- When it is said to them: Do not corrupt the earth with your negative deeds, they say: ‘We are only doing reform!’ Beware! They are corruptors but they do not know that. (2: 11-12)
- We have created many of the jinn and humans for hell: they have minds but they do not understand therewith; they have eyes but they do not see therewith; they have ears but they do not listen therewith. These are like cattle, even more difficult to guide – for these are the heedless ones. (7: 179)
The first quote confirms the self-delusion of reform existentialists, and the second verse affirms their reckless stupidity! The Pharisees and Saducees were of such an ilk. Not only were they Kabalists [i] or Gnostics, but they also represented the nadir of post-Babylonian Judaic Reform. Prophet Isa called them hypocrites and “Sons” of both Cain and Satan—rather prescient adjuncts to the descriptions given above. As demonstrated earlier, their heathen remnants enhanced the pagan streamlining accomplished by subsequent Roman Reformers (Church Fathers) who successfully obliterated all record of the original Hebrew and Aramaic Gospels (Injeel), then exiled, neutralized or ‘disappeared’ the Judaic Ebionite Church of James the Just in true fascist style, after which they continually persecuted and murdered any non-Trinitarian congregation while establishing what has become the Christian embarrassment. [ii]
What this writer finds distressing is that it is clear from al’Hadith and sober review of the record that a significant number of Muslims have followed these well-rehearsed examples. The tenet here is that Iblis never changes his tactics for misguidance. Hence, one may safely conclude that the concept of ‘reformation’ is an oft-used tool in the practiced hands of the Great Deceiver!
Perhaps this is why Al’Qur’an never uses the word ‘Reformer’ in reference to the establishment of Mohammad’s people. The better concept is that of tajdid, i.e., civilisational renewal or restoration. In essence, as God’s New Man in the earth, Islam is an incarnate Reminder or society of ‘warners’ and repentents rather than Reformers! Why is this so? I’m presupposing it’s too late to renew or reconstruct civilization on any reasonable foundation until the “wicked be removed permanently,” and that Islam’s task as mujaddidun or ‘renovators’ is a temporal remedy for a reasonably small portion of the zumteen trillions who’ll retain common sense long enough for eternal reward; which, in the scheme of things, is but a few moments. Therefore, bearing in mind the just quoted scripture, crusading reformers are most often deluded deviants, especially if they identify their movement in terms other than ‘Muslim’.
In defense of the postulate I offer an analogy: When parents engender a child are they reforming that child? Parents are care-givers or stewards of that which is created and formed by God. If re-forming is accomplished it is at the cost of what Allah created! Likewise, if a farmer plants a seed and cares for the tree until it bears fruit, has he reformed the tree or its seed? If he neglects it, stunts it, modifies the seed genetically or forbids it to bear fruit, what then shall we call him: Pervert, Deviant, Spoiler, Scientific Genius, Reformer?
Let us consider our pre-incarnate covenant with Allah as it is stated in Al’Qur’an:
- “And when your Lord extracted from the children of Adam – from their spinal cord – their entire progeny and made them witness upon themselves, saying, Am I not your Lord? and they replied, No doubt You are, we bear witness [the Lord did this lest you say on the Day of Judgment, we were quite unaware of this, or lest you should say by way of excuse for your sins], All that happened was that our forefathers had committed shirk [worship of false gods] before us, and we, as the generations following upon them, were already conditioned by them – are You then, going to make us suffer for what these earlier falsifiers of truth had done?” (7: 172-173)
Unfortunately it seems the answer to the question posed is “Yes.” When considering this passage with care it gives cause for apprehension and justifies my thesis. Parents who condition offspring and bend them away from the non-sectarian path of hanif Monotheism with which they incarnate (fitrah) are indeed reformers! What’s disquieting is that on reaching maturity, according to this surat, the ‘conditioned’ child remains accountable for the denial (self-deception) because they accept and then propagate the deviancy: i.e., they choose to believe and practice the reformation of their inherent instinct or common sense (fitrah) which sanctions monotheism without batting an eye at their heart’s objection! This is why Al’Qur’an is called both a Mercy and a Reminder but never a Reformer.
Every Prophet of God was a Patriarch who did nothing to reform! On first reading one might object to the postulate but the facts are clear. These men brought the Word of God, spoke it as a reminder and warning, then received into their guidance anyone who repented in submission to the common sense that was already in their heart for the sake of bettering civilization with akhirah in mind. In other words, the ummah of each prophet conformed to inherent directives of the God-given potential with which they were born. To the contrary, sectarian reformers engender doctrinal innovations by force of fervid campaign—not unlike Pope Urban II. Furthermore, the ambitious zealots are content to rule kow-towing mimics who prefer an easy path to earthly sustenance rather than trodding the much narrower path of truth’s road to Paradise; which is why global Synarchs are eminently successful at herding heedless goyim.
Genuine men and women of God have no desire to rule over complaisant congregations because the Cause of God requires diligence, discipline and sincere striving for knowledge and its just utility. Like Lao Tse, who refused to instruct the incorrigible and stupid, they refuse to govern the assuagement and pleasures of aggrandizement with its conformity to departures from natural instincts as espoused by Trinitarians, mystic marabouts, bemused celibates, and misanthropic sociopaths of fascist proclivity holding weapons of mass destruction to everyone’s neck and groin.
The example of every Prophet who established a family or Polity of God was to absolutely forbid, rebuke or ruthlessly uproot shirkers of Divine Law depending on their time and misssion! [1], [2] To the contrary, reformers like Afghani, Mohd. Abdul, Qutb and al’Bana—all were either Freemasons, Fascists and/or Sufis—or the SS Mufti el-Husseini of Jerusalem[3] or Black Robed Khomeini types will tolerate, encourage and apologize for those who are profitably useful while promoting the iniquitous agendas of their hidden masters; be they jinn or men and be they witting or not![4] This is because, as the surat states, they are blind, deaf, ignorant and heedless of the natural path to righteousness as a consequence of pride, the preeminent ‘original sin’ committed by the primal sinner, Iblis, who failed to obey God for his pride of life.
It is much easier, or so they envision, to roll-with or even better, direct malleable tides of worthless public opinion in order to profitably redefine the collective’s accountability to God and their own bank accounts; even at the price of corruption and murder, wholesale or not, which was/is the traditional Whahhabi methodology—the patrimony from which the Saudi’s are presently and assiduously trying to distance themselves:
Undoubtedly, one of the worst abominations perpetrated by the Wahhabis under the leadership of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab was the massacre of the people of Ta’if. They killed everyone in sight, slaughtering child and adult, the ruler, the lowly and well-born. They began with a suckling child nursing at his mother’s breast and moved on to a group studying Qur’an, slaying them, down to the last man. And when they wiped out the people in the houses, in the streets, the shops and the mosques, killing whoever happened to be there. They killed even men bowed in prayer until they had annihilated every Muslim who dwelt in Ta’if.
- … Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab clung fiercely to denouncing people as unbelievers. To do this he used Qur’anic verses originally revealed about idolaters and extended their application to monotheists. It has been narrated by `Abd Allah Ibn `Umar and recorded by Imam Bukhari in his book of sound hadiths that the Khawarij transferred the Qur’anic verses meant to refer to unbelievers and made them refer to believers. He also relates another narration transmitted on the authority of Ibn `Umar whereby the Prophet, on him be peace, said: “What I most fear in my community is a man who interprets verses of the Qur’an out of context.” The latter hadith and the one preceding it apply to the case of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab and his followers.
- … Even if a person was the most pious and God-fearing of Muslims, he would denounce them as idolaters (mushrikun), thus making the shedding of their blood and confiscation of their wealth licit (halal). Returning always to the same theme, Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab used to say that prayer for the Prophet was reprehensible and disliked (makruh) in the Shari`a. He would prohibit blessings on the Prophet from being recited on the eve of Friday prayer and their public utterance from the minbar, and punish harshly anyone who pronounced such blessings. He even went so far as to kill a blind mu’adhdhin (caller to prayer) who did not cease and desist when he commanded him to abandon praying for the Prophet in the conclusion to his call to prayer. He deceived his followers by saying that all that was done to keep monotheism pure. [iii]
- In the context of the quasi-atheistic conception of transcendentalism (the notion of “divine personal absence from the world”) and a thoroughly maximalist approach to the tenets of Islamic law (fiqh) that is coupled with extreme pragmatism and rationalism, Salafist metaphysics harmonizes easily with the project of the Communist International [a Zionist cum Jesuit inspired movement funded by the Illuminati] with its dialectical materialism and intent to “fan the global conflagration,” regardless of the victims. And it is logical that without directly denying that each person is responsible only for their own sins, Salafist ideologists still tend to see North Ossetia (Chechnya), for example, as an “apostate tribe,” a “tribe of collaborators” (with the current Russian government) – in other words, a “territory of war” (Dar al-Harb), in which all means of repression and intimidation are good and permitted. [iv]
Ah, there you have it – these sincere “reformers” are Deists and Fascists just like the Papist Freemasons who “handle” them and the British agent who ‘handled’ Sir Ibn Wahhab. [5] & [v, a MUST READ] Anyone who denies that the Whahhabis, and in particular the Saudi’s have consistently aided British-Isrealitist interests, or wrought about the Fall of the Ottoman Khaliphate along with the crypto-Jewish Donmehs, or perpetrated grave crimes against Muslims and held them hostage to backwardness and hypocrisy is either an apologetic moron or coward.
In keeping with the metaphysical conditions described previously, I myself was born a Muslim like the people of Ta’if! The trial I encountered was that my papist parents didn’t know and it took 54 years before I remembered. Good thing the Whahhabi Boy Scouts didn’t get to me before Allah’s grace. In the meantime, I was subjected to many reform movements, none of which were satisfactory. Not until I looked into the mirror of Al’Qur’an did I see how un-conformed I was to the pre-incarnate covenant of Surat 7: 172-3, meaning every human is born with an instinctive cognition of God as the Creator, i.e., fitrah. [6],
I didn’t require the guidance of a Sufi Sheikh, or an Ikwanaut or Salafite zealot on how to comb the hair of my soul and readjust its metaphysical garments. My penitent submission occurred as a natural course of grace-imbued events that withstood the onslaught of humanist ideals and maladjusted forces of social alienation and persecution! [7] Therefore, I posit that authentic Islam – as opposed to the sectarian auras of the present arc of failed polities – is a subtle mirror with a spiritual might powerful enough to transcend circumstances as well as time and space to remind us of the moment we stood before our Brooding Creator as described in Al’Qur’an and the Book of Genesis—and all this in order to confirm common sense and consciously reaffirm our Divine covenant with akhirah in mind. A fresh look at the book of Genesis will validate this thesis.
NOTES
[1] Prophet Isa said that whoever obeys the Word of God is his family. This is confirmed by Mohammad, so that blood-ties become superfluous in the face of shirk or deviation.
[2] shirk (from the Oxford Dictionary) v. avoid or neglect (a duty or responsibility). n. archaic a person who shirks. shirker – from obs. shirk ‘sponger’, perhaps. from Ger. Schurke ‘scoundrel’. [perhaps Parasite?] Therefore, shirkers are those who avoid responsibility towards God.- oz]
[3] Justification for these indictments is provided in later chapters.
[4] In my opinion, al’Bana & Qutb was most likely un-witting.
[5] The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy, pp. 211-12. Daniel Pipes, December 1996. The 20th Century saga of British agents only supports the aged continnum, as does the ruin of Islam wrought by the Whahhabi influence: “… we shall have brought all Muslims under our sway” and Islam will be rendered “into a miserable state from which it will never recover again.”
[6] From Mohd. Asad’s Translation:
“AND WHENEVER thy Sustainer brings forth their offspring from the loins of the children of Adam, He [thus] calls upon them to bear witness about themselves: “Am I not your Sustainer?” – to which they answer: “Yea, indeed, we do bear witness thereto!” [Of this We remind you,] lest you say on the Day of Resurrection, “Verily, we were unaware of this”; or lest you say, “Verily, it was but our forefathers who, in times gone by, began to ascribe divinity to other beings beside God; and we were but their late offspring: wilt Thou, then, destroy us for the doings of those inventors of falsehoods?” And thus clearly do We spell out these messages; and [We do it] so that they [who have sinned] might return [unto Us].”
[7] Ec 7:29 ~ “Only see this which I have found: that God made man upright, but they have sought out many devices.” – Prophet Solomon
[i] Alfred Eidershiem, Jesus the Messiah, p. 61. Kabalist and Ismai’ili occult doctrines have much in common with the Masonic Luciferian fixation.
[ii] Forgotten Saint(s), The Gospel of Barnabas, Omar Zaid, M.D. http://www.scribd.com/people/view/7455860-omar-zaid-m-d
[iii] The History of Wahhbism by Shaykh al-Islam Ashrafi Muhaddith al-A’zam
[iv] “Salfism, Theory and Practice”, by Alexander Vasilyev, special editor, Prague Watchdog, 13 Nov 2008
[v] On Sir Ibn Whahhab, The 19th Century, by David Livingston (extracts):
Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab was born in 1703, in the small town in a barren wasteland called Najd, in the eastern part of what is now called Saudi Arabia. Ominously, Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, had already refused to confer blessings on the region, claiming that from it would emerge only “disturbances, disorder and the horns of Satan”. Abdul Wahhab’s father was a chief judge, adhering to the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence, traditionally prevalent in the area. Yet, both he and Abdul Wahhab’s brother, Sulayman, detected signs of doctrinal deviance in him from early on. It was Sulayman who would first come out with a lengthy denunciation of his brother.
Following his early education in Medina, Abdul Wahhab traveled outside of the peninsula, venturing first to Basra. He then went to Baghdad, where he married a wealthy bride and settled down for five years. According to Stephen Schwartz, in The Two Faces of Islam, “some say that during this vagabondage Ibn Abdul Wahhab came into contact with certain Englishmen who encouraged him to personal ambition as well as to a critical attitude about Islam.” Specifically, Mir’at al Harramin, a Turkish work by Ayyub Sabri Pasha, written between 1933 and 1938, states that in Basra, Abdul Wahhab had come into contact with a British spy by the name of Hempher, who “inspired in him the tricks and lies that he had learned from the British Ministry of the Commonwealth.”
What the book recommends corresponds closely with British and then American covert strategy in the Third World into the twentieth century. It recommends, in order to undermine the Muslims’ strong points, to popularize their other shortcomings, according to the following methods: foment discord and publish literature to further incite controversies. Obstruct education, and encourage forms of other-worldliness like mystical Sufism. Encourage oppressiveness among emperors. Encourage secularism, or the need to separate religion from state affairs. Aggravate economic decline through sabotage. Accustom statesmen to such indulgences as sex, sports, alcohol, gambling, and interest banking. Then, in order to make the new generation hostile towards their rulers and scholars, expose them for their corruption.
In order to spread the misconception that Islam is chauvinistic towards women, they must encourage the misinterpretation of the verse in the Koran which state, “Men are dominant over women,” and the saying, “The woman is altogether evil.” Most importantly, they ought to introduce fanaticism among Muslims, and then criticize Islam as a religion of terror. The means of popularizing these vices were determined as having spies appointed as aides to Islamic statesmen, or passed off as slaves and concubines to be sold to their close relatives. Missionary projects are to be carried out in order to penetrate into all social classes of the society, especially into such professions as medicine, engineering, and bookkeeping. The publication of propaganda was to be issued using as fronts churches, schools, hospitals, libraries and charitable institutions in the Islamic countries. Millions of Christian books were to be distributed free of charge. Spies were to be disguised as monks and nuns, and placed in churches and monasteries, and appointed leaders of Christian movements.
Eventually, the British Ministry of Commonwealth managed to acquire for Wahhab the support Mohammad Ibn Saud, the Amir of Dariyah. It was agreed between them that, from then on, power would be held among their descendants, with the Saudis maintaining political authority, and the Wahhabis administering the cult. The Saudis are an important Illuminati family, being secret Jews, like their Doenmeh counterparts in Turkey. According to Mohammad Sakher, who was apparently ordered killed for publishing his findings, Ibn Saud, though pretending to defend the reforms of Abdul Wahhab, was of Jewish origin. In the fifteenth century, Sakher maintains, a Jewish merchant from Basra, named Mordechai, immigrated to Arabia, settling in Dariyah, where he claimed to belong to the Arabian tribe of the Aniza, and there assumed the name of Markan bin Dariyah.
The Aniza tribe, to which the Saudis belong, as well as the ruling Sabah family of Kuwait, originally issued from Khaybar in Arabia, and there are well documented traditions about descendants of Jews from the region, who were supposedly forcibly converted to Islam. More specifically, according to modern occult legend, the Aniza are regarded as being the source of the European Witch Cult, through the person of Abu el-Atahiyya. These legends were popularized by Gerald Gardner, the founder of the modern cult of Wicca. Gardner was also a close associate of Aleister Crowley, as well as a Co-Freemason, the irregular branch of French masonry, co-founded by Annie Besant, which admits women to the 33rd degree.
Gardner was also the friend and teacher of notorious charlatan Idries Shah, whose book on Sufism is disguised Luciferianism. Idries Shah described the “Maskhara” Dervishes who were also known as the “Revellers” and the “Wise Ones”, whose leader was Abu el-Atahiya. The name Aniza, he maintains, means goat and el-Atahiya was commemorated by the “Revellers” with the symbol of a torch burning between the horns of a goat, in obvious allusion to the Baphomet of the Templars. After Atahiya’s death, a group of his followers migrated to Moorish Spain.
In the early eighteenth century, the Aniza had entered the Syrian Desert where they established themselves as a powerful and influential tribe. German traveller Carlsten Niebuhr referred to them in 1761 as the strongest tribe in the Syrian Desert. Today the Aniza remain one of the largest Arabian tribes, having branches in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The Saudi family was primarily engaged in banditry. This pitted them in conflict against the Ottoman state. This, however, notes Schwartz, “also created a propensity for them to ally with the British, who were then taking control of the richer and more valuable parts of the Arabian Peninsula: the coastal emirates from Kuwait to Aden.”By declaring them all apostates, in 1746, the Wahhabi Saudi alliance made a formal proclamation of “Jihad” against all who did not share their understanding of Islam, thus legalizing their former practice of pillaging. Nevertheless, the following year, Abdul Wahhab declared himself leader of the Muslims of the world, in direct opposition to the authority of the Sultan in Istanbul, reinforced by a Fatwa ordering “Jihad” against the Ottoman Empire. And, significantly, in 1788, Abdul Aziz ibn Saud was joined by British forces in occupying Kuwait.
In 1792, Abdul Wahhab died, and Abdul Aziz assumed the leadership of the Wahhabi movement, and extended raids over the next three years into the city of Medina, and the regions of Syria and Iraq. In 1801, the Wahhabis attacked the Shiah holy city of Karbala, in Iraq, slaughtering thousands of its citizens. They ruined and looted the tomb of Husayn, the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed. As a result, it seems that Abdul Aziz was murdered in 1803, most likely by a Shiah avenger. His son Saud ibn Abdul Aziz then succeeded him. After sacking Karbala, the Wahhabis moved against Mecca. The Ottoman governor of Mecca failed to negotiate a peace, and retreated into the fortress in the city of Ta’if, where he was pursued by some 10,000 Wahhabis.
In the taking of Ta’if, the Wahhabis then set about destroying all the holy tombs and burial grounds, followed by the mosques and Islamic madrassas. It is even said that the leather and gilt bindings of the Islamic holy books they had destroyed were used by them to make sandals. Al Zahawi, an Islamic historian of the time, recounted:
They killed everyone in sight, slaughtering both child and adult, the ruler and the ruled, the lowly and the well-born. They began with a suckling child nursing at his mother’s breast and moved on to a group studying Koran, slaying them, down to the last man. And when they wiped out the people in the houses, they went out into the streets, the shops, and the mosques, killing whoever happened to be there. They killed even men bowed in prayer until they had exterminated every Muslim who dwelt in Ta’if and only a remnant, some twenty or more, remained.
These were holed up in Bait al Fitni with ammunition, inaccessible to the Wahhabis’ approach. There was another group at Bait al Far numbering 270, who fought them that day, then a second and third day, until the Wahhabis sent them a guarantee of clemency; only they tendered this proposal as a trick. For when the Wahhabis entered, they seized their weapons and slew them to a man. They induced others to surrender with a guarantee of mercy and took them to the valley of Waj where they abandoned them in the cold and snow, barefoot, naked and exposed in shame with their women, accustomed to the privacy afforded them by common decency and religious morality. They then plundered their possessions, wealth of any kind, household furnishings, and cash.
They cast books into the streets, alleys, and byways to be blown to and fro by the wind, among which could be found copies of Koran, volumes of Bukhari, Muslim, other canonical collections of Hadith and books of Islamic jurisprudence, all mounting to the thousands. These books remained there for several days, trampled upon by the Wahhabis. None among them made the slightest attempt to remove even one page of Koran from underfoot to preserve it from the ignominy of this display of disrespect. Then, they razed the houses, and made what was once a town a barren waste.
Wahhabi perniciousness against the Ottoman Empire continued to serve British interests. During this period, Britain acquired as a client in southeast Arabia, the state of Oman, with sovereignty over Zanzibar in Africa and parts of the Iranian and neighboring coasts. Britain also expanded its influence northward into the area of the United Arab Emirates. The British also eventually seized control of Aden, on the southern coast of Yemen. Despite these encroachments into Muslim lands, by a hostile non-Muslim power, the Wahhabis would let nothing distract them from their “Jihad” against Islam.
The Wahhabis persisted in their violence in Arabia until 1811, when Mohammed Ali Pasha, the viceroy of Egypt, was engaged by the Ottoman Sultan to address the Wahhabi nuisance. He appointed his son Tosun Pasha commander, but his forces were badly defeated. Ali Pasha then assumed command, and in 1812, swept through Arabia, eradicating the Wahhabi problem. Two of the worst Wahhabi fanatics, Uthman ul Mudayiqi and Mubarak ibn Maghyan, were sent to Istanbul, paraded through the streets, until they were executed.
Ali Pasha also sent troops under his second son, Ibrahim Pasha, to root the Wahhabis out of Syria, Iraq and Kuwait. Those Arabs that had suffered at the hands of the Wahhabis rose in revolt, joining Ali Pasha’s forces. In 1818, the Wahhabi stronghold of Dariyah was taken and destroyed, though some of the Saudis received protection from the British in Jeddah. Saud ibn Adbul Aziz had died of fever in 1814, but his heir, Abdullah ibn Saud, was sent to Istanbul, where he was executed along with other captured Wahhabis. The rest of the Wahhabi clan was held in captivity in Cairo.
Despite their initial defeat, the Wahhabis regrouped in Najd, establishing a new capital in Riyad. Within a few decades, the Wahhabis began a renewed expansion which, as noted by Hamid Algar, “was fortuitous in that it ultimately brought the Sauds into contact with the British who were not only seeking to consolidate their dominance of the Persian Gulf but also beginning to lay plans for the dismemberment of the Ottoman State.”
[vi] Al’Bukhari & Muslim on the authority of Anas; quoted from Mohd. Asad’s Principles of State & Government in Islam, p. 33