, in my view, was an insult both to the monument and to ourselves.

Nor do I know whether you were aware that it served as a refuge for many animal species, some of which disappeared or migrated elsewhere after its destruction.

Ask our elder, El Hadj Lakhdar Laksir, may God grant him long life, about the place’s history, its birds, beehives and honey, cactus plants, wildlife, and even its humble mice and bricks.

Ask him while there is still time.

Perhaps those who never knew this historical landmark will at least come to know the man who managed and cared for it faithfully for decades before being removed despite his long service.

Where is the landmark today? Where is history? And above all, where are the principles of human decency?

My greetings to El Hadj Lakhdar and all his family.

I also salute our brother Yassine, who may have unintentionally contributed to bringing attention back to this great loss suffered by our city. We focused on tin sheets and material concerns while neglecting the human, social, historical, and environmental dimensions of the issue.

If there is truly a disgrace, it is not Sandika itself, but rather its demolition.

May God’s peace, mercy, and blessings be upon you.

 

Abdelhakim Tassirart

Paris

June 1, 2010