Determined to "change the very face of Islam"

0
62

It is not surprising that just a reference to the US and its allies’ war on Islam sounds stupid these days.

It is evidently so, because we are living in an age in which 16 of the most “civilized” countries on the UN Commission on Human Rights do not feel comfortable with voting in favor of a resolution which seeks to protect the rights of Muslims and stem the tide of Islamaphobia in the world.[1]

In this environment, it is very encouraging that the war lords are coming out of their closets with increasing frequency to declare that the common denominator of their global efforts is to discredit Mohammed PBUH, belittle the Qur’an and “change the very face of Islam.”[2] Does it sound any degree less than a war on Islam?

On April 11, just a day before the 16 nations on the UN Commission voted against stemming the tides of Islamophobia, Diana West concluded a piece in the Washington Times in defense of anti-Islam work in these words:

“Ignoring facts about Mohammed and Islam, given their [“jihadists”] role in animating terrorism, would be like ignoring facts about Marx and communism in that earlier ideological struggle National Review championed — worse, even, considering the inspiration Muslims draw from the personal life of Mohammed.”[3]

It confirms that discrediting Mohammed PBUH has become a top priority and a pre-requisite of the so-called war on terrorism. Such clear admissions from the anti-Islam fascists cannot be interpreted in any positive way possible.

Some strategic leaks to the US News and World Report expose the real intentions of the war lords. A report appeared in its pages on April 15 reads: “Hearts, Minds, and Dollars: In an Unseen Front in the War on Terrorism, America is Spending Millions…To Change the Very Face of Islam.”[4]

Denying these admissions means that the US should be lying and invading Muslim countries after country and killing thousands upon thousands innocent people. It means that the war lords must be saying that they need to “change the very face of Islam.” But Muslims must not consider it a war on Islam because they will sound stupid.

Denying the war on Islam, despite these admissions, means that the world must not consider it hate speech if Washington Times defends anti-Islam books[5] and an advertising copy, titled "the dark mind of Mohammed." Accordingly, the world must consider it a perfectly legitimate exercise of freedom of speech and any dissenting opinion on the part of Muslims as a matter “of greatest concern.”

Views of Robert Spencer and company further confirm the common denominator of the struggle against Islam. In the words of Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, Spencer “feels very strongly that it is important to discredit Mohammed and Islam as such in order to win the war on terror”?[6] Stay tuned for more.

Someone might argue,” but these are individuals.” Not at all! These “intellectual” war lords are simply unfolding a widely embraced agenda. What the US and its allies have been selling as the “war of ideas” and “battle for hearts and minds” has been proved to be nothing but a war for discrediting Mohammed PBUH and Islam.

The recent report in the US News shows how it is not a matter of a few individuals. The report reads: “From military psychological-operations teams and CIA covert operatives to openly funded media and think tanks, Washington is plowing tens of millions of dollars into a campaign to influence not only Muslim societies but Islam itself.”

Influencing Islam? Yes Sir! It is yet another wrapper to make undermining Islam presentable to public. It means coming up with another Islam that would legitimize Washington’s bloody adventures and delegitimize any and all resistance to its totalitarian designs in the Muslim world.

Promoting a “war within Islam” was the first step in the war on Islam. It remained the most consistent and popular theme of the New York Times op-ed pages over the years.

Now that the US government feels that the “war within Islam” is sufficiently aflame, the White House has come up with a new strategy, dubbed as Muslim World Outreach -” the second step in the war on Islam.

According to the well planned leaks to the US News, this strategy “for the first time states that the United States has a national security interest in influencing what happens within Islam.”

The report also confirms that it is, in fact, the US which has been funding an American version of Islam, called “Moderate Islam.”

The US media and establishment promote this divisive concept despite serious contention by Muslims who have been arguing that Muslims have to be moderate by default, not by the design and standards set by the American war lords.

According to the report, “in at least two dozen countries, Washington has quietly funded Islamic radio and TV shows, coursework in Muslim schools, Muslim think tanks, political workshops, or other programs that promote moderate Islam.”

The report makes it amply clear that it is the CIA that has been “revitalizing programs” and “targeting Islamic media, religious leaders, and political parties” to sell the American version of Islam in the name of “moderate Islam.”

The blindness on the part of Muslim collaborators Muslims as well as the war lords in Washington is phenomenal.

Contrary to the root causes, such as the US lying to the world, invading two Muslim states, supporting Israel ‘s terrorism and aggression and promoting puppet regimes in the Muslim world, a December report by the CIA-based National Intelligence Council presents the wrong reason for anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. It states that it is the masses of unemployed, alienated youth in the Arab world which "will swell the ranks of those vulnerable to terrorist recruitment."

This self-delusion is equal and opposite to some Muslims denial of the US and its allies’ war on Islam.

Interestingly, the self-delusion in the US is now limited to the totalitarians in the US administration, the fascist neo-cons and their leading supporters in the “mainstream” media. Similarly, the denial among Muslims has reduced to a very limited number of the US funded “moderate” opportunists.

Even the best among the self-proclaimed “moderates” will never be able to have a credible voice in the Muslim world, let alone legitimizing an American brand of Islam. The reason is simple: the leaks about the Muslim World Outreach initiative clearly say that it aims “at strengthening the hand of moderates,” which confirms them as operatives for Washington with no covers to hide.

Within no time, everyone in the Muslim world would know what Zeyno Baran, a terrorism analyst at the Nixon Center , who advised on the strategy, says: “You provide money and help create the political space for moderate Muslims to organize, publish, broadcast, and translate their work." Such an approach towards meddling with others’ religion and transforming it in the neo-cons image amounts to nothing less than pure fascism of our age to which no one can remain blind for too long.

The US is bound to face a disastrous end to its blind adventure toward defeating Islam because Islam is not communism. It is against all norms of decency to play with others religion and try to shape it the way the aggressors like it for their benefit.

The situation is not as simple as the Cold war where the US was able to pit moderate socialists against hard-core Communists overseas. Interestingly, even the most opportunists among Muslims are not ready to cave in to the demands for “moderation” by the hardcore fascists like Pipes and others.

Talking about the US strategy about undermining Islam in the light of the Cold War play book of divide and conquer, Peter Rodman, a longtime aide to Henry Kissinger and now the Pentagon’s assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs admits that "in those days, it was covert. Now, it’s more open. . . That’s how we’re thinking. . . . It’s something we talk about all the time.”

Those who are still not convinced must try understanding this war the other way round: try reading Muslims as Christians; Islam as Christianity; Mohammed as Jesus; Washington as Tehran and the US as Iran in the above article. Then Imagine reaction of the same war lords who admit to struggling for “discrediting” Mohammed, promoting a “war within Muslims,” and changing “the very face of Islam.”

Can any non-Christian dare say that he or his country or the agencies of his country should promote a “war within Christianity” and they should be out to change “the very face of Christianity.”

Imagine what response would that non-Christian individual or country receive from the US and the other 15 countries which have voted against the UN commission’s resolution on Islamophobia. Would it be wise to call a Christian response to such nonsense as stupid?

By the same token, is it wise to deny the aforementioned admissions of the war lords and reject every reference to the raging war on Islam as a stupid invention of some "radical” Muslims minds?

Notes:

[1]. On April 12, 2005, 16 nations voted against an important  United Nations resolution which seeks to protect the rights of Muslims and stem the tide of Islamaphobia in the world. The countries are: Australia, Canada, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States. See: http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/april19 See UNHRC Press Release With these countries’  Explanation Here: http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01 /F5FAD16BD4CDAFE
5C1256FE1006B4504?opendocument
 
[2]. Diana West, “Reviewing the National Review, Washington Times, April 11, 2005 http://canadiancoalition.com/washingtontimes02/CAIRsuitVsNationalReview.html

[3]. David E. Kaplan With Aamir Latif, Kevin Whitelaw and Julian E. Barnes, “Hearts, Minds, and Dollars,” U.S. News and World Report April 15, 2005
Article on line at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050425/25roots.htm
 
[4]. "The Life and Religion of Mohammed" (Roman Catholic Books, 2005) by J.L. Menezes, a Roman Catholic priest, used to be for sale. So did "The Sword of the Prophet," (Regina Orthodox Press, 2002) by Serge Trifkovic.

[5]. Ibid. Diana West.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.