Qur'anic Psychological Decolonisation: Episode 2

You know, psychological profilers, in law enforcement say that when a murder is committed, with unusual brutality, it typically means that the killer, had a personal motive, that they were driven by some sort of intense emotions against the victim whom they wanted to humiliate and annihilate through extreme violence. This usually indicates that the killer himself has a severe insecurity and a sense of his own inadequacy. This, in my opinion, is the psychological profile of the West, of the colonizing nations. Their brutality against the Muslim world has been extreme. And I don't just mean, in terms of violence, but brutal in their attempts to erase culture, erase the civilization of the Muslim world, and in fact, all of the the cultures of the global South, generally.

It's it has conspicuously personal nature to it. They're not only trying to pillage our resources, they're trying to annihilate our identities, our civilization. Because as I said last week, they see our resources as some kind of a divine endorsement of our people, as an honor given by Allah to our people that was not given to their people. And furthermore, they see our civilization itself as a threat to their own self worth as a rival so called civilization, so they want it erased Just like a vindictive and envious murderer who kills because the existence, the mere existence of his victim is an unbearable reminder to himself of his own inadequacy. You know?

It's like a stalker who spirals out of control and eventually wants to destroy the one with whom he is obsessed. This is the West in the Muslim world. This is the this is Western so called civilization and Muslim civilization. You know, I spoke last week about how the mentality of Western supremacy, which rationalized colonization, how this developed, in my opinion, out of the West's inherent sense of being deprived and how that sense of deprivation was the result of their own actual lack of both material natural wealth, and lack of civilizational merit. That this, supremacism of the West is a form of compensating for inadequacy, which is why it so typically manifests in violence and aggression.

If you wanna frame this in the in the in the the parlance of so called alpha male, beta male social hierarchy theory, Then colonizers are beta, and the colonized are alpha. The colonizers harbor feelings of inadequacy and envy towards the perceived superiority of the colonized who represent the alpha males, possessing inherent strength, resilience, and cultural richness. These beta colonizers are driven by jealousy and insecurity, and they seek to compensate for their sense of their own inferiority through aggressive and vindictive behavior towards the colonized populations. They resort to violence. They resort to exploitation and cultural erasure in a desperate bid, to assert their dominance and to validate their own sense of their self worth.

Because without violence and aggression, they don't possess, the innate merits that would elevate them to natural authority. Thus, they need to impose domination as a substitute for authentic authority. Beta colonizers exhibit traits of what is popularly referred to as toxic masculinity, manifesting hyper masculine displays of dominance, aggression, and control. Masculinity in this context, of course, is, in this framing, denotes any sort of powerful, purposeful, respected, identity sense of identity. They perceive the alpha colonized as a threat to their masculinity and their social status, which just fuels a vicious cycle of oppression and violence.

Colonizers grapple with profound feelings of insecurity, in my opinion, and apprehension stemming from their relentless pursuit to uphold power and control over colonized people. You can't settle you can't be at peace like that. So these sentiments then manifest in various forms, including the ruthless use of violence and oppression to quash any and all resistance and dissent alongside the establishment of rigid social hierarchies and discriminatory systems to legitimize their false supremacy. They need to do that because they can't establish their supremacy on the basis of being superior. In essence, the the psyche of colonizers is a a sort of complex interplay of superiority and insecurity, dehumanization, and internal conflict.

The psyche of Western colonialism, Western colonization is a phenomenon that can be likened, I think, to the insecure narcissist seeking validation and dominance at the expense of others. Western colonial powers driven by deep seated feelings of inadequacy and inferiority embarked on a mission of conquest around the world and exploitation just to disprove to themselves that they are in fact inferior as a civilization. They adopted a a a civilizational persona of superiority and entitlement. They justified colonization as a civilizing mission, masking their actions, with claims of moral and cultural superiority, primarily because and precisely because in the their their heart of hearts, they knew that the opposite was true. I mean, consider just the the contrast between Europe at the beginning of the Crusades and and the the Muslim world at the beginning of the Crusades.

Europe, during the early Crusade era, was characterized by feudalism, a hierarchical system where land was owned by feudal lords and worked by peasants in exchange for protection and a share of the crops. It was inherently unfair. The majority of the people in in Europe lived in rural areas and were engaged in agriculture with farming techniques that were primitive, and crop yields were relatively low because their technology, their their their understanding of agriculture, even though they were dependent upon agriculture, their actual understanding of how to do agriculture was very limited and very primitive. I mean, cities existed, but they were smaller, much smaller, and less developed compared to the the urban centers in the Muslim world. I mean, sanitation alone and living conditions in European cities were abysmal.

They had high rates of disease and mortality as a as a result of their lack of sanitation and so on, cleanliness and hygiene generally. I mean, trade, commerce, all of that. It was very limited compared to the Muslim world. And the economy was, as I said, largely agrarian. Education and literacy literacy rates were very low.

Knowledge at that time in Europe was primarily disseminated by the church and monastic institutions. Now compare that to us. Compare that to the Muslim world. The Muslim world during the early crusades encompassed a vast and diverse territory stretching from Spain to Central Asia, including regions of great prosperity and cultural advancement. Urban centers like, Baghdad and Cairo and Cordoba were renowned for their wealth and sophistication and cultural flourishing and education.

These cities boasted impressive architecture, advanced infrastructure, and vibrant markets, and trade routes. Agriculture was highly developed in the Muslim world, especially in in Spain. They had advanced irrigation techniques that facilitated large scale farming and high agricultural productivity compared to Europe. Trade and commerce thrived, all facilitated by extensive networks of land and sea routes that connected the Muslim world with Africa, with Asia, and with Europe. Even Southeast Asia, Muslim merchants played a crucial role in the exchange of goods and ideas and technologies, that's how Islam even spread to Southeast Asia.

I mean, scientific and intellectual and cultural achievements in the Muslim world were flourishing during that period with significant advancements in fields such as astronomy and mathematics and medicine, philosophy, literature, and so on. I mean, on and on. Centers of learning such as in Baghdad, the house of wisdom so called, served as a hub of scholarship and innovation. Overall, while Europe was characterized by feudalism, limited urban development, relatively low standards of living, during the, the early Crusader period, the Muslim world was marked by urban sophistication, economic prosperity, cultural advancement, and intellectual flourishing, which is why beneath their facade of confidence, there's always been a fear of being overshadowed, which led to aggression, and it led to violence, and it led to exploitation so that they could maintain dominance because they couldn't do it any other way. I mean, no one better exemplifies this than The United States, which literally feels threatened by something that might happen all the way on the other side of the world.

Say, the South China Sea. What do you have to do with it? But something can happen in the South China Sea, and and America thinks it's against them. You can relate this this to the the the characteristic of the who think that every cry is against them. Look.

All of the wealth and the prosperity that they have is stolen. It's all the result of pillage and exploitation. It's the result of greed and vicious oppression. And because this is so, they are the loudest voices preaching about human rights and freedom. It's all deflection, purely deflection.

When they're told not to make mischief, not to make facade in the land, what do they say? We're just peacemakers. I think that the process of colonization, you know, obviously leads to dehumanization of the colonized in the minds of the colonizers. They perceive the indigenous populations merely as a means to economic exploitation or as obstacles to hindering their imperial ambitions. This dehumanization serves as a justification for their actions, enabling them to, rationalize the atrocities that they inflict upon the colonized.

But beneath the facade, of strength and superiority, colonizers, in my opinion, grapple, with internal contradictions and moral quandaries Despite projecting an image of dominance, they harbor feelings of guilt, shame, moral ambiguity regarding their their role in perpetuating colonial oppression. These moral conflicts can be suppressed or denied, but they linger beneath the surface. And that contributes to that that that sense of cognitive dissonance that I talk about and moral unrest. You can put it in a in very simple terms. It's like when someone pretends to be an expert or something.

They pretend that they they're they're an expert on on a particular issue in the comment section of social media. But when you press them for substantiation of what they've said, then they immediately turn hostile and lash out. They deflect, and they just repeat their claim of authority without ever proving that they know anything. That's the difference between fake superiority and actual superiority. It's the difference between fraudulent and authentic prowess and expertise.

The Muslims are the real deal. Muslims are the real thing. But look what they say when you tell them something like that, when you tell them that the Muslims are superior. Look at the type of arguments that they'll use try to refute you. It reveals everything about the way they think.

When you tell them that Muslim civilization is superior, they'll say, well, why are so many Muslim countries poor then? Or or they'll say, we invented all the technology of the modern world. But why does everyone wanna come to the West? Why does everyone wanna immigrate to the West if we're so bad, etcetera, etcetera? None of these are arguments for genuine civilizational authority or supremacy.

None of these are moral arguments. None of these are arguments that substantiate a superior Western values. They're all materialistic arguments. Again, because they have no understanding of how to properly assign value. They don't understand what makes a civilization civilized.

And the answer to all of these arguments, all of their arguments, the answer is the same to every one of those arguments. The answer is western brutal violence and oppression, and they know that, of course. And that's precisely why they have been brutal oppressors, because they imagine that that that that material value equates to moral value. Thus, if our violence and savagery makes us richer than you, then it makes our civilization better. No.

It just makes your so called civilization savage and violent. And it means that you loot and pillage better than actually civilized nations because civilized nations don't do that. I mean, think about this. Everyone holds it as a truism. Right?

Everyone holds it as a truism that divide and conquer is the universal formula for imperial expansion. But no. That's the western formula. The Muslim empire didn't expand through divide and conquer, quite the opposite. Unlike the, western colonizers who thrived on sowing discord and exploiting, divisions in a society, our empire's growth was fueled by principles of unity, justice, and cooperation.

Come to a word that's equitable between us and you. When our forebearers, when our predecessors embarked on expansion, they didn't aim to sow seeds of discord in the communities where they expanded to. Instead, they sought to actually forge bonds of unity and try to elevate those societies. They extended messages of tolerance and respect to diverse communities, establishing governance patterns, that respected the rights and the traditions of all, fostering a sense of inclusivity within the Muslim empire. Instead of exacerbating existing divisions in those societies, early Muslims endeavor to bridge those those those divides through dialogue and diplomacy and shared values.

If they incline towards peace, then you incline towards peace. They understood the strength inherent in unity and diversity, harnessing the talents and the contributions of all types of people, of all varied backgrounds and beliefs. This is even embedded, in our jurisprudence, in our which recognizes local customs as a as a sort of tertiary source of law. I mean, the Muslim empire's expansion wasn't driven by desires for dominion or exploitation. It was fueled by a vision of justice, of prosperity, harmony.

You know? It was guided by the by the principles of Islam, advocating compassion, equity, and cooperation. In every example that you can think of, the oppressed underclass, the peasants within the lands that were conquered by the Muslims, they celebrated our arrival as liberation. Our emissaries, the kings and the emperors of that time, used to emphasize that we treat every Muslim as equals. We're all slaves, only to the creator and not to the created.

Imagine how that was received by the oppressed people, in those lands. And this same equality before the law was granted to every citizen under Muslim rule regardless of their faith, Muslim and non Muslim. When the Muslims conquered a land, they established peace and understanding between all of the classes, between all of the ethnicities, between all of the religious groups and the rival factions in those lands because we wanted harmony and stability. We didn't need to, practice divide and conquer. We didn't we didn't do that because we didn't have to.

We wanted unity and cohesion under Islam for both Muslims and non Muslims. Again, that's the difference between false superiority and real superiority, And that's the difference between genuine authority and domination. Let me say something more about that because I've seen a few comments on some of my videos where people object, to me saying that our ummah, is better than every other ummah. And they suggest that this echoes the pride of Iblis with regards to Adam No. We can say that and we can believe that and we should believe that and we must believe that not because we say so, but because Allah said so.

If you deny this reality, the the reality of the superiority of this ummah, then you deny the Quran itself. The Muslim ummah is the best ummah that was ever raised among mankind, and this isn't just a claim. History bears it out. History bears it out not only in terms of, how our civilization conducted itself, but also in terms of how the Western so called civilization, has always been driven into a fever of envy and vindictive violence against us. And why they adopted the reality of Muslim expansion as their propaganda about their colonization.

In other words, the the the Muslims truly were liberators, and they were welcomed truly by the local people when they arrived because they were rescuing them from the oppression and tyranny that they were suffering. While the oppressive and tyrannical West uses this narrative about themselves when they invade and occupy a land, when they colonize a land. But look at the difference. The lands that became Muslim as a result of Muslim expansion are still Muslim today and always will be. Meanwhile, the countries that you people colonized hate you, and they want nothing to do with you.

And they are right now struggling to reject the West in every way that they can because you forced yourselves on those people and you forced your ways on those people. The cultures that you tried to erase are trying to erase every remnant of yours that's still in their countries because your beta, your superiority is fake. And you could only, beat people into submission to get them to go along and to pretend along with you, that you're better than they are. We never did that. When we came, we actually made people better.

We made society better. We actually brought civilization and honor wherever we went. That's what you say you did, but ask your victims today. Ask what they'll say. Ask your colonized people, the people that you colonized.

Ask them, and then ask the people in the lands that Islam expanded to what they think. The lands that became the Muslim empire, they thrived with us. And any deprivation and any suffering that they experienced, it was from you. It was from your colonization, which attacked and dismantled the Islamic empire that they thrived in. Nobody in the world is gonna thank you.

No one in the world is gonna remember you fondly for coming to their lands. But the lands that came into the Islamic empire, like I said, they're still Muslim today, which is all you need to know about how those people feel. And I already know there's gonna be people in the comment section talking about Spain, talking about Andalus. Andalusia. Yeah.

Okay. We can talk about that. You drove the Muslims out. Congratulations. And you ended the golden era.

You ended the most flourishing, most brilliant era in Spain's history. Congratulations. Every you have the you have the opposite of the Midas touch. Everywhere you go, you end the golden era of any country that you that you go to, any society that you go to, any civilization that you go to, that you colonize, you bring an end to whatever golden era they ever had. And you start a very dark and dismal, violent, barbaric era for them.

You replace the golden era with a barbaric era. You replace the enlightened era with a new dark ages everywhere you go. No. Allah said it about us and we proved it. And we continue to prove it today and we always will.

We are the best ummah. And you're a fraudulent society, a fraudulent civilization, a counterfeit pirated imitation of a truly superior civilization. And until the West and the people of the West actually recognize and acknowledge this, they will continue to suffer the same suppressed inferiority complex, that always fueled their violence and aggression for all these centuries. They will continue to suffer the same cognitive dissonance and the same hostile toxic narcissism that has always plagued their societies and their collective psyche and plagues it today. They'll always be beta.

They'll always be liars, lying to themselves and lying to the world. They lie about themselves to themselves, and they lie about themselves to the world, and they lie about the world to themselves. And in this this state of comprehensive falsehood, they can only ever be a hazard to everyone and to their own people.