This
book which you now hold in your hands, Hijacking
The Holy Qur'an And Its Religion Islam – Muslims and Imperial
Mobilization,
is a compendium of topics at the intersection of religion of Islam
and political science. It is a case study in social engineering and
is not intended as an advocacy of Islam. While Islam may be the faith
of its nonconformist, and what might appear to some as unorthodox,
author, the activist compulsion to pen this book is not religious –
the author could not care less what philosophy, religion, or sect you
espouse so long as it does not interfere with others' rights to
exercise the same. Rather, it is to unravel the vile deception games
which underlie the latter day “imperial mobilization”
of which he, his nation, his people, and mankind everywhere on earth,
are victim, or will soon be. Self-defense against this full spectrum
onslaught upon the public mind, in specific, upon the Muslim public
mind, is the primary purpose of this humble endeavor. If the
scholars, intellectuals, ullemas, imams, learned leaders, and all and
sundry opinion makers among the Muslim polity worldwide had not
remained silent, were neither being useful idiots nor
infected with the plague of Occidentosis, the author
would not have had to write this book – for they surely would
have done a much better job than a mere plebeian (had they wanted
to).
This
book has a companion volume, The
Poor-Man's Guide to Modernity – Oligarchic Primacy for World
Government,
6th Edition 2013; a much larger compendium that
systematically removes many of “truth's protective layers”
which are diabolically shepherding mankind into perpetual servitude
under Orwellian covers. As that pièce de résistance
observes, in the age of Machiavelli and universal deceit, the
ultimate revolutionary act trumps both, ferreting out the truth, and
telling the truth. It is to act upon the truth. Please read
the Legal
Disclaimer Notice
(http://humanbeingsfirst.org#Legal) before you hasten to do so. That
Disclaimer Notice is hereby incorporated into this book by reference.
In précis, you are responsible to verify what is presented
here. For all you know, it could be all myth. This means that this
book is principally for those able to adjudicate, rather than for
students and laity who look to authority figures to learn from.
The
author neither is, nor claims to be, among the “Ar-Rasikhoon-fil-ilm”
( الرَّاسِخُونَ
فِي الْعِلْمِ
),
see verse 3:7
of the Holy Qur'an. Nor is he particularly bursting with great piety
and purification as the “mutaharoon” ( الْمُطَهَّرُونَ
),
see verse 56:79,
Ibid. Instead, he wears a battle-dress head to toe (imagine Don
Quixote of La Mancha if you must), uses cuss-words frequently (as an
ordinary plebeian), takes no prisoners, suffers no fools, and knows
very little about any matter. In fact, let's just gauge how much he
actually knows. If he were to carefully read, just once, 10,000 books
before his time was up, that averages to reading 4 books a week, 200
books a year, over say a 50 year period of productive life. Of those,
if he were to diligently study a mere ten percent, say a 1000 books
of his choice – where “study” entails more than a
careful read, rather, an endeavor to master its contents – that
amounts to studying 20 books a year over a 50 year period of
productive lifetime. Given that there are in excess of 10 million
books in existence in all human languages, he would still be 99.x
percent ignorant of the already known human knowledge of the world,
let alone of what is yet to be discovered. Even if he were to strive
his hardest his entire life to escape the natural paradigm of “ilm”
explosion as man endeavors to discover its place in the universe, and
as the wisdom of civilizations and its sages continue to accumulate,
he would at best be relegated to remain somewhere between a
superficial generalist and narrow-gauged specialist who is largely
ignorant of the breadth and depth of human knowledge. How can a 99%
ignorant fellow make any claims to being among the ( الرَّاسِخُونَ
فِي الْعِلْمِ
)
as is required to fully comprehend the message of the Holy Qur'an
which is not even the expression of human knowledge ( تَنْزِيلٌ
مِنْ رَبِّ
الْعَالَمِينَ
)?
What
is therefore deemed to be accurate in this humble endeavor that you
now hold in your hands, is only by the quirk of accident that the
neurons in both halves of his brain fired correctly while he was wide
awake. The rest may be entirely gibberish – like the random
noise inherent in all electrical activity. If you can't however tell
the difference between signal and noise, then the fundamental
question of epistemology that you must grapple with is: how do you
know that those claiming to be “scholars”,
“intellectuals”, “ullemas”, “imams”,
“learned leaders”, bearing lofty titles, princely
accolades, and even knighthood, fare any better?
