Ignorance 2: it thrives and abounds

The worst fool is the one proud of his ignorance

It amazes me how could someone that dares to claim attendance in middle school could insist in such absurd theories without absolutely no evidence. But unfortunately, ignorance thrives and abounds.

They’ve called me “scammer” without showing any evidence or even producing any victim of my alleged scam. No convictions of any crime, not even formal accusations. I’ve just spent money and time and matched all the donations I’ve ever received by, at least, a twofold. My accounting books were examined by the IRS in the US and by the NGO committee of the United Nations. The result was the approval of the tax-deduction status in the US in 2014 (retroactive until 2011) and the Special Consultative Status in the UN in 2016. After reading the fifteen pages long “cease and desist letter” from my lawyer in Germany, they decided that may be would be a good idea to remove the term “scammer” from their kind mention of me on their Facebook page.

But I’m here to confess my scam. My scam was to help, from September 2014 till December 2016, over a thousand families of Syrian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Jordanian and Palestinian people in need. And I can prove that anytime to anyone. This great scam was recognized by governments and institutions of ten countries in three continents. Including the Vatican, the US and the Brazilian Governments. I like to believe that none is, or at least shouldn’t be, awarded just by “being a prince”.

They accuse me of “inventing” something that was claimed centuries before my existence! They attack an awarded and acclaimed Lebanese Maronite historian that was never formally (nor informally) criticized until now. We’re not talking about an obscure historian but the recipient of the highest academic Order of the French Government! Also, his book about my family that was considered by the Lebanese government as an official historical scientific research and again, was never contested in almost seventy years that it was written. Alas, twenty five years before I was even born! Not a single book, not a peer reviewed article, no academic work not even a bad book review from sixth grade student! But stop everything! They have decided in Germany he was wrong! Again, without presenting any evidence nor an academic “counter-thesis” disproving what he wrote.

If I want to claim that the Bourbon family is not entitled to the Japanese Empire, I’ve to present a theory to support my statement. I’ve to offer the evidence that the family descends from Hugh Capet, not from emperor Murakami.

Anyone that frequented high school knows that scholars disagree all the time and about a plethora of subjects and the fact that they do it alone doesn’t make them neither right nor wrong. Just attacking something doesn’t make it a lie. I don’t care about the credentials or titles you may hold. Unless you’re the pope, your mere opinion is not infallible. Even the pope has to substantiate his “ex-cathedra” argument. His infallible teachings must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. But apparently, they’re above the pope and any academic rule.

As the philosopher Maimonides wisely said:

“Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it.”

Seemingly, another terrible crime that I’m guilty of is allegedly having two cousins that disagree with me. We can prove now that one of them was manipulated and instigated against me. The other, was not even interviewed!

How low can you go trying to destroy someone?

But it wouldn’t make any difference even if all cousins hated me. My claims are based in dynastic and international law, not in a family popularity contest. Even if the disagreement was totally legitimate and spontaneous – not the case here – let the one that never disagreed with cousins to throw the first stone!

And there’s also the “very mature” and “scholarly based” insult calling me “a gorilla”. Apparently we are all back to the kindergarten’s playground. By that alone you can evaluate the “caliber” of my critics. You’ve to be completely desperate for arguments when you resort to “ad hominem” attacks of “zoological” nature.

But one may ask why are you being attacked?
Aren’t you doing a humanitarian work? Aren’t you defending peace and dialogue? Isn’t that a good thing? What could possible be wrong with that?

Unfortunately, we live in a divided world. Even apparently natural allies have diametrical opposite interests. For example:

* We defend the ecumenical dialogue and the actual unity of the oriental churches in the Middle East for practical (not theological) purposes. Sadly, many people, mostly laymen inside the Catholic Church, even going against the Supreme Pontiff’s command, are completely against that,  

* We also defend the dialogue and strategical alliance with the Muslim leaders. The greatest part of the Christians in the west – specially in Germany – are also against that, 

* We accept that most Lebanese families might come from Phoenician origin but, some of them, specifically the Ghassanid families, come originally from Yemen and therefore are Arab. This “Arab DNA” was “diluted” being Hellenized and Romanized over the centuries and, culturally speaking, the majority of the Ghassanids adopted an Aramaic culture and religion. However, there’s a strong anti-Arab sentiment in Lebanon,  

* We are presenting solutions for the problems in the Middle East, “a cure for the disease”. Many charities in the region are just interested in “keep selling medication”,  

* According to their own private correspondence, we pose as a great threat of “stealing” the catholic donors in Germany. They see us as “business competition” that has to be stopped.  

So, there are more than enough reasons.

