There is no need to debate with the Salafi/Wahhabis on ideological grounds. It’s their history that condemns them most effectively. Until now, it had been difficult to get precise details on Saudi history. However, I read an excellent book recently by David Cummins, called the Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. It is the only comprehensive study of the history of SA and Wahhabism that I know of.

In any case, it’s nearly impossible to pin the Salafi down on any one particular principle. They have mastered the ability of denying everything and blaming any wayward ideas on false representatives of their movement.

They will usually even deny that they are “Wahhabis” and or that any such name even means anything. And yet, they follow closely the reformation proposed by Abdul Wahhab.

This is what is sneaky about this group. They basically insinuate themselves as merely a devout segment of the general Muslim population.

But, a reading of their history reveals very clearly that they are most definitely a sect, and have deviated from the body of the Muslim population since their founder.

This is the fact that becomes very clear in reading the book. It also helps to explain a lot about the Wahhabis and their ignorance, as well as their political inclinations.

Because, from the beginning, the relationship between the Saudis and Wahhabis has been one of tacit compromise. Monarchism, we know, is an affront to traditional Islamic practice. But from the beginning, the Wahhabi clerics agreed to overlook the ruler’s poor implementation of Islamic law, as long as they could continue to concentrate on “reforming” the masses. This is of course egregious hypocrisy, but it helps to explain the relationship that persists into our time.

What I try to point out in my book is that what the world has completely failed to recognize is that the real “axis of evil” is Britain, the US and Saudi Arabia. And that SA has not only played a pivotal role in the conspiring of the last half of the 20th century, but has been a willing participant, in what is evidently a long-term strategy against the Islamic world, or all part of the creation of a “Clash of Civilizations”, between Islam and the West.

So SA is in blatant collusion with the enemies of Islam in an attempt to undermine it. And much of the Muslim world is completely unaware of that, due primarily to the massive propaganda campaign that the state has maintained over the century, through the monopolization of Islamic literature.

But that is only part of the problem. The central aspect of this problem is the fact of that the so-called “Ulema” are a state-sponsored religious establishment (likely the only one of its kind in the world). So throughout the century they have acted to excuse the actions of the ruling family.

This explains the narrow conception of Islam that they propagate. Because they are not able to address the guts of the matter, which is the corruption of the royals, they have to compensate to by trying to appear strict in other less substantial matters. But the contradiction is that, and as controversial as this may sound, Islam is a political ideology. It’s a complete system of politics, offering an alternative to capitalism, communism or anarchism. The more trivial details were never meant to be emphasized to the extent they are by the Wahhabis.

This is how they fail to communicate the true meaning of Islam. I would say this is the reason why the Muslim world as a whole is plagued with hypocrisy. Ask a Muslim what Islam is, and he will list you the “five pillars”, but he doesn’t understand the political responsibilities that it imparts to him, and that are the true essence of the religion.

This is compounded by another fact. Essentially, Wahhab denounced the Islamic world, except for his small band of followers, as “Kaffirs”, or apostates, who had fallen outside of Islam, and therefore that it was legal to fight and kill them and seize their property, and enslave their women and children. Conveniently, the modern Wahhabis never refer to this aspect of their history.

And, to protect their ignorant citizenry from learning the true Islam from other parts of the world, they produced prohibitions against fraternizing with the “infidels”. They managed to keep this quarantine on the country essentially ever since. Through this exclusion, and by rejecting traditional Islamic scholarship, they have created a manner of dialogue on Islamic jurisprudence that is completely unique to themselves.

The problem is that the Muslim world is unaware of that. Because when the Wahhabis say “this scholar said” or “that scholar said…”, they are not referring to the centuries of Islamic legal opinion, but to their own Wahhabi tradition. However, Islamic legal thought had developed strict processes for formulating opinions. The development of several schools is testament to the tolerance that was perceived necessary in the interpretation of such laws. While the Wahhabis, on the contrary, do not have to resort to precedence, or support their arguments by past decisions, and are therefore free to distort the religion at their whim.

For all these reasons, SA has a completely unique but also very narrow and chauvinistic interpretation of Islam, which, however, they have been able to, through their fantastic oil wealth, spread to much of the Muslim world. I hope that studies like The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting Britain’s mosques will help elucidate that the current conception being propagated is one that is being monopolized by a single voice, but more importantly, that that voice comes from a very minor and corrupted sect of Islam.