As
this book trenchantly demonstrates, the world is full of both clever
supermen and useful idiots proudly adorning the mantle
of scholarship, leadership, imammate. This is not just the vile
invention of Machiavellian modernity; it is also the empirical fact
of recorded history. The truth of these words is beyond doubt. It is
in fact self-evident. From Plato's 2500 years old Simile of the
Cave to modern perception management of the Mighty Wurlitzer,
is a continuous endeavor for the control of the public mind by
the superman. If you base your faith upon that pen of man,
whether of notable scribes and wanna-be imams of today, or of lauded
scribes and glorified imams of history, you should at least know what
to expect. Here is what the Good Book of the Muslims, the Holy
Qur'an, has to say about it:
“One
day We shall call together all human beings with their
(respective) Imams” (Surah al-Israa' 17:71
)
|
يَوْمَ
نَدْعُو كُلَّ
أُنَاسٍ بِإِمَامِهِمْ
|
If
you voluntarily follow others in this world making them your “imam”,
you should know that you will also be held to account in their
company involuntarily on the Day when all accounts are finally
settled. The Arabic-English dictionary of the Holy Qur'an in the
hands of this scribe defines the word “Imam” thusly:
“Leader; President; Any object that is followed, whether a
human being or a book or a highway”. If you followed any of
them here voluntarily, you will have no choice but to also follow
them to wherever is their ultimate destination post Accounting:
|
“(On
the day) when those who were followed disown those who followed
(them), and they behold the doom, and all their aims collapse
with them.
And
those who were but followers will say: If a return were possible
for us, we would disown them even as they have disowned us.
Thus will Allah show them their own deeds as anguish for them,
and they will not emerge from the Fire.” (Surah Al-Baqara,
2:166-167)
|
إِذْ
تَبَرَّأَ
الَّذِينَ
اتُّبِعُوا
مِنَ الَّذِينَ
اتَّبَعُوا
وَرَأَوُا
الْعَذَابَ
وَتَقَطَّعَتْ
بِهِمُ الْأَسْبَابُ
وَقَالَ
الَّذِينَ
اتَّبَعُوا
لَوْ أَنَّ
لَنَا كَرَّةً
فَنَتَبَرَّأَ
مِنْهُمْ كَمَا
تَبَرَّءُوا
مِنَّا ۗ كَذَٰلِكَ
يُرِيهِمُ
اللَّهُ أَعْمَالَهُمْ
حَسَرَاتٍ
عَلَيْهِمْ
ۖ وَمَا هُمْ
بِخَارِجِينَ
مِنَ النَّارِ
|
In
the age of universal deceit, it is surely wise to follow one's own
mind as one's imam first, as limited and as fallible as its vision
might be, for one never really knows who is the marde-momin
and who is the superman. Empiricism has shown that regardless
of the merits of their claim, they both lead one to hell on earth
while promising heaven elsewhere. And so does the feeble mind, the
foolish mind, the dull mind that is unable to separate chaff from
wheat, and who lives its socialization bias in absolute self
righteousness. That is traditionally the Public Mind, encouraged to
remain a perpetual follower so that it can be deftly shepherded
wherever the shepherd fancies.
This
book endeavors to sharpen that public mind on the grindstone of
self-awareness, critical analysis, and rational logic. It is not
intended to create followers, but rather to challenge you to a duel.
A duel with yourself. To induce cognitive dissonance by getting you
to challenge your own preconceptions, your own bloated
self-importance, your own state of contentment at your hubris that if
you wear a turban, an imama, or a fancy Western gown, that you know
it all, let alone know anything of substance beyond superficial
generalist to narrow-gauge specialist and 99 percent ignorant! It is
to sow the first seeds of discontentment in your mind by the
realization that one is in fact often at the mercy of a crippled
epistemology bequeathed to every domain by narratives of power and
its holy pens. That unless one becomes cognitively aware of this
fact, one remains bounded by incestuously self-reinforced scholarship
both due to socialization bias as well as adept perception
management. It is impossible to escape this subliminal mind-force
without making deliberate effort in the escape-direction. Like the
force of gravity, it remains unseen, but very much there, and in
order to escape its earthly grip, one has to reach escape velocity in
the correct direction – up!
Meaning,
the counter-force to crippled epistemology is a vector, not a scalar.
Mastery of a 1000 books is still meaningless, and doctoral degrees
and Nobel prizes only caricatures of “ilm”, if the vector
is zero. Or, if wherewithal, insight, understanding, conception of
the whole, are missing:
“Modern
physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot be
discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each
part by itself, since such a method often implies the loss of
important properties of the system. We must keep our attention fixed
on the whole and on the interconnection between the parts. ... The
same is true of our intellectual life. It is impossible to make a
clear cut between science, religion and art. The whole is never equal
simply to the sum of its various parts.” (Max Planck, Partly
cited in Critique of Western Philosophy and Social Theory By
David Sprintzen, pg.
76)
This
is why, what is important in the real world is not how much you know,
but what can you do with the little that you do know.
This
realization is of such practical as well as existential significance
that it bears at least some evidencing from the author's own life. As
the author wrote in the Foreword of his maiden book Prisoners
of the Cave,
penned in a tearful state during the barbarian American invasion of
Iraq Orwellianly termed in Newspeak as Operation Iraqi
Freedom:
“How
did I learn about these plans? I actually only uncovered PNAC,
JV2020, and the Wolfowitz’s chauvinist doctrines of preemption
that he had supposedly been pushing since 1990, after 911, when I
started scratching my head at the inexplicability of it all the
moment some 19 Muslim hijackers’ names were announced, and the
public was informed that they had learnt flying on flight simulators
and had told their instructors that they weren’t interested in
learning how to land! If Bin Laden was so smart at having planned
such an outrageous attack and counted on such brilliant executioners
who did it so flawlessly after only learning to fly on simulators, he
was pretty stupid at having enlisted idiots who would deliberately
leave such a trail of evidence behind, including statements that they
weren’t interested in landing – so that either they would
risk being uncovered before the attack, or their attack foiled while
in progress, or after a successful attack, America would know exactly
whom to go bomb in retaliation!
Only
one of these aspects could be true, either they were brilliant
military tacticians and strategists, or nincompoops from a three
stooges movie who succeeded despite themselves, but the incongruence
could not exist simultaneously on this large scale military style
invasion project, except in a Hollywood spoof.
Having
already read Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard and Huntington’s
Clash of Civilizations several years earlier, I immediately grasped
the new pearl harbor concept the moment America deployed to bomb
Afghanistan without adequately explaining or investigating any of the
events of 911. ...
I
started to reread Brzezinski and Huntington very carefully once
again, then reread the entire voluminous Rise and Fall of the Third
Reich, and the Mein Kampf of Hitler. The similarities between the
rising crescendo of WMDs and the propaganda that William Shirer had
recorded as having transpired in the Third Reich, and the
similarities between ZB’s and Hitler’s descriptions of
their respective imperatives and how to get them, were ominous,
except that ZB’s were more polished and more sophisticatedly
put. I got really paranoid as many more light bulbs went on in my
head which had not gone on when I had originally read them. I had
just taken Brzezinski’s book as theoretical, as being from the
pen of a Cold War warrior now retired and indulging in some arm chair
warrior fantasies. I didn’t understand that hectoring hegemons
never retire until they are six feet under. I had also dismissed
Huntington’s book as an ignoramus's work not to be taken
seriously, as it was replete with obvious disinformation and tortuous
conclusions that were easy to spot by anyone who knew anything about
the subject. Now both were being egregiously put into practice, and
the latter’s book did not appear so silly anymore, but rather
shrewd and calculated.
The
first time I had read Huntington with the lens of ‘here is an
interestingly titled book from a prominent Harvard professor, let me
see what he has to say’; the second time I read it with the
lens ‘let me understand how deception is created and its seeds
planted in a free society that is not too knowledgeable about the
rest of the world’. The second reading showed that the
obviousness of his distortions, coming from a top branded American
University like Harvard, had some deeper strategic thinking behind
it. Huntington is also involved in national security and other
strategic studies as a prominent professor and intellectual at
Harvard, and couldn’t be just a simple moron like Harvard’s
President, Lawrence Summers, who recently claimed women were
inherently not as smart as men. I was wondering how people like that
become president at prestigious American universities, until once
again I uncovered during my research that the same Harvard President
had also written how the industrialized nations should dump their
waste in developing nations while he was at the World Bank in the
1990s. With Wolfowitz now as the head of the World Bank, it is only
shortsightedness to underestimate the power of the dark side, or the
people who wield it. Huntington’s theme from portions of his
book relevant to the topic at hand is systematically dismantled in
Chapter 9. Based on this new found respect of the doctrinal scholars
for their craft, and realizing that we were entering a phase with the
hastily approved Patriot Act I that could only lead to the Fourth
Reich in America, I started attending antiwar teachins and protest
marches with my family, and began talking to prominent Vietnam war
dissenters about governmental lies.
And
that is when I first heard about the PNAC – from antiwar
teachins. Ordinary people like me, engagingly concerned about what
was happening, had uncovered more material from public sources and
the analysis of history, than the entire mainstream scholarship and
media apparatus in the United States of America.” (Zahir
Ebrahim, 2005 Foreword to Prisoners of the Cave, 2003)
The
story of this author's journey since the very day of September 11,
2001, is the systematic standing up to such experts' godly
craftsmanship by a most ordinary plebeian simply doing his own due
diligence. It has often been sufficient to demolish many false gods.
Experts tend to fall to even simple forensic scrutiny just as easily
as they have been propped up, at times by quackery, at other times by
Machiavelli. Modernity, like antiquity, has produced many such
experts in virtually every domain who have been imposed upon the
public mind as celebrities and heroes. These experts are the sine qua
non of effective perception management of the public mind. (See the
Mighty Wurlitzer tinyurl.com/MightyWurlitzer
and tinyurl.com/DefendingScience)
However,
the author has also faced the constant dilemma which falls out of
being fallible and all too human – how does one know that what
one has learnt is fully correct? Truth in virtually every domain,
including religion, and especially religion, comes wrapped in so many
layers upon layers of deceit, half truth, quarter truth, and
self-serving interpretations and confabulations in respectable books,
that how does one know that one has reached the kernel of truth
despite all the unlayerings? While the author is acutely mindful of
epistemology, and of his own endeavors, he cannot guarantee that he
has any more license to arriving at the whole truth of any matter
than any other mortal who endeavors to learn it, just because he has
all the good and righteous intentions of learning it truthfully. One
can also learn false things very truthfully. In fact, quite often,
one dies holding on to many falsehoods most self-righteously as
gospel truth. That is fallibility. A fallible mind cannot lead
another and not be the recipient of the “burdens”
forewarned in Surah An-Nahl:
Let
them bear, on the Day of Judgment, their own burdens in full, and
also (something) of the burdens of those without knowledge, whom
they misled. Alas, how grievous the burdens they will bear!
(Surah An-Nahl 16:25)
|
لِيَحْمِلُوٓا۟
أَوْزَارَهُمْ
كَامِلَةً
يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَٰمَةِ
ۙ وَمِنْ أَوْزَارِ
ٱلَّذِينَ
يُضِلُّونَهُم
بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ
ۗ أَلَا سَآءَ
مَا يَزِرُونَ
|
The
author therefore has always disclaimed followers. The Holy Qur'an has
itself emphatically admonished followers (as already noted above in
Surah Al-Baqara 2:166,
167).
But fools of course only follow – which is why Machiavelli
always has such a rich harvest of fools. Few Muslim scholars, from
antiquity to modernity, appear to be cognizant, never mind fearful,
of these considerations as they self-righteously proclaim to be the
heralders of “truth”; often treated as such by the myths
that are carefully cultivated around their supposed holiness and
special privileges.
Perhaps
all these realizations, of humbleness and insignificance of an
individual's endeavors on the one hand that can so easily mislead the
public mind wont to blindly follow experts, and of self-empowerment
by using one's own head and commonsense on the other, can induce an
acute sense of discontentment. That, while most of us can actually
know very little despite our presumptions to the contrary (and that
includes experts), what we do know need not be insignificant for
ourselves. We can still make important existential decisions, both
for sensibly protecting ourselves in this life, and if we believe in
some theology, for preparing ourselves for what comes afterward,
without following supermen experts who often only lead us to
hell on earth while promising heaven elsewhere. As the saying goes:
“If necessity is the mother of invention, then discontent
must surely be the father of progress.”
That
discontentment, rationally induced among those so presumptuously
wearing the multi-styled, multi-colored turbans preaching and sowing
discords of self-righteousness, will surely bear some fruit. While
they may be the presumed “experts” of religion, and they
might well have memorized a 1000 books of antiquity often
regurgitating them in dazzling oratory, they can also easily be
trumped by the commonsense of ordinary people just thinking and
studying for themselves. And their power to command followers
straightforwardly taken away from them by the ordinary person simply
refusing to follow them. As this incisive book is evidence, the
scribe has acquired sufficient disdain of all “experts”,
of both what they say, and what they carefully omit to say by way of
silence, to hold them in strong contempt as propagandists:
‘The
greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing
something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still
greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By
simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.
Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and
such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as
undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much
more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent
denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence
is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of
social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda
must be made as effective as the negative.’ (Aldous Huxley,
1946 Preface to Brave New World, 1931, Harper, pg. 11)
If
you don't like these statements of fact and empirical truths, good.
It means you may already be experiencing some cognitive dissonance in
relation to your existing world view and you haven't even opened
chapter one yet! If you are lucky, you will go through several
psychological state transitions that you might like to become aware
of. The first being your inclination to dismiss this work because it
isn't written by an “expert” who comes suitably anointed
with a turban and sajdah stamped upon his forehead. If you are
fortunate enough to have some neurons that still function
independently despite the tranquilizing sleep that the pursuit of
American Dream often induces, and able to examine material
without the customary appeal to celebrity experts that modern
marketing has invented to sell books, your next inclination to reject
will be due to the substance going against your entrenched worldview.
See the Public Mind slide in the beginning pages of this book. And if
you are able to transcend even that public mind, only then will you
be in any position, from the enlightened heights of Mt. Fuji no less,
to even reasonably adjudicate what is written here.
The
upsetness you may feel may also have nothing to do with cognitive
dissonance – and that is a more likely response if your
favorite hero, scholar, leader, shaykh, or belief has been unmasked
in this book. The contents of this book are too unorthodox to benefit
from for the mind groomed in herds (and that includes mankind's
finest scholars') which, although quite capable of thinking for
itself, but either through sheer mental laziness, or lack of basic
reasoning skills that never got developed despite acquiring a college
degree, a Ph.D., or a turban, always relies on some “authority”
to do the principal thinking for it.
The
rational call of the times is to espouse some humility rather than
self-righteousness in order to come together with others who also
sail in the same boat of humanity on the same turbulent seas ruled by
the same common predators. As counseled by the same common Book whose
scholarship some blithely claim to be divine custodians of:
“If
Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but
(His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive
as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah;
it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye
dispute.” (Surah Al-Maeda, verse fragment 5:48)
|
وَلَوْ
شَاءَ اللَّهُ
لَجَعَلَكُمْ
أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً
وَلَٰكِنْ
لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ
فِي مَا آتَاكُمْ
ۖ فَاسْتَبِقُوا
الْخَيْرَاتِ
ۚ إِلَى اللَّهِ
مَرْجِعُكُمْ
جَمِيعًا
فَيُنَبِّئُكُمْ
بِمَا كُنْتُمْ
فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ
|
Socrates
had surely summed up his own challenge to his audience thusly (in
Edith Hamilton's rendering):
‘Agree
with me if I seem to you to speak the truth; or, if not, withstand me
might and main that I may not deceive you as well as myself in my
desire, and like the bee leave my sting in you before I die. And now
let us proceed.’
Stating
the matter of fact exactly in the same words, let us proceed as well.
Zahir
Ebrahim
Sunday, February 10, 2013
California, United States of
America
Last
Updated 03/03/2013
09:00:09 pm
4186
Preface
Islam: Why is the Holy Qur'an so easy to hijack?
10/10