God's War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible

by Walid Shoebat

  Muslims have a sense of entitlement, feeling as if world domination is simply their destiny. Therefore, for the past 80 plus years, since the actual abolition of the Caliphate, the Muslim believer has felt a deep disorder in the power balance of the world. Rather than a united Islamic Empire under a Caliph, the Islamic World has existed as a network of underachieving and defeated nation states. They see the modern Muslims states in the Middle East as a product of the evil of the Western powers (despite being secular states, Muslims often see them as Christian nations) who divide the Islamic Caliphate. At the same time, too often they are ruled by corrupt third-rate dictators who live in luxury while their people live in poverty.

  Again, they often see these tyrants as being installed or supported by the evil Western powers. A people who viewed themselves as the world’s foremost superpower for over thirteen hundred years has been a divided network of backwater nation states for nearly a century now. And to compound this emotional blow, this humbling has taken place during the 20th century, a time when numerous other nations—particularly those founded on Judeo-Christian principles—have excelled in everything from government to human rights, scientific breakthroughs, fiscal prosperity, education, military strength and more.

  So it has been the combination of prosperity and advancement in so many parts of the non-Muslim world contrasted with the complete deterioration of the once thriving Islamic Empire that has been on display as the shame of the whole Muslim World. Add again to all this the fact that the Muslim world is an Eastern culture, where honor and shame mean everything. Overall, the psychological impact and the resentment of the Muslim world is nearly all consuming. In addition, where does this resentment and pent-up anger fall? In such a drastically disordered world, conspiracy theories and blame shifting are common outlets for anger. Muslims blame all of their ills on Israel (or, as it is so often called, “The World-Zionist Conspiracy”) as well as the various Western colonizing “crusader forces” of previous centuries. Looking back at the pre-colonial days of Islamic Empire, two thoughts often emerge in the modern Muslim mind: The first is to recapture their former glory, and the second is to punish those who have withheld it for so long. All of these aspirations are most often summarized negatively in the overthrow and destruction of Israel and the West, while they are expressed positively in the messianic expectations concerning the re-establishment of the Caliphate.

  Today, the Muslim world is ripe for the re-emergence of the Caliphate. And dozens of pro-Caliphate movements are experiencing explosive growth throughout the earth. In 2007, well over 100,000 Muslims gathered in Indonesia for the Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s pro-Caliphate conference. Just outside Haifa in Israel over 50,000 Muslims gathered. And in London, tens of thousands gathered. The movement has large and very active groups functioning across the globe; from Russia to England, from Indonesia to Egypt. But what very few are aware of is that despite the different names and methods of terrorist groups that appear on the news, nearly all share a similar goal: the restoration of a pan-Islamic Caliphate and the establishment of Islamic Shariah law—first among the Muslim states and then eventually in the whole earth. This holds true for both Sunni and Shi’a Islamist groups, for Al-Qaeda, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, The Muslim Brotherhood, The Iranian Revolution, and dozens of other groups as well.

  PRO-CALIPHATE GROUPS OPERATING IN ISRAEL

  In February of 2006, Sheikh Ismail Nawahda of Guiding Helper Foundation, preached to a gathering of Muslims on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. He called upon them to restore the Caliphate, or, as he explained, “Genuine Islamic Rule”, which would “unite all the Muslims in the world against the infidels.” And only a few months later, Sheikh Raed Salah of the Islamic Movement in Israel, addressing over 50,000 Muslims just outside the Israeli city of Haifa, declared: “Jerusalem will soon be the capital of a Moslem Arab Caliphate, and all efforts by the Israeli establishment to Judaize the city will amount to nothing… soon Jerusalem will be the capital of the new Muslim caliphate, and the caliph’s seat will be there.”32

  Yet despite the very real threat an Islamic Caliphate represents, liberals and the every-thing-is-fine-Bush-is-just-a-cowboy-reactionary-fear-monger crowd that sadly dominates much of the left-wing Western media regularly mock the idea.

  PRESENT DAY REVIVAL: KHILAFAT MOVEMENT TODAY

  The fact is the fervor for a renewed Caliphate is at the highest level it has reached since its abolishment. In December of 2006, the Jamestown Foundation, an international intelligence think-tank, wrote about the rising growth and appeal of pro-Caliphate groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT). The report was based on both an in-depth analysis of statistics and trends throughout the Muslim world and direct interviews with several high-ranking HT operatives in JorDaniel Jamestown concluded that HT’s influence is drastically spreading throughout the Muslim world. HT is often a gateway or a “conveyor belt” into other pro-Caliphate groups with a more violent tendency, like al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan), with which I was formerly involved.

  Many surveys show that since the U.S led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Muslims almost universally have seen the war against terrorism as a war on Islam. Muslims regard themselves as members of the ummah, or community of believers, that forms the heart of Islam. As the earthly head of that community, the Caliph is cherished both as memory and ideal. The caliphate is still esteemed by many ordinary Muslims.33

  The University of Maryland conducted a face-to-face survey of 4,384 Muslims between December 9, 2006 and February 15 2007 (1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians). Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad and an expert on Islamic Jihad commented on the results: “65.2% of those interviewed—almost two-thirds, hardly a ‘fringe minority’—desired this outcome: ‘To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate’, including 49% of ‘moderate’ Indonesian Muslims. 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition ‘To require a strict application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.’34

  How many times have you heard that “most” of the Muslims of the world are moderate and are not a threat to the West? How many times have you heard that we only need to worry about a “small minority”? Does a two-thirds sound like a small minority to you? It is time to get real.

  AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE CONFIRM RISE OF CALIPHATE

  Even if the University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org poll is not enough to convince you of the real threat of an established Caliphate, consider a report released through the National Intelligence Council (NIC) in 2004. The NIC is the American Intelligence Community’s foremost “center for mid-term and long-term strategic thinking”. The Council is the premier think-thank consulting the United States’ National Director of Intelligence. In other words, this is not a low-level partisan think-tank dispensing opinions that merely support their political agendas. The NIC’s resources consist of a broad range of academics and experts from around the globe. In late 2004, the Council released a study titled Project 2020, Mapping the Global Future. The study explores what it deems to be the four most-likely geo-political scenarios that we should expect to see by the year 2020. One of the scenarios describes the emergence of a pan-Islamic Caliphate. The conclusions of the study are below:

  “A Caliphate would not have to be entirely successful for it to present a serious challenge to the international order. This scenario underlines the saliency of the cross-cultural ideological debate that would intensify with growing religious identities…The IT revolution is likely to amplify the clash between Western and Muslim worlds… The appeal of a Caliphate among Muslims would vary from region to region, which argues for Western countries adopting a differentiated approach to counter it. Muslims in regions benefiting from globalization, such as parts of Asia and Europe may be torn between the idea of a spiritual Caliphate and the material advantages of a globalized world. The proclamation of a Caliphate would not lessen the likelihood of terrorism and in fomenting more conflict, could fuel a new generation of t
errorists intent on attacking those opposed to the Caliphate, whether inside or outside the Muslim world. The nation-state will continue to be the dominant unit of the global order, but economic globalization and the dispersion of technologies, especially information technologies, will place enormous new strains on governments. Growing connectivity will accompany the proliferation of virtual communities of interest, complicating the ability of states to govern. The Internet in particular will spur the creation of even more global movements, which may emerge as a robust force in international affairs. Part of the pressure on governance will come from new forms of identity politics centered on religious convictions. In a rapidly globalizing world experiencing population shifts, religious identities provide followers with a ready-made community that serves as a ‘social safety net’ in times of need—particularly important to migrants. In particular, political Islam will have a significant global impact leading to 2020, rallying disparate ethnic and national groups and perhaps even creating an authority [the Caliphate] that transcends national boundaries. A combination of factors—youth bulges in many Arab states, poor economic prospects, the influence of religious education, and the Islamization of such institutions as trade unions, nongovernmental organizations, and political parties—will ensure that political Islam remains a major force.”35

  We think that the War on Terror is tough now. But this report only speculates on a very limited and struggling Caliphate. What would the ramifications of a successful Caliphate be? Far beyond drastic, the results of such a Caliphate would be catastrophic for the West. Nor does the report discuss what might happen if such a Caliphate were to be established far sooner than 2020. There are certainly reasons to suggest that this very well may be the case. Again, this report was released in 2004. This was before the advent of the maniacal and obviously apocalyptic Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his drive for nuclear capability. It preceded the clash between Israel and Hezbollah and the changes that that brought. It came before the fall of Turkey to the Islamist party. Since 2005, the difficulties in the Middle East have compounded as geo-political realities shifted more than they have in the previous twenty years. Could the emergence of a pan-Islamic Caliphate be a reality much sooner than the Project 2020 report suggests? Only God knows.

  WHY THE CALIPHATE IS A THREAT TO THE WEST

  The Caliphate confers legitimacy to jihad. According to Islamic law, without a Caliphate, it is not possible to declare a genuinely sanctioned pan-Islamic Jihad. Similar to the need for the President of the United States to declare a state of war, it is also necessary for a Caliph to be in office for any official pan-Islamic Jihad to be declared. But once a Caliph is in office, it is actually law for him to engage the non-Muslim world in war in order to spread Islam. This is not to say that Muslims have not conducted jihad against non-Muslims, but these have largely been the acts of small groups or individuals. In other words, jihad under a Caliph would be genuine “old school” jihad—not a bombing here or an attack there. It would become the modern world’s first true full-scale global religious war. It would involve everything that the Islamic world could throw out, from economic jihad to withholding oil to cyber jihad to multi-front military conflicts.

  Traditionally, the land with whom the Caliphate was at war was referred to as Dar al-Harb—“land of war”—in contrast to Dar al-Salam—the “land of peace”. In particular, jihad will be declared to free the Muslim lands from any perceived control of Western powers and influence, and jihad will also be declared against any non-Muslim nations that hinder the spread of Islam.

  And so we have the convergence of numerous geopolitical realities, Bible prophecy, Muslim End-Time beliefs, and even American Intelligence all pointing to the same conclusions—all confirming the many prophecies that were made in the Bible thousands of years ago. Now is the time for believers everywhere to prepare both their hearts and their affairs. It is time to get your house in order. And if you are a non-believer, now is the time to reconsider your position!

  97

  Gog And Magog Coalition Is Now Forming

  Now we will see that coalition of Ezekiel 38 is forming right before our eyes. New developments seem to fall into place daily. This chapter will fill the reader in on just some of the latest events that significantly support the prophecy of Ezekiel 38. From this prophecy, we know that among the specific nations that will be part of the Antichrist’s ten-nation coalition are: Turkey, Iran, Sudan, Syria and Libya. Many other nations will also submit or fall to the Antichrist, but the exact order of these events, we cannot be sure. Through several of the other prophecies, we know that Lebanon and the Palestinian territories will be involved as well. With Sudan, we could also see Somalia as part of the coalition. Several Central Asian states are likely, such as Afghanistan or Pakistan. With Libya, we could also see other North African nations involved—Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, etc. Along with Turkey, we could also see the Turkic nations south of Russia: Turkmenistan, Krygistan, Uzbekistan, etc. But for now, we will stick only with the nations that we are clearly presented with in the Gog/Magog prophecy: Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Turkey.

  THE EMERGENCE OF THE SHI’A CRESCENT

  Analysts now nearly all agree that perhaps the most significant unintended consequence of America’s war in Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein is that the majority Shi’a Muslims of Iraq—those who were significantly suppressed under Saddam’s regime—have arisen with great political power in Iraq. And the ripple effect this has caused is significantly changing the balance of power in the Middle East. One of the most basic elements of Middle East politics that one needs to understand is the power balance between the Sunni and the Shi’a nations. For the past 50 years, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has been the top-dog oil-producing nation in the Middle East. Not only is KSA clearly the top oil producer, but she also has the greatest global percentage of readily available oil reserves. Simply put, whoever has the oil has the money and the power. KSA is also a Sunni Muslim nation. Now, standing on the other side of the ring—just across the Persian Gulf—is Iran. Iran is the second greatest oil producer in the region and is far and away the Shi’a stronghold of the earth. Since the late 1970’s, when the Iranian Revolution began, Iran has been struggling to cast itself as the greatest and most powerful Muslim nation in the World. So remember this: in the power struggle between the Shi’a and the Sunni worlds, it is Saudi and Iran who stand at odds. KSA and Iran represent the leaders of the two power blocks—the Sunni and the Shi’a blocks. While not all Muslim nations are so deeply concerned about these sectarian divisions, within the Middle East proper, this power struggle is everything, seconded only by the greater Muslim world’s hatred for Israel and the West. It is for this reason that the nations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have emerged as partners in their resistance to the growing power of what is now being called “the Shi’a crescent”.

  With this background set, we can now move on to see which nations are taking which side and why. While many would assume that those nations that are Sunni would join the Sunni alliance and the Shi’a would join Iran, it is not that simple. Instead, many Muslim nations are siding up according to which nations are perceived as friendly to the West and Israel versus those nations that have assumed a more Islamist and radical disposition. So on one side we have a primarily Sunni and so-called moderate Western friendly coalition, and on the other side is a divided Shi’a/Sunni coalition that is staunchly anti-West and far from moderate. This divided Sunni/Shi’a dimension to the emerging Islamist coalition fits perfectly in line with what we are expecting to see with regard to the final Antichrist coalition/kingdom in that “The kingdom will be divided” (Daniel 2:41).

  THE ARAB SUMMIT

  In early 2007, the Saudi Arabian government gathered together 22 Muslim heads of state, as well representatives from the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), Non-aligned Movement (NAM) and Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The end result was the declaration of a soon-to-be Mu
slim/Israeli Peace Deal. News outlets across the world buzzed with anticipation. The problem; however, was that no sooner had the so-called good news been announced then certain Muslims leaders within Saudi began to betray their true colors. The Jerusalem Newswire reported the following barely veiled threat: “Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister on Tuesday warned Israel to accept the pan-Arab peace proposal as is or face war. The Arab League convened in Riyadh on Wednesday to discuss the plan, which was first presented by Saudi King Abdullah at a Beirut meeting of the organization in 2002. It offers Israel the promise of peace with its neighbors in return for surrendering every inch of land liberated in 1967 and opening its borders to millions of foreign-born Arabs who called themselves ‘Palestinian refugees.’ Israel’s failure to accept these ‘generous’ terms means it must want war, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told Britain’s Daily Telegraph. If Israel refuses, that means it doesn’t want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war.”36 Shortly thereafter, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed his positive outlook regarding the potential for peace with the surrounding Muslim nations.37 The Middle East Online reported Olmert’s glowing outlook: “Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in interviews published on Friday that the Jewish state could clinch global peace with its enemies within five years, after Arab leaders revived a peace plan. Asked whether he meant ‘all of the Arab world’, Olmert said ‘yes’. ‘A bloc of states is emerging that understands they may have been wrong to think that Israel is the world’s greatest problem,’ he said in an interview with the liberal Haaretz. ‘That is a revolutionary change in outlook.’“38