Bookmark to:

An authoritative new report by Policy Exchange, the UK’s leading centre-right thinktank, entitled The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting Britain’s mosques, that Saudi Arabia is responsible for the majority of literature distributed in British mosques, and that that literature is rife with incitements to racism.

It is important that this is being revealed, because the penetration of Saudi influence is so thorough that even Muslims themselves simply regard it as status quo, and are mistaking Wahhabism for Islam.

But it isn’t anything like it. Very simply, Wahhabism preaches bigotry, not only against Kuffar or “unbelievers”, but also against “innovators”. In fact, this is how the movement itself started out.

During the eighteenth century, the British were making encroachments into the Arabian peninsula, but Mohammed Abdul Wahhab, the founder of the movement, instead declared “Jihad” against the entire Muslim world.

Sound fishy? Especially since the Muslim world was consolidated within the dominant political power in the world at the time, the Ottoman Empire. It’s amazing that most Westerners are completely unfamiliar with it. But that’s precisely the problem with the myth of Western civilization. It’s confused with the history of human civilization as a whole. But the West was only beginning to rise. On the contrary, it was the Ottomans who erected a formidable empire.

However, through their own corruption as well as efforts like those of the British, to divide and rule, by creating division such as the subversion of the Wahhabis, the Ottoman Empire began a long drawn out decay, until its eventual collapse in 1924.

It was then that the Saudis seized on the opportunity to gain control of Arabia, and by that, control of the great holy places of Islam, Mecca and Medina, and thereby, some pretense of legitimacy.

That pretense is currently being extended to numerous parts of the world, particularly into Muslim populations living abroad, through the dissemination of its literature.

Unbeknownst the most of the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia was created by oil interests and continues to serve them. This relationship ripened after the oil Crisis, when the Saudis were recruited by the CIA to use their massive funds to finance their covert operations. This began with the funding of the Contras, that eventually evolved into the Iran-Contra Affair, which traded Nicaraguan cocaine and Afghani opium to finance the so-called Mujahideen.

Just prior to that, however, the CIA had arranged the transfer of numerous members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who helped nurture the “Jihadi” philosophy that was used in the recruitment of Arabs worldwide to join the fight.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which, though it poses as an orthodox Muslim organization, is secretly derived from Egyptian Freemasonry, and has long been a tool of Western intelligence agencies. It’s most famous member was an ideologue by the name of Sayyed Qutb, and it is his incitements to hatred, bigotry and violence which you will find touted by various publications and disseminated through the abundance of Saudi wealth.

It’s time that this insidious campaign be exposed, and that not only the Muslims recognize how their religion is being hijacked, and return to more traditional interpretations, but also that people in the West begin to recognize what is the true source of this supposed radicalization of Islam, and to what extent it does not reflect the mindset of the majority of Muslim, let alone the thirteen centuries of Islamic civilization.

You can read more about the study, and download a copy of it here.
.

Bookmark to:

There’s a lot of hoopla these days about the possible discovery of the tomb of Jesus. It if were ever at all possible to even prove, however, it would not discredit “Christianity” in the least. But it would completely dismantle the Gnostic version that was created by Paul, which much of Christianity has adhered to for much of the last 2 thousand years. Ideally, it will lead to a rediscovery of the true meaning of Jesus’ message.

First of all, it’s perfectly to be expected that this strategy was to be eventually implemented, along with the recent assault on our perceptions of history and truth perpetrated by The Da Vinci Code, or the movie The Book of Secrets, and so on.

But the version of “Christianity” that the Illuminati claim to be discrediting is that same distortion of it for which they are themselves responsible.

I don’t mean to disparage any Christians, and I respect the light they may derive from that interpretation of Christianity. However, the evidence has suggested to me that Paul was a willing agent in the corruption of Jesus’ original message, and I suspect he may have been an agent of that family who were the prime instigators of the conspiracy, over the last 2000 years, to topple religion on this planet, and replace it with their Luciferianism. I mean the House of Herod the Great.

What is very fascinating about this family is that they were closely associated with 3 other families who were central in the origination and dissemination of Mithraism, that cult which so eventually pervaded the Roman Empire, and for which there have been numerous attempts to suggest that Christianity was merely a derivation of it.

The truth is that Mithraism belonged to the many and varied black magic rituals of the Kabbalah, ostensibly dedicated to the dying-gods of antiquity. In this case, they were purportedly dedicated to the god the Persian Magi, those sorcerers who were identified by the ancient world and the founders of all their occult doctrines, but were mistaken as the pupils of Zoroaster, the founder of Zoroastrianism. They were Kabbalists.

This is a very obscure area of history, so it may be difficult for readers to follow me, but the first evidence of the cult of Mithraism is found in the House of Commagene, in what is now Turkey, who were connected with the Herodians. The full network of these families also included the Claudio-Julian dynasty of Rome, who were emperors from the time to Caesar to Nero. Nero was the first emperor to have been initiated to Mithraism by a Magi. The other family were the Priest-Kings of Emesa in Syria, a hereditary family who for several centuries came to maintain the worship of Sol Invictus, which was interchangeable with Mithraism.

But it was also the Magi who through their astrological skill discovered the coming of the Jewish Messiah, and then reported it to Herod, who then implemented the infamous “slaughter of the innocents”. The evil mission failed. But this did not deter the Herodians in their mission to supplant Judaism with their own mystery religion.

When they failed to suppress the advent of the Jewish Messiah, they attempted to kill him, and then to co-opt his message. Their agent in this corruption was Paul. Robert Eisenmen, a leading scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has written an excellent article which reveals the numerous pieces of evidence which lean to suggest that Paul was indeed such an agent.

But what is most incriminating about Paul, the Thirteenth Apostle, is his decidedly Gnostic interpretation of Christianity. As I discuss in my book, I think the Herodians attempted to kill Jesus as a form of human sacrifice, as a way, in accordance with their mysteries, that the victim would “die for their sins.”

Paul then became the missionary of this version of Christianity, without revealing its true esoteric meaning.

And so here is the complete justification as touted by Paul:

If Christ is not risen, then is our preaching in vain, and your faith also is in vain. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ… if Christ is not raised… you are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” (1 Cor. 15: 12-19).

But, it is only Paul’s version of Christianity that is dependent on the death of Jesus. But maybe Jesus’ message was not in his death. The majority of early Christians did not believe that Jesus was God or son of God, until they were suppressed by the emerging Christian establishment, and finally by the Nicene conference of 325 AD. In fact, the Early Church, which was composed of Jesus’ immediate followers, were orthodox Jews, and were in conflict with Paul’s repudiation of the Law.

As another example, Islam, while hailing Jesus as the Messiah and a true prophet of God, denies that Jesus was crucified, and denounces his equation with God or the son of God as pagan influence. The evidence corroborates the claim.

No, Jesus was an orthodox Jewish reformer, in the tradition of the many reformers mentioned in the Bible. He tried to reproach the Jewish priesthood of his time for their corruption, xenophobia and misanthropy. He tried to remind them that the meaning of piety was not to be found in mindless and detailed adherence to ritual, but in the implementation of justice. Above all, he wanted to teach the meaning of loving your neighbour, even your enemies.

This was a great and powerful message. It is by estranging us from this supreme tenet, and inducing us to equate religion with ritual, and patriotic association to our fellow co-religionists, that the Illuminati have managed to lull us into a degree of apathy by which we simply stand by and watch them rape and pillage their way across much of the rest of the world.

Bookmark to:

The radical faction of Islam, known as the Salafi, are a movement created through British intrigue and coordination with occult secret societies, toward fomenting a “Clash of Civilizations”. And though the West is largely unaware of them, they are almost entirely responsible for the extremism that Islam is mistakenly perceived for.

Zarqawi, in his letter to bin Laden, described the Mujahideen, those who have been duped by the CIA to believe they are fighting a “holy war”, as follows: “These are the quintessence of the Sunnis and the good sap of this country. In general, they belong to the Sunni doctrine and naturally to the Salafi creed.”

Interestingly, their most recent response to challenges against their authenticity has been to admit, in part, to their Masonic origins, although apologizing that the men claimed as its founders, Masons and British agents like Jamal Aghani, and Mohammed Abduh, were not its true representatives.

But this is a feeble attempt to disguise their true mischief and service to Western powers. Instead, the Salafi now claim to be devoted followers alone of Abdul Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, whose service as a British agent they have yet to discover.

Islam was essentially consolidated for a period of about 1000 years, until the advent of Wahhabism. Islam developed four primary schools of legal thought, called Math’habs. These developed out of the tolerant attitude that it was possible to arrive at different conclusions based on an appraisal of the very same evidence. At a certain point, nevertheless, the legal development of Islam was eventually closed, called the “Closing of the Doors of Ijtihad”, to avoid any further controversy. That is how the schools were established at a number of four.

These various schools were not considered sects. They were legal schools of opinion, and were each considered orthodox and mutually compatible.

That is, until the 19th century, and the advent of colonialism, and the common British strategy of “Divide and Rule”, which evidently exercised its hand in disrupting this situation. According to the Wikipedia article on Shariah:

During the 19th century the history of Islamic law took a sharp turn due to new challenges the Muslim world faced: the West had risen to a global power and colonized a large part of the world, including Muslim territories. Societies changed from the agricultural to the industrial stage. New social and political ideas emerged and social models slowly shifted from hierarchical towards egalitarian. The Ottoman Empire and the rest of the Muslim world were in decline, and calls for reform became louder. In Muslim countries, codified state law started replacing the role of scholarly legal opinion. Western countries sometimes inspired, sometimes pressured, and sometimes forced Muslim states to change their laws. Secularist movements pushed for laws deviating from the opinions of the Islamic legal scholars. Islamic legal scholarship remained the sole authority for guidance in matters of rituals, worship, and spirituality, while they lost authority to the state in other areas. The Muslim community became divided into groups reacting differently to the change. This division persists until the present day (Brown 1996, Hallaq 2001, Ramadan 2005, Aslan 2006, Safi 2003).

* Secularists believe the law of the state should be based on secular principles, not on Islamic legal theory.
* Traditionalists believe that the law of the state should be based on the traditional legal schools. However, traditional legal views are considered unacceptable by most modern Muslims, especially in areas like women’s rights or slavery.[6]
* Reformers believe that new Islamic legal theories can produce modernized Islamic law [7] and lead to acceptable opinions in areas such as women’s rights.[8]
* Salafis strive to follow Muhammad and his companions, tabiin (followers of the Companions), tabiut tabiin (followers of the tabiin) and those who follow these 3 generations.

An excellent article has now been posted, however, at Salafi Publications, which not only admits, but thoroughly exposes, the Masonic and deviant origins of the founders of the Salafi movement, and their successors, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Instead, they hold to the claim that Salafism derived from the earliest centuries of Islam, from the time of the Salaf, meaning the earliest generations, and referring to the time before the development of the Math’habs. Contrary to their claims though, while it is true that the word “Salaf” refers to these early generations, the use of the term in this manner is a modern development.

This deceptive interpretation of history is derived from Abdul Wahhab, who appeared in the mid-18th century. According to his memoirs, a British spy by the name of Hempher, was assigned to the Middle East in order to discover ways to undermine Islam, with the aim of advancing British control over the region. His mission eventually focussed on the support of Wahhab, and backing him through the Saudi family, through whom he preached the British’s destructive message of Islam.

Essentially, Wahhab’s innovations made it legal for his followers to fight other Muslims, by pronouncing them “unbelievers”, under the pretense of “purifying” Islam, but in reality serving British strategy against the great Ottoman Empire. Wahhab did so by claiming that all of Islamic history, except for the generations of the Salaf, that is, from the time of the Math’habs onward, had fallen out of Islam.

Once adherence of the Muslims had been unbound from their traditional legal schools, it was possible for the British and their agents to come in with their own. And this is the purpose of the Salafi movement. The Saudis were then formally installed in Arabia in 1932, and have since acted as protectors of the oil interests of the Rockefellers, who are regarded as second-in-command within the Illuminati, after the Rothschilds. Particularly since 1973, when the Oil Crisis was orchestrated to enrich the Saudis, they have used the tremendous wealth at their disposal to advance their deviant interpretations. A notorious exponent of which is Bin Laden.

While the Saudis have been under agreement with the CIA to finance many of its covert activities, including the funding of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and the support of Islamic terrorists worldwide, many of the Saudi scholars as well as the government are putting on a public face of rejecting terrorism and bin Laden. They claim that terrorism and anti-government activities are contrary to the true tenets of Salafism.

This is not true. At times the purpose of Salafism is to inculcate terrorism, but in general, the purpose of Salafism is to provide a new Math’hab, to estrange the world’s Muslim population from traditional Islam, and thereby lead them wherever Western interests deem fit.

You can download the article, titled Historical Development of the Methodologies of al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen And Their Effect and Influence Upon Contemporary Salafee Dawah: Part 8, here:

Bookmark to:

The NY Times reports that support for the rigid implementation of Shariah in Nigeria is down. Readers will likely remember the fiasco that occurred a couple of years ago, where Nigeria became one of the main perpetrators, along with Taliban, in the negative image that Islamic law has been receiving. Obviously a carefully calculated and deliberate defacement of Islam.

Here’s why.

Because, once again, we find the same ugly hand at play here. It’s the same devious state that has been largely responsible for the radicalization of Islam in various parts of the world, and in service of the Western aim of fomenting a “Clash of Civilizations”. You guessed it, it’s Saudi Arabia, and it’s wayward brand of Islam known as Wahhabism.

The Times article remarks that, “The Islamic revolution that seemed so destined to transform northern Nigeria in recent years appears to have come and gone — or at least gone in a direction few here would have expected.” But notice this important comment:

“When Muslim-dominated states like Kano adopted Islamic law after the fall of military rule in 1999, radical clerics from the Arabian peninsula arrived in droves to preach a draconian brand of fundamentalism, and newly empowered religious judges handed down tough punishments like amputation for theft.”

There is a still more in-depth article written by Stephen Schwartz about Wahhabi influence in Nigeria.

The article reveals that, again, it’s the usual suspects involved. Named participants in the radicalization of Nigeria are members of the Golden Chain, a document discovered in Bosnia listing Al Qaeda financiers. Though not implicated in Nigeria, the chief contributor of the Golden Chain was Khalid bin Mahfouz, who was many years in Houston TX, along with bin Laden’s older brother Salem, doing business with the Bushes.

It’s important to understand the very special role of Saudi Arabia. First of all, Laurence of Arabia was used to dupe Sharif Hussain of Mecca in combatting the Turks during WWI, only to be tricked, when the British and French negotiated behind the scenes to partition the Middle East among themselves, even though Hussain had been promised to be appointed “King of the Arabs”. Saudi Arabia did not fall within this scheming, but a special fate was reserved for it. Instead, it was Ibn Saud, as head of the extremist Wahhabi faction, who was permitted to seize power in that country in 1932. A year later, he signed a deal conferring drilling rights in the country to Rockefeller’s Standard Oil.

Oil production in that country has supposedly shifted into native hands, under the guise of ARAMCO, but in reality, the organization merely acts as a front to hide continuing American control.

In it through this relationship that Saudi Arabia both acts to safeguard the continuing monopoly of one of the world’s most precious resources, and also acting to finance the spread of the British created “Wahhabi” extremism, designed to undermine Islam from within.

Bookmark to:

At least in one media source, the Associated Press, there is an attempt to acknowledge the real support being gained by Ron Paul. This is a very interesting development, and reflection of the current state of affairs.

The media certainly lost a lot of credibility, as a result of their obscene coverage of the Iraq invasion. We seem to be living in a new day and age. I don’t know why the media squandered their credibility like that. Was it deliberate? A result of gross arrogance and incompetence? A symptom of the increasing importance of the internet?

Likely a combination of all points.

But it shows that the media still maintain a powerful influence, but that they certainly can no longer dictate what people believe.

The relative success of Paul’s campaign I think is a positive sign.

But his campaign also makes obvious the very problems that plague the responses to the emerging tyranny.

Paul has picked up rightly on many of the ills that afflict the US, but within bounds that will mislead people in the end.

He extols most of the main points of the Patriot movement, by calling for a return of the Constitution, the principles of the “Founding Fathers”, and in line with the conspiracy fringe of the movement, he is demanding an end to the Federal Reserve.

I can’t disagree with him on those points. But essentially, like the Patriot movement, his ideas are affiliated with Libertarianism, which is a movement financed directly by the same Neo-con conspiracy that manipulated the US into war in the first place.

Aside from advancing “total war”, the very premise of the Neo-con agenda is the promotion of their right-wing economics. Their most clever ruse has been to identify themselves with “Christian” values, and pass along their devious economic objectives along with other more noble principles.

As revealed by extensive research available at Media Transparency: The Money Behind Conservative Media, the Neo-Conservative movement was headed by Irving Kristol, but now his son William, through various “think tanks”, funded by several tax-exempt foundations, namely the Bradley and Olin Foundations.

More recently, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have also demonstrated that these same “think tanks” form the backbone of the Israel Lobby, like the AIPAC.

They fund TV programs like Rush Limbaugh’s, or William F. Buckley’s Firing Line, or his National Review, and other right-wing publications, and support educators and specific university departments.

Their campaign has been responsible for raising the false alarm about “political correctness”, and the myth of the “liberal media”.

For the most part, they are correct about the hypocrisy of these institutions, but they are using these accusations to hide their more devious agenda.

Essentially, the Neo-Con conspiracy is out to privatize the entire industry, including health care, education, welfare, and other social services, in order that it may be appropriated it into monopolies and mega-corporations that will enable them to run every aspect of our lives. But also to remove all regulations, deceptively called “free-enterprise”, that they may rampage through the world without restrictions about who they exploit or what they destroy.

The argument they have deceptively presented is based on Freemason Adam Smith’s delusion that greed is good. That, giving reign to the pursuit of self-interest is in the good for us all. It’s patently absurd, but as a result of the collapse of the Soviet experiment, has managed to attract increasing swaths of society.

But since Adam Smith, this has been a ploy to prevent industrial societies from curbing the rapacious appetites of private interests.

The philosophical basis of this creed is “Libertarianism”. It dates back to another Freemason, John Stuart Mill. It is perceived to mean that governments are illegal, because, inherently, no other person has the right to tell you what to do. This derives from the Luciferian maxim of “do what thou wilt”, disguised by adding the clever conditional of, “as long as you don’t harm anyone else”. Readers will likely recognize this as identical to the guiding principle of the Wiccans.

And so, everywhere, dupes of the Libertarian conspiracy are calling for an end of “Big Government”. While government was originally intended to protect them from the monopolization of power by the few, and to guarantee fair redistribution of wealth, they now blame this entity for the crimes that have been perpetrated by these same few, who have cleverly managed to usurp control of this government for their own advantage, and are thus furthering the transfer of that power.

Paul is likely sincere. And like much of the Patriot or Libertarian movements, he has been attracted to a correct assessment of the tools of control used by the elite. But this sugar-coating has helped him swallow the poison pill, leading him to act as the pied piper in calling the masses into the true hidden elite agenda of privatization.

See also: Lucifer and the Cult of Freedom

Bookmark to:

Barry Seal, “the biggest drug smuggler in American history”, while working for the CIA, was funneling the immense amount of cocaine of the Iran-Contra Operation right through Mena, Arkansas, under the watch of Bill Clinton. The purpose of the Iran Contra affair was to accumulate funds to secretly finance the Mujahideen, particularly Gulbuddin Hekmetyar, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and later bin Laden.

Again, this was the chief strategy of the Neoconservatives. So it ties into the other video I recommended, the Power of Nightmares. The whole thing was headed by George Bush Sr.

Well, it turns out Barry Seal had been recruited at the age of seventeen, along with Lee Oswald, by CIA agent David Ferrie, at a two week summer camp of the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol in 1957. David Ferrie is the fiend and pedophile portrayed by Joe Pecci in Oliver Stone’s JFK. (Mad Cow Morning News)

Hopsicker also has a very interesting movie about Seal, called American Drug Lords: Ties to JFK:

A career U.S. intelligence agent, Ferrie was a participant in the assassination of President Kennedy, and the first focal point of Jim Garrison’s investigation of Kennedy’s murder. The assassination team went by the name of Operation 40, established by Allen Dulles, which played a major role in the Bay of Pigs invasion. The group was presided over by then-Vice President Richard M. Nixon and recruited former Batista-regime intelligence officers and mob henchmen, mercenaries like Frank Sturgis and CIA case officer Howard Hunt, who would later become one of the Watergate burglars. As revealed by John Hankey, in his film JFK II, at a 1975 Senate re-investigation into the case, William Colby, as head of CIA, testified that George Bush Sr. and Hunt headed the Kennedy assassination, but said that “…they weren’t really in charge. They were just taking orders from civilians like Allen Dulles and the Rockefellers.” Colby was then promptly dismissed, and George Bush was appointed to head the CIA in his place.

JFK II is also online:

Bookmark to:

Few people outside of the Islamic world have heard of the Medieval Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, but in the Muslim world, he is often hailed as “The Sheikh of Islam”, while Western critics usually condemn him as the father of modern Islamic terrorism.

Among modern Islamic fundamentalists, whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Salafis, you will continuously find among them reliance on the fatwas of Ibn Taymiyyah.

However, Ibn Taymiyyah’s current reputation is largely a modern fabrication, as his ideas were first revived by British agent, Mohammed Abdul Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, the fundamentalist cult now promoted by Saudi Arabia.

The reasons for the revival of his reputation will become evident, as we consider how his fanaticism fit in well with the goals of modern terrorist groups and their sponsors.

Few Muslims today, due to the effective propaganda of the Saudi state, are aware of Ibn Taymiyyah’s true pronouncements and the controversy of his career.

In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah spent much of his career in jail, placed there by the religious authorities of his time, usually for the accusation of anthropomorphism, or ascribing human attributes to God. Islamic theology is very clear about safeguarding the notion of God’s uniqueness and transcendence.

This is interesting because, despite all their numerous tangents into various other details, the Wahhabi and Salafi scholars are devoted to ideas derived from Ibn Taymiyyah’s anthropormorphism. It’s there. It’s never very overt, but it is always there.

Ibn Battuta, the renowned Muslim traveller, recorded that Ibn Taymiyyah “had a screw loose”, because during a sermon, he descended from the pulpit, and as he walked down its steps, he said that, when God descends from the highest heaven, “he descends like this”. (Little, Donald P. “Did Ibn Taymiyya have a screw loose?”, Studia Islamica, 1975, Number 41, pp. 95)

It is this anthropomorphism that suggests he may have had an occult connection. Ibn Taymiyyah was born in Harran, which in the occult tradition, is one of the most important cities in its history, besides Babylon, Athens and Alexandria.

Harran was the seat of the Sabians. This was a Gnostic group, that cleverly identified themselves with the Sabeans of the Koran to escape persecution. But they were nothing of the sort. Instead they were satanists who practiced human sacrifice, worshipped Tammuz, and practiced Neoplatonism and Hermeticism.

In fact, when the Muslims began their great program of collecting and studying the works of the philosophers, by which the West eventually acquired this knowledge, it was the Sabians they turned to as translators.

What happens then is that it is Sabian influence that results Sufism, and a very important occult work known as the “Epistles of the Brethren of Sincerity”, or in Arabic, Rasa’il ikhwan as-safa’ wa khillan al-wafa. It was largely composed by Ismailis under Sabian influence.

And so it is that the basis of Scottish Rite Freemasonry is that the Templars supposedly learned their secret doctrines from the Sabians.

Scholars avoid that subject, but they do study the possible connection between Sabianism and the sudden advent of the Kabbalah in the 12th century AD, following the return of the Templars to Europe. For instance, Gershom Scholem, who is known as the great authority on the subject, devoted his “Origins of the Kabbalah” to a study of the subject.

What is puzzling is that the ideas of the Medieval Kabbalah were ones that had all but disappeared from Judaism for about 1200 years. So, considering the similarities, Scholem suggest that one possible avenue would have been the Sabians (also known as Mandeans).

And recently, probably the most advanced study of the Kabbalah is Nathaniel Deutsch’s The Gnostic Imagination: Gnosticism, Mandaeism and Merkabah Mysticism. First he connects Gnostcism with early Kabbalah, but then examines the extensive similarities between Mandaism and Medieval Kabbalah, to conclude that one must necessarily have influenced the other. According to Deutsch:

“at present, we must be satisfied with acknowledging the phenomenological parallels between the Mandaean and Kabbalistic traditions, although we must also seriously consider the possibility that both Mandaean and Kabbalistic sources drew on a common pool of earlier (Jewish?) theosophic traditions.”

In fact, the one point which lends the most credence to this hypothesis, is the existence of an elaborate anthropomorphic doctrine among the Sabians. In the Kabbalah, it is known as the descriptions, or the Shiur Khomah, of the image of God called the Adam Kadmon. It mirrors similar speculations among the Sabians about a Cosmic Adam.

Coincidence?

In order to understand the connection, we need consider that the founder of the Salafi movement was a Jamal ud Din al Afghani, the Grand Master of the Egyptian Freemasons, who referred to each other as the Rasa’il ikhwan as-safa’ wa khillan al-wafa (Rafaat, Freemasonry in Egypt)

One possible explanation about the mysterious teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah can be explained from information exposed recently by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, that Ibn Taymiyyah had an esoteric doctrine, that he taught only to his closest initiates.

