An Itinerant Jihadi

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Several pages of a new book – Itinerant Jihadis: Arab and Muslim War Volunteers by Raphael Israeli, published by Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency – are devoted to David Myatt and his Muslim years, with the author quoting from several articles written by Myatt.

While there is nothing new about Myatt – with the information somewhat dated, and the author covering previously well-described aspects of Myatt’s life from his leadership of the NSM to his publicly-given (rather propagandistic) reason for converting to Islam – the author does, however, write that Myatt et al provide “incriminating evidence of the brewing Islamic subversion in Britain, and elsewhere, and of its close relationship with world Jihadi organizations.”


Islamic Terrorism: A Voice of Reason

David Myatt

David Myatt

Editorial Note: We republish here an article by Mr Myatt written in 2015 which concerns the causes of what has been described as “Islamic terrorism”. Myatt’s provides an alternative – a rational and a philosophical – explanation that is at odds with the strident political rhetoric of the past decade.


Extremism, Terrorism, Culture, And Physis
A Question Of Being

Disinclined as I am, and as I have been for many years, to comment on recent events, I have – after much reflexion – decided to respond to certain questions asked of me, given that several friends and diverse individuals (communicating through correspondence forwarded to me through intermediaries) have expressed an interest in my opinion about some recent events in France because of my forty years of (now regretted) practical experience of extremism [1] and extremists and which experience included not only being an advocate, as a Muslim, of what has become known as ‘Islamic extremism’, but also of being a neo-nazi activist and ideologue who preached and who advocated subversion, insurrection, hatred, and terrorism.

The recent events in France, where seventeen people were killed at four locations between the 7th and 9th of January 2015 – and similar events on other lands, from September 2001 (9/11) onwards – have led many people to speculate about the problem of, about causes of, and what may be required to prevent, such acts.

My admittedly fallible view, derived from my personal decades of experience, is that simple cause-and-effect answers are rather misguided, however naturally instinctive and/or politically expedient they might be – and/or however effective (or perhaps necessary) some of them might be in the short-term: of years, of a decade or more. For I incline toward the view that the long-term solution does not lie in more legislation, or in more security measures, or in idealizing one culture over and above another (as in the West verses Islam), or in invading other lands, or even in attempting to combat ‘extremism’ by means of advocation of a ‘moderate’ interpretation of some religion or some political ideology. Rather, the long-term solution lies in understanding our basal physis [2] as human beings and then considering how – or even if – that basal physis can be changed, evolved.

For the reality – the truth – of our being is that we humans can always find, and have always found – century after century, millennia after millennia – some cause or some ideology or some ideation or some interpretation of some religion or some dogma or some leader to allow us to express, to live, what is solely masculous [3]. For as I know from my own experience and involvements such an expression, such a living, vivifies, excites, and has so often provided us (or a significant portion of us) with a sense of purpose, an identity, and thus given our lives meaning.

Thus, for that significant portion of us, it is our basal nature – our basal character – as human beings which is at fault, the cause; not some current or past harsh interpretation of some religion or of some weltanschauung; not some ‘extremist’ ideology, per se; not some failure to tackle extremism; not some deficiency of law nor some failure (of intelligence, or otherwise) by the Police or by some State security service. That is, the harsh modern interpretation of a religion such as Islam (manifest for example in al-Qa’ida and in groups such as ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyah fil ‘Iraq wa ash-Sham), or the extremism manifest in nazism and fascism (past and present) are symptoms, not the cause.

For it is my considered opinion – fallible as it is and based as it is on what (admittedly limited) knowledge I have of the circumstances – that the perpetrators of recent events in France simply found, in a harsh interpretation of Islam, something which not only gave them a sense of purpose, a goal – which gave their lives meaning – but also provided them with an excuse to behave according to their physis or what they believed their physis should be: to be what they were or had become or should become. That is, lacking that empathy – such compassion and such honour, such muliebral virtues – as would have engendered within them a feeling for, an intuition of, and thus an appreciation of, innocency [4] and of individuals as individuals and not as abstracted ‘enemies’ or as somehow ‘inferior’ to them or as a means whereby what they believed in, or desired (such as some after-life), could be achieved.

In other words, a harsh modern interpretation of a particular religion hallowed what is masculous to the detriment of what is muliebral, making such a basal, such an unbalanced, masculous physis an ideal to be imitated and strived for, and which masculous ideal included the notion of a personal immolation, via kampf and a dishonourable disregard for the innocency of others, as a means to some posited goal. An unbalanced masculous physis also evident in – and idealized by – the ideologies of communism, nazism, and fascism, and in and by the ‘puritanical’ and inquisitorial interpretations of Christianity centuries before.

