This study aimed to analyze the ideological function of historiography in anti-modernist discourse by examining how the theories of "return to origins" and "historical determinism" operate in the thought of Sayyid Qutb and Fardid within Karl Löwith's theoretical framework. The central research question addressed how these two thinkers redefined history not merely as a philosophy of history, but as a method for understanding reality and directing political-ideological action. The research adopted a qualitative approach within an interpretive-critical methodological horizon, drawing on Löwith's theory of "eschatological secularization" to explore the mechanisms of producing the "eschatological-restorationist subject" and the transformation of history into a path between submission to modern sovereignty or rebellion against it. The findings revealed that Fardid, through his conceptualization of "Occidentosis" (Gharbzadegi) as "historical affliction," and Qutb, through his radical redefinition of "Jahiliyyah" as a trans-historical condition, reproduced the same modern eschatological structure in reverse, thereby creating an "inverted historical determinism." This process resulted in the production of a "revolutionary-conservative subject" who perceived history as the battleground of an existential struggle between authenticity and deviation, pursuing both a return to the golden past and fundamental transformation of the future through "conservative revolution." The study's most significant theoretical contribution was the discovery that anti-modernist discourse represented not the negation of history, but its appropriation by a "rival theology" that transformed history from an instrument of knowledge into a tool for producing political legitimacy and ideological mobilization, while constraining pluralist thinking through absolute dichotomizations.