- Category: Occidentalogy
- Written by Zahir Ebrahim
- Hits: 12839
This is very significant. The word “Islam” is quite distinct from the word used to designate Islam’s followers and the affairs of its followers. That separation of terminology is itself espoused in the Holy Qur’an by virtue of having a separate terminology to refer to the followers. Once again, while this may sound repetitious, but to the Western mind wholly attuned to referring to Christians and Christianity with the same root word devolving from their God named “Christ”, no amount of repetition can ever be sufficient to drive the point home. The Qur’an itself defined a different nomenclature to name its followers; the followers didn’t:
“Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a Muslim nation, bowing to Thy (will); and show us our place for the celebration of (due) rites; and turn unto us (in Mercy); for Thou art the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.” ( Arabic رَبَّنَا وَاجْعَلْنَا مُسْلِمَيْنِ لَكَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِنَا أُمَّةً مُسْلِمَةً لَكَ وَأَرِنَا مَنَاسِكَنَا وَتُبْ عَلَيْنَا ۖ إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Baqara 2:128)
This separation of terminology is in fact a singular distinction of Islam in comparison to all the other Abrahamic religions, indeed all major religions of the world including Hinduism, Bhuddism, and Zoroastrianism, which do not feature such a clear separation.
This is why followers of Prophet Muhammad for instance, are not called “Mohammedans”, nor believers of Islam “Islamic”, “Islamist”, etc. except by the prejudicial orientalists.
The word designated in the Holy Qur’an for human beings who are Muslims, regardless of good or bad people, pious or murderers, sinners or saints, is “Muslims”, or to be exact in the transliteration, “Muslimeen” ( مُسْلِمَيْنِ ). The Muslims throughout the world are referred to as “Muslim Umma”, or to be exact in the transliteration, “Ummat-e-Muslima” ( أُمَّةً مُسْلِمَةً ).
All who misuse the Qur’anic terminology, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, are either ignorant peoples – and there are always plenty of “learned morons” and parrots in every epoch who are deftly planted on the pulpit – or, the respected apprentices of Machiavelli. In the latter case, they deliberately try to subvert the religion of Islam by associating it with the inglorious deeds and the kingly history of Muslims.
One can immediately see the result of such gratuitous binding. It enables drawing false and specious associations by overloading the semantics in an already well-defined nomenclature.
That is the principal basis for subliminally, as well as cognitively, binding something virtuous (the religion) with something abhorrent (the vile deeds of the peoples, their kings, their cultures, their civilization). Thus, when the word Islam is mentioned, the abhorrent, or whatever is deemed abhorrent by Oriental scholarship, naturally springs to the mind of the seduced.
Based solely on that premeditated collateral damage to language that Samuel Huntington, the late circus clown of empire at Harvard, diabolically made the already quoted statement on “Islam” in his treatise “The Clash of Civilizations”. It is reproduced again because now we dissect it from the language point of view:
“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.” (Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1996, pg. 217)
Since when did the word “Islam” indicate civilization? A civilization is an aggregate of peoples, harboring one or more cultures, one or more languages, one or more customs, one or more religions. Like the Western civilization which has the nations of German, French, English, American, Russian, etceteras, that many languages, and many religions are practiced in these nations, including atheism, Christianity, and Islam. Whereas Islam is a religion, a “deen”. A religion can be practiced in any civilization, by any peoples, including right here in the USA.
Samuel Huntington’s teacher was evidently Bernard Lewis, as evidenced from their common re-semantification of the word “Islam”. This is how Huntington was able to demonize Islam: “The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam,” and “These are the basic ingredient that fuel conflict between Islam and the West.” We have already witnessed the passage above in which Samuel Huntington cited his Princeton University confrere Bernard Lewis as the author of ‘The Roots of Muslim Rage’ and the first authority on the “Clash of Civilizations”. They incestuously reinforce each other rather well, don’t they? Cass Sunstein, the other propagandist Harvard Law professor and President Obama’s information tzar, referred to such incestuous self-reinforcements in his erudite paper on “Conspiracy Theories” in the more refined academic jargon, as “crippled epistemology”.
As we perceptively observe, it is the diabolical misuse of language which first and foremost enables drafting a thesis like “Clash of Civilizations”. (See Prisoners of the Cave Chapter 9 which deconstructs Huntington’s craftsmanship in more depth.) Such theses, made erudite and plausible sounding with the IVY League stamp, are thence crafted into simple propaganda to seed the Mighty Wurlitzer’s many compositions. It is repeated ad nauseum thereafter.
Since Western people’s point of reference is mainly Christianity where the common root word denotes everything, the people “Christians”, the religion “Christianity”, the civilization “Christendom”, even the God “Christ” – in fact everything that Bernard Lewis falsely and maliciously imputed to Islam on page 1 of his propaganda manual “Crisis of Islam” – the same kitchen sink linguistics devilishly attributed to Islam, repeatedly, makes it believable for the un-informed Western public.
Thus, maligning Islam before the un-informed masses becomes a child’s play for the Mighty Wurlitzer. Effective propaganda is always targeted only at the ordinary un-informed peoples, “the crowd of simpletons and the credulous”, as examined in the report Manufacturing Dissent. Its core purpose is to control public behavior by instilling false beliefs.
And we can see its rich harvest not in just the ‘United We Stand’ against “militant Islam” and the unfettered “imperial mobilization” and “shock and “awe”, but in the Qur’an burning, Islam bashing, and other Islamophobic festivities of the ignorant people against Muslims. It is surely not a surprise then, that Islamophobia should have increased steadily in the United States and the West since 9/11. Islamophobia is only the desired and natural effect of the propaganda system of the Mighty Wurlitzer. Like the festering boil on the protesting bride’s lip, it is only symptomatic of the real syphilis beneath the virtuous wedding gown.
This crucial analysis unarguably illustrates how imperial scholars incestuously reinforce each other in implanting the “doctrinal motivation” mentioned by Zbigniew Brzezinski as being necessary for “imperial mobilization”. It was pretty much the same protocol in the quest for Lebensraum of the Third Reich in yesteryear. At Nuremberg, the Nazi Party’s chief philosopher, Alfred Rosenberg, was hanged for his mumbo jumbo. The third Reich’s chief of propaganda, Reichminister of Propaganda and National Enlightenment, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, committed suicide after administering cyanide to his wife and six young children before the long arm of justice could wring his neck. Just thought I’d mention that in passing.
Such premeditated collateral damage to language, with the concomitant priming of doctrinal fuel for the long gestating mantras of “The Roots of Muslim Rage” years in advance of its catastrophic unveiling, is what so trivially enabled forging a bipartisan political consensus on the US foreign policy of aggression and invasion in the immediate aftermath of the shock effects of 9/11. The Patriot Act I was passed quickly without reading, and the entire United States Congress, save one member, gave its green light to invade Afghanistan. The mightiest and richest nation on earth patriotically savaged the poorest and weakest nation on earth in a broad political consensus. The American peoples ‘United We Stand’ saluting the flag, and motor car bumper stickers proudly proclaimed “We Support Our Troops”.