AS I SEE IT -- by dr omar -- The Realities Confronting Islamization Policies and Pundits

In answer to awesome social problems the Gnostic German Philosopher, Rudolph Steiner, used the term ‘Spiritual Science’ to describe his magnificent foray into metaphysics.^[i]  He reestablished Gnostic Christianity and the Cosmic Christ as a global panacea called Anthroposophy.  According to him, Christ returned to the ’Astral dimension in 1933 to oppose Hitler’s mob, et alia.  He bequeathed initiatory exercises for his disciples to achieve an exalted state of spiritual cognition, but few of his devotees were able to enter his subjective ‘higher world’ milieu and repeat “astral” observations exactly as he —not unlike many Jesuits who fail to achieve Loyola’s ecstasy.   In fact it is not unlikely that Herr Steiner was schooled by Jesuits as an Austrian Catholic.
Consequently, much of his teaching (observations of the unseen) has been dogmatized and followers voraciously devour his written word and tradition like the faithful of any cult.  Dr. Steiner — a Jew an Illuminatus, Catholic and Freemason — claimed to enter and observe unseen realms rigorously at will and minus any amentive fana (ecstasy).  His mystic forays resulted in knowledge that when applied to the material world brought great benefit and even repeatable scientific advances in the realms of bio-dynamic farming, architecture, bio-sciences and medicine amongst other disciplines.  His work is well known amongst middle and upper class Europeans and in segments of the American Khassa, most of which adhere to principles of socialism and the cosmic Christology of Pharaoh.
I submit that academicians and patrons of the Islamization of Knowledge School are seeking a similar marriage minus the painstaking rigor the term implies.  It is far easier to undergo jet lag in four and five star hotels while writing pabulum and signing books that have little or no effect on common taxi drivers except to allow the khassa to burden them further. I’ll be bold enough to venture further and suggest that the idioms (IOK and Islamic Science) represent evangelical banners described by Adorno’s ‘identitarian thought’.  They have developed spontaneously as defense mechanism for a polity on the verge of disaster, hoping it might ease the pains of extremis. ^[ii]   This naturally attracted the cunning endorsement of Occidental dons of deception who are subtle tacticians of distraction (magi).  They then endorsed and found ready funds for our desperately befuddled alim.  Why? —To keep them talking and writing rather than fighting.  It really is that simple.  If you feel like a fool that’s a great step towards repentance.
Not that I doubt Muslim eschatology, but I lay these charges as a hard scientist and former pagan metaphysician.  I have experienced the rigor that accompanies both occult studies and the laboratory.  I was a professional musician, Theosophist, Anthroposophist, Freemason, Christian Preacher, Casualty Physician and biochemistry student prior to my reversion to Islam.  These primary experiences and studies all taught me things which most Muslim alim either don’t know at all or only read about.  As an example, I spoke with a highly respected Malay Alim who had no idea of the actual practices that accompany Gnosticism and ancient fertility cults.
Another reason I foster the charge is because the term ‘Islamic Science’ was never used prior to 1948, which was a rather significant year of disaster for the ummah of Mohammad (pbh).  Consider that its genesis is from a Shi’ite Professor who now—like Afghani—claims to be Sunni but was also a cum laude pupil of Frithjof Schuon.  Herr Schuon was a man whose Gnostic doctrine of Religio Perennis includes Egyptian Hermeticism with a tilt of the hat to Mariolatry; a creed that subsumes all religions and demotes Islam in favor of papist ecumenicism. I can only conclude that the movement is highly suspect, especially since Prof. Nasr’s seat of tenure is a Freemasonic stronghold (George Washington, the demigod, University).
It is extremely important for the uninitiated Mulsim to know without doubt that the occult Jesuit and Freemasonic histories contain the imposition and/or support of several ideologues such as Schuon’s and also include crypto-Jewish villains like Ataturk, Freemasons like Abduh and his Sheikh, al’Afghani (a closet Shi’ite, Freemason and British agent).  To support my reservations I regarding Prof Nasr I offer the following passage from his own pen:

• On the Survey of Metaphysics and Esoterism by Frithjof Schuon: A Review by S. H. Nasr;

• This book is a veritable summa of traditional doctrines at the heart of which stands metaphysics. It is in a sense a synthesis of the works of the author written over the past half-century and casts a light of exceptional intensity upon complex metaphysical issues, various facets of man’s inner life and the spiritual significance of existence itself in relation to the Supreme Principle. ^{[1], [2]}

I am forced to ask what the author means by the subtle capitalization of “Supreme Principle”? The allusion is typical of ideological-voodoo-abstractions for which Hermetic initiates and their cronies are infamous.  Luciferian Freemasons refer to their god as the “Supreme Architect of the Universe” and the Jesuit inner circle of the ‘fourth vow’ distinctly holds Luciferian Gnosticism at its root; one that also accepts the ‘Universal Soul’ as the bisexual Animus Mundi of the ancient world which completely parallels the Freemasonic (Satanic) Baphomet along the entire course of study.  Unfortunately, their lesser members and sub-cults of lower degree such as the Rotarians, Knights of Columbus and so forth actually believe the phrase refers to “God the Creator,” when in fact it is an occult designation for Satan as Lucifer, the Light Bearer. In addition, the infamous Freemasonic ‘G’ represents Gnosticism, hence, end of discussion.
These concerns are shared by others who are gravely alarmed by the IOK movement’s proximity to principals and institutions known for profound subterfuge and a continuum of genocide.
Consider soberly that traditional Islamic scholars,^[iii]  whom many are wont to quote, never entertained the concepts of Islamic Science or IOK due to a tawhidic consciousness that inspired astounding scholarship and methodical thoroughness for hard and soft sciences.  This clearly indicates they neither had nor perceived any need for either term. The taxonomy was not only unnecessary but unscientific as well.  Cogitators like myself see the idioms as implied incongruities or redundancies.  Hence, it appears for some that the cause of IOK’s Islamic Science is a patronizing undertaking by advocates who’ve never published hard scientific results or entertained al’Ghazali’s fana as a primary experience. Frankly, I believe such of my brethren in faith have naively succumbed to illusions of the real work of jihad and surrendered their potentials to Hierophants of Iblissian finesse’ who continue to erode the fundamentals of Islam’s Sword with dialogues on “Supreme Principles” and useless Islamization efforts.
I actually and advisedly suspect IOK and Islamic Science initiatives are diversionary tactics employed so that Knights of Malta utilizing World Bank IFI’s and American-NSA Economic Hit-men^[iv] administer customary rapine and plunder without the organized opposition of well educated Muslim Alim.  The IOK and Islamic Science Institutions are so thoroughly integrated and managed by occult Hermetic fellowships (think Georgetown, Rhodes and Fulbright) that while one arm plunders the other arm send’s aide and re-educators to rebuild the pillaged polity’s next generation in the beast’s image.  Consensus Education is a dandy way of accomplishing this via Hegel’s dialectic and Fabian cum Zionist protocols of the Yale Bonesman John Dewey, et. alia.  This condign methodology was birthed out Freudian madness courtesy of London’s Tavistock Institute and Universities of Chicago and Columbia.^[3]
Nevertheless, Emeritus Prof. Osman Bakar does offer the following defense for what he calls the ‘Process of Islamization’:

• When we look at literature in different languages, apart from English, Malay, Arabic, Persian, Turkish, etc., the word Islamization, as it is generally used, is applied to various things in a given context like a geo-cultural region, for example: Haribandar, the Dutch Orientalist, the specialist in Islam in South East Asia long before Prof. al-Attas, has already used the word Islamization, in this sense.  He used it, for example, in his book, The Rising of the Sun (referring to the Japanese occupation in this part of the world). He talked about Islamization of the Malay Archipelago and that expression became the theme of Prof. al-Attas’s Islamization. Certainly, he came before Prof. al-Attas, and he used the term Islamization of the Malay Archipelago. We can talk about Islamization of the Malay world, Islamization of Sub-Saharan Africa, Islamization of Central Asia, of the Balkans and so on. So people used that idiom. Of course, Islamization of a community, of a people, Islamization of the Malays, Islamization of the Turkish people, Islamization of the Sudanese, and so on: it is all valid and legitimate, meaning the term has been used for a people’s or a community’s application of Islamic principles.  Moreover the word Islamization has been used in the context of ‘worldview’: Islamization of the worldview or Islamization of the Malay world-view. It has thus been used… [however], it is difficult to come up with a consensus on the term “Islamic.”   We can have a lot of agreements, commonalities, but to have one single definition, no. Thus, as for Islamicity, loosely we say conformity with Islam, etc., etc., and what do you mean by conformity with Islam, conformity to what? …

• And now, as for my own definition: Islamization is the process — of course it is a process (that’s one thing we all agree on) — by which an entity (why do we use a general term entity? Because that entity could be a geographical region, could be people, could be a community, could be knowledge) — is transformed. The transformer could be the Holy Qur’an, could be the Sunnah, could be the whole teaching of Islam, it could be just some aspects of Islam… My definition of Islamization of knowledge is that it is the process by which the whole body of human knowledge is particularized, classified, organized and systematized in conformity with Islamic epistemological principles.            — Lecture Series on the Islamization of Knowledge, ISTAC 2007

His definition is what irks non-Muslim scientists and Muslims like myself who’ve actually entered modern labs and fields of scientific rigor; not that he errs philosophically or even historically except for contentions that Islam has no universal definition and that knowledge is an “entity”, which is a disturbing concept when one actually reflects on its implications, especially since it managed to slip in at the end of a list of ‘entities’ all of which have well defined identities.
However, many see scant justification to honor the suggestions of non-scientists who hail from countries rife with parochial corruption and are completely dependent on the hard won advances of the West and goods and services of non-Muslim ethnicities such as Christians, Catholics, Hindus and Buddhists in addition to Occidentalized facilities for finance and development owned by Kabalists and sundry members of secret societies and privilege that are mercilessly preying on an polities they seek to Islamize in such a contorted image.   A credibility gap lives here that is far too real to ignore by “Muslim” leaders who’ve opened gates of despoliation while surrendering insufficient funds for the R & D required by indigenous scientists to compete with contemporary industries.  In other words, supporters of Islamization are preaching to the choir when they should be tearing down the dais of pretense that supplies their inflated salaries.
As for the question posed by Prof. Bakar regarding “… conformity to what?” let me respond as a Medical cum Social scientist by addressing the neuroscience describing the brain’s struggle to conform:

• Again, it is not that rationalization never occurs without right hemisphere damage, but that right hemisphere damage both exacerbates it and gives the conformist left hemisphere hegemony in interpretation. … the left hemisphere is conformist, largely indifferent to discrepancies, whereas the right hemisphere is the opposite: highly sensitive to perturbation.

William E. Connolly; Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed
Regents of the University of Minnesota & Press, 2000.

This then begs the question as to whether or not right hemispheric damage or inhibition is possibly induced by propaganda or other more invasive forms of intervention.   Do I have any Muslim takers with right hemispheres intact who are bold enough to explore the answer?  Of such is the need that goes begging in our ummah.  Where are they, or have all succumbed to the left hemispheric dominance via conformity to repressive neo-patriarchy?
Another problem with Islamic Science and Islamization policies and pundits is that very few understand the dilemma and many who think they do have abandoned Traditional Islam to marabouts like Nick Aziz of Malaysia’s opposition party in favor of liberal versions of the Prophet’s religion (pbh), ala Prof. Nasr and Jesuit initiates like Fr. John Voll or Prof. John Esperanza who “thinks the entire globe is a Conference hall chaired by the West…”.^[4] These folk favor the antithetical-anti-Islamic hegemonic pluralism that attends globalist mania with Hermetic plans for a UN mandate and World Government headquarters in Jerusalem — ‘chaired by the West’ of course.
To briefly highlight this quintessential impasse, I remind us that Islam’s traditional scholars of the Classical Age painstakingly indexed knowledge under two general categories below the heading of ilm: ^[5]
(1)              the study of religion; and
(2)              ilum: the study of

• (a)           the human body and
• (b)           the world or cosmos in general;

which is to say revealed knowledge, metaphysics (minus mysticism), and both the micro- and macrocosms.
They did this specifically according to the Prophet’s instruction.^[6]  Scholars such as al-Razi, al-Biruni, al-Tusi and al-Farsi et. alia. had no need of the term ‘Islamic Science’.  Today however, in the midst of endemic ignorance, sectarianism and apathy towards the extremely hard work of scientific rigor, perhaps the need for the term has arisen in order to re-invigorate an errant polity and its educational institutions.  It could well be that a proper approach and perspective will counter-balance the last five hundred years of decline under extremism, Orientalist intrusions, interpolations by crypto-Jews and Jesuits, as well as the mystic impetus of euphoric amentia and degenerate political nihilism.

• For the decline of science, it is said that the tolerance towards science which was the orthodoxy of early Islam had been changed from the time of al-Ghazali (d. 1111 A.D.).  This tolerance gave place to the persecution of the study of science because it [allegedly] led to the loss of belief in the origin of the world and in the Creator.” ‘Science and State in its Power and Weakness’, Muhammad D. Batayneh ^[7]

This is certainly not to blame the eminent Ghazali but rather fans of fana who followed and misapplied his doctrines much as materialists did/do with Newton’s work.  The Question therefore is: “What is the proper approach to the Islamization of Knowledge and dissemination of Islamic Science as per its proponents?  I pray God to answer, clearly, concisely and unfortunately, pessimistically in the next section.