How then can that basal physis be changed or evolved? How can the masculous be balanced with the muliebral thus avoiding such unbalance, such bias toward the masculous, as has brought so much suffering recent and otherwise? All I have is a rather philosophical, quite long-term, and quite personal answer. Of, in terms of individuals, the development by individuals of empathy and the cultivation of the virtue of personal honour; and, in terms of society, Studia Humanitatis: that is, education to form, to shape, the manners and the character, of individuals by not only acquainting them with such topics as are, and were traditionally, included in that subject, but also of them being educated in such knowledge concerning our physis as our thousands of years old human culture of pathei-mathos has bequeathed to us [5].

David Myatt
January 2015


[1] As I have explained in many of my post 2009 writings, by ‘extreme’ is meant “to be harsh”, so that I consider an extremist is a person who tends toward harshness, or who is harsh, or who supports/incites harshness, in pursuit of some objective, usually of a political or a religious nature. Here, harsh is: rough, severe, a tendency to be unfeeling, unempathic, uncompassionate.

Hence I consider extremism to be: (a) the result of such harshness, and (b) the principles, the causes, the characteristics, that promote, incite, or describe the harsh action of extremists. In addition, a fanatic is considered to be someone with a surfeit of zeal or whose enthusiasm for some objective, or for some cause, is intemperate.

[2] I use the term physis (φύσις) as a revealing, a manifestation, of not only the true nature of beings but also of the relationship between beings, and between beings and Being. Physis is often apprehended (and thus understood) by we humans as the nature, the character, of some-thing; as, for example, in our apprehension of the character of a person.

[3] By the term masculous is meant certain traits, abilities, and qualities that are conventionally and historically associated with men, such as competitiveness, aggression, a certain harshness, the desire to organize/control, and a desire for adventure and/or for conflict/war/violence/competition over and above personal love, compassion, and culture. In my view, extremist ideologies manifest an unbalanced, an excessive, masculous nature.

Masculous is from the Latin masculus and occurs, for example, in some seventeenth century works such as one by William Struther: “This is not only the language of Canaan, but also the masculous Schiboleth.” True Happines, or, King Davids Choice: Begunne In Sermons, And Now Digested Into A Treatise. Edinbvrgh, 1633

[4] I use the term ‘innocence’ to refer to a presumed attribute of those who, being personally unknown to us, are therefore unjudged by us and who thus, as honour requires, are given the benefit of the doubt. For this presumption of the innocency of others – until direct personal experience, and individual and empathic knowing of them, prove otherwise – is the fair, the reasoned, the honourable, the cultured, the virtuous, thing to do.

[5] Refer to my May 2014 essay Education And The Culture Of Pathei-Mathos, and my more recent Some Conjectures Concerning Our Nexible Physis.


Article source:


The Ignorant Vulgarians And Islam

The Ignorant Vulgarians And Islam


The Ignorant Vulgarians And Islam

There are two things that I find of particular interest about David Myatt. The first thing is the range and the depth of his practical experience, which included thirty years experience of street-level often violent political activism, several years as a Christian monk, and ten years as a practising Muslim. The second thing is his erudition, evident as that erudition is in his familiarity with the culture – and especially the literature – of the West from the time of Homer to Cicero to TS Eliot and beyond. Having “fluency in the classical languages (Greek and Latin), as well as Arabic and possibly Persian” {1} he is thus erudite, a scholar, as those terms were understood by English speakers from before the time of Shakespeare to the time of Ralph Waldo Emerson.

When, therefore, he in his mature – post-2011 – years writes about ancient Greek culture, about Christianity, about the culture of the West, and about Islam, he is writing not only from personal experience but also as a scholar able to read primary sources – such as Homer, the New Testament, and the Koran – in their original language.

What Myatt in recent years has written about Islam and Muslims directly contradicts the anti-Muslim rhetoric of “the vulgarians”, such as The Master Vulgarian who currently occupies a position of power and influence in America and the hordes of minor, anti-Muslim, vulgarians who style themselves as defenders of ‘civilization’. {2}

Regarding such people Myatt asks:

“Have [they] read the Quran in Arabic? Have they studied the Sunnah – at the very least the collections of Bukhari and Muslim? Have they studied Al-Adab Al-Mufrad? Have they studied Islamic jurisprudence and discussed Shariah with a Qadi? How many conversations about Islam have they had with learned Imaams? Have they lived in a land where the majority of people are Muslim? How many times have they been guests of Muslim families and so shared meals and personal conversations and thus empathised with Muslims? How many Muslim women have they interviewed or asked about Hijab – about why they wear it and how it makes them feel?

