Left, Right or Islam?

In America, the left vs right dialectic is designed to lead us into accepting liberal values and right-wing economic policies, when what we need are conservative social values and left-wing economic policies.

And though left-wing economics are stigmatized as “communism,” they merely represent the age-old religious values of charity and welfare, first introduced in Judaism, then Christianity, and perfected under Islam.

But the current controversy over the election of Trump has America divided in a squabble between “conservatives” and “liberals”—derided as SJWs—a confined debate which has prevented them from considering alternative possibilities.

As Leo P. Ribuffo noted, “What Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism.”[1] Neoliberalism is the fascist philosophy of corporatism. It dates back to the Mont Pelerin Society, and the economic theories of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, who was influenced by Carl Schmitt, known as the “Crown Jurist” of the Third Reich.

Essentially, what Hayek proposed was that any degree of government interference was tantamount to “totalitarianism.” In this way, Hayek laid the ground for the pseudo-anti-establishment rhetoric of the libertarian fanaticism that is consuming and devouring American conservatism, and which has been exploited by the American elite to advance their corporatist agenda.

To this purpose, since the Cold War, the American public has been propagandized into an almost irrational fear of “communism.”

The history of the vilification of communism begins with revelations of the notorious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which were used to attribute the success of the Bolshevik Revolution to a conspiracy of “Jewish” bankers and financiers bent on gaining control of the world. This paranoia was exported to Germany by anti-communist Russian expatriots, who helped create the Nazi party, and finally to the United States with Operation Paperclip, which imported numerous ex-Nazis to bolster America’s Cold War effort against the same Soviet Union.

And since the fall of the Soviet Union, we are made to believe that the only alternative is, despite all its foibles, rapacious free-enterprise capitalism.

There are aspects of communism that are desirable, but not because they were proposed by Karl Marx, but because they represent fundamental values that have been cherished by humanity for centuries. And yet, Christians have been duped into denouncing all progressive economic policies “godless communism,” when in fact communism is ultimately founded on the most Christian of principles: charity.

But, communism itself was a ruse. Marx’s dialectical materialism was merely a modification of the dialectical theory of history first developed by Hegel, who has been shown by Glenn Alexander Magee to have been profoundly influenced by the Illuminati and occult theories.[2]

Nevertheless, the profound appeal of Marxism was due to its promotion of a fair redistribution of wealth, and was therefore eagerly adopted by compassionate and fair-minded people all over the world.

Marxism is, however, merely a node of the dialectic, and also used for manipulative elite purposes. During the 1960s, Herbert Marcuse, a leading member of the Frankfurt School in the employ of the CIA, regarded as the “guru” of the New Left, advanced a Freudian view of history which equated rebellion against social mores with rebellion against the establishment. Ever since, the Left has been inextricably interwoven with what have come to be identified with “liberal” values.

The two are not mutually exclusive. However, right-wing activists in the US have seized on the opportunity of identifying the left’s association with this liberal agenda to characterize all left-wing policies as rooted in “Cultural Marxism,” and thus recruiting them to a neoliberal agenda.

The truth is, neoliberalism is designed to advance the interest of the corporate class, mainly the reduction of taxes and the removal of regulations that represent to them impediments on their activities. These are contrary to the interests of the common person. However, the elite have employed the lie of Adam Smith that the industrial class should be allowed to pursue wealth unrestricted, because an “invisible hand” would distribute their prosperity for all.

The invisible hand is a myth. It has been recognized since the dawn of time that in any society, the wealthy will only seek their own advantage, and if allowed to, will not only hoard money to themselves, but given the opportunity, will infiltrate government structures to ensure their ability to do so, at the expense of the rest of society. The excuse they will provide for their greed is that each man should be responsible for himself. Many will go so far as to suggest that tax is theft.

However, while religion is often confused with various complicated dogma, the truth is that throughout history the underlying message of religious prophets has been to call for charity.

As far back as the ancient Hebrew Bible, it says, "For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land'" (Deuteronomy 15:11). There were several laws which are in effect a sort of tax for the benefit of the poor. Among these are leket, shikhḥah, and pe'ah as well as the special tithe for the poor (see ma'aser). The institution of the sabbatical year (see Sabbatical Year and Jubilee) was in order "that the poor of the people may eat" (Ex. 23: 11) as well as to cancel debts.

Charity is an attribute of God Himself: "For the Lord your God, He is God of gods, and Lord of lords… He doth execute justice for the fatherless and widow and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment" (10:17, 18), a theme which was developed at considerable length by the psalmist (cf. Ps. 145:15, 16; 132:15). Both the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel considered charity as an indispensable requirement for a life of piety. [3]

Jesus also made a pronouncement that ran parallel to Marx’s prediction, that the meek shall inherit the earth. The very essence of Jesus’ message was to castigate the Jews for having neglected the “spirit” of the Law, by failing to recognize the primary importance of loving one’s neighbor.

The excuse provided by modern-day conservative Christians however is that charity should be exercised by individuals, and not the state. Although, the concepts of welfare and pensions were introduced in early Islamic law as forms of Zakat (charity), one of the Five Pillars of Islam, under the Rashidun Caliphate in the seventh century AD. Zakat is a state-collected tax for the purpose of wealth redistribution. And, unlike the Western income-based tax, which can be easily evaded, Zakat is customarily 2.5% of a Muslim’s total net assets, above a minimum amount known as nisab.

According to the Quran's Surah Al-Tawba, there are eight categories of people (asnaf) who qualify to benefit from Zakat:

Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of God; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by God, and God is full of knowledge and wisdom.[4]

Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, a Companion of Prophet Muhammad, protested against the accumulation of wealth by the ruling class during Uthman's caliphate and urged the equitable redistribution of wealth.[5] The first Muslim Caliph Abu Bakr introduced a guaranteed minimum standard of income, granting each man, woman, and child ten dirhams annually. This was later increased to twenty dirhams.

Various welfare programs were introduced by Caliph Umar. Equality was extended to all citizens, as Umar believed that “no one, no matter how important, should live in a way that would distinguish him from the rest of the people." Umar also made sure that the public treasury was not wasted on "unnecessary luxuries" as he believed that "the money would be better spent if it went towards the welfare of the people rather than towards lifeless bricks."[6] Umar’s innovative welfare reforms included the introduction of social security, including old age and disability pensions, as well as unemployment insurance, which did not appear in the Western world until the nineteenth century.[7]

Regrettably, like Christians, many Muslims have been deluded into denouncing communism and socialism as “atheistic,” going so far as supporting the neoliberal policies of the World Bank and IMF.[8] Like the Jews and Christians before them, they have forgotten the “spirit” of the Law. And for that reason, Islam today has become an empty shell, and list of ritual obligations, which has failed to appeal to the common sentiments of man, who is looking for the ideology which will finally lead to a fair redistribution of wealth and the end of inequality and exploitation.




[1] Leo P. Ribuffo, “20 Suggestions for Studying the Right now that Studying the Right is Trendy,” Historically Speaking Jan 2011 v.12#1 pp 2–6, quote on p. 6.

[2] Glenn Alexander Magee, Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition, (Cornell: Cornell University Press, 2001).

[3]Charity Throughout Jewish History.Jewish Virtual Library

[4]  Qur'an, Sura 9 (Al-Tawba), ayat 60.

[5] Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World. (New York: Oxford University Press. 1995). p. 19. 

[6] Shadi Hamid (August 2003), "An Islamic Alternative? Equality, Redistributive Justice, and the Welfare State in the Caliphate of Umar", Renaissance: Monthly Islamic Journal, 13 (8)] 

[7] Patricia Crone, Medieval Islamic Political Thought, (Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 308–9.

[8] “Islamic Financial Movements: Midwives of Political Change in the Middle East?” quoted in Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2005), p. 173.



In the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful.

A nice article indeed as you seem to
search for the Truth to act upon it and to share it with others. Abu Dhar Ghaffari was a true companion of the Prophet. If we go deep for the truth, the model we are commanded to follow is the Commandments of Qur'an and the lifestyle of the Prophet only. And the Prophet had no Treasury, no bank, no big government, no Jail, no police, no Mufties, no salaried army no beaurocracy. How simplest but truest his personal, social, financial and political life was.
But today's Muslim is obsessed with "Hadith" rather than Qur'an. And a half truth is a whole lie.
Thank you for exposing many Salafis, Sufis, and exposing the role of Illuminati and Freemasonry in corrupting the Muslims and the teachings of Islam mainly through their money and the banking system.
And peace be on those who follow the guidance.

S.a. David.

This subject is probably your weakest point, your obstruction in your thinking, if you will. Communism has nothing to with charity. If anything, it aims to destroy charity. Charity is willful action. Since everything will be planned in communism, there will be no need for or the possibility of charity in such a system. How will there be any charity without private property?

"Progressive economics" as you put it, was the backdoor to the corporatist economics of today. They wouldn't be able to dupe anyone into this trap if they went on and told their intentions about creating billionaires by giving them access to newly created money and government auctions before anyone else, so that they can buy anything of value before the prices go up because it. Of course, they had to tell that economic control was for helping fellow humans, especially the poor, everyone's soft spot. Any good willed economic control policies prior to the OPEC crisis was conveniently turned into tools for leaching for the rich.

Let's discuss the ponzi scheme called "the social security system" as an example. They told us that it was just a collectivization of savings in order to invest them efficiently. The government was going to save instead of us, invest the money and then when we retire, we would be able to live off of the investment. Some of the money would also go to "the poor." The first participants got much more than they put in. Look at where we are now. It is without distinction a black hole in every governments budget while making many private sectors rich. No government has any real savings, they just take money and spend it, and then borrow and if not enough, finally print money and confiscate from anyone else who hold that kind of money. An effete system cannot work regardless of the intentions, and social security is a pyramid scheme. Same goes for minimum wage laws and any other for of so called good willed economic interventions.

Central banking and fiat money are all communistic ideas which led to the state of affairs we live today. And heavy government involvement in the economy in a democratic system renders voting into an auction for stolen goods.

"Nevertheless, the profound appeal of Marxism was due to its promotion of a fair redistribution of wealth, and was therefore eagerly adopted by compassionate and fair-minded people all over the world."

You couldn't be more wrong. It is not the redistribution but the distribution of wealth. Communism is not about charity, it is about full economic planning and control. In such a system there is no need to redistribute.

"The truth is, neoliberalism is designed to advance the interest of the corporate class, mainly the reduction of taxes and the removal of regulations that represent to them impediments on their activities."

David, do you have any idea how much taxes the so called rich pay? Over 50% in the US, over 70% in France and it goes on and on. Only the ones who have ties to the government (read: supported the political winners) can get away from them. An entrepreneur who has no buddies in the government pays more than half of what he makes. Do you think that it is fair? The serfs during feudalism paid 25% of their products as taxes and it was considered to be cruel. The efficiency and productivity, which by the way was created by the rich, should have eased everybody's lives but instead it just enhanced the leaching. Neoliberalism is corporatism, you are right in that, but not because it plans to abolish regulations and taxes, but because it wants to privatize the government monopolies while keeping them as they are (keeping the licenses and regulations).  If what they did was to abolish licensing, let anyone enter to a sector and really privatize, everyone would be better off. You have to understand that most regulations are there in order to prevent newcomers. A big company who pays all its employees already above minimum wage would of course would push for an increase in minimum wage in order to push its competitors out of the market. What is the point of making someone work below a wage, illegal? Even if he is willing to do so. If minimum wage is such a good deal why not make it $100 hourly or even $1000? It would cause unemployment, right? So where do you draw the line? Any regulation which supposedly protects the employees such as mandatory clinic, a legal department, or a mandatory job security officer for any workplace above 50 employees would only make small to middle sized companies to go bankrupt.

"The invisible hand is a myth. It has been recognized since the dawn of time that in any society, the wealthy will only seek their own advantage, and if allowed to, will not only hoard money to themselves, but given the opportunity, will infiltrate government structures to ensure their ability to do so, at the expense of the rest of society. The excuse they will provide for their greed is that each man should be responsible for himself."

It is not a myth. It's called rizk as in the name al-razzak. The wealthy can only seek their own advantage if there is an institution which they can bribe to confiscate wealth and give to anyone it wants (or "redistribute as you put it). It is the government god of Hegel at work, taking the holy name al-razzak of Allah and giving it to the government. Get rid of (or limit to the traditional Islamic practice of 2.5% zakah) governments ability to redistribute, and there would be no need for or meaning in bribing the government. It is why they introduced this concept as helping the poor and opened the door for all kind of abusive taxing. That's the conspiracy you are missing.

Islamic economics as the Prophet (s.a.s) practiced is free enterprise, free market and sound money. I would really like to hear your case against this.

Salaam aleykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu. Thanks again David & also brothers Can & Nasrullah. There is merit in all three positions, and I defer to an open market position which accounts for an even playing field, adjusting for structural, socio-economic & geopolitical realities that justice & equity demand. In a world of increasing scarcity of basic commodities, particularly reference to water & staple foods, hygiene sanitary conditions etc some Quranic modelling on context seems prudent.
Having said that, I would like to support David's view regarding the synarchist continuum of agenda, particularly as it relates to a new synthesis of left & right dichotomies in a purest occultic agenda promoted by both Heidegger & Hegel, and now being annunciated in the apocalyptic nihilist synthesis of right & left hand paths of magic, by the occultist Alexander Dugin & his crony initiates of what he calls the 'confessional faiths' that he has co-opted, including 'Islam', of which he states "we have strong connections with spiritual Islam". In an article of Actogaia, Dugins masonic periodical, Dugin clearly annunciates this plan. He demonstrates that he is loosely of the 'left hand path', seeking through the Eurasianist National Bolsheviks, a party as yet to be named, a synthesis of the two paths in an Imperial Russian project. Apart from Dugin's clear obsession with hypoborea & Apollo worship, showing his allegiance to the new Roman project of Constantine, who usurped by eradication & conquest Roman rule & transposed it to constantinople in a self aggrandising pagan venture for sol invictus ie Apollo clothed in Christianity. Research on what became of the priest Arius, a unitarian Christian who opposed Saul of Tarsus' trinitarian creed of God-man ie Apollo or Mithra, is sufficient and immensely indicative of Dugin's plan for Russia as the third Rome based in Istanbul.
Dugin's article leaves no doubt about this occult agenda and his true allegiance to what he aptly describes as Russia's special lighting being and integration angel. Like his predecessor and fellow initiate Albert Pike, the luciferian agenda is aluve and well. It won't be long before we see Dugin's statue alongside Puke in Washington DC.


Aleikoom salam brother Mohammad.

Years ago I read a book by Richard Rubenstein "How Did Jesus Become God." https://www.amazon.com/When-Jesus-Became-God-Christianity/dp/0156013150

I recommend it to anyone who wants some light reading on the Arianist debate. For a deeper theological discussion on the evolution of the christian creed, I recommend this book, "Trinity: The Metamorphosis of Myth" by a man who I respect greatly, Omar Zaid. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12365200-trinity

What you are saying about Istanbul being the new capital of new imperial Russia, is quite in tune with what Imran Hosein has been preaching about. He has been arguing that Constantinapole is going to be liberated by a muslim army and we would hand Hagia Sophia to orthodox christians again. And as far as I know, Hagia Sophia was built by an arianist emperor and bishop. That's also an interesting detail, I believe. I'll check also check Dugin's article.


Wa aleykum salaam brother Can.
Jazak Allah khair for the suggestions. Whilst I cannot suspect the intentions of sheikh Imran Hossein, I reject the notion that Rum at the time of Constantine was orthodox Christianity, clearly it was then, at the time of Nabi Muhammad & to a great extant now imperial Rome. Constantine's decision to keep the political & juridical arm of Rome, the senate, not in his newly formed capital, formerly Byzas, or loosely later Byzantion, but in Rome demonstrates this sufficiently.
Sheikh Imran now calls Alexander Dugin his "good friend", & is fond of reminding us that Putin will not bend its knees to US, that whilst they have friendly relations with Israel they are not allied. A cursory look at Putins KGB background, close ties with Italian born Jewish chief Rabbi of Russia & now head Rebbe of the Lubavitcher Chabbad, whom Putin calls my Rabbi, being the first on the phone to Bush jnr to offer support of 911 & invasion of Afghanistan, & more recently opening not one, but two offices of his polical party in Israel, tel aviv & Jerusalem respectively, strong support of the central banking structure, Rothschild mining, finance etc with Russian oligarchs & gazprom etc etc, belies this. Dugins stance is completely in line with kaos magic, not just in the article presented, but in much of his esoteric writing, & particularly use of sigil kabbalist magic. It is sihr & shirk 101, no question!!! The article I cited should be enough, I challenge Sheikh Imran & any 'myslim' scholar to publicly support this article as other than sihr & whether it is compatible with the Quran & message of Islam. There can be no alliance with sihr irrespective of whatever guise, Christian or otherwise, it may espouse superficially. To white wash Ottoman Turkey as imperial & dajjal, and dismiss a far bigger Russ imperialism beginning in scandinavia & continuuing today, is scandolous at best! My understanding of sheikh Imrans eschatology is that Russia as the now so called orthodox christian centrist are destined to conquer constantinople, whom Dugin interestingly in an article on the hypoborea myth & Apollo, refers to as Byzantium, the Roman name, not the Greek Byzas, is that Russia as orthodox christian is the one referred to in the Quran. The army of Khorazan, whom Sheikh Imran associates primarily with western Afghanistan, conveniently leaving out the areas if Uzbekistan Tajikistan etc esp Samarqand & Bukhara, all ex USSR block, & under immense Russian contril esp Kazakhstan & its illuminist capital Astana, which grew of of nothing in the desert, & now figuring in so called peace talks brokered by Russia re Syria, is damning. Some of us do know the ancient demarcation of Khorasan!!! That army joins Isa A.S. in Syria. It is solely a Russian conquest of Constantinopolis ie metropilis in the Graeco-Roman tradition of Constantine, that Sheikh Inran is 'advocating' on behalf of Dugin.
In either event, Dugin, also past KGB, philisophical & religious stance is the the love & affection muslims should be craving for. To conflate the ayah with this mans creed is an abomination!
This quote from Dugin's article cited is sufficient evidence: "according to traditional doctrine the certain angel, the celestial being is appointed to look after each nation of the earth... the mysticism of a nation is based on this... this is an intellectual, lighting being, GOD'S THOUGHT"
Turning to the new testament (new shahada) 2 Corinthians 11: 13-15 in discussing false apostles states " those men are not true apostles -they are false apostles, whi lie about their work and disguise themselves to look like real apostles of Christ. Well, no wonder! EVEN SATAN CAN DISGUISE HIMSELF TO LOOK LIKE AN ANGEL OF LIGHT"!
SURATUL NISA builds on other Suras re such alliances, not exclusive nor separate from suratul maida, Allah provides us with wise parameters linking friendship, intimacy, and hypocrisy. In An Nisa 4:62 How when they are seized by misfortune because of the deeds which their hands have set forth? WE MEANT NO MORE THAN GOODWILL AND CONCIATION.
An Nisa 4: 89-90 warns of the reality of the disbelievers plan & to "take no friends or helpers from their ranks" with a vital caveat 4:90 "except those who noin a group between you & them is a freaty of peace or those who approach you with hearts RESTRAINING THEM FROM FIGHTING YOU AS WELL AS FIGHTING THEIR KWN PEOPLE"
I'll leave it to others to decide whether Russia, Russian Orthodox Christianity or Dugin, wholly with Truth fall into this caveat.
We end with the startling homogeneity of belief, truth & friendship,& its resultant consequence:

Assalamul alaikum, Akhi I really liked what you said. I've been awake to Dugin's false portrayal of being a Christian and I have suspected Sheikh Imran promoting Eurasianism. I am Shia but have Sunni friends who I feel have used his lectures and books to find a purpose in life. One friend I had a disagreement with told me to read one of Sheikh Imrans books. I had to explain that he's not a leader of your 4 madhabs or even a jurist. It's good they read Quran and try to be good Muslims, but anytime I mention him they say I'm causing division. I always wondered if hes a sufi and how he gets away with speaking against the Salafis around the world. That's how I realized he's Dugin's puppet. Dugin himself wants Shia, Sunni, and Sufi unity and to end Salafism. That all sounds swell but my people of Southern Lebanon would never unite with Dugins Jewish or Zionist friends. Neither will our Palestinian Ikhwan. These people basically want a new Roman Empire.

Add new comment