Gaza Tragedy: When the Last Mask of the West Fell Off

By Spahic Omer

(The contents: Western institutions and leaders lining up to continue supporting the Israeli oppression; Israel as a bastard œchild of the West; A brief history of the hypocrisy and wickedness of the West; From Western civilization to Western un-civilization; Muslims should boycott Western un-civilization in the form of bad ideas and inappropriate values.)

One of the outcomes of the on-going Gaza tragedy is that masks are falling off. The events are revelatory. Now is the time to clearly see who is who and what is what in the grand scheme of things, both domestically and internationally. Gaza “ and the Palestinian case in general – was doing this for quite some time, however this time the situation is different. The current episode signifies the climax of a process. Gaza has become like a furnace which detects and isolates the impurities of iron (in Gazas case, hypocrites and out-and-out evil persons are revealed and shamed), and separates as well as purifies the iron (in Gazas case, good persons are not only revealed, but also thrust into the spotlight and further elevated as much on earth as in heaven).

That being said, one cannot help remembering the Prophets words about the city of Madinah, which since its inception functioned as a microcosm of the Islamic message and civilization, that œMadinah is like a furnace, it expels out the impurities (bad persons) and selects the good ones and makes them perfect (Sahih al-Bukhari).

The unfolding tragedy is accompanied by all sorts of political, media and even pop culture bedlams. Everyone wants to assert his case and be heard. All are eager to have a slice of the cake, so to speak. Noice is deafening “ just as silence and indifference have been prior to the tragedy “ distractions unnerving and narratives never-ending. The condition is meant to muddle the plain truth which is – even though the unbelievers and political criminals may dislike it – that there is a bloodthirsty usurper and oppressor inaugurated and sustained by the protagonists of the prevalent devilish world order, on the one hand, and a victim who for almost a century has been denied any degree of freedom and humanity either to be generated internally or conferred from outside, on the other.

Thus, people should not be distracted by the number, sizes and shapes of the masks, or by how and where they have fallen, but instead should focus on who and what has been uncovered and how to deal with the new realities and their central characters. Some new discoveries may be surprising, yet shocking, rescinding earlier realizations and perspectives. At any rate, the truth remains that every so often it is not the people who change, it is their masks that fall off. For that reason is it rightly said that a wolf can change his coat but not his character.

Western institutions and leaders lining up to continue supporting the Israeli oppression

The side that is exposed the most, because the dramatic developments forced it to throw off its last mask(s), is the West. That the West was hypocritical, wicked and immoral was a common knowledge, but that its vileness was at rock bottom, institutionalized and assertively proselytized (evangelized) was an eye-opener, so much so that its ostensibly championed Western values, such as freedom of speech, freedom of belief, equal access to opportunities, justice and objectivity, are blatantly cast aside.

Consequently, governments compete who will be more emphatic and more eloquent in expressing their support for the criminal Zionists and in condemning and punishing the oppressed and divested-of-everything Palestinians. Not surprisingly, the United States, Britain, France, Germany and the remainder of the European Union, are spearheading the vogue. Their multinational news channels and websites – with CNN, Fox News, BBC, Sky News, etc., being the trendsetters – feast on the expansive material and information available, which enable them to flourish in carrying out their unholy missions.

Moreover, their institutions: socio-political, economic, educational, cultural and even sports, have been turned into virtual temples of Zionism on whose altars all humanity and rationality have been sacrificed, and the personnel of those institutions have been converted not only into devotees, but also missionaries. As a consequence, institutionally, the West has been œzionized, owing to which snobbery and deceit fill the air. Wherever one looks one finds nothing but more lies and more chauvinism. Indeed, the West has long been stripped of all accountability and self-worth.

For example, a coalition of 34 Harvard University student organizations in the US has issued a pro-Palestinian statement in reaction to the open-ended violence in Gaza. The students said in the statement that they hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence between the Palestinians and Israelis following decades of occupation. They added that the Israeli apartheid regime is the only one to blame.

However, no sooner had the statement been released, than a barrage of criticism and attacks ensued from the countrys political and business elites many of whom are prominent Harvard alumni and the countrys lawmakers. They went berserk. They asked for the students names to be released even if that would lead to their lives and future careers being endangered, to be blacklisted, and that their university affiliations be removed.

Also, France and Germany banned all pro-Palestinian demonstrations, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz declaring that œat this moment, there is only one place for Germany – the place at Israel’s side.

Similarly in England, the FA (Football Association) at first wanted to light the Wembley arch in the colours of the Israel flag as a response to a letter of the UK Government encouraging governing bodies in sport to appropriately mark the terrorist attacks on Israel. However, the FA later decided not to do what was initially planned œbecause of fears of a backlash from some communities. The Government was unhappy and Secretary of state for culture, media and sport, Lucy Frazer, expressed her disappointment saying: œIt is especially disappointing in light of the FA’s bold stance on other terrorist attacks in the recent past. Words and actions matter. The Government is clear: we stand with Israel.

In the same vein, former US President Donald Trump called for a Muslim congresswoman Rashida Tlaibs impeachment œover silence on Hamas terrorism questions. Earlier, the congresswoman Tlaib went viral œafter she refused to answer repeated questions from a reporter in the hallways of Congress about reported Hamas terrorist acts and brutality against Israeli civilians.

Attempts are expected to be made in the realm of education as well, to uphold the customary Western point of view concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict. No un-Western (un-Israel) elements are to be permitted and tolerated.

By way of illustration, shortly after the Gaza carnage had started, triggered by a desperate liberatory-cum-defensive initiative of Hamas, œa Massachusetts-based public school district sent its teachers a resource that argues Israeli terrorism has historically been significantly worse than that of the Palestinians. The content of the resource was authentic and its commentary sensible. Everything was scientifically verifiable.

As expected, though, the move was rejected and severely criticised. It was declared prejudiced and un-American. Accordingly, Parents Defending Education director of federal affairs, Michele Exner, said Revere Public Schools “should be ashamed” for spreading “anti-Semitic lies and propaganda.” She insisted: “It is unconscionable that anyone, let alone educators connected to America’s K-12 classrooms, would be trying to find moral equivalency between the nation of Israel and the evil terrorists that targeted and brutally murdered innocent people, including babies.

Likewise, ESPN, NBA and Hollywood – among others, or among the rest – did not want to be outdone in their unsubstantiated and blind support for the terrorist state of Israel. More than 700 actors and Hollywood executives have added their signatures to an open letter condemning Hamas for œbarbaric acts of terrorism in Israel.

However, things get a bit interesting here. The signees of the Hollywood open letter emphasized that œthe nightmare that Israelis have feared for decades became a reality as Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israeli cities and towns¦Under the cover of thousands of rockets fired indiscriminately into civilian populations, Hamas murdered and kidnapped innocent men, women, and children. They kidnapped and murdered infants and the elderly. They raped women and mutilated their bodies.

That Hamas murdered women and children, and also raped women and mutilated their bodies, is not merely a flagrant lie, but an act of foolish ingenuity. It surely takes more than just an extraordinary level of moral apathy and mental idiocy to come up with something like that. It requires abandoning terrestrial judiciousness and decency in full, and to enter into an infernal covenant.

The Hollywood statement tells volumes about two things: first, those people are so intoxicated with the fictious and propagandist ethos of Hollywood that they cannot distinguish anymore where fiction stops and reality takes over, and where deception should die away and veracity should take charge; and second, those collective downright lies are a window into how the West has been formulating its ungodly historical narratives for centuries and how in the end it became immune to righteousness and self-respect.

It is perplexing as to when people will start recognizing that occupation is not synonymous with resistance, and persecution not analogous to fighting for freedom. To be honest, there should be little surprise in the case of Hollywood, for what else to expect from persons who œact and œpretend to be someone else their entire life, and who never say anything other than what has been œscripted for them.

Israel as a bastard œchild of the West

The illegal creation of the state of Israel is shrouded in myriads of mysteries and controversies. Some are political, others economic, but a very few – possibly even none – are purely religious. What is clear, though, is that Israel was established by the West, predominantly Britain. Britain wanted to make Palestine its permanent colony (a Crown Colony), but such proved unfeasible in the long run. A valuable alternative was to create a Zionist state in Palestine instead, inside the heart of the Muslim world.

That state was envisioned to represent a cancer that will do to the Muslim œbody or society – both as an idea and a palpable civilizational reality – what a cancer normally does to a biological body. The same state will act as a proxy geopolitical entity through which Britain and the rest of the Western world will exercise their authoritative influences. Israel will do the dirty work on the ground and will be rewarded accordingly by its Western masters.

John Philby (1885-1960) – a British scholar, Arabist and explorer who converted to Islam in 1930 and became an adviser to king Abdulaziz b. Al Saud “ said that even when England was planning to maintain Palestine as its colony, the English Government was using the Jews to its advantage. The circumstance was akin to a political game of the most advanced degree. However, John Philbys personal view was that œEngland should get out of the country which rightly belonged to the Arabs.

The Zionist Jews, on the other hand, were emboldened by the chaos and accompanying uncertainties which were increasingly engulfing the region. Hence, the obstinate position of David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973) – a major Zionist leader, Israels founding father and the countrys first prime minister “ was that the Jews had a right to return to Palestine; they would fight for that right if necessary (John Philby, Ibn Saud and Palestine).

This union between the West and Israel was one of expediency, rather than principle. It was a marriage of convenience (arranged alliance or strategic wedlock) which resulted in the birth of an illegitimate œchild (geopolitical entity) called œIsrael. One can also argue that such connoted a way to exonerate the West from any responsibility with regard to the horrors the Jews had to endure during the World War II, particularly in the West. Nor can it be entirely precluded that the West wished thereby to œconstructively get rid of the recurring Jewish nuisance. Such stood for a kind of permanent solution whereby both the West and Israel were supposed to emerge as winners.

It is true that well before the World War II, the Zionist Jews were craving for the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine, and that the dream would have come true somehow sooner or later, with or without the holocaust, but the role of the West in expediting, implementing and facilitating the proposal was indisputably pivotal. The Zionist state aspiration was the raison detre of Zionism as a philosophy and a nationalist movement, onto which, later, the Western anti-Islamic and pro-Zionist political interests were grafted. In passing, the father of Zionism was Theodor Herzl who died in 1904. He articulated his ideas in a pamphlet titled œThe State of the Jews (œDer Judenstaat in German) which was first published in 1896 in Leipzig and Vienna.

Nonetheless, a large number of Jews, led by their renowned scholars, argue that the notion of Jewish statehood is merely a subset of the Zionist nationalistic drivels. They posit that the Jewish people are either forbidden from having a state, or are dissuaded from pursuing such a course of action. Either way, creating a Jewish state is not the be-all and end-all. By no means is it the panacea for the Jews.

A brief history of the hypocrisy and wickedness of the West

The creation of Israel as an illegitimate state implied the pinnacle of a trajectory that had started as early as during the confrontations between the Prophet and the aggressive Byzantine empire. The confrontations came to pass in 629 and 630 when the campaign of Mutah and the expedition of Tabuk respectively were launched. One of the chief reasons for the first conflict was the fact that the Prophets messenger to the Byzantine governor of Busra was killed by a tribesman of the Ghassan tribe in the name of Heraclius, so the Prophet sent his army as a punitive expedition against that governor and the empire he represented.

The reason for the second conflict was the Byzantine mobilization of an army intending to invade the northern approaches of Arabia to avenge the last engagement at Mu’tah. It was also rumoured that this imperial army would seek to stamp out the nascent power of the Muslims who now stood at the frontier of both the Byzantine and Persian empires (M.H. Haykal, Life of Muhammad).

The West’s antagonistic behaviour towards Islam and Muslims was in full force during the Crusades (1095-1291). What type of undertaking the campaigns characterized bring to light the words of Lord Allenby, a senior British Army officer and Imperial Governor, representing the allied forces of England, France, Italy, Romania and America in the World War I. The man stopped in Jerusalem in 1918 after his conquest of that city towards the end of the first World War and said: œToday the Crusades have come to an and. Outwardly, however, Lord Allenby insisted that he was fighting merely the Ottoman Empire, not Islam, and that the importance of Jerusalem lay in its strategic importance; there was no religious impulse whatsoever in the war. Obviously, the statement was a decoy, as the subsequent developments demonstrated.

Israel was an upshot of an amalgamation of the religious-qua-political quintessence of each of the Crusades and colonization. In the contexts where sheer religious sentiments could not win through, momentous political concerns were employed to save the day, and vice versa. On a regular basis, the newly emerged trends of nationalism (a belief that the nation should be congruent with the state, and that each nation should have a state of its own) and ethnocentrism were additionally included into the mix, making the calls for the prospect of creating the state of Israel exclusively for the Jews ever more plausible. As if the West, now in partnership with the Zionist Jews, applied the principle according to which when push really comes to shove, religious and moral standards are set aside. As a substitute, political opportunism, coupled with economic expediencies, is placed on a pedestal.

That was only the reason why the creation of Israel was possible and is the only reason why it is still around. The secret is that, with the blessings of the Western controllers, Israel is nothing but a vicious, highhanded and barbaric country. As part of an axis of evil that runs through the Western corridors of power, Israel “ and the current West-dominated world order – can only thrive in environments of fear, uncertainty, oppression and violence. History is a witness that such terms as peace, liberty, integrity, constructive negotiations and reconciliation, do not exist in Israels vocabulary. The only language it understands is the language of force, due to which a few days ago the fearless Hamas decided to œtalk to Israel and œteach it some lessons. Otherwise, Israel would continue to act ad infinitum with impunity and without any restrictions. To illustrate the point in a rather roundabout way, upon his emergence in 1925, Abdulaziz b. Al Saud quickly became the undisputed and most powerful leader in the Arabian Peninsula, something that made Britain unhappy. That was the case because this new leader – about whom both John Philby and Eldon Rutter, an English reclusive explorer, said that he was one of the greatest and most exemplary leaders the region had ever seen after the first three exemplary generations of Islam “ had to be bridled and brought onboard.

In his travelogue titled œThe Holy Cities of Arabia, Eldon Rutter suggested that Abdulaziz b. Al Saud was under tremendous pressure by the British Government. He was even threatened with an invasion. He was concerned that Britain would turn his country as well into a British colony. When in 1925 Eldon Rutter, who had converted to Islam and whose Muslim name was Ahmad Sallah ed-Din El Inkilizi, performed his hajj pilgrimage, he met and talked to Abdulaziz b. Al Saud on a few occasions. During one such occasion, Abdulaziz b. Al Saud, demonstrating the extent of pressure applied on him, told Eldon Rutter, whom he regarded as an unofficial representative of Britain: œLet the Europeans come with their guns, and their armoured cars, and their aeroplanes. We will retire into our deserts, and then if they try to follow us, we will turn upon them.

Subsequently, in the wake of the creation of Israel, John Philby in his book œSaudi Arabia remarked that Abdulaziz b. Al Saud, just like practically all other Muslim leaders, was upset, but could not do much because the unprecedented situation was caused by œthe fiat (authorization) of certain (Western) Great Powers on whom the Arabs themselves have depended for much of their own prosperity.

The Western vultures with their bastard œchild (Israel) had converged over the disintegrating and weakening heart of the Muslim world, acting with complete disregard for consequences. With a shrewd grasp of the mounting vulnerabilities of Muslims, they cleverly and calculatedly laid the groundwork for the realization of Israel. As well as accusing the West and Israel, it goes without saying, Muslims should also be held accountable, as they should have been cognizant of who they were dealing with.

In December, 1953, colonel and future president of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, while speaking at Alexandria, summarized the Muslim culpability for losing Palestine to Israel as follows: œWe ourselves are responsible for the loss of Palestine, and our leaders were the principal agents in losing it. We did nothing but make speeches and hold meetings. We used to say that we would throw the Jews into the sea, but we didnt do it.

After the consolidation of Israel, with the generous help of the West, the state only kept getting stronger, while Muslims kept getting more divided and weaker. Muslims were more concerned about Israels Western masters than about Israel itself. Israel was not as strong as its masters, nor was it as strong as Muslims were weak. Muslims were increasingly failing to get their acts together and come to a consensus.

This is how John Philby described the position of Saudi Arabia, as a specimen, following the establishment of Israel: œSo far as Sa’udi Arabia was concerned it may fairly be said that however single-minded the whole population may have been in its hostility to the Jews and in its devotion to Palestine as part of the Arab heritage, the attitude of the Government can only be described as somewhat platonic, while the king (Abdulaziz b. Al Saud) himself often criticised the policy and the leadership of the Arab movement both during the mandatory period and in the short interlude which resulted in the creation of the State of Israel. He yielded to none in his devotion to Palestine; but he would never budge from his considered policy of keeping clear of all entanglements with the mandatory Powers which emerged from the first world war.

When in 1917 Britain captured Palestine, following which conditions were set but to become progressively more favourable, Britain was daring enough to proffer its outrageous plan for the eventual formation of Israel. The initiative exposed extraordinary arrogance and vileness on the part of Britain. No Muslim side was informed, let alone consulted about the plan. Britain behaved as though it was the absolute master who enjoyed the ultimate authority to act as he pleased, the œlord who held dominion over life and death.

As if the land of Palestine was without people, infrastructure, institutions, culture, civilization and laws, so it needed to be inhabited, enlivened and civilized. As if Palestine was Britains unqualified possession. Whereas the last concern of the Zionists was the wellbeing of the ordinary Jews and of Judaism as their religion. There were higher, albeit mischievous, stakes at the table.

On November 2nd, 1917, Britain produced the ill-fated Balfour Declaration. It was signed by Britains then-foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour, and was addressed to Lionel Walter Rothschild, a figurehead of the British Jewish community. In the surprisingly succinct Declaration, it was stated thus: œI have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object¦I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

After the issuance of the Declaration, all efforts of Britain were channelled towards paving the way for the realization of the vision enshrined in the few lines of the Declaration, and towards inducing, as well as forcing, Muslim leaders into accepting the inevitable. The ultimate goal was thus set; what was needed thenceforth was the ironing out of the implementational strategies and operational details. While the former was absolute, holding an esteemed place similar to that of the holy grail, the latter was adaptable, conditional on the dynamics of the regional as well as global politics.

No rigid timeframes, or operative blueprints, were imposed. That is why a period of 31 years was needed to translate the vision into reality. This serves to demonstrate that the Zionist nationalist movement and the British colonization paradigm were closely aligned from the outset, driven by a shared objective of disintegrating the Muslim ummah (society) as much as possible and bringing the waning Islamic civilization to a close.

That the creation of Israel remained shrouded in multitiered mysteries, and perhaps plots of the most extreme kind, further confirm the words of Dean Henderson, an expert in the history of the Middle East and the owner of a weekly Left Hookcolumn: œThis Balfour Declaration justified the brutal seizure of Palestinian lands for the post-WWII establishment of Israel. Israel would serve, not as some high-minded ˜Jewish homeland, but as lynchpin in Rothschild/Eight Families control over the worlds oil supply. Baron Edmond de Rothschild (one of the leading Zionists and a prime mover of the state of Israel) built the first oil pipeline from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean to bring BP Iranian oil to Israel. He founded Israeli General Bank and Paz Oil and is considered the father of modern Israel. The Rothschilds are the planets wealthiest clan, worth an estimated $100 trillion. They control Royal Dutch/Shell, BP, Anglo-American, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Bank of America and scores of other global corporations and banks. They are the largest shareholders in the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve and most every private central bank in the world. They needed a footprint in the Middle East to protect their new oil concessions, which they procured through Four Horsemen fronts like the Iranian Consortium, Iraqi Petroleum Company and Saudi ARAMCO. The horrific Holocaust that ensued assured sympathy for the already-planned state of Israel. Towards the end of WWII, the murderous Haganah and Stern Gangs were deployed by the Rothschild bankers to terrorize Palestinians and steal their land. Jews who escaped Hitlers gas chambers were those of means who bought into Zionism. For a fee of $1,000- lots of money at that time- these right-wingers bought passage to Israel and escaped the fate of the poor Jews, Serbs, communists and gypsies. The whole bloody affair was a massive eugenics project. It had more to do with culling the herd along class lines, than it did with ethnicity or religion¦The key to this historic puzzle is to understand that the Rothschild/Rockefeller sangreal international bankers supported both the rise of the Nazis and the creation of Israel. None of this has anything to do with religion. It has everything to do with oil, arms, drugs, money and power. The Rothschilds say they are Jewish. The Rockefellers claim to be Christian. These are irrelevant smokescreens. Any demagogue – who blames injustice a religion or race of people – is sadly misinformed. Throughout history the Illuminati Satanists have sacrificed people of all race and religion to further their agenda of total planetary control. Israel is not a ˜Jewish homeland. It is an oil monopoly lynchpin. Its citizens are being put in harms way, used by the Four Horsemen and their Eight Families-owners as geopolitical pawns in an international resource grab. No peaceful solution is possible until the stolen land is returned to its rightful Palestinian owners. Israel is an illegal entity. Viva Palestine!

From Western civilization to Western un-civilization

The West is generally deemed right purely on account of its might. Hence, of the things that the West has perfected the most is a triumvirate of exploitation, killing and manipulation. Muslims, perhaps more than anybody else, were at the receiving end of those Western schemes. Certainly, the West is not what the West thinks it is. There are multiple layers of rotten substances beneath a deceiving layer of glitter. The situation demands somebody to summon courage and shout that œthe emperor has no clothes.

Kwame Anthony Appiah, professor of philosophy and law at New York University, went as far as to declare that people should give up the very idea of Western civilisation. An article of his is thus entitled œThere is no such thing as Western civilization. The author believes that Western civilization œis at best the source of a great deal of confusion, at worst an obstacle to facing some of the great political challenges of our time¦Western civilisation is not at all a good idea, and western culture is no improvement. What people have been taught to call Western civilisation œstumbled into a death match with itself: the Allies and the Great Central Powers hurled bodies at each other, marching young men to their deaths in order to ˜defend civilisation. If there was something that could be called Western civilization died at the blood-soaked fields and gas-poisoned trenches of World War I and World War II when œcivilization-makers demonstrated that œcivilization was turned into a merciless killing machine and its people into soulless servants.

In the same spirit, Albert Schweitzer, a German-French philosopher, opined that Western civilization at the outset of the 20th century was going through a severe crisis. œMost people think that the crisis is due to the war (World War I), but they are wrong. The war, with everything connected with it, is only a phenomenon of the condition of un-civilization in which we find ourselves. Albert Schweitzer then asked: œWhat is the nature of this degeneration in our civilization, and why has it come about? His answer is that Western civilization is far more developed materially than spiritually. Its balance is disturbed, making it a materialistic and hedonistic civilization. œIn our enthusiasm over our progress in knowledge and power we have arrived at a defective conception of civilization itself. We value too highly its material achievements, and no longer keep in mind as vividly as is necessary the importance of the spiritual element in life, the author added.

Albert Schweitzer then attributed the devastation of World War I to this œcivilizational propensity. Instead of cultivating and refining man, œcivilization ruined him; instead of being a productive force, œcivilization came to be a destroyer and an apocalyptic force; and instead of breeding optimism and hope, œcivilization was behind the worlds despondency and suffering. As if a global catastrophe of epic proportions was an inevitable outcome of a catastrophically flawed worldview that pitted man against himself, the rest of creation and, of course, heaven.

Albert Schweitzer elaborated: œIf we go down to rock-bottom, it was machinery and world commerce which brought about the world war (WW1), and the inventions which put into our hands such mighty power of destruction made the war of such a devastating character that conquered and conquerors alike are ruined for a period of which no one can see the end. It was also our technical achievements which put us in a position to kill at such a distance, and to annihilate men in such masses, that we sank so low as to push aside any last impulse to humanity, and were mere blind wills which made use of perfected lethal weapons of such destructive capacity that we were unable to maintain the distinction between combatants and non-combatants.

Muslims should boycott Western un-civilization in the form of bad ideas and inappropriate values

It has become something of a tradition that whenever Israels brutality vis-à-vis the innocent Palestinians escalates Muslims all over the world start talking about the prospect of boycotting the products produced by Jewish companies and the companies in the countries most closely affiliated with Israel, such as the US, Britain and France. The aim is to impact the economies of the guiltiest parties, which presents itself as a reasonable possibility nowadays in the age of globalization. Needless to say that the initiative is appropriate and ought to be supported by all Muslims and by all legitimate and effective means.

However, given the economic realities of the Muslim world and the consumerism mentality of a great many Muslims, the proposed course of action can only be a short-term solution and can generate partial results. A more far-reaching and more profound undertaking is required, which is not far to seek. Taking into consideration the undeniable supremacy of ideas and values, how ubiquitous and at the same time problematic the Western supply of those is, and how much Muslims are dependent on the Western provisions, the answer is obvious.

In order to help themselves and truly œhurt their adversaries, Muslims should embark on a comprehensive, systematic and abiding campaign of boycotting the bad ideas (knowledge or thought) as well as inappropriate values of the West, replacing the rejected components with Islamic alternatives. It is those that maliciously attack the very foundation of each Muslim’s innermost being, poisoning them and, in consequence, undermining the unity, cooperation and strength of the global Muslim society.

By engaging in such behaviour, Muslims will only be reverting to the original state of things, thus ensuring fairness for themselves and their Islamic faith. Without doubt, Islam is the best and only inexhaustible source of wisdom (ideas) and virtue (values), which caused Muslims to dominate the global civilizational scene for more than a thousand years, making the planet earth a better place. It would not be exaggerating to say that virtually all goodness enjoyed by mankind today owes a share, one way or another, to Islam and its righteous civilizational legacies. Amidst the present global outcry for salvation, Islam is the only religion (idea and code of life) that can confidently step forward to address the problem.

Thus, Muslims were never in need of importing Western simplistic and perspectival worldviews, dubious and tentative epistemologies, hedonistic lifestyles, and relativistic value systems. In comparison, Islam stands out with its coherent faith, certitude, sagacity, universality, broadmindedness and practicality. If Muslims’ turning away from their faith in the past was due to elements of coercion, manipulation and self-induced blunders, it raises the question of what is preventing them from returning to the true path today. This is especially so at present when the West is grappling with a host of colossal cultural and civilizational deficiencies, generating gaping vacuums that must be filled.

The increasing civilizational failings of the West are compounded by its unceasing arrogance and hypocrisy, which more than ever before has been unmasked in the course of the current Gaza bloodbath. The West has definitively asserted its adversarial relationship with the mainstream Islam and the Muslim collective consciousness. It has revealed itself to be a foe of reason and humanity.

The insolent behaviour in question should be the last straw for Muslims to decide that enough was enough. The West should be kept at arm’s length and be treated with circumspection. Its poisonous ideas and regressive values should be targeted the most as they are most destructive for the Muslim mind and the Muslim youth, i.e., for the future.

Accordingly “ to give a few examples “ Muslims should stop consuming the Western desecrated and incredulous knowledge that is contradictory to their monotheistic Islamic faith. This implies that sending the young and fragile Muslim minds to the Western educational centres should also be reconsidered, gradually reduced and eventually terminated.

While to the West those places are the centres of educational excellence, to a guided and enlightened Muslim they are nothing more than hubs of non-belief, intellectual uncertainty or chaos, agnosticism (artfully cloaked ignorance or jahiliyyah), repulsive relativism, degrading evolutionary thought, numbing materialistic disposition, and moral nihilism. Even if those places are MIT, Oxford, Harvard, Cambridge, Stanford, etc., for a Muslim, insofar as discharging his existential vicegerency (khilafah on earth) mission is concerned, they are centres of ignorance and misguidance more than anything else.

In the context of the past and present of the Palestinian case, as part of the instance of history as the nucleus of all sciences, a Muslim student will be brainwashed consistent with the Western falsified narratives. In doing so, ones entitlement to freedom of thought and expression, justice and intellectual neutrality, will all go out of the window. Bigotry and myopia will prevail. Defending the truth will be an offence. The current events at Harvard University “ as mentioned earlier “ can be seen as the tip of the iceberg.

Since the goal of education is to prepare a student to live a life, if a Muslim entirely and verbatim follows what he is taught in those œcentres of excellence and lives his life accordingly, he will undoubtedly fail as a Muslim not only in this world, but also in the Hereafter. What those educational institutions offer of shallow worldly considerations is inconsequential when compared with what they cannot offer of truly and profoundly intellectual, moral and spiritual concerns. The substance of existence (al-batin) is compromised owing to peoples obsessions with accidents (al-zahir).

Moreover, Muslims should also shun – or at least be extremely cautious and selective when dealing with – the contaminated sources of Western entertainment, information, fashion and pop culture in general. These are conduits for spreading Western putrefying values and its crumbling sociocultural constructs. There is simply no movie, sitcom, comedy, talk show, song, fashion trend and standard of living, that does not exemplify and try to publicize the Western cultural and civilizational ethos.

Seeing how unashamed they are in reporting outright lies and distortions about the Gaza tragedy, no Muslim should allow that the doctrinaire Western news outlets – especially CNN, Fox News, BBC, Sky News and the rest of the same ilk “ are ever watched again in his house or workplace. From now on, they should be regarded as non-existent. By taking this action, we can make a small contribution to the plight of Gaza’s victims, as well as affirm and exemplify the truth.

In keeping with the colonization concept of œmission to civilize, every single facet of the Western reality is inclined to a proselytization culture. It follows that those Muslims who lay themselves open to Western influences will gain little in return, while simultaneously threatening their mental, moral and spiritual integrity. The best option for both individuals and communities would be to declare a war against those destructive elements at each personal and institutional level.

Now that the West has removed its final veil (mask), there is no more concealing the reality. By unveiling its true nature, the West has forfeited the right to be judged on any other basis. ***

(Assoc. Prof. Dr. Spahic Omer is an academic in Department of History and Civilisation, AbdulHamid AbuSulayman Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences.)