If they have not done all those things then they are, in my view, fundamentally ignorant concerning Islam and the Muslim way of life, and thus they speak and write and demonstrate in public about what they personally are uneducated about and about those whom they have not personally interacted with in a courteous way. Thus their opinions, their views, are those of bigots, and their behaviour is uncivilized – that is, the behaviour of people who are unlearned, ill-informed, uncultured, uncourteous, hubriatic. They are also hypocritical, for these leaders and organizers – and those who bankroll them – are virulent in their praise of ‘Western civilization and Western values’ without, it seems to me, realizing that they themselves with their ignorance, their hubris, their intolerance, their prejudice – their bigotry – are excellent examples of the new barbarians assailing Western culture.” {3}

In another article he writes:

“My personal view of Islam, of the Muslim way of life, and which view I have expressed in recent correspondence with others, is a very positive and tolerant one; of respect born from experience, a scholarly study, and a comparative assessment with other religions and spiritual ways also personally experienced.

Perhaps the bad opinion many people in the West have of Islam would be changed if they spent time with Muslim families in places as diverse as Egypt, Somalia, Turkey, Morocco, Pakistan, Senegal, Malaysia, and Birmingham. Until they have, who are they to pass judgement on the Muslim way of life, and on the Quran, the Sunnah, and the Shariah, that inspires and informs that way of life?” {4}

National Socialism And Honour

Even during his time with Reichsfolk in the late 1990s Myatt was writing about the need to treat other races with honour and thus respect their way of life. In a letter to an imprisoned Comrade {5} dated JD2452013.275 (that is, 13 April 2001) and which letter he expanded into an article published under the title The Question of National-Socialism, Racism and Tolerance, {6} Myatt rhetorically asked important questions such as:

“Should we strive to attain our freedom through certain tactics, one of which is a fanatical intolerance? Is our situation that desperate that we should see those who uphold other ways of life – and those of other races – as our enemies? This is the means that has been mostly followed in the past fifty years or so, albeit that it has been followed and employed on a mostly instinctive level. This is the means of “racism”, whether called by that Zionist-invented term or not.

Or, should we strive to be idealistic, and follow the ethic of honour to its logical conclusion? This means that we always strive to do what is honourable, which means that we should strive to be both strong, yet tolerant in a warrior way: proud of our people, our culture, but accepting of other ways, other people, if those other people respect us.”

After considering the options, he concluded:

“I assert that what is good is what is beneficial to our folk, but also honourable, and that if something – some deed or action – benefits or may benefit our folk but is also dishonourable, then that deed or action is something which a National-Socialist should not do […]

We must use our own values of honour, of loyalty, of duty to the folk as the criteria, the standard, to judge what is right, what is wrong, and what is necessary. Furthermore, we must use these values to determine our own behaviour toward others. This is the National-Socialist way: the way of honour, of loyalty, of duty to our folk.

I firmly believe that we can return our people to their own way of life by setting them a personal example, and to do this we must be prepared to live by, and if necessary die for, our ideals of honour, loyalty and duty.”

His words seem even more relevant now as the vulgarians among us gain more and more influence.

R. Stirling
29 November, 2017
(Revised 30 November 2017)


{1} Connell Monette. Mysticism in the 21st Century, Sirius Academic Press, 2013. pp. 86.

{2} While The Master Vulgarian barks about “Islamic terrorism” he in his ignorance forgets – or ignores – two things. First, that America in the last twenty years has directly and indirectly (through its policies) killed far more civilians than all Muslim terrorists combined; directly, in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and indirectly in places like Yemen and Syria. Second, that it is not a question of “Islamic terrorism” – as if the religion of Islam is responsible – but rather of some individuals doing what is dishonourable and using something such as a religion as an excuse for their dishonourable deeds: see for example Extremism, Terrorism, Culture and Physis.

{3} Source:

{4} Source:

{5} Although the Comrade is not publicly named, aural tradition names him as Richard Scutari, of Brüder Schweigen, with whom Myatt corresponded for some years beginning in the 1990s.

{6} A copy of the article is available here:

The article was included in the Reichsfolk publication National-Socialism and Islam: The Case for Co-operation, first distributed in 2003 as part of Myatt’s plan to bring National Socialists and Muslims together to fight “their common enemy.” A copy of the publication is available here:


The Vulgarian

Anti-Islam Propaganda: An Illustrative Example


Anti-Islam Propaganda: An Illustrative Example
The Case of Bill Warner

For well over a decade an assortment of Western-based (and often well-funded) individuals and political groups have produced an immense amount of propaganda intended to discredit Islam. One of the most common traits shared by such English-speaking propagandists is that they, being unable to read Arabic, and having no academic expertise in relevant fields such as fiqh, use various published English interpretations of fundamental Islamic texts such as the Koran and Ahadith.

An illustrative example here is an American calling himself ‘Bill Warner’ – real name William French – who, although he cannot read Arabic and has no academic expertise in relevant fields such as fiqh, has published a number of books about ‘political Islam’, has established a so-called ‘Center for the Study of Political Islam‘, and whose books and ‘statistical analysis’ of texts such as the Koran have been trumpeted by various political groups and by individuals opposed, for whatever reason, to Islam. Both Warner himself – and those using his works for propaganda purposes – claim that his analysis of Islamic texts is “scientific”.

However, his analysis of Islamic texts is hardly scientific and most definitely unscholarly because he uses, not the actual Arabic texts (such as, in the case of the Koran, the Uthman codex), but rather the English “interpretations of meaning” published by others. In addition, he uses an English interpretation of the Koran – written in modern “newspaper style” English – that does not even follow the traditional (Arabic) arrangement of Quranic chapters (starting with Surah Al-Fatihah) but which instead places them into a particular conjectured “historical order” for which there is no scholarly consensus and no historical evidence. {1}

Thus, his much vaunted ‘statistical analysis’ is simply his personal opinion about the interpretations of someone else and has no scholarly (or even academic) value whatsoever given that Warner relies on secondary, and sometimes tertiary, not primary sources. For one of the attributes of modern scholars is that they have a detailed knowledge of primary sources acquired from reading such sources in their original language and thus do not rely on the translations or interpretations of others. One of the attributes of non-scholars in the milieu of academia and otherwise is that they base their writings on secondary sources and thus in the main just interpret or reinterpret the interpretations and conclusions of others. In the case of Islam, the primary texts – such as the Koran and Ahadith – are all in classical Arabic.

To give just one example, of literally thousands, of the folly of the English interpretation Warner/French used, the word “war” occurs in surah 9:29 as the “translation” for a certain Arabic word – transliterated qatilu – and which Arabic word, correctly understood in context, implies fight, struggle (against), oppose: فَقَاتِلُوا أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ إِنَّهُمْ لَا أَيْمَانَ لَهُمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَنْتَهُونَ

In respect of the matter of English interpretations of important texts such as the Koran there is an interesting essay by David Myatt (who actually can read Arabic), first published in 2012, and in which essay Myatt writes:

“The problem of sometimes projecting modern interpretations onto ancient texts by the injudicious use, in a translation, of a particular English word is especially relevant in the matter of the Quran, for it seems to be increasingly common for someone reliant on translations – on the interpretations of meaning given by others – to misunderstand the text of the Quran and then, from that misunderstanding, not only form a misconceived (and sometimes prejudiced) opinion about the Quran in particular and Islam in general but also to give voice to such an opinion.

For example, an ayah (verse) often (mis)quoted is Ayah 151 of Surah Al ‘Imran, which is usually interpreted as “Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers.” However, the word ‘terror’ is an inappropriate interpretation for several reasons.” {2}

Myatt then quotes the Arabic of that verse in full and argues that the particular Arabic word in question does not imply ‘terror’ but rather “the fear/the dread and ‘the astonishment/awe’ – that is, that human feeling inspired by apprehending or experiencing some-thing supernaturally or extraordinarily powerful and numinous.” He then provides a comparison with a passage in Greek from the New Testament – Luke 24.37 – and goes on to provide his own quite poetic interpretation of meaning of the Arabic Ayah:

“Into the hearts of they who disbelieve We shall hurl redurre because they, without any authority revealed about such things, associate others with Allah; and for their home: The Fire, that harrowing resting place of the unjust.”

Myatt further writes that

“I have used the unusual English word redurre, with a meaning of ‘awe combined with a trembling fear’. A word suggested by its occurrence in religious works by Richard Rolle and John Gower, and also by texts such as Morte Arthure and which word therefore places this Ayah from the Quran into the correct context, which is that of a religious revelation, a spiritual message, comparable to that of Christianity, and of the particular ontology that Islam offers as answers to questions concerning the meaning and the purpose of our mortal lives; of how that purpose may be attained; and thus of what wisdom is. Answers which have nothing whatsoever to do with ‘terrorism’, or even with ‘terror’ as that word is now commonly understood.”

Myatt’s measured words and scholarship, evident in his post-2011 writings, place the works of the likes of Bill Warner into the correct perspective: as works of prejudiced propaganda.


{1} Islamic scholars have argued – for over a millennia – about the chronological order of the Koran. All the scholars, however, agree that the traditional arrangement was inspired by the Prophet Muhammad himself and is thus how the Koran should be read and used, by Muslims, as a guide.

{2} Myatt, David: Exegesis and Translation: Some Personal Reflexions, 2012. Myatt included part of this essay as an appendix to his book Poemandres: A Translation of and Commentary on the Poemandres part of the Corpus Hermeticum. Third edition, 2014. ISBN 978-1495470684

Myatt’s 2012 essay is currently [January 2017] available in pdf format from his weblog: