Synarchism and the War on Islam

The Dialectic

The conspiracy is not communist or fascist, it is synarchist. The synarchist conspiracy, however, manipulating both ends of the political spectrum, cultivates fear of the threat of “communism” to advance the cause of a fascist economic philosophy known as neoliberalism. By denouncing “Big Government,” they call for the transfer to public property to private corporations, and the enslavement of the world to their banking system, under the guise of the World Bank and the IMF.

Researchers into the history of conspiracy will tend to isolate the notorious Bavarian Illuminati, founded by Adam Weishaupt in 1776, as the principle subversive society behind world events. However, even the Illuminati itself had its origins in a far more powerful and influential secret society, known as Martinism, which survived the Illuminati, far beyond that order’s demise in 1885.

Martinism is the ultimate diabolical plot, founded on a Kabbalistic agenda that sees history’s problems resolved through the resolution of opposites. But these opposites are not allowed to occur spontaneously, but instead are deliberately fostered, providing these devious plotters with the means of presenting the world their contrived solution, making it appear they have come to their own conclusions.

There are many dialectics at play. Fundamentally, they are rooted in the dualism of God and atheism, or truth against falsehood. As the Martinists side against the devil, everything is reversed, where truth becomes falsehood, and falsehood truth.

To the Martinists, history is the story of God’s undoing, being overthrown by humanity. It is the history of secularism, of mankind progressing away from the worship of God to the celebration of himself as the Supreme Being, Nietzsche’s Superman. The End of History is the culmination of centuries of human intellectual progress, of the triumph of “Reason” over “Revelation”.

However, impeding the advent of this New World Order is religion. It’s most threatening current manifestation is Islam. Therefore, in order to prepare the battleground for a final attack, it will be necessary to divide the world in a final dialectic: a Clash of Civilizations, pitting “the West” against “Islam.”



Conspiracy Researchers have been obsessing with the same old tired themes, involving the usual culprits, such as the Illuminati, Bildebergers, Federal Reserve and even Jews. One will blame “communism”, the other “fascism,” completely failing to ascertain the true enemy behind these false fronts and means: Synarchism.

Synarchism was a Martinist movement that originated among the immediate circles of Napoleon Bonaparte. Martinism started with French mystic Martinez Pasquales who founded the Ordre des Chevalier Maçons Elus-Coën de L’Univers (Order of the Knight Masons, Elected Priests of the Universe) in 1754. A Martinist named Baron de Gleichen wrote that, “Pasqualis was originally Spanish, perhaps of the Jewish race, since his disciples inherited from him a large number of Jewish manuscripts.”[1] According to J. M. Roberts, the Elus-Coën philosophy “was expressed in a series of rituals whose purpose was to make it possible for spiritual beings to take physical shape and convey messages from the other world.”[2]

Martinism was later propagated in different forms by Pasquales’ two students, Louis Claude de Saint-Martin and Jean-Baptiste Willermoz. Willermoz was the formulator of the Rectified Scottish Rite, or Chevaliers Bienfaisants de la Cité-Sainte (CBCS), as a variant of the Rite of Strict Observance, including some items coming from the Elect Cohen Order of his teacher Pasquales.[3]

All these orders came under the authority of a single mother lodge, Willermoz’s Chevaliers Bienfaisants de la Cité-Sainte in Lyons. The Chevalier Bienfaisant oversaw numerous lodges, including a Strict Observance and the Lodge Theodore of Good Counsel in Munich. In 1777, it was into this lodge that was initiated Adam Weishaupt, and which united itself with his own lodge, the Illuminati, which he established the year before.

An important member of the Chevaliers Bienfaisants was Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) who, according to Isaiah Berlin, was a thinker whose works contain the roots of fascist thought, as he outlined in “Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism.” Despite being recognized as a devout Catholic, de Maistre was also a Martinist. As explained by Jerry Muller, “Maistre’s profession of Christianity were certainly sincere. But in his writings it is the social utility of religion as an element of political cohesion which is of concern.”[4] De Maistre regarded the excesses of the French Revolution as the dire results of resorting to reason. If they are to endure, all institutions of authority must necessarily be irrational. Only an absolute authority can keep man in check.

To de Maistre, Napoleon  was the model tyrant. As an ostensible Catholic, the failure of the French Revolution, according to de Maistre, was that it turned against the word of God and the Catholic Church and was therefore punished by the Reign of Terror and then Napoleon. According to de Maistre, all power is from God, and Napoleon had power, so he therefore saw Napoleon as an instrument of God’s wrath.



The source of the philosophy of synarchism was one of the most notorious intriguers of modern times, a British agent by the name of Jamal ud-Din al Afghani. Although he was the founder of the Salafi tradition of Islam, from which all twentieth century terrorism has emerged, from the Muslim Brotherhood to ISIS, Afghani was simultaneously the Grand Master of Freemasonry in Egypt, as well as teacher to H.P. Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, and the godmother of the New Age Movement, whose tomes are considered “scriptures” of Freemasonry.

Going by the name of Haji Sharif, Afghani communicated his deviant ideals to Alexandre Saint-Yves d’Alveydre. Saint-Yves, whose books were widely read by the Martinists, propounded the theory of synarchism as a purported response to the ills produced by anarchism and to provide an alternative through the combination of fascism and occultism. Synarchy came to mean “rule by secret societies,” serving as priestly class in direct communication with the “gods,” meaning the Ascended Masters of Agartha, a real existing in a supposedly hollow Earth. There, governed the “King of the World”, equated in occult literature with Satan, who head a hidden hierarchy who have been governing humanity in secret for centuries.

The creation of a United Europe, an idea central to synarchism, was part of the vision of Saint-Yves, a call for which appears on the first page of his first book on synarchy, Keys to the East. The need for Europe to unite under a single, synarchist state, according to Saint Yves, is prompted by the rise of Islam as a world power, which threatens a weak, fragmented, and materialist West. Saint-Yves argues that there must absolutely be a new alliance between the Christian nations of Europe and Israel against Islam.

Saint-Yves envisioned a Federal Europe with a corporatist government, composed of three councils representing economic power, judicial power, and scientific community, of which the metaphysical chamber bound the whole structure together. As part of this concept of government, Saint-Yves attributed an important role to occult secret societies, which are composed of oracles and who safeguard the government from behind the scenes.

Saint-Yves’ followers had finally decided to use more stealthy means, by infiltrating their members into key positions in political and economic institutions intending on creating, in the words of Richard F. Kuisel, a specialist in twentieth-century French political history, “a world government by an initiated elite.”[5] According to Gérard Galtier, synarchism influenced all the Martinists and occultists of the beginning of the century, and “Without doubt, the Martinist directors such as Papus… had the ambition to secretly influence the course of political events, notably the diffusion of synarchic ideals.”[6]

Papus’ death in 1916, however, resulted in a schism in the Martinist Order over its involvement in politics. The activists, under Victor Blanchard, who was head of the secretariat of the Chamber of Deputies of the French Parliament, formed a breakaway group, the Martinist and Synarchic Order, which established the Synarchic Central Committee in 1922, designed to pull in promising young civil servants and “younger members of great business families.”[7] The Committee soon became the Synarchic Empire Movement (MSE) in 1930, with the aim of abolishing parliamentarianism and replacing it with synarchy.

The MSE was headed by Vivien Postel du Mas and Jeanne Canudo, remembered as an energetic campaigner for European unity. Postel du Mas was a member of the Watchers, founded by a French occultist René Adolphe Schwaller de Lubicz. Despite being born of a Jewish mother, de Lubicz with other members of the Theosophical Society broke away to form an occult right-wing and anti-Semitic organization, which he called Les Veilleurs, “the Watchers,” to which the young Rudolf Hess also belonged.[8]

Postel du Mas and Canudo both pursued the aims of Saint-Yves for France and a united Europe. Postel du Mas also wrote the Synarchist Pact, which argued, based on the “four orders that correspond to the Hindu caste system,” that a “division of people into order is natural and conforms with tradition,” and set out a program for “invisible revolution” or “revolution from above,” meaning taking over a state from within by infiltrating high offices. The first step was to take control of France, before creating the “European Union.”[9]

An important witness to their synarchism was the Parisian publisher Maurice Girodias, the founder of the Olympia Press which published erotica as well as works by Henry Miller, Samuel Beckett, John Glassco and Christopher Logue. Seeing Postel du Mas and Canudo leading a group dressed as Templar knights wearing red capes and riding boots, Girodias was told they were “schismatic theosophists with political designs, and they are linked to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi… who is a champion of the United States of Europe… Their aim is to launch a pan-European political party and to institute in the entire world, commencing with Europe, a society obedient to a spiritualist idea.”[10]

Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi was Austrian politician and philosopher, a pioneer of European integration, and also a member of de Lubicz’ Les Veilleurs. Coudenhove-Kalergi's father was also a close friend of Theordor Herzl, founder of Zionism. Coudenhove-Kalergi writes in his Memoirs:

At the beginning of 1924, we received a call from Baron Louis de Rothschild; one of his friends, Max Warburg from Hamburg, had read my book and wanted to get to know us. To my great surprise, Warburg spontaneously offered us 60,000 gold marks, to tide the movement over for its first three years... Max Warburg, who was one of the most distinguished and wisest men that I have ever come into contact with, had a principle of financing these movements. He remained sincerely interested in Pan-Europe for his entire life. Max Warburg arranged his 1925 trip to the United States to introduce me to Paul Warburg and financier Bernard Baruch.[11]

Coudenhove-Kalergi strove to replace the nationalist German ideal of racial community with the goal of an ethnically heterogeneous and inclusive European nation based on a communality of culture, a nation whose geniuses were, in Nietzschean terms, the “great Europeans,” such as Abbé de Saint-Pierre, Kant, Napoleon, Giuseppe Mazzini, Victor Hugo, and Nietzsche himself, who also cited Napoleon frequently as an example of the Superman.”[12]

It was through Coudenhove-Kalergi that Saint-Yves’s vision of a synarchist European Union achieved serious political force, when he co-founded the Pan-European Union (PEU) with Archduke Otto von Habsburg. Aristocratic in his origins and elitist in his ideas, Coudenhove-Kalergi identified and collaborated also with such politicians as Engelbert Dollfuss, Kurt Schuschnigg, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle. Coudenhove-Kalergi’s movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927, Aristide Briand, who served eleven terms as Prime Minister of France during the French Third Republic, was elected honorary president. Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann, Sigmund Freud, Konrad Adenauer and Georges Pompidou.[13]

The first person to join the PEU was Hjalmar Schacht, later Hitler’s Reich Minister of Economics, a member of the Rhodes Round Table and the actual author of Hitler’s slave labor programs.[14] His full name being Hjalmar Horace Greely Schacht, although born in Germany, he spent part of his early upbringing in Brooklyn and maintained powerful Wall Street connections.[15] Schacht was a close friend of Montagu Norman, Chairman of the Bank of England who was the godfather to one of Schacht's grandchildren. Montagu Norman, from 1933 through 1939, met repeatedly with Hjalmar Schacht to plan the financing of the Nazi regime, and guided the strategies of Hitler’s primary supporters, the Rockefellers, Warburgs, and Harrimans.[16]


European Union

The European Union began with the founding of the European Movement by Joseph Retinger, who was also one of the founding members of the Bilderberg Group. Funded by the CIA, the super-secret Bilderberg conferences invited the world’s top businessmen, politicians and intelligence officials for what was dubbed “an informal network of influential people who could consult each other privately and confidentially.”[17] The annual Bilderberg meetings first began in May, 1954, with a group which included George Ball, David Rockefeller, scion of the Rockefeller oil dynasty, Dr. Joseph Retinger, Holland's Prince Bernhard, a former SS officer and IG Farben employee, and George C. McGhee, then of the U.S. State Department and later a senior executive of Mobil Oil.[18]

Retinger was also a founder of the European Movement that would lead to the creation of the Council of Europe and the European Union. Guided by Winston Churchill, Averell Harriman and Paul-Henri Spaak, the European Movement, explains Frances Stonor Saunders in Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, was closely supervised by and funded by the CIA, through a front organization called the American Committee on United Europe whose first Executive Secretary was Tom Braden.

During the war, Coudenhove-Kalergi had continued his call for the unification of Europe along the Paris-London axis, activities that served as the real-life basis for fictional Resistance hero Victor Laszlo in the movie Casablanca. His appeal for the unification of Europe enjoyed support from Allen Dulles, “Wild Bill” Donovan, former head of the OSS, and Winston Churchill, who began promoting European unity from 1930 and presided over the Congress of Europe. Churchill wrote a foreword to the Count’s book, An Idea Conquers the World. In 1947, Coudenhove-Kalergi had set up the European Parliamentary Union (EPU), which played a prominent role in the Congress of Europe at The Hague. The EPU later merged with the European Movement and Coudenhove-Kalergi was elected its honorary president in 1952.

In 1949, Retinger formed the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE) along with future CIA Director Allen Dulles, then CFR Director George Franklin, Tom Braden, and William Donovan. “Later on” said Retinger, “whenever we needed any assistance for the European Movement, Dulles was among those in America who helped us most.”[19] According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, and reporting from declassified American government documents, “The leaders of the European Movement—Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian Prime Minister Henri Spaak—were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE’s funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.”[20]

The “European project” itself began in 1950 with French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman’s announcement that France and West Germany had agreed to co-ordinate their coal and steel industries. Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg took up his offer to join in, leading seven years later to the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community (EEC), from which the European Union traces its origins.

Robert Shuman became the first president of the European Parliament in 1958. But it was Jean Monnet who became president of the new body, called the High Authority and who was the primary influence behind the movement. Monnet was at the time the most influential businessman and economist in post-war Europe. In 1936, Vivien Postel du Mas, told Girodias that, along with Coudenhove-Kalergi, Monnet was an influential promoter of the synarchist agenda. Another of Ulmann and Azeau’s MSE informants described Monnet as a “true synarch… whose membership of the movement was never in doubt for the true initiates.”[21]


The Necessary Enemy

It was due to the efforts of Alexandre Kojève and Jean Monnet that the European Union, which was a synarchist project, took on its current form.[22] Kojève (1902 – 1968) was a Russian-born French philosopher and statesman, and nephew of abstract artist Wassily Kandinsky.

Kojève, who was the eminence grise at the French Ministry Economic Affairs, was one of the earliest architects of the European Union and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). He exerted a great deal of influence over Olivier Wormser, who played a key role in negotiating the Treaty of Rome, and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing who became president of France in 1974, and who throughout his political career had consistently been a proponent of greater European union.

According to Barbara Boyd, Kojève “was not only an ideologue of universal fascism, but he was also a leading figure in the most powerful fascist circles of 20th-Century France, the Synarchists.”[23] These circles included Carl Schmitt (1888 – 1985), described as the “Crown Jurist of the Third Reich.”[24] Throughout his career, Schmitt was under the protection of Hermann Göring, Hitler's Reichsmarschall during the war and the leading synarchist figure in Nazi Germany.[25] In 1933, he was appointed State Councilor by Hermann Göring and became the president of the Union of National-Socialist Jurists. As professor at the University of Berlin, he presented his theories as an ideological foundation of the Nazi dictatorship, and a justification of the “Führer” state with regard to legal philosophy.

An avowed proponent of Machiavelli and de Maistre, Schmitt supported the emergence of totalitarian power structures in his paper “The developed the concept of the seizure of power by a powerful determined leader through the pretext of a state of emergency. Schmitt preferred a “sovereign dictator” who would be able to take decisive action to meet the threats of the state. Effectively, a state of emergency presupposes the threat of a specific public enemy against whom a legitimate charismatic leader must exercise a sovereign decision.

Schmitt also developed the doctrine of a necessary enemy. Schmitt proposed that there is a domain of life distinct from all the others, which he called the “political.” According to Schmitt, each area of human existence has its own particular form of dualism: in morality there is good and evil, in economics profits and liabilities, in aesthetics beauty and ugliness and so on. The “political,” for Schmitt, was based on the distinction between “friend” and “enemy.” The political exists wherever there exists an enemy, a group which is different and holds different interests, and with whom there is a possibility of conflict. A population can be unified and mobilized through the political act, in which an enemy is identified and confronted.[26]

As Bryan Turner summarizes in “Sovereignty and Emergency Political Theology, Islam and American Conservatism”:

Schmitt argued that the political was defined in terms of the decisive struggle between friend and enemy, and without such a struggle authentic values could not be protected or sustained. More precisely, power involved a struggle between civilizations to define the content of a vibrant ethical life…

Political life cannot survive without the sovereignty of the state, and the sovereignty of the state is constituted by the capacity of a leader to undertake effective decisions in a situation of crisis. Democratic debate and deliberation can only undermine the capacity of the leader of the Reich to act with determination and clarity of vision.[27]

A member of the Nazi Party, Schmitt was party to the burning of books by Jewish authors, and calling for a much more extensive purge, to include works by authors influenced by Jewish ideas.[28] In 1934, he justified the political murders of the Night of the Long Knives, a purge by the Nazi regime that carried out murders of several left-wing and anti-Nazi leaders, as the “highest form of administrative justice" and the authority of Hitler in a work titled "The leader defends the law.”[29]

When Schmitt fell out of favor with the SS he travelled to Spain, Portugal, and Italy under synarchist sponsorship, providing lectures on how to continually legitimize the fascist governments of those nations.[30] Following his capture in 1945 by the American forces, and after spending more than a year in an internment camp, Schmitt refused every attempt at de-Nazification, which effectively barred him from positions in academia. Despite being isolated from the mainstream of the academic and political community, he continued his studies, especially of international law.

From the 1950s on, Schmitt received a steady stream of visitors, which included Kojève, and he edited Kojève’s Introduction to a Reading of Hegel.[31] Kojève’s philosophical seminars on Hegel are believed to have “dramatically shaped the French intellectual landscape of this century.”[32] For Kojève, the creation of the EEC gave concrete form to the Hegelian dream of forging Europe into an example of a world state which, he thought, alone was capable of resolving “all the contradictions of earlier stages of history” and of satisfying “all human needs.”[33]

Kojève’s vision of a world state was developed from his interpretation of Hegel that was based on a combination of both Karl Marx and Martin Heidegger’s thought. Soon after Hitler came to power, Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in 1933, and remained a member of the Party until it was dismantled at the end of WWII, though the relation between his philosophy and Nazism are still highly controversial, especially because he never seemed to express any clear regret.

Like Marx, Kojève believed that man is the moving force of history. Unlike the Right Hegelians however, who identify Hegel's Spirit with God, Kojève follows the Left Hegelians who adhere to the tradition of Marx's version of Hegelianism, which instead sees history as being shaped by man. In Alexander Kojève: The Roots of Postmodern Politics, historian Shadia Drury describes Kojève’s historicism, which betrays the Kabbalistic basis of the Hegelian dialectic:

In contrast to the Right Hegelian interpretation, Kojève followed Feurerbach and Marx in considering God a mere projection of man's own idealized conception of himself. In this view, the dualism between man and himself (projected as God) is transcended in the course of the historical process. At the "end of history,” man recognizes God as his own creation, and is no longer alienated from himself because he has become one with himself, or his own idealized view of himself. So understood, history is man's own self-making project. This is the reason that Kojève's interpretation is often characterized as "Marxist humanism.”[34]

To Kojève, the age of revolutions is over. The end of history has long been settled, ever since Napoleon’s battle of Jena in 1806. From that date forward, the nations around the world have shared the same principles, hopes, and aspirations. Everything since the battle of Jena, which is otherwise mistaken as history, has simply been a matter of resolving the “anachronistic sequels” of Europe’s pre-Revolutionary past. Nevertheless, Kojève recognizes that there will continue to be resistance by the “sick” who cannot recognize the new universal state as the conclusion of nature itself. Kojève therefore claims that the end-state or universal state will require a universal tyrant.

As Shadia Drury explains, “By reading Hegel through the lenses of Heidegger as well as Marx, Kojève gave birth to that curious phenomenon known as existential Marxism, which is epitomized by the works of Sartre.”[35] Kojève inspired Jean-Paul Sartre by placing particular emphasis on terror as a necessary component of revolution. The fulfillment of the End of History is “not possible without a Fight” he said[36] Building on Hegel’s dialectic, Kojève perceived that the “slave,” to overcome his “master,” must “introduce into himself the element of death” by risking his life while being fully conscious of his mortality. As a result, scholars describe Kojève as having a “terrorist conception of history.”[37] As Kojève explains, philosophers are less restrained by conventions and more capable or resorting to terror, and other measures that may be deemed “criminal,” if such measures are effective in accomplishing the desired end.[38]



Kojève’s notion of Hegel’s End of History was later advanced by Francis Fukuyama, where it became the basis for the fanatical Zionist ambitions of the American neoconservative movement, and their formulation of a “Clash of Civilizations”, otherwise known as the War on Terror, or more precisely the War on Islam.

The Neoconservatives’ worldview was inspired by German-Jewish political philosopher Leo Strauss, who maintained a life-long friendship with Alexandre Kojève. As a youth, Strauss was converted to political Zionism and would also attend courses at the University of Freiburg taught by Martin Heidegger. Because of the Nazis’ rise to power, Strauss chose not to return to the United States, where he spent most of his career as a professor of political science at the Rockefeller-funded University of Chicago. The same university became known for the Chicago School, the bastion of neoliberal economic theory, headed by Milton Friedman.

A significant influence on Leo Strauss was Carl Schmitt, despite his Nazi past.[39] Schmitt’s highly positive reference was instrumental in winning Strauss the scholarship funding that allowed him to leave Germany. In turn, Strauss’s critique and clarifications of The Concept of the Political led Schmitt to make significant emendations in its second edition. Strauss wrote to Schmitt in 1932, and summarized the implications of his political theology as follows:

[B]ecause man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against—against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men... the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state.[40]

Kojève and Strauss both played a major role in Schmitt’s postwar “rehabilitation.” In 1955, Kojève addressed a group of Düsseldorf businessmen at Schmitt’s invitation, and Schmitt attempted to arrange a private meeting between Kojève and Hjalmar Schacht.[41] And throughout his career in the US, Strauss regularly sent his leading disciples to study under Kojève in Paris. For example, Strauss’s top protégé the late Allan Bloom travelled to Paris annually, from 1953 up until Kojève’s death in 1968, to study Kojève’s Nietzschean fascist beliefs. Bloom would consider Kojève to be one of his greatest teachers.[42]

For Strauss, Kojève’s End of History is the result of all the errors of modernity and its values of liberalism. The error of liberalism is that it has departed from the wisdom of the ancients, who recognized the inevitability of a natural hierarchy among men.  This led Strauss followers, who had all been leading exponents of Leon Trosky, to flip flop to the opposite extreme of the political spectrum, to become “neoconservatives,” espousing neoliberal economics in combination with pro-Zionism.

Ultimately, the social upheavals of the sixties caused by liberalism were perceived by the neoconservatives as a “rotting” through America’s lack of self-confidence and belief in itself. Therefore, to reinvigorate America’s sense of identity, the neoconservatives took hold of Strauss’ notion of the need to resort to Noble Lies. They would fabricate the mythos that America was the only source for “good” in the world, and should be supported, otherwise “evil” would prevail.

After Nixon was forced to resign in 1974, the neoconservatives allied themselves with two right-wingers in the administration of his successor Gerald Ford, who used the escalation of terrorism as a pretext to adopt a hard line against Soviet communism. They were Donald Rumsfeld, the new secretary of defense, and Dick Cheney, Ford’s Chief of Staff. While Nixon had initiated a period of détente with the Soviet Union, Rumsfeld resuscitated the old paranoia by now giving speeches about the Soviet’s “steadiness of purpose” in building up their military defenses relative to those of the United States. The CIA denied the allegations, confirming that they were a complete fiction. But Rumsfeld used his position to persuade Ford to set up an independent inquiry, which he insisted would prove that there was a hidden threat to America. That inquiry would be run by a group of neoconservatives, one of whom was Paul Wolfowitz, a personal protégé of Kojève student Allan Bloom.

The neoconservatives’ new strategy began to achieve dangerous proportions when in 1992 Wolfowitz, as Dick Cheney’s undersecretary of defense for policy, authored a “Defense Planning Guidance Paper,” which outlined the US’ strategic priorities in the post-Cold War era. Leaked to the New York Times, the document prescribed securing global supremacy for the US through military confrontation with various regimes, calling for America to assert its interests wherever they existed, with particular emphasis on oil supplies and the security of Israel

According to the authors, it was time for the US to achieve unparalleled military superiority through a massive build up of the country’s military capabilities. This same worldview was furthered with the creation of a specifically designed think tank, known as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The signatories to the project included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and leading neoconservatives, like Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Elliot Abrams, who had been found guilty of lying about his role in the Iran-Contra operation, but was later pardoned by George H. W. Bush.

In particular, the PNAC was concerned with the political situation in the Middle East, shaped largely by the new paradigm articulated by Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama, that pitted Western secular democracy against Islamic fundamentalism. Western liberal democracy, we are told, is the “End of History” in a Hegelian sense, representing the triumph of centuries of intellectual progress. Fukuyama was strongly influenced by Kojève who, as early as 1948, believed that the United States was the model of economic life at the end of history. Long before the Cold War came to an end, Kojève anticipated the triumph of America over the Soviet Union, anticipating that it would not be a military triumph, but an economic one.[43]

Ultimately, Fukuyma’s claim is an advancement of the same synarchist dialectic. In other words, combined with the advent of secular democracy, the supremacy of “Western” civilization supposedly marks the culmination of human intellectual evolution. In Fukuyama’s own words:

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.[44]

It was in response to Fukuyama’s claim that Samuel Huntington developed the notion of a “Clash of Civilizations.” Huntington believed that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by conflict between cultural blocs. In his thesis, he argued that the primary axis of conflict in the future will be along cultural and religious lines. He suggests that it is different civilizations, as the highest rank of cultural identity, that will become increasingly useful to analyze the potential for conflict.

As Fukuyama wrote in a 2008 Washington Post opinion piece, “Democracy’s only real competitor in the realm of ideas today is radical Islamism.”[45] However, the fabrication of the supposed threat of Islam obviously disguised more nefarious political goals. As Gilles Keppel explained:

Huntington's clash of civilization theory facilitated the transfer to the Muslim world of a strategic hostility the West had inherited from decades of Cold War. The parallel drawn between the dangers of communism and those of Islam gave Washington's strategic planners the illusion that they could dispense with analyzing the nature of the Islamic "menace" and could simply transpose the conceptual tools designed to apprehend one threat to the very different realities of the other.

The neoconservative movement played a crucial role in bringing about this rhetorical permutation. It placed a facile way of thinking in the service of a precise political agenda, aimed at expanding the American democratic model into the Middle East – the only part of the world that it had not penetrated at the end of the twentieth century – and at modifying U.S. policy in the region to give Israel's security precedence over an alliance with the Saudi petro-monarchy.[46]

The truth is, rather, there is no real “democracy” in the West. The sham of the serial dictatorships, where the people are told who to vote for every four years, is designed to hide the West is composed of oligarchies. Industrial interests use their influence over the government, the media and the educational system, to pursue their shared globalist aspirations. As summarized by Bryan Turner, “the popular debate about the Huntington thesis has obscured its intellectual dependence on an academic tradition of political philosophy that sought to define sovereignty in terms of civilizational struggles between friend and foe, namely the legacy of Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss.”[47]



[1] Souvenirs du Baron de Gleichen, p. 151, cited from Nesta Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, (Brooklyn: A&B Books, 1994), p. 169.

[2] J. M. Roberts. The Mythology of Secret Societies (London: Secker and Warburg, 1972) p. 104.

[3] Jean-Pierre Bayard, Les Rose-Croix, (M. A. Éditions, Paris, 1986).

[4] Jerry Z. Muller, Conservatism: An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present. (Princeton University Press, 1997) p. 135.

[5] Richard F. Kuisel, ‘The Legend of the Vichy Synarchy’, in French Historical Studies, (spring 1970), p. 378.

[6] Maçonnerie egyptienne Rose-Croix et néo-chevalerie, Edition du Rocher, Monaco, 1994; cited in Picknett and Prince, Stargate Conspiracy, (New York: Berkley, 1999) p. 265.

[7] André Ulmann and Henri Azeau, Synarchie et pouvoir (Julliard, 1968), p. 63.

[8] Joscelyn Godwin, "Schwaller de Lubicz: les Veilleurs et la connexion Nazie,” Politica Hermetica, number 5, pp. 101-108 (Éditions L'Âge d'Homme, 1991).

[9] Gary Lachman, Politics and the Occult, p. 193.

[10] Ibid., p. 149.

[11] Eustace Mullins, The World Order: A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism The history and practices of the parasitic financial elite (1984).

[12] Beyond Good and Evil, 256.

[13] "Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.” Spartacus Educational.

[14] Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Dope, Inc., (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Co., 1978).

[15] Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy: The Nazi - American Money Plot 1933-1949. (Delacorte Press, 1983) p. 1

[16] Anton Chaitkin, "British psychiatry: from eugenics to assassination" Executive Intelligence Review, V21 #40, (30 July 2002).

[17] Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge University Press: New York, 1990), p. 129; CBC, “Informal forum or global conspiracy?” CBC News Online (June 13, 2006).

[18] William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, (Dr. Bottiger Verlags-GmbH, 1992) p. 149.

[19] Holly Sklar, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1980) p. 162.

[20] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. "Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs.” The Telegraph. September 19, 2000

[21] Ulmann and Azeau, 63.

[23] Barbara Boyd, "Profile: Carl Schmitt, Dick Cheney's Éminence Grise.” Executive Intelligence Review, (January 6, 2006).

[24] Waldemar Gurian.

[26] Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, expanded edition, trans. G. Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007)

[27] Bryan S. Turner. “Sovereignty and Emergency Political Theology, Islam and American Conservatism,” Theory, Culture & Society 2002 (SAGE, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi), Vol. 19(4): 103–119.

[28] Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience, p. 59.

[29] Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, 38, 1934.

[31] Allan Bloom, Giants and Dwarfs: Essays 1960-1990 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990) pp. 235-273.

[32] Mark Lilla, “The End of Philosophy: How a Russian émigré brought Hegel to the French.” Times Literary Supplement, (April 5, 1991) p. 3.

[33] Roger Griffin, Professor in History, Oxford Brookes University, “Europe For The Europeans:Fascist Myths Of The New Order 1922 – 1992,”

[34] Shadia Drury. Alexandre Kojève: The Roots of Postmodern Politics. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), p. 14

[35] Ibid, p. 65.

[36] Alexandre Kojève, Introduction to a Reading of Hegel. (New York: Basic Books, 1969), p. 69.

[37] Drury, Alexandre Kojève, p. 37.

[38] Ibid., p. 147.

[39] Bryan S. Turner. “Sovereignty and Emergency Political Theology, Islam and American Conservatism.” Theory, Culture & Society 2002 (SAGE, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi), Vol. 19(4): 103–119.

[40] Heinrich Meier, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the hidden dialogue, (University of Chicago Press 1995), p. 125.

[41] Jeffrey Steinberg, Tony Papert & Barbara Boyd. “Dick Cheney Has a French Connection—To Fascism.” Executive Intelligence Review (May 9, 2003).

[42] Alan Bloom, “Preface,” Alexandre Kojève, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, p i.

[43] Shadia Drury, Alexandre Kojève, p. 43.

[44] The End of History and the Last Man. (Fukuyama, 1992)

[45] Francis Fukuyama, “They Can Only Go So Far,” The Washington Post (August 24, 2008).

[46] Gilles Keppel, The War for Muslim Minds, p. 62.

[47] Bryan S. Turner. “Sovereignty and Emergency Political Theology, Islam and American Conservatism.” Theory, Culture & Society 2002 (SAGE, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi), Vol. 19(4): 103–119.



Weishaupt's Illuminati had nothing to do with Martinism. In French, the followers of various esoteric currents used to be called Illuminés, but that's just a coincidence. For more information on the actual sources of Weishaupt's teachings check out The Secret School of Wisdom.

Assalamu'alaykum Dawuwd (I hope you dont mind using the 'Arabic version of your name as ALLAAH had used the word Dawuwd for David. :-)

First let me concur your claims by stating that starting with Ibraahiym, the Divine Throne had deployed a string of Prophets and Messengers over the spans of centuries that eventually led to the expulsion of this evil menace, this Hizbush Shay'taan, that you have endeavour to educate fellow Man of, from the land that they now seek to return. A land today known as "the Land of the 'Arabs" ie Greater Levant (Iraaq, Shaam and Sinai and its immediate prophery - Egypt and Eastern Iraaq)

The culmination of this centuries long subterfuge will be great slaughters of which the 'Arabs will be sucked into. Many of our 'Arabs kinsmen will undoubtfully fall prey to their evil designed and planned confusion and the needless slaughter in their quest to return. The repercussion is far greater than just material global dominance, as those caught in their web will be cast into The Fire. Today, the ones who has brought The Salvation to the Nations (the 'Arabs, ie Children of Ismaaiyl) is in need of saving themselves. We Ajams owe it to them atleast that much.

You know what I say to be true.

The Prophet S' AWS warned of a black and dark fitna that will enter EVERY 'ARAB HOUSE that in in finality will result in bloodshed and slaughter. Father against son. Brother against brother. Wife against husband. The Prophet S' AWS did not say "the houses of every Muslimiyn"rather he singled out the 'Arabs for this disastrous Fitna.

The outward and appearance sense, we know it is the Wahhabi Fitna WHICH IS STILL PICKING UP PACE that has gripped the 'Arab world completely, while in the Eastern lands - where the main bulk of the "Mahdian Army" shall come from - have begun pushing back the Wahhabi scourge. Even the Deobandis (whose scholarship hold sway over the Taliban) has begun their move against the Wahhabi scourge (see

We all know the Wahhabiyya Fitna is part of a greater Fitna. Part of s a strings of Fitna engineered by the same entities thay has infiltrated and playing on all sides of the fences. We all know who is behind them. The Wahhabiyya Fitna is merely an engine. A tool. And end to its means.

Al'hamduwlillaah, the Shafi'is, Malikis, Hanafis, Hanbalis, Asha'aris, Maturiydis and Asthaaris (the Hanbali 'aqiyda) - these Seven who makenup the Ahlussunna sect within the Jama'a- are now completely united against the Wahhabi. With the Asha'ariyya Wall leading the intellectual assault as they did before in the past against the Mu'gtazila and their illogical rationality; anyone be it individuals, groups or institutions who tries to defend the Wahhabiyya scourge will eventually get excommunicated from the Jama'a. It may take some time, but it will be done. The Asha'ariyya will not accept any dissent in this issue. In other words, eventually even the Taliban will have to purge the "Salaafis" or risk getting booted themselves as the Asha'ariyya has complete hold over the Deoband school.

Remember it was the Asha'ariyya who broke the Mu'gtazila and their offsprings such as the Mujassima and Haswiyya. All real Ahlussunna knows the authority the Asha'ariyya holds within the ranks of the Ahlussunna and that all the Aces cards are in their hands. Challenging the Asha'ariyya is practically political, religious and Intellectual suicide! When the Asha'ariyya Scholarship speaks, the four mazdaahib listens. That's what happened to Ibnu Taymjyya the Hashwiyya; the Asba'ariyya flushed and pointed him out, the fuqaa'ha of the four mazdaahib took noticed of it and took him down in toto. Al'hamwduwlillaah.

In confronting these ancient Evil Menace, I would like to propose to you three actions:

1. I seriously belief you should find a credible person or team fo translate your books and articles - your life's work - to 'Arabic (an even other languages). As the "evil force" and its suppotrters, helpers and soldiers that you are trying to show to and educate the people originated and spread and eventually GOT EVICTED from what is ow known as "the Land of the 'Arabs"; and consequently with its numerous hidden-in-the-open "army" is trying, conspiring, TO RETURN TO it!
The 'Arabs, above all other nations are in danger of their evil conspiracies.

While I fear it is too late to save the 'Arabs as a whole from the Wahhabiyya Fitna, individually however there is still hope. Inshaallaah.

2. You need to engaged the scholars of the Seven that makexup the ranks of the Ahlussunna and get them to endorse your findings and writings. As the Ahlussunna hold the reigns of the Jama'a. Especially the Asha'ariyya Wall.

Though I admit that the authority of the Seven is currently being stifled by the Mulkan Jabris (Tyranical goverments) put into power by the same Menace that engineered the Wahhabiyya Fitna that oppose the Mulkan Jabris; the authority still remains within them. The attempt by the the Evil Menace that you are describing to remove authiority from the Blessed Seven will evetualy fail and is failing as we soeak. The Seven wil eventually rebound stronger than ever. A matter of Time.

It will take alot of arguing and heated debate to open their eyes as the men of the Blessed Seven as they rarely relent or adopt a decision without majority consensus (either by ijmaa or jumhuwr). But when they do, they will stop at nothing to purge this Evil Menace from the 'Umma. Inshaallaah.

3. While rocking the boat is neccessary in order ro rouse people attention, rocking too hard will gain in the opposite resulting in you getting thrown off the boat instead. Stay on course and do not get distracted; do not challenge the accepted matters by Jumhuwr or Ijmaa like the advent of Al-Mahdiy. The result will be negative. Instead in gaining the support from the scholarship of the Blessed Seven that you require, they will have you purged from the ranks instead.


Why? Because the true scholarship of the four mazdaahib listen to them. So do not rile up the Asha'aris against yourself. All your work will then go to waste (in the Dunya atleast).

This is a sincere advice I am giving you in this important work you are carrying out for the benefit of this 'Umma. Fiy Amanillah and barakallaah fiyk.

Assalaamu'alaykum Dawuwd. This is my initial comment on the book Black Terror, White Soldiers as I have not finish it yet.

First a big jazakallaahu khayran kasthirya for making it available in PDF. Many people complaints about thr Wahhabis flooding their materials everywhere making them easily available bit the Ahlussunna's scholarship counter actions has been lacking. I was shocked to see when a colleague gave me a list of books morenthan 50 books written by ulamaa against Mu'hammad ibn AbdulWahhab during his own life time. Out of the list only one has been translated and its not mass transmited to the public. And then they sulk people are listening and turning Wahhabis. Blah!

Secondly, a bif sorry if this post is out of place as I dont see a comment section/button on the Black Terror, White Soldiers' page.

The first issue I have is this statement:

"...The Sufis introduced the practice of Dhikr , or religious oral exercises, consisting of a continuous repetition of the name of God. These practices were unknown to early Islam, and consequently regarded as Biddah , meaning “unfounded..."
[Black Soldiers, White Terror, pg.48]

I see that some of the Wahhabi corruption stills lingering within you, may ALLAAH rid you of all of these taints, inshallaah. This statement of yours is 100% wrong.

Before I proceed I would like to remind you that Ibn Khaldun has stated that the Suwfi are broken into two groups. Those who are sunna compliant and those who have gone astray. So this problem with the Suwfis is older then the British ideological attack on Islaam. To ptoceed...

1. Rasulullaah S' AWS clearly encouraged the Muslimiuwn TO MOSTEN THEIR TONQUE with the zdikir. The majority of 'ulamaa not only agreed that this includes the repeated chanting of ALLAAH's name, but also it is the primary and Islaamic meaning of zdikrullaah.

2. The best zdikir according to The Prophet S' AWS himself that is "light on the TONGUE but heavy (in the scales) with ALLAAH are the tasbiyh (saying subhannallaah), tahmiyd (saying Alhamduwlillaah), takbiyr (saying ALLAAHuakbaar) and tahlil (saying laa ilaaha illallaah). The Prophet also added the more they are made the heavier one's scale will get in Qiyaama (Afterlife) along with other perks that will be added to one's properties in Janna (The Garden)

3. While zdikir in 'arabic means rememberance; a reminder (an islaamic talk or discussion) is called TAZDKIRA instead. Arabic words take different connoctations when coupled with Islaam. For instant the word masjiyd has two meanings. The word "jihaad" originally in 'Arabic means struggling in general. But with Islaam it specifically means "armed struggle" unless coupled with other words such as "jihaadun nafs" "jihaadu bi A'z'zaalimiyn" or "jihaad bi Al-Munaafiqiyn". Only recently the Wahhabis try to knock out the repeatative mention of ALLAAH's names as Zdikir by trying to limit zdikir to islaamic discussion or class or talk. ...scumbags.

3. Both Abuw Hurayra and Abuw Darda who are senior Sahaba are known to have a tasbih (counting device) for repetitive zdikir. The former had a rope with a 1000 knots made to it while the latter had a bag of 1000 date-seeds for zdikir purposes.

4. If you read the book Al Jamig wal Hikaam by ibn Rajab Al-Hanbaliy*** you will find that he wrote that one of the Salaaf used to repetitively made 12000 istirgfaar EVERYDAY (or rather night) until the day he died without missing it a single day.

As you can see the Wahhabi stains still has a hold on you beliefs. Please properly clense yourself off them before the Asha'ariyya scholarship took notice of it and place you on their "deviancy radar". If they speaks against you, the scholars of the four fiqh mazdhaahib will ostracize you and negate all your valuable works.

You are however right that the Suwfi turuq (orders) did indeed officially instate a program of zdikir in groups with specific intentions and made an official ritual out of it, but this is a topic of its own on why they erected such syllabus within their khanqa or zawiya in the first place. If you engage them properly you will see that they indeed have evidences for doing zdikir in such manners, but they when overboard by making it a ritual.

I repeat it again - a syllabus - as in a 'school syllabus' which is usually drawn up in any school, colleges or institutions and tailored specifically to develop and drive a certain discipline into a student. In this case the discipline is called "taming or subserving of the heart" which is not an easy thing to do. TRY MAKING 100 ISTIRGFAR EVERY NIGHT WITHOUT A MISS. SEE HOW HARD IT IS TO TAME THE HEART. The science of tassawuf was developed in order to cleanse and prepare the muriyd's heart as the Quraan mention the link between ALLAAH and any of HIS Servant is the heart as written in The Quraan that metaphorically it is within the heart where ALLAAH resides. As Rasuwlullah warned, if the heart is corrupted then no amount of knowledge and enlightenment will be of any use. Tasawwuf all about the heart. Fullstop. Nothing more.

For the mind we have the science of Kalam and for action the science of Fiqh. Deviancy crepts in when one overstep and mixed up between the sciences. For instance philosophy as well as aqiyda is the matter of the mind and thus is the jurisdiction of the Mutakallimiyn (aka the Asha'aris and Maturiydis) but many of these muriyds like to get involve into Philosphy which ends up corrupting their mind an eventually their heart gets corrupted as well as they are processing information incorrectly.

This is what Tasawwuf is all about. The science of developing and maintaining the Heart in order to maintain that link with ALLAAH as HE [metaphorically] resides within the heart and NOT the head. Because tassawuf makes the link (aka the heart) between ALLAAH and HIS servant strong, this is why you see that karamaat generally occur more easily among the Suwfi scholars as ALLAAH readily respond to the Suwfi (tasawwuf scholars) invocations much faster on the account of their heart. There is nothing mystical about it in truth. As this science cannot be measured empirically or on paper it is thus called spirituality.

Ofcourse there is the slight detail that from an academical point of view, Islaam is what is called 'multidisciplinary science' and thus a Shafi'iy faqiy'h usually ends up being an Asha'ariyya mutakkalim and triple as a Suwfi scholar and more as they continue to pursue islaamic knowledge and accumulate the 18 ijaazaat of Islaamic Scholarship.

The real Suwfis ie scholars of Tasawwuf with a valid tassawuf ijaza* is tasked to watch the 'Umma over this issue (condition of the heart) but unfortunately they have been doing a lousy and bad job so far! ALLAAH musta'aan. And there is a simple explaination for that (ie why there is so much confusion on tasawwuf) But we have to go into the full and elaborate account of the HIS-Story of Ahlussunna development in order to explain it.

* Only a person who has obtained a valid tassawuf ijaaza with a valid Salasila can and should be call a Suwfi - a scholar in tassawuf. The rest are in truth are merely muriyd - students of tassawuf. This is the root source of the problem of sorting out the Suwfi problem. Ya'gni 90% of the so called Suwfis are not really Suwfis as they have not obtained their ijaaza in tasawwuf. Rather they are muriyd (students of tassawuf) and shouldn't be calling themselves Suwfis.

Secondly while tassawuf is one of the 18 branches of Islaamic sciences of Islaamic scholarship, the SUWFI IJAZA is a specialization degree like engineering or medicine degrees in modern university. One has to go for his SAT/A-Levels, prep school/matriculations before one can sit for such a degree. In other words like the Faqiy'h (fiqh) or Muhaddisth (hadiysth) or Muffasir (tafsiyr) ijaazat, one can or should only pursue the specialization Suwfi ijaaza after he or she had obtained the first three general ijazat - Qari (quran recitation), Alim (fard'u ayn) and Ustazd (usuwluddiyn). Only after one has obtained these first three that one pursue the specializations.


You are also right there is corruption in zdikir through syncretism as the jinn can also be summon (ei attracted) through a series of repeated fluid movements such as Taichi and certain ritualistic dances.


Going into a trance like state is definitely not encouraged in Islaam as Rasuwlullah clearly detested and discouraged the act of shutting the eyes during 'salaa (physical prayers) in order to be more focus (kushuu) and then there is the Divinely legislated 'Salaatul Kawf which can be done while even running where one is being completely aware of the surroundings, scanning all directions for any immediate threats.

Anyway thats it for now. Please forgive me if the english is bad as it is not my mother tongue and I am told my communication is next to zero.

Some extra notes:

*** I am from the Shafi'iy-Asha'ariy iqtiqaad of Ahlussunna while Ibn Rajab is from the Hanbaliy-Asthaariy iqtiqaad of Ahlussunna. The reason I am telling you this is because I am not a fan of the Hanbaliy-Asthaariy iqtiqaad which historically has produced a chain of loose cannons from Al-Barbahariy to Al-Uqayliy to Ibn Taymiyya to Ibn.Qayyim to Mu'hammad ibn 'AbdulWahhab. Even AbdulQadiyr Al-Jilaaniy and Shaykhul Islaam Hanbaliyya Muwaffaquddiyn Al-Maqdisiy on accounts of being Asthaaris continously attack the Asha'aris in their writings to no end. However, if proper research is done, one will find in HIS-Story that among Ahlussunna, it is the Hanaabila despite being Astharis are the ones who are prone to fall into mujassima (anthromorphism of GOD) errors by unknownly adopting the foul ta'gwiyl haqiyqa doctrine.

I suspect the real culprit is the rigid Asthariyya aqiyda which carries another name - the Hanbaliy Aqiyda - as the originator of this aqiyda school is imaam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal [who is close to the Ahluhadiysth Sect** (he praised them)]; as mentioned by Shaykhul Islaam Hanbaliyya Mu'hammad As-Saffariniy that the originator and head of the Asthaariyya school (proponents of the tafwiyd doctrine) is Imaam Hanbal just as Imaam Abuw Hasan Al-Asha'ariy is the head and originator of the Ashariyya school (proponents of the ta'gwiyl doctrine)*. The reason it is called Asthariyya instead of Hanbaliyya aqiyda is the confusion it will cause as there is also the Hambaliyya fiqh.

If the Hanbaliyya fiqh hat not been accepted as valid by ijmaa of Ahlussunna scholarship and officially incorporated into the Ahlussunna sub-grouping before the Closing of the Door of Ijtihaad I would have "rabidly" rejected this mazdhab outright which was only officially established years after the death of Imaam A'hmaad ibnu Hanbal. But we are a people who follow the ijmaa and the jumhuwr. So what's done is done.

** the AhlulHadiysth Sect are the mushaddid hadiysth extremists who verbally abused Imaam Abuw Haniyfa for his use of Ijtihaad and Ihtisaan. They follow hadiysth exclusively and literally. Who does that sounds like today, eh? Same ol', same ol'. Same old rubbish with an updated fresh coat of... labels and lies... to fool the unsuspected. :)

To be fair to Imaam Ahmaad, Imaam Abuw Haniyfa was close to the Supposers Sect while Imaam Abuw Hasan Al-Asha'ariy was fan ex-Mu'gtazila. This exposure to these sects in their early years in actuality what made these Imaams' mind critically strong in their later years.

* According to Shaykhul Islaam Shafa'iiyya imaam An-Nawawiy, the Salaaf 'Aimma themselves actually practiced both tafwiyd and ta'gwiyl, prefering tafwiyd but will switch to ta'gwiyl when there is a need to in order to combat innovators in beliefs (such as the Mu'gtazila, Hashwiyya, Mujassimma, Wahhabiyya and etc.) - which is the actually policy of the Asha'ariyya scholarahip. This dual switching between the two doctrines mentioned above can clearly be spotted among the early generations (Aslaaf) of Muffasiriyn' whose works (tafaasir books) includes ta'gwiyl of the Divine Attributes. While the Salaafiyya shaya'tiyn who claimed to follow the Salaf rejected both Tafwiyd and Ta'gwiyl doctrines of the Salaaf Aimma.

Assalaamu'alaykum again Daawud
This is a follow up on my previous comment. I did not get the luxury of finishing your excellent book Black Terror White Soldiers yet, may ALLAAH grant me the baraaka of time and expediate it for me. Inshaallaah.
Anyway, remember that I said on the issue of Al-Mahdiy as Ahlussunna we follow the ijmaa or jumhuwr of scholars such as the mu'gtamid opinions or rulings within a mazdhab or stay within the suwayd Al-Azzaam and that if everyone follow a particular scholar ya'gni I follow Scholar A and you follow Scholar B while Sunni-Man follow Scholar C and 'Joe Muslim Joe follows Scholar D the result will be utter chaos? Well here is a point on that:
The link above is a biography of Ibnu Khaldun by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqaalaaniy who is.a Shaykhul Islaam of the $hafi'iyya school as well as as an 'amiyrul muw^miniyn bil hadiysth of his time. As you know as a top level Muhaddiysth ibn Hajar must master the science of Al-Jar'h wa At-ta'gdiyl and 'ilm Ar-rijaal and adhere to their principles and standards.  Now if we take Ibn Hajar Al-Asqaalaaniy's criticisms on Ibn Khaldun exclusively we would have to abandon Ibnu Khaldun's writings as unreliable but the jumhuwr of scholars approved of his writings  from the perspective of historical sciences but warn to take caution with him in some other matters.
There are things that has reach ijmaa' and mash-shuwr that one don't have to.make issues with it like the advent of Al-Mahdiy. 'Umma Mu'hammad is a special case with The Divine Throne as it was The Prophet S'AWS who chose us (ie this Umma) out of the 70 Ummaat of Adam presented to him S'AWS. So as Abdullaah ibn Mas'uwd indicated ALLAAH will side with the majority in order to protect the majority of us from the Fire. In other words, ALLAAH will one day raise Al-Mahdiy to the World even there is no single evidence for it because the majority of this Umma believes such; as ALLAAH has given a promise to HIS Prophet S'AWS to look after his Umma in his absence.
I also wish to advice you about the Sihha Sitta that they are books of fiq'h written for the usage of the fuqaaha to conclude HUJJAAT from and that these books were not primarily for hadiysth preservations. SO BECAREFUL WITH THE MANHAJ OF THE SALAAFI MORONS AND THEIR IGNORAMOUS NAJDI 'SCHOLARS'. The word manhaj means 'the way of understanding matters'. Imaam Al-Bukhaariy' Imaam Muslim, Imaam At-Tirmizdiy, Imaam An-Nasaai'iy, Imaam Ibnu Majaa and Imaam Abuw Daawud are all people of Mazdhab, the first five mentioned being Shafa'ai and the last one is a Hanbaliy, wrote those books with the mazdhaahib (ie fiq'h) in mind. 
For example there are ahadiysth in Sahiyh Al-Bukhaariy that cannot be used to derive rulings as Imaam Al-Bukhaariy place it there as shahiyd (corroborating witness) hadiysth to a daliyl (evidence) hadiysth rather then as a daliyl by itself as a fiq'h point he wish to make. The point it is a fiq'h book. Written by a faaqi'h for the fuqaa'ha. Not for the laymen. Laymen cannot derive rulings and conclusions directly from the Sihha Sitta.
While the Salaafis being laa-mazdhabi and rgayru muqalliduwn deviants PARASITES Enemies-of-Islaam for Dogs of Hell-Fire have a total different mindset and way of understanding (manhaj) of these books that came from our noble heritage.
Secondly I would wish to retract the statement that the Suwfi turuq innovated group zdikir on the two points below:
1. The Prophet S'AWS reminded us that there are Malaa^ika (Angels)'tasked specifically to roam the Earth and seek out MAJAALIS of zdikir and once found call out to other Malaa^ika in the Heavens to come down and join in the "revelriy".
عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رضي الله عنه، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلي الله عليه وآله وسلم، قَالَ: إِنَّ لِلَّهِ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى مَلَائِكَةً سَيَّارَةً فُضُلًا يَتَتَبَّعُونَ مَجَالِسَ الذِّكْرِ، فَإِذَا وَجَدُوا مَجْلِسًا فِيهِ ذِكْرٌ، قَعَدُوا مَعَهُمْ
Abuw Hurayra R'A narrates that The Prophet S'AWS said, “Surely there are some angels of ALLAAH (SWT) who conduct patrolling in search of remembrance assemblies. When they find such an assembly, they join and sit with them…”
عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رضي الله عنه أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صلي الله عليه وآله وسلم قَالَ: إِنَّ لِلهِ مَلَائِكَةً سَيَّارَةً وَفُضُلاَءَ يَلْتَمِسُونَ مَجَالِسَ الذِّكْرِ فِي الْأَرْضِ
Abuw Hurayra narrates R'A that the Messenger of Allah S'AWS said, “There are angels of ALLAAH (SWT), besides those assigned with usual tasks, who travel round the globe (with a particular aim) and keep looking for assemblies of remembrance ...” 
The first can be found in Sahiyh Muslim and Musnad Ahmaad while the second in Al-Mustadrak  of Al-Hakiym. Now the word 'majaalis' is plural form of 'majlis' which a collective singular word. Secondly majlis, an assembly, primarily denotes a called assembly with a specific intend and purpose i.e. 'Majlis Shuraa, Majlis Askariyya and etc.
So group zdikir not only has had tacit approval from ALLAAH and HIS Messenge but is encouraged as well! The problem we overlooked that the original Haruriyya khawaarij had a form of tasawwuf while the Salaafiyya khawaarij of today don't; as Rasuwlullaah S'AWS warned the last khawaarij would recite the Qur^aan but will not go past their throats.Now all scholars agreed that the khawaarij had sincerity and Sincerity resides within the heart. So Rasuwlullaah must be indicating to something else....
And what is tasawwuf? The science of purifying the heart as a receptacle of understanding (also figuratively called the Light of ALLAAH aka 'ilm) and one of the fundamental 20 sciences of Islaam.
Not only there is not a single Suwfi (authorized/licensed scholar of tasawwuf) among them(!) but it is also far'd to learn tasawwuf to be a faqiy'h. So this indicates that the Salaafis do not have real fuqaa'ha among them either. Which in turns tells us all their 'Muhaddisth' are all crap (aka 'the'books carrying donkeys' as mentioned in the Qur^aan) as well as one need fiq'h to understand and apply ahaadiysh properly.
2. Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbaliy** wrote these words in his Jaami'g Al-'Uluwm wa Al-Hikaam:
'Ali described the Companions one day, saying, "When they remembered Allah, they would become in a state of violent commotion as do the trees on a day of strong winds, and their tears would flow on to their clothing."
The bold part describe the method of zdikir of the Sahaba. Now whether it is spontaneous natural disposition or deliberate act is up for  sincere question, research and ta'gwiyl but that is thei description of their zdikir: "... as do the trees on a day of strong winds..."
Its clear they rock back and forth or side ways  'violently' while making zdikirullaah.
With these I declare tawba on my slander against the  genuine Suwfi and you are my witness in Al-Akhiyra for that inshallaah. May ALLAAH shower blessings and forgiveness on all Shafi'iy-Asha'ari who shut the door completely on both Ibn Taymiyya and Mu'hammad ibn AbdulWahhab completely and stood like a wall against their fitaan.
PS: I advice you to make a point in your future writings to make a clear distinction between the Suwfis and the Baa'tinis (esotericists) hiding behind the Suwfi masquerade. The Baa'tinis are hiding behind the Suwfi just like the Haswiyya (crypto-anthromopists) and Salaafis are hiding behind the Hanbaliy (and Hanafis in the case of Deoband) name just as the Mu'gtazila once hid behind the cover of being Hanaafi and Shafi'iy until the Asha'aris and Maturiydis exposed them bare and push them out completely. Al',hamduwlillaah.
PPS: As for the issue of bid'a I advice you to look into the issue of bid'a sa'iyya (bad innovations), bid'a huda and bid' zayda. The last two is a matter of fiq'h and breaks into haram, makruwh, mubah/harus, mustahab and far'd. I apologize for not bringing you th evidence (daliyl) for this hujja as I am just lazy at this point on. =) I would hope it would suffice you by stating that Umar Al-Kha't'taab said "this is a good innovation ( bid'aa hasana)" after making the tarawiyh prayer into a single congretion at An-Nabawiy to the existence of the last two bid'a mentioned above.
Lastly this is by no mean any fortm of attack but rather a wish and desire  for you to excel further in the Eyes of ALLAAH in your work and field, inshallaah. If I have sounded harsh in anyway please overlook my faults and excuse my shortcomings in communicative skills.
I ask ALLAAH to protect all of us from the Shaya'tiyn and our desires and the deviant cults and admit us into Al-Firdaws without reckoning. Amiyn.


I forgot to mentionr thatIbn Rajab Al-Hanbaliy is part of the Golden Chain of the Qaadiriyya 'tariyqa. Meaning any claim to the Qaadiriyya 'Tariyqa without him in the salasila is a pseudo chain and claim.

Firstly I would like to point to an error I think in need of correction or clarification (ambiguity) on your behalf where you wrote in the book....
"In 1857, a Fatwa was issued in India against Wahhabism, the Deobandis and Ahlul Hadith, leading to the formation of the Sufi-based Barelvi movement, founded by Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, a disciple and successor of Shah Waliullah’s son." (Pg. 166-167)
I think you are talking about A'hmaad Rida Khan Berelwiy who wrote the fatwa Husam Al-Haraamayn; and not Sayyid A'hmad Khan (Rai-)Berelwiy who was the "amiyrul muw^miniuwn" of the "Muwahhiduwn" groups in India and who along with Shah Ismaa^iyl Khan Dehlawiy the "author" of that monumental filth Tawqiyatul Imaan declared Hind as "Darul Kufr" and declared Jihaad against the Kuffar and "innovators" (aka Sunnis Muslims). Incidentally the first thing they did was to attacked the more poorly armed (during those times) Sikhs instead of the British, which in turn not only gave the British more pretext to crack down and enforce stricter rulings on the Muslims in order to end "the etnic/sectarian violence", but also would drove many of the communities of Hind to side with the British for protection instead of opposing the Brit occupation as Indians. And if you read US military main think-tank, Westpoint's CombatingTerrorism Centre (CTC) on the Iraq theatre, this is PRECISELY what Abuw Mus'aab Az-Zarqawiy did in Iraaq! He attacked the Shiy'a first instead of the Americans. Furthermore the aforementioned American think-tank's document* recommended the American military to prop up Abuw Mus'ab Az-Zarqawiy to a hero status exactly for this purpose! You will remember the Brits had used the same gameplay at Galipoli in order to prop up Mustapha Kemal against the Usthmniyya.
And to proceed; Al'hamduwlillaah, I had long wondered (heavily suspected), but lack the resources to comfirm my suspicion on why other then the Salaafiyya Khawaarij, only those (a section) from the Deobandis institutions uses the term "Qubuwriyyuwn" which was first used by ShakhunNajd (Shay'taan)'of the Salaafis and his Muwahhiduwn against the people of Hijjaz. This term is virtually non heard of among us Shafa'ai, the Hanabila and Malikis; and even among the Hanaafis it is only used by the Deobandis. You might have stumble on something important when you declared in your research...
"The first reformer identified as a Revivalist in India was Shah Waliullah  (1703–1762), born during the Mughal reign of Aurangzeb. During a time of waning Muslim power, he worked for the revival of Muslim rule and intellectual learning in South Asia. Waliullah travelled to Mecca for the Hajj pilgrimage in 1730, and studied under Sheikh al Madani, a renowned teacher of Hadith, in whose library he discovered the works of Ibn Taymiyyah. On his return to India, Waliullah, much like Abdul Wahhab, preached the supposed purification of Islamic monotheism, and as Ibn Taymiyyah had done, he defied custom by setting himself up as a Mujtahid." (Pg. 166)
Though I would like to I would remind you that there are mainstream scholars from the four Mazdaahib who declared Shah Waliyullaah a mujaddid; please look into this matter with proper research and reclarify it in a future article, because if you indeed meant A'hmaad Rida Khan Berelwiy in the quoted above (I doubt it) and he is connected to Shah Waliyullaah Dehlawiy, that would explain a matter of observation in the Berelwiy counter-movement; secondly, if indeed Shaah Waliyullaah Dehlawiy is the one who brought in and introduced the ideological corruption of Ibn Taymiyya to the Hind Hanaafis as you stated this would explain why...
1.' All four of his sons and grandsons are inclined towards the filthy manhaj (ideology) of the ShaykhunNajd (Shay'taan) of the Salaafiyya khawaarij and his Muwahhiduwn Movement to begin with. They have been pre-exposed, pre-conditioned and pre-contaminated for with the 'manhaj' of Ibn Taymiyya Al-Harraaniy the Hashwiy beforehand through their father's own foolish undoing (i am making Husnu'z 'zann towards Shah Waliyullaah Dehlawiy at this point).
2. The  fact of this odd behaviour observed among the Deobandis that they have continuously [and will be the first among the Hanaafis] to jump up and defend Ibn Taymiyya inspite of Anwaar Shaah Kashmiriy's clear warning and statement about that particular Hashwiy and why they are easily susceptible to the writings of the Salafists especially those of the Jihaadi denomination (aka Qutbi Wahhabis) such as Abuw Mu'hammad Al-Maqdisiy and Abuw Qatada Al-Filistiniy. In short their corruption is from ibn Taymiyya first and foremostly which makes them susceptible to the Wahhabi propagandas. Visit and see while they openly criticizes the Wahhabis and ibn 'AbdulWahhab and the "Ha-laafis" (Hanafi Salaafis) Deobandis and claiming an Ashaa'ariyya heritage, still you can feel in the style and dialectics of their writings that they highly value Ibn Taymiyya despite claiming to be Ashaa'aris. Which is weird since Ashaa'aris would generally sideline 'Ibn Taymiyya COMPLETELY based on the combined weight of the firman of Sul'taan Mu'hammad ibn Qalawuwn and the devastating fatwa of Shaykhul Islaam Taqiyuddiyn As-Subkiy and later on followed by the outright fatwa of Shaykhul Islaam A'hmaad Ibn Hajar Al-'Hay'taamiy; which are all comfirmed by the very fact of the life sentence imprisonment on Ibn Taymiyya and that all his works were indeed surpressed by the Ahlussunna scholarship where the 'moderate' Wahhabi Ibn Jibreen has comfirmed to be true when he declared the books and works of Ibn Taymiyya was surpressed by the Scholarship for 400 years and was taught in hiding; and this fact was also echoed by the notorious Rabi'ii ibn Hadiy Al-Madkhaliy as well.
Unless one is aware, it is not easy to see through the hidden and dialectical rhetorics employed by someone as eloquently intelligent as Ibn Taymiyya as stated by Taqiyuddiyn As-Subkiy, "... As for the Hashwiyya, they are a despicable and ignorant lot who claim to belong to the school of (Imam) Ahmad (ibn Hanbal)… They have corrupted the creed of a few isolated Shafi’is, especially some of the Hadith scholars among them who are lacking in reason...". In fact it required the son, Taajuddiyn As-Subkiy to 'rise up' to counter Azd-Zdahaabiy's writings in order to reverse and put an end to the damage put in motion by Ibn Taymiyya the Hashwiy. Even today many of the Hanaabila (and Deobandis, not surprising) still fail to see what is wrong with Ibn Taymiyya other then some fundamental fiq'h issues and opinions making excuses for him while at the same time are mercilessly harsh against the Mu'gtazila. Do they not see that Ibn Taymiyya practically RATIONALIZING Tawhiyd with his Threefold Tawhiyd concept? Azd-Zdahaabiy was even being very clear in his censure of his teacher that Ibn Taymiyya dabbled in Kalaam!  
Ibn Taymiyya did indeed dabbled in Kalaam; in rhetorics and logic and rationalism! Read: "The Forgotten Rational Thinking in the Hanbalite Thought With Special Reference to Ibn Taymiyya". Question now is who overseen, trained and verified and approved Ibn Taymiyya in the use of Kalaam? ONLY ASHAA'ARIS HAS SUCH AUTHORITIES AND HE IS NOT ONE OF THEM. Thus the statement of Taqiyuddiyn As-Subkiy, "...and then towards the end of the seventh century (AH) a man appeared who was diligent, intelligent and well-read and did not find a Shaykh to guide him, and he is of their creed and is brazen and dedicated to teaching his ideas… " Now this statement of Imaaam As-Subkiy the elder certainly cannot meant on Ibn Taymiyya's fiq'h credentials as he was a certified and licensed Hanbaliy faqiy'h at the level of mujtaahid murajjih in the Hanbaliy school; but this man did not sit with the Ashaa'aris who are the only members of Ahlussunna that has the authority to use and could authorize the use of Kalaam. 
It is clear there are TWO ISSUES with Ibn Taymiyya, one was his ODD BELIEFS and the other was his ISOLATED OPINIONS; of the later issue, the Shafa'ai initial wanted to confined it as an internal matter of the Hanbaliy school but he insisted in challenging the entire orthodoxy across all for mazdaahib! Thus he was partly to be blamed for the EVIL of rgayru muqallid and laa-mazdhabi fitna that has appeared today and has struck down many lay Muslimiyn like wildfire in these days. Most certainly he was the one who opened the door and paved the way and laid down the foundation for it.
As we can see the problem with Ibn Taymiyya is infact twofold, in fiq'h and as well as 'aqiyda. Thus I failed to see how some of the Hanabila and Deoband claim it was an issue of misunderstanding and an overblown issue? If Ibn Taymiyya had not been playing the repentance card everytime he was put to trial, he would have been judically executed by the Islaamic judiaciary for some of the opinions and beliefs that he held. The first time he was put to trial and prison one could say he was maligned or commited a grave error (husnu 'zann), but by the last time he was put to trial and prison PRETTY MUCH OVER THE SAME ISSUES it is quite clear he pre-meditated the issues (such as the veiled or suggestive takfiyr he made against Imaam Fakharuddiyn ibn Ar-Raziy whom we know as a trained Ashaa'ariy, combated Al-Falsafa (Greeks' Philosophy) using Al-Hikma (Muslims' Philosophy) and wrote an encyclopedia of sort for scholars to use to identify and deal with witchcraft in all its forms and symbols). The fact he repented the first time shows that the senior scholars had debated Ibn Taymiyya and made clear the matters to him. He deliberately returned to these issues upon release. This remind me of one'AbdurRa'hmaan 'Aal Ash-Sheikh who was captured by the 'Usthmaaniyya forces and taken to Mi'sr (Greater Egypt) where he claimed repentance (to avoid judical execution) but secretly peddling his grandfather's rotten manhaj in that land and as a result entrenched Salaafiyya in Mi'sr that eventually led to the coming of one Sayyid Qutb and his own spin and version of an "engine of takfiyr", a spinoff of IbnTaymiyya's Threefold Tawhiyd, At-Tawhiyd Al-Haakimiyya;'which by its very nature, very much like the Threefold Tawhiyd targets those who already professed "Laa ilaaha ilaallaaah".
The difficulty in dealing with Ibn Taymiyya was the fact that he was a decorated war hero and had enjoyed some level of patronage from the Mamluks authority because of his infamous Fatwa Mardin in their service. Ibn Kasthiyr declared, "There was a group of jurists who were envious of Shaykh Taqi al-Din due to his good relations with the government, him taking the lead in ordering the good and forbidding evil, the general obedience people showed to him, the increasing number of his followers, and his eagerness to defend the truth, along with his knowledge and actions”. If not the case, Ibn Taymiyya would have been easily dealt with by the Scholarship as they did with the case of Al-Hallaj (see Al-Kawsthaariy's statement on the issue of Ibn Taymiyya). We can see this problem repeats in the form of Abuw Mus'aab Az-Zarqawiy over the Iraaqwar affair, how many would accept [or get irritionally and emotionally agitated at the suggestion] that he is just a patsy* favoured by the American military planning? Again in the past we see the same irrational problem in common Turks in the form of Mustapha Kemal who is a mole of The Political North after the events of Galipoli. Or try telling the truth to people that the grim fact is Salaafiyya crept into Chechnya with the entry of 'amiyr Kha't'taab into that country, many would probably go irrationally berserk, and I am talking about people who know and despises the Wahhabis!
* a patsy agentur as oppose to a mole agentur.
We can see that this problem is trully compounded. Built on layer by layer of rotten-ness spanning generations and directions, beginning with what seems to be harmless term ('tariyqa as-salaafiya**);'and like the rivers Furaat (Euphrates) and Dajla (Tigris) that sprang from the same source then forking into two great streams and finally merging back at the tail waters near the sea, what we find at the core of it, the source is, can clearly be traced back to Ibn Taymiyya Al-Harraaniy the Hashwiy and his odd manhaj.
** Azd-Zdahaabiy [might be]'the first one to use the term Salaafiyya where he wrote/used the expression 'Tariyqa As-Salaafiyya (the Salaafi Methodology).
If this connection/link is true then it is best for the Ahlussunna scholarship, institutions, men and etc. to shutdown (by refusing to recognize the ijaaza and tawliyya of) both the Berelwiy and Deoband schools; and redirect (ie advices) all Hanafis to go to the Turk Hanaafis' salaasil for continuity and future studies and scholarship who are not only better insulated and immunized from the filth of both Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn 'AbdulWahhab respectively corrupted undertandings as the Turk Hanaafis had to dealt directly with the brunt of the Wahhabi/Salaafiyya khawaarij's Muwahhiduwn's outbreak; but there is still the poisons of Al-Afrgaaniy, 'Abduh and Rida to consider as 'Abduh did claimed to be an Hanaafi (as their target is to dismantle the 'Ustmaaniyya who are majorily Ahnaaf). Read Answer to An Enemy of Islaam reprinted and published by by Hakikat Publisher, Istanbul. (pdf copy in 'Arabic, English or Farsi can be dowloaded from their website: ). Anotherr good read is Modern Egypt by the Lord Cromer, Evelyn Barings.
Also I think you should investigate more deeper into Abuw Mu'hammaad Al-Maqdisiy and Abuw Qataada Al-Filistiniy as these two is the main engine and primary driver of the [spread of] Qutbi Wahhabi faction of the Salaafiyya khawaarij. I find odd that the two heads and the primary disseminators and rrecruitors of the Qutbi Wahhabis doctrine is pretty much left alone by the Wicked Enemy while they hunt and drone the grunts in their mission of "combating terrorism". Pay extra attention to Al-Maqdisiy as he seems to be the chief supplier of 'top quality' patsies for the Wicked Enemy's subterfuges.

Add new comment