Excerpt Case Study: Why is the Holy Qur'an so easy to Hijack?
While
accepting socialization as a fact, the Qur'anic recipe to circumvent
socialization as a means for independent evaluation of beliefs, is to
approach the Holy Qur'an with a cleansed heart. (Ibid.)
But one still observes all the cleansed hearts
throughout the ages still pretty much fall along the same sectarian
demarcation among the Muslims. Why does the cleansed heart
recipe evidently fail when it comes to sectarianism for the topics
which divide the Muslims? Perhaps the hearts aren't cleansed
enough? That platitudinous metaphor for bringing utmost earnestness
when seeking a rational as well as spiritual understanding of the
Holy Qur'an, not bringing preconceptions and prejudices to its study
and reflection, doesn't really lend any additional insight into the
subject of why even the most earnest seekers of truth come away
understanding the Holy Book pretty much along the axis of their
socialization. Focusing on the heart is a dead-end
as far as further intellectual inquiry is concerned.
Therefore,
the question naturally arises, that if it is empirically observed
that everyone finds their own self-serving justifications to validate
their respective socialization in the Holy Qur'an, how is one to
study the Holy Qur'an objectively, independent of one's own
socialization, in order to learn and comprehend what its own Author
wanted to convey in that most revered Book of the Muslims?
How
are we to prevent the hijacking of the Holy Qur'an from a
self-serving understanding of it for our own selves?
Before
one can even begin to perceptively answer that crucial question,
commonsense suggests that one has to first diagnose and dissect the
problem more precisely.
Therefore,
we begin by formulating the problem in this way:
What
are the inherent impediments for studying
the message of the Holy Qur'an which make the Book so amenable to
self-serving interpretation, socialization, and even bastardization
by anyone?
Just
to briefly footnote the usage of the latter villainous word,
bastardization, it is no secret that today, its harbingers
include the most notable Western propagandists. E.g., Bernard Lewis
of Princeton University who skillfully crafted the mantra of 'Clash
of Civilizations' and subsequently wrote the thesis “Crisis of
Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror”; and Dr. Zbigniew
Brzezinski who easily gave to the USSR its
Vietnam War in Afghanistan in Muslim blood with nothing more profound
than a simple retake on the German Third Reich's battle cry Gott
mins uns (God be with us): “God is on your side”.
“In
1990 Bernard Lewis, a leading Western scholar of Islam, analyzed 'The
Roots of Muslim Rage,' and concluded: 'It should now be clear that we
are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues
and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less
than a clash of civilizations – that perhaps irrational but
surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our
Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide
expansion of both. It is crucially important that we on our side
should not be provoked into an equally historic but also equally
irrational reaction against our rival.'” (Samuel Huntington in
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,
page 213)
That
supposed “Muslim Rage” of 1990 was turned into the
egregiously titled full blown propaganda treatise The Clash of
Civilizations by Bernard Lewis' Zionist-imperialist confrere at
Harvard University, Samuel Huntington, in
1995:
“The
underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is
Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the
superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of
their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the US
Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose
people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe
that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the
obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These are the
basic ingredient that fuel conflict between Islam and the West.”
(Ibid. pages 217-218)
And
Huntington's myth crafting of 1995 was turned into the perpetual “War
on Terrorism” on September 11, 2001 by the
Zionist-imperialists' errand boy, George W. Bush Jr., the President
of the United States, with “either you are with
us, or with the terrorists”!
Bernard
Lewis subsequently justified George W. Bush's launching of the global
'War on Terrorism' in his phantasmic 2003 book Crisis of Islam –
Holy War and Unholy Terror. First by reinforcing his earlier
seeding of the mantra of 'the roots of the irrational Muslim rage',
and extending those roots to Islam itself:
'But
Islam, like other religions, has also known periods when it inspired
in some of its followers a mood of hatred and violence. It is our
misfortune that we have to confront part of the Muslim world while it
is going through such a period, and when most – though by no
means all – of that hatred is directed against us.' ---
Bernard Lewis, Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror,
pg. 25
And
then clairvoyantly predicting the following self-serving conclusions
as his last word:
'If
the fundamentalists are correct in their calculations and succeed in
their war, then a dark future awaits the world, especially that part
of it that embraces Islam.' --- Ibid. Chapter IX: The Rise of
Terrorism, pg. 164
'If
freedom fails and terror triumphs, the peoples of Islam will be the
first and greatest victims. They will not be alone, and many others
will suffer with them.' --- Ibid. Afterword, December 1, 2003,
pg. 169
Moreover,
today, both “militant Islam” and “moderate Islam”,
the Hegelian Dialectic to continually advance and sustain the cause
of empire's “War on Terror” as
a “self-fulfilling prophecy”,
draw justifications from the Holy Qur'an. One for Holy War, the other
for Holy Peace. Each side has its partisans among the public because
each side easily sees the correctness of their own position –
it is, after all, (selectively) rooted in the Holy Qur'an they each
claim. See Response
to the Fatwa on Terrorism in the Service of Empire.
However,
mechanisms for the bastardization of a religion is not the
focus of this analysis. See Islam
and Knowledge vs. Socialization,
Islam
vs. Secular Humanism and World Government,
and Case
Study in Mantra Creation
for these details. (Chapters 10, 9, 18, and 2 respectively.) The
political novel (or historical fiction – the only fair way to
characterize it) “Memoirs
Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East”
is further revealing of how the hijacking of the religion of Islam
can be so diabolically engineered by planting and cultivating stooges
for cognitive infiltration into the religion via a subversive sect
creation in the 18th century. In PART SIX of the novel, key
insightful observations are made about the religion of Islam and the
Muslim psyche which, regardless of who authored them – whether
as historical fiction or a real handbook of subverting Islam –
are empirically visible even today. Empiricism lends direct credence
to the description of the Machiavellian methods of subversion of the
religion of Islam in that political treatise (read pertinent excerpt)
irrespective of who is its author or what literary device is employed
to convey the malignant thesis.
Just
as “Philip
Dru Administrator : a Story of Tomorrow 1920 - 1935”,
by Edward Mandell House, depicts in a fictional narrative, the first
principles used for the author's own Trojan Horse role in controlling
President Woodrow Wilson's presidency (1912-1920) as a puppet on
behalf of oligarchic powers behind the scenes. First principles which
one can observe being practiced for all American presidencies ever
since, including today for President Obama's puppet presidency. Just
as empiricism also lends incontrovertible
weight to the Machiavellian methods in the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion regardless of who wrote that malignant treatise whose effects in
the world today are plainly visible as if blueprinted directly from
that villainous recipe book of subversion. All these political
treatises in varying forms are akin to the political novel The
Prince by Machiavelli, written in the 16th century which still
forms the guide-book for modern statecraft, and that is the heart of
the matter – the principles of subversion espoused in them.
Just as Machiavelli is read and followed in statecraft, so are any
recipe books which permit subverting the enemy, including the 2500
years old Chinese treatise of Sun Tzu, The Art of War
(read all these works).
And
lastly, in that same vein of subversion of a lofty religion for
seeding havoc among its followers, the two articles Egypt
and Tunisia – The 'arc of crisis' being radicalized!
and Unlayering
the Middle East War Agenda: Making Sense of Absurdities,
delve into the more recent cultivation of the shia Iranian Revolution
of yesteryear to connect with the present “revolutions”
suddenly erupting in the Middle East against the same tyrannical
rulers who were previously aided and abetted to remain in power over
their peoples just like Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Its juxtaposition to
the cultivation of the sunni “Mujahideens” in Afghanistan
at exactly the same time period, both of them to fertilize the “arc
of crisis” with bipartisan Muslim blood, is frightening
testimony of the persistence of vulnerable fracture points among the
followers of Islam which are perennially ripe for harvesting.
The
Muslim fratricide of Iran-Iraq war was only made possible by deftly
employing the age old historical schisms of
shia-vs-sunni, arming both sides and contriving the fratricide in
untold millions. That contrivance is a textbook example of game
theory being put into practice for a global agenda. The effects
of fertilizing the “arc of crisis” in Muslim blood
predictively percolated into enabling other premeditated global
events, ultimately setting into motion the creation of a New World
Order – of one world government. Read
the aforementioned two articles to fathom the self-serving
Cassandra-like predictions made by Zbigniew Brzezinski right after
lighting that fuse to what he prophetically (sic!) called the “arc
of crisis”. A fuller understanding of that epoch of the
latter half of the twentieth century minimally requires a book-length
read which perceptively re-links the seemingly disparate and often
unlinked antecedent and subsequent events, wars, collapses,
revolutions of the past century, melding directly into the searing
event of the New Pearl Harbor on September 11, 2001. See a précis
in Of
Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World Order.
With
the preceding bird's eye view of the age old villainous methods of
subversion and harvesting of the religion of Islam from within, the
focus in this article is exclusively on the natural impediments to
the earnest study of the Holy Qur'an by a genuine seeker of its
knowledge who willingly comes to the Book with an intent to learn its
contents.
So
now you open the Holy Qur'an to read, reflect, and study, with a
cleansed heart, Muslim or non-Muslim, native Arabic speaker or
reading many translations in your own language alongside. Common
impediments now make the study of the Holy Qur'an uncongenial to the
ordered mind. Let's dissect that uncongeniality
with a surgeon's scalpel. The result is not
as obvious as it might first appear.