This is from Keller’s article:

“Abu Hayyan, of Andalusion origin, settled in Damascus, knew Ibn Taymiya personally, and held him in great esteem, until the day that Barinbari (d. 717/1317) brought him a work by Ibn Taymiya called Kitab al-‘arsh [The book of the Throne]. There they found, in Ibn Taymiya’s own handwriting (which was familiar to Abu Hayyan), anthropomorphic suggestions about the Deity that made Abu Hayyan curse Ibn Taymiya until the day he died… Abu Hayyan, in his own Qur’anic exegesis of Ayat al-Kursi (Qur’an 2:258) in surat al-Baqara, recorded something of what so completely changed his mind:

I have read in the book of Ahmad ibn Taymiya, this individual whom we are the contemporary of, and the book is in his own handwriting, and he has named it Kitab al-‘arsh [The book of the Throne], that “Allah Most High is sitting (yajlisu) on the Kursi but has left a place of it unoccupied, in which to seat the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)” [italics mine]. Al-Taj Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-Haqq Barinbari fooled him [Ibn Taymiya] by pretending to be a supporter of his so that he could get it from him, and this is what we read in it (al-Nahwi, Tafsir al-nahr al-madd, 1.254).

As Keller notes, “This is of interest not only because it documents (at the pen of one of Islam’s greatest scholars) that Ibn Taymiya had a “double ‘aqida [theology],” one for the public, and a separate anthropomorphic one for an inner circle of initiates”

Ibn Taymiyyah just happened to live in Harran at a time to witness the end of the Sabian community, as a result of the conquest of the city by the Mongols. This may explain his continuing vociferous opposition to these new Mongol rulers.

Because, Ibn Taymiyyah was unique in his pronouncements of the legality and necessity of fighting the Mongols. The Mongols had converted to Islam, but Ibn Taymiyyah argued that it was permitted to fight against them, because they had not been fully orthodox in their application of Shariah.

The same arguments have been employed in the 20th, in deliberate reference to Ibn Taymiyyah, by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood, to argue for terrorist activities against the various regimes of the Arab world. In most cases, such as the assassination of the Anwar Sadat, or the “Jihad” in Afghanistan, the fatwas of Ibn Taymiyyah have been cleverly used to manipulate these terrorists to serve a Western agenda.

Bookmark to:

In an article published at ADNKronos International, we find another typical example of the type of corruption that the Wahhabis are used to insinuate.

This example takes place in Bosnia, which has an Islamic tradition that it four centuries old. And yet, how Saudi Arabia propagates its deviant ideology is by offering a free 4-year education at their universities. There, instead of learning the traditions of Islam, they learn the severe Wahhabi interpretation, which teaches them to be critical of other Muslims, and to hate the Jews and Christians. In other words, intolerance.

On the other hand, Islam had been based on a degree of pluralism, as it was recognized that sometimes it was possible to arrive at a different conclusion from the very same evidence. It resulted in 4 distinct schools of thought in the Islamic world, that were all mutually compatible. Not one school was believed to be “going to Hell”. Each was recognized as legitimate.

So the Bosnians followed the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, which they inherited from the Turks. Other parts of the Muslim world were divided into adherence to the 3 other schools.

But during the Bosnian conflict, many “Mujahideen”, unwittingly under the employ of the CIA, through the sponsorship of Saudi Arabia, brought their infectious Wahhabi creed to the country. Since, several young Bosnian men were sent to be “educated” in Saudi Arabia as well, only to come back to stir up more conflict in the country.

Essentially, these young dupes, after only a few years of “Islamic” education, feel equipped to return to their countries and “correct” its errant ways.

But it should be understood that Wahhabism/Salafism is a modern phenomenon, one created by the British and occult secret societies, precisely for the purpose of, not only disuniting the Muslims, but also steering them towards a very literal and dogmatic version of the faith, which creates the fundamentalism necessary to foment their desired Clash of Civilizations.

Bookmark to:

It’s now evident who was the chief mythmaker of the 9/11 conventional account, and even the conception of the idea in the first place. That would be Philip Zelikow, who was in the ideal position of executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now serves as counselor to Condi Rice.

Snowshoe Films has an interesting 2-part short documentary, also available on YouTube:

And a lot of incriminating information is offered at a Wikipedia article here:

Relevant samples are as follows:

“While at Harvard he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to William McNeill’s notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.”

In writing about the importance of beliefs about history, Zelikow has called attention to what he has called “’searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.” He has noted that “a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all.”

Zelikow has also written about terrorism and national security, including a set of Harvard case studies on “Policing Northern Ireland.” In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”

Accorrding to the same article, in 2002, Zelikow made remarks interpreted as alleging that the United States entered the Iraq War to protect Israel, when he said:

“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 — it’s the threat against Israel,”

“And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”

Bookmark to: