Showing posts with label Lebanon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lebanon. Show all posts

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Syria's Assad Threatens to Rain Missiles on Tel Aviv

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.


With the death of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, things have gotten terribly uncomfortable for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—and his worry has led to serious threats.
Gaddafi was the latest Middle East dictator to fall in the wave of the Arab Spring. Fighting against his own people helped to bring NATO forces in to support the revolutionaries. Assad, who has violently clamped down on his own nation, fears similar intervention in Syria.
In early October, the Syrian leader threatened to set fire to the Middle East by striking Israel, stating in a meeting with the foreign minister of Turkey, a NATO member, “If a crazy measure is taken against Damascus, I will need no more than six hours to transfer hundreds of rockets and missiles to the Golan Heights to fire them at Tel Aviv” (quoted in “Report: Assad Threatens to Attack Tel Aviv in Case of NATO Strike,” Ynet News, Oct. 4, 2011).
He further “stressed that Damascus will also call on Hezbollah in Lebanon to launch a fierce rocket and missile attack on Israel, one that Israeli intelligence could never imagine. ‘All these events will happen in three hours, but in the second three hours, Iran will attack US warships in the Persian Gulf as American and European interests will be targeted simultaneously,’ Assad reportedly said” (ibid.).
According to the intelligence and security news service DEBKA file: “Israel reacted with a warning of its own: If a single Syrian missile explodes in Tel Aviv, Damascus will be first to pay the price, and if the missile offensive persists, one Syrian town after another will be destroyed. The Israeli message to Assad cited the warnings Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other government members addressed in the past year to Hizballah, that if Tel Aviv comes under attack from its missiles, not only Beirut but all of Lebanon would go up in flames. Assad was given to understand that Syria would go the same way as Lebanon if it engaged in missile belligerence against Israel” (“Turkish Military Exercise on Syrian Border. Assad Threatens Tel Aviv if Attacked,” Oct. 4, 2011).
Some see the building tensions as leading up to the fulfillment of a prophecy in Isaiah 17:1: “Damascus will cease from being a city, and it will be a ruinous heap” (Isaiah 17:1). The fulfillment of this prophecy is clearly yet future, as Damascus, while it has been overthrown in the past, has never ceased from being a city. (In fact, it’s reputedly the oldest continually inhabited city in the world.)
But the timing and cause of this destruction are not clear. While it could conceivably result from an Israeli retaliatory strike, there are reasons from other prophecies to place the destruction of Damascus in the same context as the judgment on others of Israel’s neighbors during the period of the Day of the Lord, just prior to Christ’s return.
In any case, a massive attack on Tel Aviv would certainly set the Middle East on fire—a fire that could well devastate Damascus and the rest of Syria.
For a broader overview of events to come in the region, send for or download our free booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy (Sources: Ynet News, DEBKAfile.)

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

A King of Kings Above All Kings

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

A King of Kings Above All Kings


Printer-friendly version

Source: Dustin Scarpitti/Unsplash
A while back, after ISIS executed a Jordanian pilot, I read that Jordan's King Abdullah II immediately dropped what he was doing to head back to his home in Jordan. He promised to deal swiftly with those who did such a horrendous thing to one of his men. He instilled confidence in his people by acting quickly and by showing compassion in comforting the family of the man who was killed.
The story made me reflect on what a leader should be like. Two qualities stand out in my mind from King Abdullah's example.
First, he prioritized caring for his people. A good king should be caring. Jordan has taken in more than 2 million refugees. This is in a country the size of Indiana. Jordan's economy is among the smallest in the Middle East, with insufficient supplies of water, oil, and other natural resources underlying the government’s heavy reliance on foreign assistance. I have been inspired by Jordan for having such open arms in helping the poor and those who are fleeing dangerous situations, while Jordan is impoverished itself.
The other thing I respected in King Abdullah is that he was willing to fight for his people. He did not hesitate to act swiftly against a brutal attack on one of his own. A good strong leader will fight for his people. He will represent them. He will work to protect them.
While King Abdullah inspired me with his strong and caring leadership for his people, he is no comparison to the King our world desperately needs.
There are no solutions and no quick fixes to the many problems in our world. Mankind cannot fix their problems! Even men like King Abdullah II, those with strong and caring leadership, cannot fix it! The real enemy of this world is Satan, a spiritual enemy who uses spiritual tactics. He's the one who stirs up evil thoughts and actions. He's the one truly behind the brutality we see in the headlines. The good news is that he will be dethroned by the true King appointed by God, Jesus Christ. He is a King who loves us so much that He gave His life so that we might live. Our King is coming, and He will deliver the oppressed and judge swiftly the spiritual oppressors of the world.
Christ will also remove the evil physical leaders who have oppressed the weak and thrown out His laws. He will come in great power! "On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords" (Revelation:19:16). Our King will dwell among His people and wipe away all tears from their eyes. They will fear no more.
Soon Jesus Christ will return, and the world will be ruled by His laws. It will be ruled by a caring King who fights for His people. Even the best human leaders can't be compared to our King above all kings. Let's all hope for our King's swift return.


Blog posts do not undergo review by the doctrinal review team of the United Church of God. This post represents the personal opinion of the author and should not be considered the official stance of the United Church of God. If you have any questions or concerns please direct them to webmaster@ucg.org.
Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!
Login/Register to post comments

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Current Events & Trends: Islamic State exploiting power vacuum

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.


Current Events & Trends: Islamic State exploiting power vacuum



Printer-friendly version


For 13 years now al-Qaeda has been the face of terror and Islamic extremism, both feared and hated in the West. But now their hold on the Middle East and the loyalty of Islamic militants may be slipping.

Despite the insistence of senior al-Qaeda leaders that there is nothing wrong in the organization, Reuters reports that "counter-terrorism experts say al Qaeda's aging leadership is struggling to compete for recruits with Islamic State" (Noah Browning, "Al Qaeda Denies Decline, Acknowledges 'Mistakes' by Its Branches," Sept. 14, 2014).
Browning's report quotes the U.S. State Department in saying that al-Qaeda's "ability to conduct attacks and direct its followers" has been limited (ibid.). The terrorist group has been dealt several severe blows over the last three years, beginning with the assassination of its figurehead and leader Osama bin Laden in 2011. Bin Laden was seen as al-Qaeda's spiritual leader as well as its geopolitical and organizational chief.
Several more key attacks and assassinations have repeatedly weakened al-Qaeda by eliminating high-ranking personnel. While al-Qaeda remains active in many regions across the Middle East and North Africa, the cumulative effect on the group has been undeniably debilitating.
Just a few months ago reports of the weakening of al-Qaeda would have been welcomed as good news. But the power vacuum being left by al-Qaeda and its affiliates has been quickly filled by the Islamic State or IS, a group making headlines through its declaration of a caliphate, extreme brutality and speedy expansion.
Headed by self-declared caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State's influence is being felt strongly as far west as Turkey, where officials have closed the border with Syria in response to an influx of Syrian and Kurdish refugees fleeing IS encroachment ("Turkey Clamps Down on Syria Border After Kurdish Unrest," BBC News, Sept. 22, 2014).
Why is it important to keep a close eye on the activities of the militant, extremist Islamic State? Besides the obvious reasons of staying informed about the world and potential impacts upon your personal life, the Bible gives us a lens through which we can understand the real storylines behind the world's events.
Daniel 11 describes historic wars between two geopolitical powers called the king of the North, located north of Jerusalem, and the king of the South, located to the south of Jerusalem. In verse 40 the perspective switches to a prophetic view of future events: "At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him [the king of the North]; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through" (Daniel:11:40). (To learn more, see our free Bible study guide The Middle East in Bible Prophecy and "Islamic Caliphate Declared: What Does It Mean? " in the Sept.-Oct. 2014 issue of The Good News. )
With the Islamic State's aggressive stance and strategic pushes toward the West, this situation is one that biblically minded individuals will want to keep a close eye on. (Sources: Reuters, BBC.)
Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!
Login/Register to post comments

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Current Events & Trends: Iran nuclear talks extended

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.


Current Events & Trends: Iran nuclear talks extended



Printer-friendly version


The deadline for an agreement on capping Iran's nuclear program in exchange for Western powers easing economic sanctions was pushed to the end of June 2015 when negotiations failed to achieve a deal this past November.

As The Wall Street Journal reported: "After 14 months of negotiations, the two sides were unable to bridge gaps on two key issues: the future size of Iran's nuclear-fuel production capacity and the pace at which sanctions will be lifted . . . The U.S. and its allies suspect Iran's nuclear work is aimed toward producing a weapon, something Tehran has repeatedly denied" (Jay Solomon and Laurence Norman, "Iran, World Powers Fail to Reach Nuclear Agreement by Deadline: Talks Extended for Seven Months," Nov. 24, 2014).
It was pointed out at Power Line Blog that "this development is being reported as 'no deal,' but there actually is a deal of sorts here. According to the British foreign secretary, Iran will receive about $700 million per month in frozen assets. In exchange, it makes no concessions. Instead, the status quo is maintained with regard to Iran's nuclear program" (Paul Mirengoff, "Iran's Win-Win," Nov. 24).
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lobbied for the extension, arguing, "The nuclear program in Iran as we negotiate is frozen" (quoted by Solomon and Norman). But this seems like wishful thinking.
Another summary in The Wall Street Journal noted: "The sharpest worry about giving Tehran more time is that it will continue research on its centrifuges so that it can produce much more powerful technology in the future. That would significantly cut the time Iran would need to produce enough material to fuel an atomic bomb" (Laurence Norman, "5 Things to Know About What Comes Next in Iran Nuclear Talks," Nov. 24).
Following the announcement of the extension, Iranian President Hasan Rouhani said in an address to his nation "that the extension was a victory, adding negotiations will lead to a deal, 'sooner or later'" (quoted by Solomon and Norman).
Moreover, as The New York Times reported, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued these remarks: "In the nuclear issue, America and colonial European countries got together and did their best to bring the Islamic Republic to its knees, but they could not do so—and they will not be able to do so" (quoted by Thomas Erdbrink, "Breaking Silence, Ayatollah Says Iran Is Standing Up to West in Nuclear Talks," Nov. 25). This is the same leader who shortly before this went on a Twitter tirade against Israel, posting, "This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated" (quoted at The Blaze, Nov. 9, 2014).
The Iranian Resistance criticized the entire process: "Continuing with negotiations which have been going on for 12 years, instead of decisiveness and intensifying sanctions, amounts to taking a path which will inevitably lead to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb. This is the repeat of the same policies and mistakes which have brought the mullahs so close to obtaining a nuclear bomb" (National Council of Resistance of Iran, Nov. 24).
Meanwhile, a number of Republican members of the U.S. Congress, who assume control of the legislature as of January 2015, have expressed the need for tighter sanctions. "Now more than ever, it's critical that Congress enacts sanctions that give Iran's mullahs no choice but to dismantle their illicit nuclear program," Senator Mark Kirk said in a statement. "Congress will not give Iran more time to build a nuclear bomb" (quoted in "US Congress Skeptical of Iran Nuclear Talks Extension, Agence France-Presse, Nov. 24, 2014). Likewise House Speaker John Boehner said, "Instead of giving Iran more flexibility, we should be holding this regime accountable for the threat it poses to the region."
In reality it does not seem that this threat will be arrested by talks or sanctions. The Iranian leadership's desire to acquire nuclear weapons is driven by a fanatical aim to start global war in order to bring about the end of the world with the appearance on the world scene of the Shiite 12th imam as the Islamic savior, the Mahdi. How does one negotiate with that? (Sources: Agence France-Presse, The Blaze, National Council of Resistance of Iran, The New York Times, Power Line Blog, The Wall Street Journal. )
Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!
Login/Register to post comments

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Why Is Israel the Focus of Muslim Hostility?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.


Why Is Israel the Focus of Muslim Hostility?





At the heart of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East is ongoing hatred among Muslim nations toward Israel and the Jewish people. What are the underlying causes? 

Why Is Israel the Focus of Muslim Hostility?
Source: Wikimedia
The conflict between the Israelis and surrounding Muslim nations has been raging since the Jewish state's inception —and the origins go back much further. Today the hostility is growing in openness and intensity, making the prospects for peace in the Middle East dim.
The Arab Spring uprisings throughout the region are allowing the wider expression of popular sentiments among the Muslim masses—inflaming the ancient animosity.
While not all Muslims feel antipathy toward Jews and Israel, there is widespread dislike and resentment by the majority, as repeatedly borne out in polls and surveys. The Pew Global Attitudes Project survey conducted last summer found that almost no one in the Muslim Middle East thinks positively toward Israel and the Jewish people.
"Ratings of Jews are dismal in the seven predominantly Muslim nations surveyed" (Pew Research Center, Common Concerns About Islamic Extremism: Muslim-Western Tensions Persist, July 21, 2011, p. 22). In the six of these nations that are in the Middle East or adjacent to it, only 2 to 4 percent express favorable opinions of Jews.
It is amazing that the small nation of Israel, composed of only about 8,000 square miles of land—roughly two times the size of Rhode Island—generates so much ill feeling.
Israel's territory is only about one-sixth of one percent that of the 22 hostile Arab nations that are 640 times her size. And they have 45 times more people than Israel—340 million Arabs versus 7.7 million Israeli citizens (more than a million of whom are themselves Arab).
Yet fiery rhetoric calling for the destruction of Israel can be heard in political speeches and mosque sermons throughout the Muslim world, from Iran to Libya and in other places around the globe—including Western nations.
An example of the growing hostility toward Israel can be found across its southern border in Egypt with the increasing influence there of the Muslim Brotherhood. This organization has sired 86 branches across the Islamic world since the 1920s. The more dominant ones are in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Palestinian territories (the branch in the latter being the terror group Hamas, which now runs Gaza).
Comments like the following from Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Kamal al Halbawi, made while speaking at an official visit to Iran in July 2011, are all too common: "Both nations [Iran and Egypt] underline the necessity for Muslim nations to maintain solidarity and unity to annihilate this cancerous tumor (Israel) . . . Every night when I go to bed, I pray to wake up the next day to see Israel is wiped off the map" (quoted by "ADL [Anti-Defamation League] Report: Muslim Brotherhood's Open Hostility to Israel Could Play Destabilizing Role In Egypt And Region," ADL.org, Sept. 19, 2011).
Let's consider the root causes of such widespread Muslim animosity against Israel.

Indoctrination and propaganda

Conflict between Muslims Jews, and Christians has been around since Islam began in the seventh century A.D. But it's been exacerbated in recent times by an indoctrination of religious intolerance and anti-Semitic propaganda in the Muslim world.
The indoctrination is led by Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, which has been asserting itself as the world's authoritative voice for the religion. An important avenue for its gaining influence has been through Saudi charities funding Wahhabi madrassas (schools) and mosques in many nations (Wahhabism being an extremist form of Islam embraced by terror groups like al-Qaeda).
An illustration of the ongoing indoctrination is furnished by a 2006 study by theCenter for Religious Freedom and the Institute for Gulf Affairs: "As demonstrated by excerpts from the dozen current Islamic studies textbooks analyzed in this report, the Saudi public school religious curriculum continues to propagate an ideology of hate toward the 'unbeliever,' that is, Christians, Jews, Shiites, Sufis, Sunni Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine, Hindus, atheists and others.
"This ideology is introduced in a religion textbook in the first grade and reinforced and developed in following years of the public education system, culminating in the twelfth grade, where a text instructs students that it is a religious obligation to do 'battle' against infidels in order to spread the faith" ("Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance," 2006, p. 10).
That's what the study found after the Saudi Arabian government said it had reformed its school system and textbooks to be more tolerant. The study goes on to provide numerous excerpts that make the point, like these from an eighth-grade schoolbook:
"'They [the Jews] are the people of the Sabbath, whose young people God turned into apes, and whose old people God turned into swine to punish them.' 'As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the keepers of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christian infidels of the communion of Jesus'" (p. 24).
With such ideology exported to madrassas around the world, a great many Muslims everywhere have been using textbooks with the same perspective and approach.
One might wonder why the Saudi government would sponsor the radicalization of Islamic education. It appears the strategy has been to direct the hatred of the native populace toward Israel and Western nations and away from dissatisfaction with the local national government, which might lead to rebellion.
The same has been true in other Muslim states, where government-controlled education and press have incited populations against the Israelis, Americans and other Westerners. Again, the focus is thereby taken away from dissatisfaction with local regimes.
The Arab Spring has brought the focus back on local government, but the instilled misperceptions and hatred of Israel and the West remain (with many wanting to strike out in contrast to the inaction of past regimes).
On top of the damage of formal education in this regard is a steady onslaught of media propaganda poisoning Muslim minds against the Jewish people from a young age. Arab cartoons and other children's shows typically portray Jews as evil and bloodthirsty, and some present suicide bombing against them as heroic. A TV show for Palestinian children was hosted by a Mickey Mouse–style character calling for war against the Israelis—until he was depicted as being killed on the show by "terrorist" Jews!
Such incessant indoctrination and propaganda has had a real impact. In the Arab countries surveyed by the Pew Research Center, large majorities of Muslims who say some religions are more prone to violence consider Judaism to be the most violent religion by 77 to 97 percent (p. 23). This despite the fact that it's the Jewish Israelis who've been repeatedly attacked by Muslims and Muslims themselves who have killed hundreds of thousands of other Muslims in conflicts and wars during recent decades!
Add to all this a left-leaning media in the West that looks on the Jewish state as a past partner in perceived U.S. imperialism abroad, as a nation basing its right to exist on what they see as the antiquated and foolish notion of biblical authority, as an "occupier" and "oppressor" of the Palestinians, and as the intractable main obstacle to Middle East peace, and the hatred of Israel seems further justified to many of the Muslims in Western nations.
Then there's the semblance of legitimacy to condemning the Jewish state lent by the United Nations General Assembly, which has been anti-Israel for years. This body represents the nations of the world, but many of them are Islamic and thuggish dictatorships trying to direct focus away from their own atrocities and misrule—Israel providing a convenient target of scorn and censure.

Distortion of the refugee issue

No doubt, the principal issue over which the state of Israel has been criticized is that of the Palestinians—the refusal to allow refugees their "right of return" and the "occupation" of Palestinian lands both garnering region-wide and worldwide sympathy. Israel's supposed recalcitrance is blamed for the ongoing failures of the peace process—leading to widespread condemnation and bitterness.
Yet here, too, propaganda is a major factor. Ignored is the fact that this situation exists because the Arab states attempted to destroy the state of Israel at its founding in 1948 and later in the Six-Day War of 1967.
The League of Arab States, or Arab League, was formed in 1945—mainly to unite Arab countries in opposition to the emergence of a Jewish state. Then, in 1948, five nations of the newly formed Arab League took up arms against the state of Israel following its U.N.-mandated independence.
Arabs in territory allotted to Israel who joined the invaders at that time ended up fleeing or were driven out. They became refugees in surrounding Arab states, and these states have refused them settlement, preferring to keep them in refugee camps to maintain political pressure against Israel—to get the Israelis to accept their right to return.
The Israelis, however, recognize this is a strategy to destroy the Jewish state by flooding Israel with millions of descendants of those original Arab refugees who will use Israel's democratic form of government to transform it into just another Arab state.
Following the Arabs' blockade of Israel that led to the 1967 war, the Israelis took possession of the Jordanian territory known as the West Bank, of the Syrian territory of the Golan Heights, and of the Egyptian territories of Gaza and Sinai (eventually returning Sinai and withdrawing from Gaza). Besides the fact that the West Bank is really the ancient Israelite homeland of Samaria and Judah, the Israelis took over and have maintained control of this territory principally as a defensive measure—since without this buffer territory Israel is less than 10 miles wide at some points.
It's interesting to note that it was in 1964, well before the 1967 war, that the Arab League established the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), whose charter states that "the liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty." This was before Israel's acquisition of the West Bank and other territories in the Six-Day War. While Israel had made small territorial gains in 1948, it's important to see that in Arab eyes, the intended area of "Palestine liberation" was the entire area of the state of Israel.
And just who has and has not been willing to negotiate? Following the 1967 War, the Arab League issued the Khartoum Resolution with its "Three No's": "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it."
For many years the PLO under its longtime chairman Yasser Arafat was basically a terrorist organization. After he and the group were eventually legitimized in the sight of the Western world, negotiations were entered into. But these did not lead to peace—only more intifadas or uprisings.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered extreme concessions, eventually 91 percent of the West Bank, but it was not enough for Arafat. It's been speculated that Palestinian leaders did not then actually want self-governance, as they would've needed to spend the large amounts of aid sent to them on national infrastructure and could no longer blame the plight of their people on the Israelis.
Not much changed when Mahmoud Abbas succeeded Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority. Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recalls a personal one-on-one meeting in 2008 with then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert:
"Olmert started talking again. 'I know what he [Abbas] needs. He needs something on refugees and on Jerusalem. I'll give him enough land, maybe something like 94 percent with swaps. I have an idea about Jerusalem. There will be two capitals, one for us in West Jerusalem and one for the Palestinians in East Jerusalem'" ( No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington, 2011, p. 651).
In addition, Olmert was willing to put an international body in charge of holy sites and allow 5,000 Arab refugees to settle in Israel.
Rice says that while Abbas started negotiations right away, his insistence that a larger number of refugees and their descendants be allowed to settle in Israel under the right of return became a deal breaker.
Over the last few years the Palestinian Authority has, with one short exception, avoided direct talks with Israel. Instead, this past September Abbas took a request for statehood to the United Nations, effectively bypassing the direct negotiations required by the 1993 Oslo accords signed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
So the idea that Israel is the hindrance to peace negotiations really doesn't hold water.

A worldview of expansion with no retreat

Key to all this is a critical factor many fail to understand. Underlying the Palestinian conflict and Muslim attitudes toward Israel is the fact that the very existence of the Jewish state is intolerable from the perspective of many Muslims.
The establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and the ensuing defeat of the invading Arab armies was seen by the Arabs as a disastrous humiliation—known as the Nakba or "catastrophe." Later defeats and the fact that Israel still exists magnify the disgrace.
Yet it was not a mere nationalist humiliation. This was a catastrophe because it was a shaming affront to their religion—striking at the very heart of Islam.
What needs to be realized is that, in Islamic theology, the world is divided into two great spheres of influence. One is Dar al-Salaam, meaning "Abode of Peace," a term used to describe Muslim-controlled lands (sometimes also called Dar al-Islam, meaning "Abode of Islam").
The other is Dar al-Harb, meaning "Abode of Struggle" or "Abode of War." This term is used to denote all other lands. By this very terminology, all non-Muslim lands are defined as areas where Islam must struggle or war so that these areas may be converted to Dar al-Islam, lands ruled by Islam—the ultimate objective being the entire world brought under the rule of Islam.
It's important to understand that, in the thinking of millions of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, it is an abomination for any land that was once Dar al-Islam, territory controlled by Muslims, to become Dar al-Harb, "Abode of Struggle," in which Muslims have lost control and seen it revert back to rule by non-Muslims (infidels). This goes directly against the Koran and other teachings of Muhammad, which avow that ultimately the entire world is to be under the control of Islam (see "Does the Koran Promote Peace and Cooperation?").
Because these concepts are so foreign to Western thinking, these distinctions are lost on most Westerners—and, tragically, particularly on their governments and leaders. Yet it explains why, in more than a dozen nations across the globe, Muslims are waging war along the edges of the Islamic world to convert more lands to Dar al-Islam.

Israeli territory claimed to belong to Muslims

It also explains why most Muslims in general, and Arabs in particular, are fundamentally opposed to the existence of a Jewish state of Israel. They don't want a two-state solution, unless it is only as a temporary measure. They want a single Palestinian state "from the sea to the sea" as they define it—from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, with no place for Israel at all.
Israel, you see, is an "infidel" country sitting on land that was once Dar al-Islam, the land of Islam, and thus its existence is an abomination. We can see this ideology plainly set forth in the charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement, better known as the terrorist group Hamas (the same group that controls Gaza, from which rockets and mortar shells are regularly fired into Israeli towns):
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine [which in Hamas' perspective includes not just Gaza and the West Bank but the entire state of Israel] is an Islamic Waqf [inalienable endowment] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.
"Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?
"This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement...This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void" ("Hamas Covenant," Aug. 18, 1988, Article 11).
Given this underlying ideology, it's no wonder that the Arab nations formed the Arab League to oppose the emergence of the Israeli state. This explains why the failure to prevent its establishment was viewed as a humiliating catastrophe. And we can clearly see why the "liberation of Palestine" is considered an Arab national duty. After all, the validity of Islam itself is at stake!
But there's more to it still. Worse than being a tiny infidel nuisance, Israel is a major power in the region—largely because of support from the West, particularly the United States and Great Britain. Indeed, Israel is seen as an agent of the United States in the Muslim Middle East. The Jewish state and Britain have been referred to as "the Little Satans," while America is labeled "the Great Satan." Thus, the Great Satan is perceived as having a foothold amidst Dar al-Islam.
According to a recent Zogby International poll conducted in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—sponsored by the Arab American Institute Foundation—"when asked to choose 'the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East,' once again the 'occupation of Palestinian lands' and 'U.S. interference in the Arab world' rank as the top two concerns" ("Arab Attitudes, 2011," p. 5). Probably the real concern is these posing a threat to Islam—upsetting the Dar al-Salaam ("Abode of Peace").
Indeed, as the United States and Britain are predominantly Christian, their interference in the Middle East and presumed use of Israel as a proxy are seen by many Muslims as, effectively, a continuation of the Crusades (fought a thousand years ago between professing Christians and Muslims for control of the Holy Land). Yet, while the Christian powers are next in line to be dealt with in the thinking of many, Israel, because of proximity and its occupation of formerly Muslim territory, is seen as the immediate threat in need of elimination.
All this is a major part of why Israel has had to fight five wars for survival in a little over 60 years of existence and suffers from continuing terrorist bombings and rocket attacks. And it's a big reason Israel's continued existence is an ongoing intolerable disgrace to fundamentalist Muslims around the world, with a number perpetually calling for it to be wiped from the map.
Yet the irrational hatred goes even deeper.

Ancient family feud and evil spirit influence

The origins of the strife we see today between many Islamic Arab people and the Jews in Israel can actually be traced back nearly 4,000 years.
The Bible records that God appeared to a man named Abram, later renamed Abraham, and promised him a son whose descendants would become a great nation. When his wife Sarai could not afterward conceive a child, she suggested that Abram take her Egyptian servant girl Hagar as a surrogate mother. And Hagar bore a son named Ishmael.
God gave Hagar this prophetic promise: "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count . . . You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael ['God hears'], for the Lord has heard of your misery.
"He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers" (Genesis:16:10-12, New International Version, 1984, emphasis added throughout).
Some 12 to 13 years after Ishmael was born, God appeared again to Abram with another promise: "As for Sarai your wife...I will bless her and also give you a son by her; then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be from her'" (verses 15-16).
God changed her name to Sarah. She had been barren all her life and was past normal childbearing age. Through God's miraculous intervention she bore a son, Isaac. His descendants would become the 12 tribes of the nation of Israel, which included the tribe of Judah—predominately today's Jews.
Ishmael, God said, would father 12 princes and become a "great nation" (verse 20), though God's greater blessings and covenant would be with Isaac. The Arabs acknowledge Ishmael as their progenitor.
Ishmael and his mother were eventually sent away from the family. And another divide in the family came when Isaac's son Jacob (later renamed Israel) schemed against his brother Esau or Edom. The divisions in the family—between Israelites and Ishmaelites and between Israelites and Edomites—would persist until the last days, with hostility increasing, as God foretold.
For more details on what happened and how this family division has continued over the ages, request or download our free booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy .
And besides the family dynamic and specific prophecies God has given, another underlying reason for the hatred of Israel among Muslim nations is no doubt the same one that exists for virulent anti-Semitism around the world. As the level of hatred and antagonism is completely irrational, we should recognize in it a spiritual cause.
The world is ruled over and deceived by a spirit being, Satan the devil, and his demonic cohorts, who hate God. And they have incited people to hatred against God's people throughout history. Moreover, the preservation of the Jewish people and their return to the Holy Land to establish a state is a validation of the promises and prophecies of the Bible—a great frustration to enemies of God's Word.  

Hostility builds at the time of the end

What all this adds up to is these under-lying forces continuing to generate Muslim hostility towards the Jews and Israel, growing in intensity as we approach the end of this age.
Psalm 83 contains an intriguing prophecy that reveals this growing hostility will play out in a confederation of Muslim peoples determined to eliminate Israel as a nation:
"They have taken crafty counsel against Your people, and consulted together against Your sheltered ones. They have said, 'Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be remembered no more'" (verses 3-4).
This prophecy goes on to mention specific areas and peoples that will be involved. Our research reveals that some or all of the following will likely participate in this anti-Israel alliance—the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, northern Iraq, and Arab states throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
Out of this group of nations will likely come the end-time leader Daniel the prophet calls the "king of the South." He will arise from the Muslim world and set in motion a cascade of events that will lead to unimaginable carnage in the final world war before Jesus Christ returns (Daniel:11:40).
This confrontation begins with some aggressive move of the king of the South toward what Daniel calls the "king of the North," an end-time European-centered superpower that will then occupy parts of the Middle East, including Israel.
The entire world will eventually be pulled into this developing maelstrom. Jesus Christ called the time of this final world war the "great tribulation" and said He would have to intervene to save humankind from total annihilation (Matthew:24:21-22).
The good news is that peace between these hostile peoples will finally come as former enemies learn the way of peace from the Prince of Peace. Hatred and violence will at last be no more! 

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Conflict Again in Iraq, Why It Matters

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.


Conflict Again in Iraq, Why It Matters





Submitted June 12, 2014

Conflict Again in Iraq, Why It Matters
Source: Darwinek/Wikimedia Commons
It’s Sunni versus Shiite once again in Iraq and this time America is not around to keep the peace. How far will sectarian strife escalate during this round of fighting in this ancient region?
A group of Arab fighters calling themselves the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS) have come back in force in northern Iraq and taken control of key cities of Tikrit and Mosul. Thought to have been weakened and out of the game, this group has had a resurgence of support in northern Iraq and eastern Syria. Coupled with the utter collapse of Iraqi forces in that region, their display of force over the past few days has created the largest threat to stability and security in Iraq since the American-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government in 2003. Without American ground troops in the region, the fate of the country is uncertain. It appears that predictions of the Iraqi army's lack of preparedness, coupled with the political weakness of the country's leadership have come true. Tens of thousands of civilians fleeing their homes is the usual, and unfortunate, result of these conflicts.
This current conflict is on our mind: last week we recorded an episode of Beyond Today  to air close to the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I in August. We showed in the program how the current conflicts in the Middle East—and Iraq and Syria in particular—are a result of the decisions made in the aftermath of that war. The lines of the current Middle East nations were drawn during the Paris Peace Conference after the war. The lines dividing the countries did not always take into consideration the religious and ethnic differences. What we are seeing in today’s news out of the region is part of that story.
The problem is compounded today because of a vacuum of power created by America’s reluctance to police this failed region. America is going through a crisis of confidence in its role as the sole superpower in today’s world. The American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 “broke” the fragile glue that held the nation together. Since having pulled out all troops, the country was left to police itself. Unfortunately, as this week’s events show, Iraq does not have a strong enough army and government to effectively maintain control.
Jesus Christ listed the rise of conflict among nations (nation shall rise agains nation) in Matthew:24:6 as one of the signs of the end of this present age. The word nation here is ethnos and more accurately refers to ethnic strife between the smaller grouping of peoples within larger nations. These intractable conflicts are what drag larger nations into war against one another.
Bible prophecy shows the Middle East will again drag larger nations into the region. What we are seeing in Iraq today shows us how this could be done in the future. That is why what is happening today in Iraq and Syria matters.


Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Islamic Caliphate Declared: What Does It Mean?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.


Islamic Caliphate Declared: What Does It Mean?







A new caliphate—a transnational Islamic state commanding the allegiance of all Muslims—has been declared by the leader of insurgents in Iraq and Syria. What does this portend for the rest of the world in the days ahead?


Source: Reuters/Newscom
On the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan this year, June 29, 2014, the al-Qaeda breakaway group ISIS or ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (i.e., Greater Syria or the Levant)—which has seized vast tracts of Iraq and much of northern Syria—formally declared the creation of an Islamic transnational state, or caliphate. In doing so, the group changed its name to just the Islamic State (IS), as the caliphate is to rule Muslims the world over.
The group's chief, who's borne the pseudonym Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was declared to be the new caliph or leader of the Islamic State—now Caliph Ibrahim. A spokesman for the group "called on those living in the areas under the organization's control to swear allegiance to al-Baghdadi and support him. 'The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organizations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph's authority and the arrival of its troops to their areas,' [the spokesman] said" ("ISIS Declares Creation of Mideast Caliphate Across Iraq and Syria," CBS News, June 29, 2014).
Baghdadi then called for Muslims to rally to his new state and to conquering the Christian West, saying: "Those who can immigrate to the Islamic State should immigrate, as immigration to the house of Islam is a duty . . . Rush O Muslims to your state . . . This is my advice to you. If you hold to it you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills" (quoted by Damien McElroy, "Rome Will Be Conquered Next, Says Leader of 'Islamic State,'" The Telegraph, July 1, 2014).

Longtime desire to reestablish the caliphate

The desire to reestablish the caliphate is driven by the goal of joining all Muslims under a single rule—as in the days of Islam's founder, Muhammad, and his immediate successors or caliphs in the seventh century. Under that rule everyone is to strictly adhere to sharia—Islamic law and jurisprudence—and follow the way of jihad or holy war to conquer the globe.
The caliphate was declared by a succession of Muslim empires over the centuries, the latest being that of the Ottoman Turks, which ended with World War I. Yet these are viewed as corrupt, and the desire of the Islamists today is to restore the initial "righteous" caliphate.
Islamist terror groups the world over, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc., "all profess the revival of the caliphate, the regime that was installed by Muhammed's righteous successors, the caliphs, and has become the iconic model to be emulated by all future generations of Muslims" (Raphael Israeli, From Arab Spring to Islamic Winter, 2013, p. xiii). (See "20-Year Plan for a Global Caliphate ".)
During and after the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011-2012, momentum seemed to be building toward the formation of a caliphate, particularly with the ascendance of a Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohamed Morsi, to the presidency of Egypt. Yet with the military coup in Egypt last year that ousted Morsi and instigated a major crackdown against the Brotherhood, the momentum toward a caliphate appeared to have stalled.
But now, with millions of Islamic extremists across the Middle East still pressing for that Muslim dream, where one door closes another opens (although the door in Egypt is by no means truly closed, as the population there remains predominantly Islamist).
So what are we to make of this new development?
A number of Islamist groups and prominent clerics are not supportive of the declaration of the Islamic State, as it's viewed as premature and a cause for infighting between Muslim groups and states. But significant support has come in from far quarters. No doubt a great deal of blood will be shed over this among Muslims and between Muslims and the non-Islamic world.
In considering the matter we should ask: How did the new Islamic State come to be, and what are its prospects for success as a revived caliphate? Or might another group receive wider acceptance in the role? And does Bible prophecy tell us anything regarding such developments?

The rise of ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

The al-Qaeda contingent in Iraq, headed up by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the mid-2000s, went through several incarnations before eventually becoming the Islamic State of Iraq, or ISI, which came to be headed up by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2010, when American forces were withdrawing from the country.
The group's extreme brutality and killing of fellow Muslims created a divide between it and al-Qaeda's international leadership, which considered Zarqawi and his followers too extreme and criticized them for alienating people from the Islamist cause.
Furthermore, Osama bin Laden's successor Ayman al-Zawahiri maintained, as do many Islamist scholars now opposed to the current caliphate declaration, that a caliphate must follow the purification of the wider Muslim world, being then based on the consent of the public.
But, as Margaret Coker explains in The Wall Street Journal, Baghdadi and his supporters "reject this doctrine of an evolving religious and social consensus. They believe instead that a pure Islamic regime can be more swiftly imposed by force" ("The New Jihad," July 11).
And in fact, this is the way the caliphate has been imposed in past centuries.
The struggle came to a head in April 2013, when Baghdadi declared a takeover of the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda-linked rebel militia fighting against President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, stating that it would be merged with ISI to form ISIS. The Nusra Front rejected the takeover bid and Zawahiri ordered Baghdadi to leave Syria and maintain operations in Iraq. But in a huge affront to al-Qaeda, Baghdadi said he would follow Allah instead and maintained the ISIS merger, whereupon Zawahiri formally disowned the group.
ISIS went on to take over sizable parts of Syria and Iraq, sweeping through in a brutal blitzkrieg. It took to social media to demoralize resistance by displaying its extreme brutality. This tactic helped ISIS to wrest control of the large city of Mosul and its environs in June of this year when the Iraqi army had to retreat due to massive numbers of desertions.
The conquest of this area put huge amounts of advanced U.S. weaponry into the hands of ISIS, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars looted from banks—making it far wealthier than al-Qaeda ever was. And with U.S. forces now gone from Iraq, the new Islamic State has a great deal of room to maneuver. It thus seems poised to change the Middle East, if not the greater world scene, in a dramatic fashion.

Striking fear in the hearts and minds of opponents

Joseph Farah, editor in chief of WND (the former WorldNetDaily), commented prior to the caliphate announcement: "Do I expect to see ISIS conquer the Middle East, North Africa, part of Europe and Asia in the 21st century? No, I don't. But I do expect to see enormous carnage and destruction and bloodshed as a result of this movement—far more, perhaps, than most other analysts project. There is a ferocity to ISIS that makes even al-Qaida uncomfortable. It has already captured more wealth and armaments, including chemical weapons, than all but a handful of countries in the world possess . . .
"Brutality difficult for Westerners to even imagine is the modus operandi of ISIS. It calls for a scorched-earth policy against its enemies—which includes Christians, Shiites, Alawites, Jews, non-believers and all non-Sunnis. ISIS leadership advocates and practices barbarism designed to strike fear into the hearts and minds of its opponents and anyone who doesn't stand with them in their strict Shariah Sunni code.
"Already the ISIS marauders have crucified victims, beheaded them and conducted mass executions of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. No atrocity is beneath them" ("ISIS Rising—What It Portends," June 23, 2014).
Farah compares the speed of their conquest with the original march of Islam and even Alexander the Great. "The success of campaigns like that requires that superior forces faint in fear of the coming hordes. You can see it's working already in Iraq" (ibid.).

Is the new caliphate viable?

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner gave a helpful analysis of the situation, dealing with the question of whether ISIS can maintain its rule and viability: "Analysts point out that seizing territory is one thing, governing it is quite another" ("'Jihadistan': Can Isis Militants Rule Seized Territory?" July 8, 2014).
Despite its remarkable military success in the wake of its psychological warfare, "Isis has effectively been 'punching above its weight,' to use a boxing analogy," its numbers of between 10,000 and 15,000 fighters being low compared to competing forces. Gardner quotes a pan-Arab newspaper stating, "Isis' ability to control lands has been based on deals with local militants willing to do the 'ruling' for them."
He further notes that Baghdadi and his followers do not seem, on one hand, to have learned from the mistakes of their predecessors under Zarqawi in Iraq in their brutal treatment of the populace, which failed to win hearts and minds. Regarding ISIS, "stories abound of harsh punishments imposed for the slightest of offences, women being confined to the home, public crucifixions, kidnappings and extortionate levies imposed on businesses . . ."
While Gardner on the other hand points out ISIS taking care of municipal needs like garbage collection, the mask of public service has since come off.
Gardner further states: "To succeed as a viable state, let alone as a transnational 'caliphate,' Isis will need access to oil and water." And ISIS/IS now has both, controlling refineries and major dams in Syria and Iraq.
Gardner argues that the new Islamic state is not going away: "The only force capable of permanently ejecting Isis will be the tribes in those regions [they rule], and they have little incentive to do so while the Syrian civil war rages on . . .
"Which leaves the prospect of a violent, extremist, well-armed, well-funded and religiously intolerant militia becoming a permanent part of the Middle East landscape, a sort of de facto 'jihadistan.'" And, he notes, like Afghanistan it would also be a springboard for increased attacks against neighboring countries and the Western world.

Several key advantages and others to carry on the cause

In spite of the denunciation received from some Islamic scholars and disapproval from al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations, this group nevertheless has much going for it in the Muslim world. One advantage is in the very declaration of the caliphate, as it's unlikely that a number of claimants would start declaring their own since that would minimize the whole idea of the pan-Islamic state.
Furthermore, the fact that ISIS/IS is actually carrying out major exploits and making massive gains, with the caliphate proclamation on top of that, can capture the imagination of the younger generation of jihadists.
As noted in Newsweek: "The brutal attacks of 9/11 were almost 13 years ago; many of the jihadist fighters on the front lines now were children then. They have grown up seeing Al-Qaeda on the defensive, with few successes of its own, while ISIS has stunned the world with its victories in Syria and Iraq" (Kurt Eichenwald, "Iraq's ISIS Is Eclipsing Al-Qaeda, Especially With Young Jihadists," July 7, 2014).
Indeed, at his site Intelwire author J.M. Berger points out regarding al-Qaeda that "one of its few practical remaining plays would be to squander the entirety of whatever resources it has left on an attack against the West, in the hopes of regaining its reputation" ("A New Day for ISIS," June 11). That should serve as a stark warning of great danger for the world even in the short term.
Since the proclamation of the new Islamic State, it has seen increasing voices of support by Islamists around the world. But even if the group falters in its bid to rule the broader Islamic nation, there are others who could still try to establish the caliphate.
There remains al-Qaeda of course. Then there's the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan—by which the caliphate potentially could acquire nuclear weapons. The Muslim Brotherhood still maintains a vast network of support in the Islamic world—and Egypt may yet eventually revert to rule by the Islamist majority, the economy there being presently in shambles. And Turkey's prime minister Recep Erdogan still dreams of a Turkish-led caliphate, as was the Ottoman Empire.
But with the caliphate already declared, a broad spectrum of Muslims from around the world may try to come together to help it succeed—and this could sway other Islamist leaders to support it. On the other hand, what some see as Baghdadi's big gamble in proclaiming the caliphate could backfire in a big way if things don't pan out for him. We will have to wait and see how matters develop.
As a preview of where things are headed, one of the first acts of the new caliphate was to issue a fatwa, or religious edict, ordering that "all women between the ages of 11 and 46 must undergo genital mutilation" (Agence France-Presse, July 24).
Again, it seems very likely that a lot of blood will flow because of the declared caliphate—both Muslims killing other Muslims and attacks being launched on non-Muslims.

Turning to the only reliable source for advance news

In the face of these events, if we want to know where the world is ultimately headed, we must turn to the only sure source of knowledge about the future—the Holy Bible, the very Word of God. Bible prophecy does seem to say, in Psalm 83, that a confederation of Middle Eastern peoples will come together with the intent of destroying Israel—apparently involving Arabs, Palestinians, Turks and others in the region.
Moreover, Daniel 11 refers to an end-time "king of the South" who will instigate a conflict with a power to the north—a revival of the Roman Empire centered in Europe—with the Holy Land caught in between.
Might the confederation and southern power in these prophecies be a restored caliphate? It seems quite likely. After all, the principal unifying factor among all these peoples is Islam—so a new Islamic empire bringing them together is not at all far-fetched.
Is the current Islamic State that power? Its leaders are so extreme that gaining a mass following among other Muslims poses a great challenge. Also, it does not yet encompass Egypt, which the southern power in Daniel 11 seems to include or even be based from. And perhaps the Islamic State won't reach that far in its current form.
Yet it could be that, just as the European Union of today seems to be the embryonic form of the coming European superpower, so the current Islamic State could be the embryonic form of a much greater caliphate to come. These developments certainly illustrate the desire of millions of Muslims to establish a caliphate.
Note again particularly the goal stated by the Islamic State to "conquer Rome and own the world." It could well be that this long-held desire of Muslims will lead to the conditions described in the latter part of Daniel 11, where the end-time king of the South provokes the king of the North into an invasion of North Africa and the Middle East.
Momentous and dangerous times lie ahead. Stay alert and turn to God and His Word with all your heart. No matter what happens, He will see you through!
[ See the related article:  20-Year Plan for a Global Caliphate ]