I could go on and on of all the legal and logical inaccuracies in their claims but as Napoleon wisely said: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII






Ignorance: the scourge of mankind


German poet Friedrich Schiller wisely said that “against ignorance, even the gods fight in vain”. “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” said Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. The world-famous physicist Professor Stephen Hawking states that “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” And God, how much illusion of knowledge we have in the world today! Anyone is an expert in anything and even some real experts in determined areas fancy themselves in giving opinions about things they know nothing about.

Opinions! How often we mix them with facts! In times of social media, everyone seems to be entitled to express an opinion. The immediate result of that is freighting dominance of fake news all over the world even contaminating the last US presidential elections. In the end, ignorance is a disease, not a right. As brilliantly said by American author Harlan Ellison:

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. None is entitled to be ignorant.”

Skepticism is healthy until the point of becoming blind denial. It’s perfectly fine not to believe in everything until the due diligence is made. As per the Merrian-Webster dictionary “due diligence” is “the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property”, in other words, it supposed to be an unbiased investigation aiming to find the truth about something. However, when someone makes a point against something, their “due diligence” becomes a deranged quest to prove themselves, not to find the truth. Even some educated people make the recurrent mistake of discredit what’s not notorious to them. In the haste of hatred, jealousy and competition some people try to “dress” a malicious opinion desperately making it look like a fact.

I receive all kinds of enquirers about my family’s history. Some questioners are honest, some are not. Many people don’t understand why that history is not notorious (even in Lebanon) like the ones of the Royal families of Europe.

First, we have to understand the historical background and for that we need to go back to the advent of Islam in the VII Century CE when great portions of the Arabic peninsula were conquered by the Muslim armies. In the previous century, Prophet Mohammad wrote to the major kings of the known world “inviting” them to convert to Islam as a condition ‘sine qua non’ for them to keep their own kingdoms. Some accepted, others not. The Ghassanid king Chemor Jablah VI (ruled 632-638) didn’t and had to escape to the Byzantine empire and later, some of his descendants migrated to Mount Lebanon, a safe haven for Christians in the Middle East being known as “the Chemors”, due to the king’s name. Meanwhile, everything that was Christian was considered by the Caliphate to be primitive and pagan and its destruction was incentivized for centuries to come. From those times comes the tradition practiced by the Taliban in the 1990’s and by the Islamic State in the 2010’s of destroying every non-Muslim historical evidence. A lot of information was lost in this process during the first centuries after the Islamic conquest. However, enough remained to even describe in detail some important events (see the thousands of pages written by Prof. Dr. Irfan Shahid, late Emeritus Professor of Princeton is his multi-volume collection “Byzantium and the Arabs”).

Also to be considered, the enormous prejudice spread by east and west. The Arab historians hated the Ghassanids because they were Christians and the westerns because they were Arab. Nothing flattering could be written with this mindset.

The prejudice continued with the Ottoman rule. Capital proof of that is the “Janissarie program” that forced Christian boys to convert to Islam and became Ottoman soldiers, weakening the Christian families that had to cope with the lack of males forcing the women to marry Muslims and convert since by Sharia law a Christian woman can marry a Muslim man without converting but has no right to any inheritance.

In Lebanon specifically, the alliance of the Druzes with the Ottomans also contributed to the weakening of the Christian families. Last, but not least, the competition between the Christian noble families created an “autophagic sentiment” that facilitated the Ottoman rule until WWI. We cannot forget the several wars that almost destroyed Lebanon in the 19th and 20th centuries. The bullet marks in many buildings can still be seen today.

The history of Christians in Lebanon was kept mostly by the Maronite church.

We also have to understand the immense “anti-Arab” sentiment in Lebanon. That comes specially from the Christian people who usually perceive themselves as “Phoenicians” not Arabs. That can be explained, in a simplistic way, by the common and automatic association of everything that’s Arab to the Muslim religion. The Ghassanids came originally from Yemen and are notoriously Arab. The interesting is that it’s very common to have the very same family (common ancestor) living in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine. Only the family branch that lives in Lebanon don’t perceive itself as Arab, all the others do.

There’s even a lack of interest in the subject since Lebanon is proudly a republic and any subject related to nobility is a bitter tasted remembrance of the Ottoman rule.

Understanding this background is easier to comprehend why the historical sources are considerably less than in Europe. But the scarcity of notoriety doesn’t make a fact untrue unless someone can prove it undeniably wrong.

Scholars disagree in all fields of science. Even in the field of the called “Exact Sciences” like Physics, Chemistry and Biology, where the existence of empirical evidence is a lot more needed than in history, there are many examples. The most recent one is regarding “global warming”. Both sides of the argument have illustrious scholars and germane arguments. It doesn’t matter how accredited a scholar might be, his simple opinion is nothing more than that, unless he elaborates and actually presents a “counter-theory’. Even with a substantiated counter-argument, a scholar doesn’t “kill” the other theory unless he can prove his “theory” as a “fact”. That’s very rare in the historical field since a great deal of historical scientific research is based on interpretation.

Let’s also remember that even the so-called “scholarly consensus” doesn’t mean the assurance of “a fact”. Not so long ago, the consensus was that the Earth was flat and people who said otherwise was killed.

Regarding my family, everything I claim is scholarly based. I didn’t “invent” anything. For that, I’d have to master “time travel” since those claims were made long before I was born. Some facts were unknown even for my family members until today. But again, that doesn’t make them any less real. But let’s go to facts, not opinions:

The Ghassanid imperial titles 

Several scholars wrote about it:

– Procipius (Greek historian)

– Kazhdan, Alexander “Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium”. Oxford University Press

– Shahîd, Irfan, “Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century” Dumbarton Oaks – Harvard University

– Shahid, Irfan, “Ghassan post Ghassan” Festschrift  “The Islamic World – From classical to modern times”, for Bernard Lewis, Darwin Press l989

– Al Tabari, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr;  “Tarik” (Cairo, 1966)

– Zahran, Yasmine, “Ghassan resurrected” Stacey International (1991)

A detailed article about it can be found HERE

The fact that the Ghassanids kept ruling even after the fall of the first kingdom

Also stated by several scholars:

– Bowesock/Brown/Grabar “Late Antiquity” –, Harvard University Press, 1999

– Khoury, Ignatious Tannos, The Sheikhs Chemor rulers of Akoura (1211-1633 CE) and rulers of Zawie (1641-1747 CE)” Beirut, Lebanon, 1948

– Kazhdan, Alexander “Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium”. Oxford University Press

– Shahîd, Irfan, “Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century” Dumbarton Oaks – Harvard University

– Shahid, Irfan, “Ghassan post Ghassan” Festschrift  “The Islamic World – From classical to modern times”, for Bernard Lewis, Darwin Press l989

– Al Tabari, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr, “Tarik” (Cairo, 1966)

– Zahran, Yasmine, “Ghassan resurrected” Stacey International (1991)

The undisputed fact that the  “Gharios”family comes from the “El Chemor” family and that the “El Chemor” family is a princely family

The title “sheikh” has many different levels: In the specific case of the El Chemor family the title “Sheikh” it’s related to a sovereign ruler (Al-Akoura and Zghartha-Zawyie from the 13th until the 18th century) hence, it’s also the equivalent of “Prince”. See the examples of Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, etc. where all the princes belonging to the ruling family are “sheikhs”.

“Besides the sovereigns referred to above, there are several oriental potentates who should be mentioned, the rulers of the Sultanates and Sheikdoms of East Africa and the Persian Gulf (…) The style of these sheikhs is His Highness.”

“Titles: How the king became His Majesty”, L.G. Pine, New York,  1992 (Barnes & Noble) p. 137-138

There are other kind of lesser “sheikhs” even in Lebanon. Those were either elevated by ruling princes (as a noble, not a royal title) or were mere tax collectors of the Ottoman empire. The aforementioned doesn’t apply to the El Chemor princes since it’s documented that they were ruling independently since 1211 CE, when no Caliphate was occupying or dominating Mount Lebanon, almost 80 years before the Ottoman empire was even founded and over 300 years before the first emirate was created with prince Fakhr al-Din I (1516–1544), a puppet of the Ottoman Empire.

And this is very important to be clarified. If you ask any Lebanese, even historians, who’s “royal” for them, they’ll immediately think of the princely families that ruled the whole Mount Lebanon under the Ottoman empire (i.e.Shuf Emirate, Emirate of Jabal Druze, Emirate of Mount Lebanon, as well as Ma’an Emirate) The Thesaurus’ definition of the word “Royal” is “of or relating to a king, queen, or other sovereign“. What does “sovereign” means? “1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler. 2. a person who has supreme power or authority.” In this technical sense, the El Chemor family was actually sovereign since their power didn’t emanate from a higher authority. The family had to make deals with the Ottomans only in the last years of rule, culminating with the deposition. The respect to the Maronite Patriarch was similar to the devotion that European Kings had to the Pope.

According to accepted international law and its principle of ‘sovereign equivalency”, the Pope or the prince of Monaco is “as royal” as the Queen of England regardless of the size of their actual territories. The titles of the El Chemor family were again recognized by the Ottoman empire until its demise (1924 CE) and also by the Lebanese republic until the present date being officially printed on the documents of some family members for generations. The family’s history was kept and validated for centuries by the Maronite Church under the Holy See (Vatican) and the authority of the Pope.

Important to explain: there are only two ancient families named Chemor/Shammar in the whole Middle East. One, is from the Tayy tribe and has Bedouin origin and is Muslim. They have adopted to use the name Shammar/Shammari after the XIV Century since they inhabited the Jabal Shammar region. The El Chemor Sheikhs come from a sedentary Arab and Christian origin and it’s documented to use this name two centuries before the Bedouin tribe.  When they’ve ruled the city of Akoura in 1211 CE they were already using the name Chemor/Shammar.

The fact that the Ghassanid families migrated to today’s Lebanon

– Malouf, Issa Iskander, “Dawani Al-Kuuf” (1907),

– Malouf, George Hanna, “Maloof The Ghassani Legacy” (1992),

– Zahran, Yasmine, “Ghassan resurrected” Stacey International (1991)

– Khoury, Ignatious Tannos, The Sheikhs Chemor rulers of Akoura (1211-1633 CE) and rulers of Zawie (1641-1747 CE)” Beirut, Lebanon, (1948)

Regarding the connection of the Ghassanid Kings and Sheikhs El Chemor

The book The Sheikhs Chemor rulers of Akoura (1211-1633 CE) and rulers of Zawie (1641-1747 CE)” Beirut, Lebanon, (1948) by Father Ignatious Tannos El-Khoury specifically states about the subject. It’s dishonest to criticize a theory without presenting a counter argument. Also, some people tried to attack Father El-Khoury saying that he was “just a Maronite monk” forgetting he was one of the most acclaimed Maronite historians of the 20th century being author of over twenty books published not only in Lebanon but also in Europe. This “mere monk” was the recipient of the highest Academic Order of the French Government, the “Ordre des Palmes Académiques’ (higher in precedence than the famous “Ordre des Arts et des Lettres”) in the rank of “officer” (2nd highest). But maybe, just maybe his beard was too long! It’s sad and desperate to resort to “Ad hominem” attacks in the lack of real argument.

Father Ignatious Tannos El Khoury, the author of the book about the El Chemor family wearing his medal of Officer of the Ordre des Palmes Academiques

Professor Dr. Abbot Antoine Daou, one of the top modern Maronite historians, have confirmed the aforementioned statements in a sworn affidavitProf. Dr. Daou is not only an acclaimed Maronite historian and author of the book “History of the Maronites” (Beirut, 1970) amongst many others, but was graduated by the Pontifical Angelicum University in Rome with Doctorates in Theology and Canon law. He is a siting professor of the La Sagesse University in Lebanon and is the Abbot of the Antoinine Maronite Order. He also serves as the Secretary of the Commission of the Lebanese Bishops’ Conference for Dialogue with Islam.

Please, Click HERE to learn more and access the documents

My legal rights to the titles – laws of succession

Speaking of “Ad hominem” attacks… What’s the level of “an unbiased scholarly research” if someone starts it by calling you “a gorilla”? Again, sad and desperate…

The laws of successions in the Middle East are considerably different than in Europe. There’s no primogeniture nor seniority, the male heirs of the last ruler compete equally for the title. There are also no limitations for the users of the titles.  See the following scholars:

– Michael Herb, “All in the family: absolutism, revolution, and democracy in the Middle Eastern Monarchies”

– Alderson, “The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty”, pgs. 12-13. J.C.

– Hurewitz, “Middle East politics: the military dimension”

– Nathan J. Brown, Constitutions in a Nonconstitutional World (2002)

– Charles de Secondat, Baron of Montesquieu, the spirit of the laws, book V (1748)

A detailed article about the laws of Successions of the Ghassanids can be found HERE

My legal rights to the titles – international jurisprudence

In today’s world, a title from a non-reigning dynasty is purely honorific and just a courteous denomination. There are no longer any legal privileges of birth for a title’s holder. However, a title is considered to be “immaterial inheritance” and although “non-tangible” obeys “jus sanguinis” laws of the specific family and it’s protected as any normal inheritance. In other words, if your grandfather dies and leaves you an automobile, the decision of driving it or not it’s yours. The same with the title. You might have the title lawfully “in pectore et in potentia” by “jus sanguinis” and never claim it. It’s your right like winning the lottery, it’s your choice to claim the prize or not even having the right. Another example of “jus sanguinis” law is citizenship. Some countries recognize as citizens people born in other countries if they have the “blood”. For example, a great-grandson of an Italian citizen has the right to Italian citizenship even if he, his parents and grandparents were born in China. But even having the legal right “in pectore et in potentia” he will only become an Italian citizen if he legally claims it.

My legal claims are based on the following scholars:

– de Meroe, Dr. Mario Silvestre, “International Nobiliary Traditions” (Tradições Nobiliarias Internacionais) , pg.62-63

– Ian Brownline Q.C, Principles of Public International Law

– de Meroe, Dr. Mario Silvestre, “Studies on Nobiliary Law” (Estudos sobre Direito Nobiliário),

– David Holden and Richard Johns, “The House of Saud”

– Baroni Santos, Waldemar (1978); “Tratado de Heraldica – Direito Nobiliário V.I”

– Baroni Santos, Waldemar (1990); “Tratado de Heraldica – Direito Nobiliário V.II”

– Baroni Santos, Waldemar (2004); “Tratado de Heraldica – Direito Nobiliário V.III”

– Baroni Santos, Waldemar (2007); “Tratado de Heraldica – Direito Nobiliário V. IV”

– Vattel, Emmerich (1883); “The Law of Nations”

– Michelle Francesco, Renato (1951); “Il Angelo Comneno D’empiro e La Sua Discendenza”

– Vincent, Andrew (2002); “Nationalism and Particularity”

– Bonavides, Paulo ;”Political Sciences” (Ciência Política)

– Grotius, Hugo (1625), “On the Law of War and Peace, Book I, chapter IV, number 5”

Also, the international arbitration award 0413/2011 where my rights and titles were legally recognized by “jus sanguinis” was recognized by five judges in Brazil and the United States and was based on recent European jurisprudence:

– 1870 – Court of Appeal of Naples in 03/16/1870

– 1871 – Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, ratifies the verdict gave by the Court of Appeal of Naples in 03/16/1870.

– 1872 – Court of Appeal of Naples in 02/05/1872

– 1909 – Court of Naples 10/22/1909

– 1914 – Civil and Penal Court of Avezzano in 12/03/1914

– 1923 – Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in 04/25/1923

– 1945 – Court of Cassona in 06/05/1945

– 1945 – Court of Bari in 08/20/1945

– 1946 – Court of Catania in 09/14/1946

– 1947 – Civil court of Naples in 06/06/1947

– 1948 – Court of Rome in 09/10/1948

– 1949 – Court of Vico Gargano verdict number 217/49

– 1950 – Court of Perugia in 03/27/1950

– 1952 – Unified Court of Rome in 03/22/1952

– 1955 – Court of Santa Agata de Puglia 06/25/1955

– 1987 – Court of Republic of San Marino Case No. 184/1987

– 2003 – Ordinary Court of Ragusa 02/17/2003

Important to point that neither the lack of knowledge nor the disapproval of family members make any difference to the legality of any dynastic claims. If that was true, almost all of the deposed dynasties wouldn’t exist since cousins and even brothers fight all the time saying horrible things about each other. See the Savoys in Italy, the Orleans and Braganzas in Brazil, the Bourbons in France and in Spain (Carlists), the Borbons also in Two Sicilies, the Bragationis in Georgia, etc…  Disagreements and disapproval are common in any family and wouldn’t be different in a Royal one.

In  conclusion, one of the highest Maronite historians and patriarchs of all times, Estephan II Boutros El Douaihy (1630-1704) wrote in the XVII century about the El Chemor family. He’s in a canonization process being beatified in 1998 by Pope Benedict XVI. All of my legal documents, genealogy and recognitions are in possession of several departments of the Holy See since 2013. In 2014, I was invested as a knight of Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem by special decree of the Order’s Grand Prior His Beatitude Fouad Twal, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. Since the Order’s sovereign is the Pope, all investitures and promotions have to be approved directly by the Vatican Secretariat of State. In order to issue my diploma as knight, all my documents and pedigree were sent for analysis. Usually, it takes no longer than one month to the whole bureaucratic process. In my case, it took almost six (it can be seen in the document the investiture date as November 29th 2014 and the Secretary of State approval on April 17th 2015)! They did have my baptism certificate and all my personal documents.

If my legal claims were not real, why did they recognize the title as “Prince” with the address of “His Royal Highness”?

Whomever state such preposterous accusations is calling the entire Holy See – notoriously known for being meticulous and strict –  as stupid and incompetent!

Then I ask, did I personally influence all of the aforementioned scholars, five judges, cardinals, bishops, etc? If I did, God I must be powerful and again I’d have to master the “time travel”. If I did master the “time travel” would I be wasting my time writing this long article? Definitely not! For sure, I’d have a lot more interesting things to do than having to respond to ignorant and dishonest people.

To those people, my most profound repulse.

HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII