ISIS are not Sunnis. They are a British and Salafi Plot to Create Neo-Caliphate

There is obviously an effort afoot to paint ISIS with an indelible brush as a “Sunni” movement, in order to deliberately inculcate the fear that they threaten to attract a far larger following, and therefore ignite a more significant conflict in the already volatile Middle East.

But ISIS are not Sunni. Nothing could be further from the truth. ISIS are Salafis, a leading manifestation of a modern phenomenon in Islam which scholars have referred to as “Revivalism.” The Islamic revivalists have two important things in common: they have all been British-sponsored, and are marked by a rejection of Islamic legal tradition.

The communal effort to codify the intricacies of Islamic law is one of the great intellectual achievements of human history. And by the ninth century, there emerged the recognition that the essential details had been examined with sufficient thoroughness, and that it was time to proceed with implementing the justice of Islam, and not just debate about it. It was therefore unanimously decided that 4 leading schools would be recognized as representative of Sunni orthodoxy. The schools, known as a Maddhabs, differed on minor points, but were considered mutually compatible.

Therefore, Islamic law was essentially incorruptible. It had been formulated by its greatest minds, and stringent credentials were enforced on those who would qualify in interpreting it and enforcing it. From that point forward, the Doors of Ijtihad (independent reasoning) were considered closed. 

This posed an important challenge to the British, who wished to pursue their “Divide and Conquer” strategy, by creating sects and corruptions of the religion. They therefore sponsored a wave of these so-called “Revivalists” who all shared in their call for a re-opening of the Doors of Ijtihad, beginning with a Mohammed Abdul Wahhab, in the mid-1700s.

Wahhab, a crypto Jew, supported by his sponsor, another crypto-Jew, Ibn Saud, the progenitor of the kingdom by that name, denounced every generation before him, except for the earliest to have succeeded the Prophet Mohammed, known as the Salaf, as having fallen into Kufr (apostacy). In other words, he rejected the entire era that produced the details of Islamic legal tradition and the Maddhabs. Instead, he called for a return to the sources, the Quran and Sunnah, undefiled by “human” opinion. He therefore also called a “Jihad” against the Muslims, first within Arabia, and ultimately against the Ottoman Empire.

In 1932, again with British support, the Saud clan seized control of Arabia, which they proceeded to name after themselves, and of al Haramain, the sacred precincts of Mecca and Medina, thus donning the very false pretense of being defenders of Sunni Islam. In 1933, they signed away oil concessions to the Rockefellers' Standard Oil, remaining the chief source of petroleum to that company, which has now evolved into ExxonMobil, the world's third largest company by revenue, and the second largest publicly traded company by market capitalization.

The extraordinary Saudi wealth was a key factor in their support for the spread of Wahhabism, as well as the related Salafi movement, which have since essentially become one. Salafism began in the last eighteenth century, headed by a notorious imposter and British agent by the name of Jamal ud Din al Afghani. Afghani was not only the Grand Master of the Freemasons of Egypt, but also purportedly a leading figure of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, which played a pivotal role in the rise of the European Occult Revival, leading to the Theosophical Society of H. P. Blavatsky, considered the godmother of the New Age movement, and of the Golden Dawn and then eventually the Ordo TEmpli Orientis (OTO) of Aleister Crowley. Afghani was also an original source of the Masonic teachings of the wayward Nation of Islam in the US.

Like the Wahhabis, the focus of the Salafi mission was to call for a re-opening of the Doors of Ijtihad, and Afghani's leading disciple Mohammed Abduh, was installed by the British as Mufti at the prestigious university of al Azhar, where he proceeded to use that pretence re-write the laws of Islam to suit the purposes of his sponsors. In Afghani’s own words, as cited in Elie Kedourie, Afghani and Abduh: An Essay on Religious Unbelief and Political Activism in Modern Islam:

We do not cut off the head of religion except with the sword of religion. Therefore, if you were to see us now, you would see ascetics and worshipers, kneeling and genuflecting, never disobeying God’s commands and doing all that they are ordered to do.

Afghani’s British handler, Wilfred Scawen Blunt, was the first to propose the establishment of a British controlled “Caliphate” (leader of the entire Muslim community) to replace the Ottoman Empire. In 1881, when Blunt visited Abdul Qadir al Jazairi, a Freemason and Algerian hero residing in exile in Damascus, he decided that he was the most promising candidate for Caliphate, an opinion shared by Afghani and Abduh.

The idea of a neo-caliphate was later actively pursued by T. E. Lawrence, aka “Lawrence of Arabia,” who managed the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire on behalf of the British at the end of WWII. The ostensible aim of the Arab Revolt was autonomy for the Arab peoples of the Ottoman Empire, creating a single unified Arab state from Syria to Yemen, under a puppet Caliphate, where Hussein would be proclaimed “King of all the Arabs.”

The plan to create a neo-Caliphate was devised by London’s Middle East team, which included foreign secretary Lord Curzon, Robert Cecil and his cousin Arthur Balfour, and also Mark Sykes and David George Hogarth, the chief of the Arab Bureau. They were joined by Winston Churchill and Arnold Toynbee, who was head of the Round Tablers’ Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the sister organization of the Rockefellers’ CFR. Outlining the policy was Lawrence:

If the Sultan of Turkey were to disappear, then the Caliphate by common consent of Islam would fall to the family of the prophet, the present representative of which is Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca. Hussein’s activities seem beneficial to us, because it marches with our immediate aims, the breakup of the Islamic bloc and the disruption of the Ottoman Empire, and because the states he would set up would be as harmless to ourselves as Turkey was. If properly handled the Arab States would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of jealous principalities incapable of cohesion, and yet always ready to combine against an outside force.

The ISIS’ handlers (Mossad, CIA, MI5 or all of the above) have learned a lot over the years. They made a mistake in choosing bin Laden who was an engineer by education and profession, and therefore failed to convince the Islamic world of his qualifications to set himself up as a leader or to interpret the nuances of Jihad. Similarly, when Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban, finally gained control over the country of Afghanistan, he diffused the enthusiasm of large swaths of the Muslim world’s would-be radicals, who had merely been watching for the outcome, by instead only declaring himself “Amir ul Mumineen,” or “Commander of the Faithful.”

But now the situation seems to be interpreted as being more timely by ISI’s hidden manipulators. It’s been well advertised that not only did ISIS’ leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has now dared to declare himself “Caliph” of the world’s Muslims, earn a master's degree and a PhD in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad, but he is also a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed, a supposed prerequisite for that office.

The re-establishment of a Caliph over the world of Islam is the universal aspiration of the Muslims. Every Muslim despairs at the ravages of Western Imperialism, as well as its blind sponsorship of rapacious Zionism. But that makes them especially manipulable by their enemies, who dare to prop up false oppositions, or Pied Pipers like al Baghdadi.

But they’ve made one colossal mistake: they have mistakenly claimed that ISIS is a “Sunni organization.” Since the absence of true Sunni authority, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1924, the Saudis have taken advantage of the vacuum to fund their aberrant interpretations, and succeeded to a great extent in fooling the world that Wahhabism and Salafism are merely reform trends within Sunnism. And for the most part, many Muslims are convinced. But the problem with the Muslims today is they are prone to extremism and lapses mistakenly identified as “Shariah” precisely for the reason that they have been estranged from their true Islamic legal tradition, which is found in following the Maddhabs.

Once they recognize that truth, they will no longer be suspectible to imposters like ISIS. But more dangerously still, they will have rediscovered their true heritage, which made them incorruptible and an indomnitable force in the past.



God's Caliphate is already on Earth. It is the Messianic Revivalist Islam, the 73rd sect, led by the true peaceful persecuted Messiah akin to Jesus (as) who served the scattered Hebrews.

Here's the 4th Khalifatul Masih (ra) giving an impromptu discourse on the Protocols.


It's completely hypocritical of other so-called 'moderate' salafi jihadis to criticise ISIS when many of their own major scholars themselves hold the opinion, or have issued fatwas legalizing the targeted (not collateral damage) mass-slaughtering of innocent civilians, including women, children and babies, for a 'need' or for 'equal retaliation.'

'Need' includes the need to cast terror into the hearts of the Kuffaar - as Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin (a prominent salafi scholar) and others explained in their famous fatwas. So theoretically according to these fatwas, broadcasting live beheadings of women and children would be justified as this would definitely cast terror into the hearts of the Kuffaar and would also fulfil the command to retaliate equally upon the Kuffaar who have slaughtered millions of our brothers and sisters.

In fact, were we to imagine the metamorphosis of another natural mutation of Salafism doing exactly that, calling themselves ISIS-Plus, and televising live beheadings of women, children and babies, then it would be equally hyprocritical for the current ISIS to whine about the relative extremism of ISIS-Plus.

Some of these fatwas can be found here:

The ancient, medieval Laws of Jihad as set in stone and enshrined in the Four Madh-habs vividly portray the fact that ISIS is following a religion other than Islam - rather in absolute conflict with Islam. Here is a mere sample of such medieval and timeless rulings of Islam which expose the reality of the ISIS and Salafi religion:


The following quotes from the Classical Fuqaha (jurists), provide just a glimpse into the 1400 year old, ancient, medieval, and “backward” Laws of Jihad:

Allamah Ibn Abd al-Barr said:

وَأَجْمَعَ الْعُلَمَاءُ عَلَى الْقَوْلِ بِجُمْلَةِ هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ، وَلَا يَجُوزُ عِنْدَهُمْ قَتْلُ نِسَاءِ الْحَرْبِيِّينَ وَلَا أَطْفَالِهِمْ؛ لِأَنَّهُمْ لَيْسُوا مِمَّنْ يُقَاتِلُ فِي الْأَغْلَبِ

“The Ulama (scholars) are unanimous (i.e. Ijma’) on advocating the generality of this hadith, and it is not permissible according to them to kill women and children from the Harbis (people whom the Muslims are at war with), because they are not generally from those who fight.” (Tamheed)

Imam Nawawi said:

أجمع العلماء على تحريم قتل النساء والصبيان إذا لم يقاتلوا

“The Ulama are unanimous (i.e. Ijma’) on the prohibition of killing women and children when they are not fighting.” (Sharh Saheeh Muslim)

Allamah Ibn Battaal states:

ولا يجوز عند جميع العلماء قصد قتل نساء الحربيين ولا أطفالهم ؛ لأنهم ليسوا ممن قاتل فى الغالب

“According to ALL the Ulama it is impermissible to intentionally kill the women of the Harbees (those with whom the Muslims are at war) and their children, because they are generally not from those who fight.” (Sharh Saheeh Bukhari)

Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani states:

واتفق الجميع كما نقل ابن بطال وغيره على منع القصد إلى قتل النساء والولدان..

“ALL are in agreement (i.e. Ijma’), as Ibn Battaal and others have transmitted, upon the prohibition of intentionally killing women and children.” [Fath ul-Bari]

Allamah Ibn Rushd states:

ولا خلاف بين المسلمين أنه لا يجوز قتل نسائهم ولا صبيانهم، ما لم يقاتل الصبي والمرأة

“There is no difference amongst the Muslims (i.e. Ijma’) that it is impermissible to kill their women and children as long as the child and woman does not fight.” [Bidayat ul-Mujtahid]

Imam Ibn al-Humam states:

وما الظنّ إلا أن حرمة قتل النساء والصبيان إجماع

“I do not know except that the prohibition of killing women and children is [established by] Ijma (consensus of all the scholars)” [Fath ul-Qadeer]

In regards to Muslims living in Darul Harb – Kuffaar nations which are murdering Muslims around the world – a sacred contract known as Aman is enacted between the Muslim residents and the non-Muslims, which prohibits the Muslims from harming not only priests, monks, farmers, hired workers, old people and other non-combatants – those branded by the ancient Shariah as “those who generally do not fight” – but also all Harbis (military combatants and all potential fighters).

This sacred contract of Aman (guaranteeing safety and security) is enacted automatically by both implicit or explicit means. A remarkable conformity exists between all Four Madh-habs (schools of thought which comprise of all the ancient and original laws of Islam) in regards to the severity of the issue of Aman, the consequences of breaking it, the means by which the contract is enacted, and the method of terminating the contract.

A future article will elaborate in detail on these ancient and immutable Laws of Jihad which the Zindeeq (heretic) modernists and Salafis of today are attempting to override or “improve”, by loosening the reins of Rigid Taqleed (tightly binding oneself) to the ancient Fatwas of the Four Madh-habs.

For now, the narrations produced below from the ancient Fuqaha (jurists) should be sufficient in providing a glimpse into the manner in which the sacred contract of Aman is enacted and the severe consequences of breaking it.

This sacred contract of Aman (guaranteeing safety and security) is enacted automatically by both implicit or explicit means. An Aman contract enacted by mere gesture, even if misunderstood by a mass-murdering Kaafir war-mongerer, has the same weight as a 1000 page written contract guaranteeing safety and security. This will become clear even from the few snippets below, and will become even more clear from the the upcoming article......

Add new comment