Confusion Over What the Quran Teaches - Peace or War?

Those most commonly cited are:

• "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (Surah 2:256, all quotes from the Dawood translation, 1999). This is often quoted to say Islam doesn't compel conversions to Islam or prevent people from leaving Islam for another religion.

• "Whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as having saved all mankind" (Surah 5:32). This is often cited to show that Islam condemns violence and holds human life in high regard.

• "Say, 'Unbelievers [non-Muslims], I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine" (Surah 109:1-6). This is often quoted to say that Islam takes an accepting view toward others being able to practice their own religions.

• "If they incline to peace, make peace with them, and put your trust in [Allah]. It is surely He who hears all and knows all" (Surah 8:61). This is often cited to say that Islam teaches living at peace with others.

Some even say that the word Islam means "peace," though this isn't true. Islam means "submission"—submission to Allah, Islam's deity. The meaning of Muslim, a person who practices the religion of Islam, is "one who submits"—who submits to Allah and his religion.

While the verses quoted here seem fairly clear, what the Quran actually teaches isn't so straightforward. Dozens of verses, a few of which are quoted in the main article "The Jihadist Worldview," clearly advocate warfare, violence and brutality. So why the clear contradictions?

Much of the confusion stems from the circumstances under which the Quran was written. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was illiterate, so he didn't write a word of the Quran. The 114 chapters of the Quran, called surahs, record the supposed revelations of Muhammad as written down or memorized by his followers after Muhammad came out of trance-like states during which Allah supposedly disclosed his divine thoughts.

In the years following Muhammad's death in A.D. 632, his closest companions compiled these writings into the Quran, which Muslims consider to be the divine and authoritative words of Allah.

However, unlike the Bible, the Quran isn't organized historically, chronologically or thematically. It's organized based on the length of the chapters, from longest to shortest, regardless of content or timing. Thus, when verses conflict, no one can really tell for sure which verses were written earlier and which were written later (and thus presumably the "final word" on a given subject).

Such inherent contradictions led to the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, meaning earlier verses were abrogated—nullified or overridden—by later verses. This doctrine is based on two verses that Muslims believe Allah inspired to be included in the Quran:

• "If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar. Did you not know that [Allah] has power over all things?" (Surah 2:106).

• "When We change one verse for another ([Allah] knows best what He reveals), they say: 'You [Muhammad] are an imposter.' Indeed most of them have no knowledge" (Surah 16:101).

Islamic scholars and teachers are well aware of this teaching, though they seldom discuss it openly because of its inescapable implications—that Allah, far from being an all-wise and all-knowing deity, can and did change his mind in what was supposedly divinely revealed to Muhammad.

What are the practical conclusions that result from the doctrine of abrogation?

Most scholars who have studied the Quran believe that the Quran's verses advocating peaceful coexistence and tolerance were written in the early years of Muhammad's movement when he and his small number of followers didn't wish to antagonize potential enemies who greatly outnumbered them. But as Muhammad gained more and more power and a greater following, the chapters of the Quran written later increasingly advocated warfare, violence, intimidation and enslavement of those who opposed him.

Thus, Allah's later revelations command fighting and subjugation of "infidels"—non-Muslims—so that Islam would gain its rightful place as the dominant (or only) religion in lands it controlled. 

Which is exactly what we see playing out in headlines all around the world.

Warnings to the West

It's quite shocking for those in Western nations to see news of increasing beheadings in the Middle East by Islamist groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or IS). It's even more shocking when this monstrosity is perpetrated against captured Western journalists and aid workers by Muslims from Britain fighting for the Islamic State. But it's more shocking still when it happens inside Britain and the United States.

Beheadings and other increasing terrorism are swiftly coming to Western shores. In October 2014 in the Canadian capital, a Muslim convert fatally shot a soldier on duty at the national war memorial and then proceeded into the parliament building in a shooting attack. (Had he turned down a hall inside, he could potentially have shot parliament members and the prime minister.) This came two days after a car-ramming attack on military personnel in Quebec, murdering a soldier, by another Muslim convert.

Thankfully, some attempted attacks are being thwarted—including one in Britain against the queen ("Terrorists Foiled in Plot to Kill Queen Elizabeth," New York Post , Nov. 7, 2014).

The commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police said that police have prevented an increasing number of attacks recently. But how long can the danger be averted? It's important that we recognize the increasing peril the Western world finds itself in—and that we know where to turn for real security.

Lone-wolf attacks—not easily stopped

Some attacks have, of course, still happened. In September, an 82-year-old woman was beheaded in her London garden by a recent Muslim convert. In May 2013, a British soldier in London was murdered by two Muslim men who nearly decapitated him in public on the street. In both instances the police instantly ruled out terrorism—even though that's obviously what it was.

The same reflexive denial of terrorism happens with such incidents in the United States. A recent Muslim convert beheaded a woman in Moore, Oklahoma, in September. Authorities were quick to label it workplace violence —just as they did the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas in 2009 in which 13 soldiers were killed and another 29 wounded. Yet the shooter, Nidal Hasan, has repeatedly referred to himself as a soldier of Allah, including in a recent jihadist letter to Pope Francis (Catherine Herridge, "Fort Hood Shooter Sends Letter to Pope Francis Espousing 'Jihad,'" Fox News, Oct. 10, 2014).

Breitbart News recently listed a number of other attacks by such "lone wolves" since 2006 in which individual Muslim men killed eight people and injured many others in attacks that included beheadings, shootings, knifings and driving a car into a crowd of people (Ben Shapiro, "7 Other Lone Wolf Islamic Attacks Inside the U.S.," Sept. 28, 2014).

Some have a hard time seeing lone assailants as terrorists, assuming terrorism must be planned and carried out by a group of people. Yet the Canadian parliament attack was labeled terrorism despite the single shooter. Of course, in at least several of these cases the assailants were responding to the call of Islamic leaders abroad for such attacks against the West. So terror organizers are still involved in terms of incitement.

Indeed, terrorists acting alone are now considered a greater danger than groups conducting bigger plots that might be more easily uncovered. A recent Newsweek headline declares: "The West's Greatest Threat Is the 'Lone Wolf' Terrorist, Say Security Experts" (Joshi Herrmann, Sept. 3, 2014).

The accompanying article states: "According to experts, the authorities are most worried about small-scale, primitive, and -brutally violent attacks from jihadists affiliated in one way or another with Islamic State (IS), also known as Isis, operating more independently than their predecessors, who were organised into terror cells. The result is an unpredictable agent of terror, an incarnation of the much-feared lone wolf . . .

"Claude Moniquet, a former agent for French foreign intelligence . . . says the mass participation of up to 2,500 Europeans in the -Syrian war means that, 'the situation now is seen as extremely dangerous in France by the security services.'

"'I think that clearly the idea of a large-scale attack still exists,' says Moniquet. 'But the lone-wolf attack, the isolated jihadist, is much more worrying because they could attack very easily.'

"He says such attacks are the preference of the IS leadership: 'I think if they had the choice between a global attack in two years in Washington, with all the risks of being detected, and five or six small-level attacks in Europe, they will definitely choose [the latter]' . . .

"The security services face a race to adapt, says Moniquet. 'We were trained in the security services and the intelligence services to oppose large-scale organisations, like the KGB, like the Cosa Nostra [or Mafia], like al-Qaida,' he says . . . 'We are not so trained to find and confront isolated people.'"

A growing danger from within and without

The situation is made worse by many individuals from not just France but also Britain and the United States traveling to the Middle East to fight with the jihadists—and then returning home with skills picked up from the battlefield and training camps.

As the BBC News article above reported, London's police commissioner "highlighted a police estimate that 500 people have left the UK to Iraq or Syria to fight. 'They're going to have been militarised. They will have a complex web of people that they know and of course they will have learned tactics that they may want to use here,' he said. Labour MP Khalid Mahmood earlier told the Sunday Telegraph he believed the number was closer to 2,000."

This problem is part of the consequences of multiculturalism, wherein rather than blending into a national whole the various ethnicities and religious groups are fragmented into separate communities. Instead of pacifying Islamic radicals, this just gives place to homegrown terror and violence. Consider this title of a news article about Sweden: "Swedish Police Release Extensive Report Detailing Control of 55 'No-Go Zones' by Muslim Criminal Gangs" (The Muslim Issue Worldwide, Nov. 8, 2014).

The Western world must take the threat of Islamic infiltration and increasing terrorism seriously. Some think there is no threat—that the West is far out of reach from Middle East terrorists. But increasingly influential groups like ISIS, with access to lots of money and weapons and manpower, are a threat.

U.S. officials recently issued a strong warning of "fresh intelligence that ISIS wants to recruit or inspire sympathizers inside America to hurt military members where they live" ("ISIS Threat at Home: FBI Warns US Military About Social Media Vulnerabilities," ABC News, Dec. 1, 2014). And in Britain it's being reported that al-Qaeda is planning to bring down a number of passenger jets with bombs. We must take the rise in threats and attacks against the West as a warning!

Finding real security

What should those in the West do in the face of all this? Most importantly, of course, people need to turn to God. It was very disturbing how easy it was for a terrorist to walk into the Canadian parliament building and start shooting.

It was likewise disturbing when a man was able to hop the fence at the White House and enter through an unlocked door. A subsequent attempt was stopped by guard dog—not, as Americans might have imagined, by lasers and other hi-tech security devices.

But the truth is that it does not ultimately matter what security measures are in place. The Bible tells us, "Unless the Lord guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain" (Psalm:127:1).

We would be blind not to realize that God has been protecting the United States, Britain and other Western nations from those who seek our destruction. But with increasing immorality in these nations, God is lifting that protection. For real security, it is vital that we return to God in repentance and pray for His protection and guidance.

The Paris Terror Attacks

The new year has started violently in Paris. Twelve people were killed on Wednesday, January 7 in an deliberate terrorist attack by men claiming connection with Al Qaeda. It was a barbaric ruthless attack. One video showed a policeman being gunned down on a sidewalk.

The attack came on the office of Charlie Hebdo a satirical weekly newspaper that regular lampoons Islam. The publication had been under threat and was receiving light police protection. Cartoonists and writers were killed in the slaughter virtually wiping out the editorial staff of the paper.

France has Europe’s largest Muslim population and terrorism and pressure from radical Islam is a continual threat to the tolerant and liberal French culture. France’s reaction to this act will be a critical indicator of what future relations between the growing Muslim population and traditional French institutions will be. Attacking a newspaper and killing its staff strikes at values of free speech, fraternity and liberty–bedrock values across the European Community.

Neither France nor Europe needs an attack like this. Should others follow you could expect a reaction that could escalate relations between the Muslim and native populations. The EU system is struggling economically. It is still figuring out how to react to Russia’s incursions into Ukraine.

Last year Pope Francis told the EU Parliament in Strasbourg that Europe gave "a general impression of weariness and aging, of a Europe which is now a ‘grandmother,’ no longer fertile and vibrant”. That’s not a ringing endorsement from the pontiff. Attacks like this will one day bring Europe to an action that will rouse latent forces. That time isn’t now but it is coming.

This is a sad moment for the City of Light and the families of those who have been killed. May God’s grace be upon them at this time.

Why the Scottish Vote For Independence Matters

Lost in all the fear and concern over what the United States will do about the growing threat in the Middle East from ISIS is next week’s vote on Scottish independence. This historic vote, set for September 18, is off the radar of most Americans. It’s likely only a few within the Washington policy establishment are watching it with any idea what is at stake. While the growing threat from another terrorist group has grabbed our attention this little watched issue could impact the effectiveness of any response to this new danger.

The United Kingdom, which has for 307 years included Scotland, is in danger of breaking up. Polls show a growing support for a “Yes” vote next week to take Scotland out of the union and on its own. With Scotland out of the Union, Great Britain would definitely be downgraded as a lending nation. The impact of such a step is virtually unknown. Much would change. A new flag would have to designed. Wales and Ireland would no doubt reconsider their status. Would they too desire to leave the Union? Britain left alone would be exposed as a diverse nation, shorn of its last vestige of glory with only grey hairs exposed. It would not be a pretty sight.

At stake is the existing status of Great Britain as an effective power in the world. America and the UK have had a long standing "Special Relationship” that has greatly benefited the world. Eleven years ago as the United States formed a coalition to go into Iraq it was Great Britain who provided key military and political support. Now, as America looks like it will have to ramp up another major military effort in the region, its key ally faces a possible breakup of it’s essential political and cultural basis. Anything that changes or weakens Great Britain’s standing among the nations impacts America. The Special Relationship would indeed be weakened.

Britain’s nuclear capability is stationed on Scottish soil. This nuclear deterrent is part of the key to its viability as a partner in NATO. If Scotland secedes from the union what does England do with its nukes? With a weakened political profile what kind of military power will Great Britain be able to project? Scotland’s men and women have played key historic roles as part of England’s military during this period of unity. Anything that weakens Britain’s military standing weakens America and by extension it weakens NATO. Make no mistake Russia’s Vladimir Putin is carefully watching this vote as he probes the resolve of Western Europe over Ukraine.

All this comes at a critical moment in world events. The Middle East is going through historic changes. The Syria and Iraq border has been redrawn by the emergence of ISIS, a virtual autonomous Islamic state which has proclaimed itself as a resorted Caliphate within the region. Whether this new group will remain in place or be replaced or reduced to a minor role is yet to be seen. Their presence and actions have everyone’s attention. How Europe, America and Asia handle this development is important. No one is served in the long term by a barbaric Islamist terror state within this volatile region.

Add to the mix the crisis in Ukraine. Russian leader Putin has invaded a sovereign nation's lands and violated an international border. No European nation will respond forcefully enough to restore Ukraine’s former borders. Indeed, whether or not Ukraine itself will muster the courage to resist this invasion, clean up its own political house and assert its rights as a nation are yet to be determined. Corrupted leadership exists within these nations and those who will suffer most are the people in the streets.

The Scottish vote next week matters when it is considered against the larger stage of current world events. The world order is being shaped by major events. If Scotland secedes from the United Kingdom and breaks up an important centuries old union then other, unintended things could happen. As small an event as this seems it is not occurring in a vacuum.

10 Bad Ideas Found in the Bible

Many websites feature top ten lists which can be fun and sometimes informative. Although the following may not be the top ten ranking things, it isn’t hard to say that these must be among the worst ideas—bringing the worst consequences—in all of God’s Word. Read the Bible and you can quickly find many examples of what happens when people acted on a bad idea—defying God’s instructions and suffering the consequences.

1. Choosing to live in Sodom

That’s what Abraham’s nephew Lot did. When their two families had just too much livestock for them to live together, Abraham gave Lot the choice of settling wherever he wanted. Lot saw that the area around Sodom had a good climate and good grazing land, so he moved his family there. Bad Idea!

The people there were so sinful and immoral that God determined to destroy the entire city (along with its neighbor, Gomorrah).  Lot lost just about everything he owned as he fled just ahead of a storm of fire and brimstone. To make things worse, when Lot’s wife looked longingly back on Sodom, God turned her into a pillar of salt—as a warning to all who love this present evil world more than the way of righteousness! (Read: Genesis 13: 7-11 and chapter 19.)

2. Taking credit for building a great empire

We learn this from the Babylonian emperor Nebuchadnezzar. Even though God had the prophet Daniel warn him that he needed to keep his ego in check, he one day looked at the grandeur of the city and congratulated himself on building it all by his own mighty power. Bad Idea!

Immediately he suffered the promised punishment of losing his ability to reason, and losing his job as king. He became like a wild animal for seven years, long enough to realize that he needed to give God the credit for whatever things he accomplished. (Read: Daniel 4.)

3. Insulting the King of God’s choice

A man named Nabal did this when King David sent soldiers to ask for a contribution of supplies for his men who protected Nabal’s flocks and herdsmen for months.  Instead of rewarding the men, Nabal called them liars and called David a runaway slave. Bad Idea!

Even though Nabal’s wife convinced David not to act on his own anger at the insult, Nabal soon had a heart attack and ten days later God ended his life. Paying David’s men for their work would have been a lot wiser. (Read: I Samuel 25.)

4. Lying to God’s Ministers to Make Yourself Look Good

A married couple named Ananias and Sapphira sold some property and claimed to donate the entire proceeds to God’s fledgling church. However, they secretly kept back part of the money—hoping to get all the credit but keep much of the money. Bad Idea!

As soon as they were exposed in their deceit and conspiracy, both husband and wife, in turn, dropped dead on the spot. They could have kept as much of the money as they pleased, but they wanted everyone to think they were super generous. (Read: Acts 5.)

5. Attempting a coup to takeover leadership of God’s nation

While ancient Israel wandered in the wilderness, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram claimed that Moses was no one special and wasn’t doing his job well. They campaigned that they should take charge themselves. Bad Idea!

After warning everyone else to clear the area, God caused the earth open up and literally swallowed the rebels in a moment. From then on everyone else paid closer attention to the man that God had chosen to lead Israel. (Read: Numbers 16.)

6. Interfering with God’s ministers preaching the true gospel

A sorcerer named Elymas learned that the hard way when the apostle Paul came to his town in Asia-Minor. Elymas tried to persuade people to believe a false religion. Bad Idea!

When Paul finally had enough of his interference, he declared that Elymas was going to be blind for awhile to learn a lesson. As soon as the words were said, things went dark for Elymas and he had to find a guide. Paul was able to go about his work without interference after that. (Read: Acts:13:6-11




.)

7. Chasing God’s people with a hostile army

Pharaoh, the leader of ancient Egypt tried this when he had second thoughts about setting the Israelites free to leave the country under Moses’ leadership. As if holding Israel in slavery for generations wasn’t bad enough, when they were leaving for the Promised Land, Pharaoh determined to drag them back. Bad Idea! 

The pursuit led directly into the Red Sea which God had parted to give the Israelites a way out.  Pharaoh’s army did not make it across. Just when the Egyptians reached the midst of the sea, God stopped holding back the water. Not one solider escaped that watery grave. (Read: Exodus 14.)

8. Letting people call you a god.

King Herod of Palestine gave a speech to the people of Tyre and Sidon, and to flatter him, they began chanting that he was a god and not a man. However he did not bother to set the record straight. Bad idea!

God wasn’t pleased that Herod deified himself! He caused the king to suffer a gruesome death in which his flesh was eaten by worms. At that point everyone there realized who truly was God and who was not. (Read: Acts:12:20-23


.)

9. Selling out your brother

The forefathers of Israel did that when they jealously and literally sold out their brother Joseph. He was already the favorite of their father, Jacob, and then he had dreams that he would rule over all his brothers. When they’d had enough of that, they sold Joseph as a slave to some passing traders headed for Egypt . Bad Idea!

God inspired Joseph to interpret dreams for Pharaoh which led to the young Israelite becoming the prime minister of Egypt. Years later, the same brothers who sold Joseph as a slave ended up begging him to sell them food during a terrible famine—and to spare their lives. That’s something to remember before picking on a younger brother or sister! (Read: Genesis 37 to 43.)

10. Deciding for yourself what is good and what is evil

Adam and Eve, the first human beings on earth, had a nice life in the Garden of Eden, until they decided to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They believed the serpent, who told them they wouldn’t die, and that instead they would be able to take God’s place in determining what was good and what wasn’t. Bad Idea!

God sent them out to do hard labor for a living. Worse yet, they and their descendents were left cut off from the understanding of the right way to live, which only God can teach. People have been suffering because of that bad decision ever since! (Read:Genesis:2:15-17

 and chapter 3.)

The take-away…

Admittedly, these are examples of some of the most unusual consequences for bad decisions ever. They are noteworthy because they were unique. Most of us won’t be swallowed by a sinkhole in the earth or drop dead on the spot when we do something wrong. However, just because punishment does not happen immediately, doesn’t mean that it will not come.

The Apostle Paul said it very well, “God is not mocked; whatever a man sows, that he shall reap” (Galatians:6:7), and “the wages of sin is death” (Romans:6:23). The first is an agricultural analogy that means sooner or later, you will get what you’ve got coming. That is, you will unless you sincerely ask God to forgive you and to help you change your attitude and behavior.

The great truth of Christianity is often summarized in saying that “Jesus died for our sins”—that He suffered so that we don’t have to. That doesn’t mean that we can do whatever we please with no consequences. Consider the fate of the folks described above. That doesn’t have to be us. God is merciful, but next time you have a bad idea,think again!

Islamic Caliphate Declared: What Does It Mean?

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!

20-Year Plan for a Global Caliphate

This plan was revealed to the world in 2005 by Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein in his book Al-Zarqawi: al-Qaida's Second Generation. He had spent time in prison with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who went on to head up al-Qaeda in Iraq before his death in a U.S. bombing strike) and interviewed a wide range of al-Qaeda members.

The plan was questioned and belittled at the time, but the timeline has continued on track in various respects despite setbacks for al-Qaeda and other Islamists over the years.

Here are the steps as reported in a Der Spiegel article dated Aug. 12, 2005 (Yassin Musharbash, "The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants"):

• "The First Phase . . . 'The awakening' . . . supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 . . . The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby 'awakening' Muslims . . . '. . . judged . . . as very successful . . . The Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target.'"

• "The Second Phase 'Opening Eyes' . . . [2003] until 2006 [the period this report came out] . . . [making the West] aware of the 'Islamic community' . . . [and] recruiting young men during this period. Iraq [was to then] become the center for all global operations, with an 'army' set up there and bases established in other Arabic states."

• "The Third Phase . . . 'Arising and Standing Up' . . . from 2007 to 2010 [which was yet future when this was written]. 'There will be a focus on Syria' . . . The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and . . . in Israel are predicted . . . Countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger." (The focus on Syria should be noted, though it did not become a great rallying point until the Arab Spring came at the end of this period. )

• "The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013 . . . al-Qaida will aim to bring about thecollapse of the hated Arabic governments . . . '. . . lead[ing] to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida' . . . [And] attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism." ( Consider that the Arab Spring uprisings against various despots occurred in 2011-2012 .)

• "The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order." ( This is when a caliphate was declared, in 2014. The al-Qaeda old guard sees this as premature but still has a window of a few years. )

• The Sixth Phase . . . From 2016 onwards there will [be] a period of 'total confrontation.' As soon as the caliphate has been declared, the 'Islamic army' . . . will instigate the 'fight between the believers and the non-believers.'"

• The Seventh Phase . . . ' Definitive victory' . . . The rest of the world will be so beaten down by the 'one-and-a-half billion Muslims,' the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years."

Whether the fifth and sixth phases pan out remains to be seen, but the seventh can't happen, as Bible prophecy makes it clear that Islam will not come to dominate the world (though not for lack of trying).

In any event, more attention should have been paid to what Fouad Hussein wrote nearly a decade ago. It demonstrates that Islamists take the long view, realizing it will take decades to attain their goals. This thinking is foreign to Western leaders, who in their shortsightedness have grossly misjudged what's been happening over the past many years.

As America Retreats, a Dangerous World Emerges

The closing chapters of World War II took place in the spring and summer of 1945 with the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The United States became the dominant world power, with the world's largest economy producing a full 50 percent of world economic output at the time. Its army and the Soviet Union's Red Army were the two largest in the world. 

However, as sole possessor of the atomic bomb, the United States stood at the top. Only the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), which obtained the bomb several years later, disputed American hegemony.

For half a century afterward, the United States played the role of the world's policeman, intervening in Korea, Vietnam, Africa, the Middle East, even the Caribbean, to thwart communist insurgencies, upstart dictatorships and other threats to peace and a balanced world order. By no means did America play this role perfectly, yet the free world did come to rely on the United States as the one power with the will and the might to extend itself in the cause of international justice.

Yet recent events show an America on the retreat, backpedaling, withdrawing and in general on the defensive. What has happened to the nation that most other countries have looked to for leadership in dangerous times? And what does it mean for the world?

"Leading from behind" leads to chaotic realignments ahead

Over the past decade, commentators across the world have noted this change. Past Good News articles have cited respected sources such as the British newsmagazine The Economist and the Financial Times, Germany's Der Spiegel and The Wall Street Journal, all of which have noted the seismic shift in America's willingness to involve herself globally.

Taking office in 2009, newly elected U.S. President Barack Obama lost no time in spelling out his new vision for America's role in the world.

The United States would no longer assert its authority abroad, he promised. America would play nicely in the sandbox of nations, not driving its own interests, and would rely increasingly on other nations to carry the burden of maintaining international order. "Leading from behind" was to become America's new role on the world stage.

Former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski is just one of many who are sounding the alarm on America's retreat and its implications. In his 2013 book Strategic Vision, America and the Crisis of Global Power, Brzezinski argues that the eventual demise of the United States as the one global superpower would leave a fragmented world, one even more dangerous than the world today.

If this were to happen by, say, 2025, he says, "no single power will be ready by then to exercise the role that the world . . . expected the United States to play. More probable would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive and somewhat chaotic realignments of both global and regional power, with no grand winners and many more losers, in a setting of international uncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global well-being" (p. 75).

Ongoing crises in Egypt, Syria and Iran

More than five years of this thinking and the actions—or inaction—flowing from it has had its consequences.

Nearly two years ago, a September 2012 Wall Street Journal article focused on American inability to guide and influence global events: "The Obama Presidency has been an era of slowly building tension and disorder that seems likely to flare into larger troubles and perhaps even military conflict" ("The New World Disorder," Sept. 13, 2012).

The article noted how little the United States was able to influence the events of the Arab Spring, how America's passive approach to that year's turmoil in Egypt resulted in the ousting of Hosni Mubarak, a long-time U.S. ally, and his replacement as president by a Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohamed Morsi. Since that time, Morsi has been deposed by the military, but Egypt remains a seething cauldron of unrest and instability.

Regrettably, the past two years have seen the situation only deteriorate.

After Syrian president Bashar al-Assad used poison gas to kill hundreds of Syrian civilians, a clear violation of international law, President Obama drew a "line in the sand," threatening U.S. intervention if such weapons were used again. Russia's Vladimir Putin shrewdly intervened to defuse the crisis, and Obama backed off. Now Assad has again used poison gas against his own people, and the world just yawns.  

More than 160,000 people, mostly civilians, have died in Syria's continuing civil war, and the world seems powerless to stop the carnage.

Eschewing armed military intervention, the Obama administration has turned increasingly to economic sanctions, which it terms "the 21st-century use of force." No nation has felt the pressure of sanctions more than Iran, as America and the world seek to deter its open pursuit of its own nuclear capability. Sanctions have been in place for years, but how well have they worked?

In early May, veteran CBS newsman Steve Croft spent eight days in Iran, observing life in both urban and rural areas. "While we saw that the sanctions were causing considerable pain, we saw no evidence that the economy was on the verge of collapse," said Croft in his report. 

Among those he interviewed were two Iranian businessmen, leaders in Iran's budding Internet industry. Asked what effect U.S. and worldwide sanctions were having on their nation, both assured him that although the sanctions were causing pain, they would merely slow down, not halt, Iran's nuclear progress.

Earlier this year Iran again beat the United States and other Western nations in the international shell game of "watch the weapons." Outflanking and outmaneuvering U.S.-led negotiators, Iran's hardline leaders gave up virtually nothing, but gained a lifting of the most effective sanctions against them, including the unfreezing of billions of dollars' worth of Iranian assets.

Iran's former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made no secret of the contempt Iran's leadership has for the United States and European Union, and their long-range plans to destroy them.

And despite Iran's new president Hassan Rouhani being seen as more moderate, the real power lies with the religious clerics, the chief of whom recently expressed again the desire to eliminate the United States ("‘Jihad Will Only End When Society Can Get Rid of America': Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei in Chilling Threat Towards U.S.," Daily Mail, May 26, 2014).

Yet the Iranians would start with getting rid of Israel, which they consider to be the Middle Eastern outpost of their hated enemies.

Israel-PA peace negotiations unravel

The United States has long supported Israel, seen to be the only true democracy and reliable ally in the region. But for decades, one U.S. administration after the other has pressured Israel to make peace with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Those efforts seemed to be progressing until recently. Mahmoud Abbas, viewed as a moderate in spite of being a Holocaust denier, became president of the Palestinian Authority in 2004, replacing the hardline terrorist Yasser Arafat. Years of painstaking negotiations seemed to produce a breakthrough earlier this year in which the Palestinian Authority signed on to 15 international agreements that, among other things, require the PA to respect human rights and punish war criminals. Israel began to breathe easier —perhaps peace might come after all.

But in late April Abbas did a complete about-face, signing a unity deal with two genocidal terror groups, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both pledged to the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish nation. Both groups have carried out decades of terrorist attacks against Israel, including the unrelenting firing of rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip. The international community considers leaders of both groups to be war criminals.

And where was U.S. leadership in all this? Writing for The Jerusalem Post, longtime Middle East observer Caroline Glick commented: "Abbas was only able to sign the Geneva Conventions on the one hand, and the unity deal with terrorist war criminals on the other, because he is utterly convinced that neither the US nor the European Union will hold him accountable for his actions. He is completely certain that neither the Americans nor the Europeans are serious about their professed commitments to upholding international law.

"Abbas is sure that for both the Obama administration and the EU, maintaining support for the PLO far outweighs any concern they have for abiding by the law of nations. He believes this because he has watched them make excuses for the PLO and its leaders for the past two decades" ("Time for Consequences," April 24, 2014).

She went on to explain: "The peace process is predicated on the notion that . . . if Israel would just surrender Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians, then . . . the Muslim world as a whole will cast aside their support for jihad and terrorism and everything will be fine. At least that is how Abbas analyzes the situation. And so far, the US has not disappointed him."

China flexes its muscles

As if worries over the Middle East were not enough, Asia and the Pacific Rim continue to supply more headaches for foreign policy advisors in Washington.

The People's Republic of China has astonished the world in the past 30 years with its vast, seemingly unstoppable economic growth. Chinese leaders are using their new strength to build up their military —to the dismay of both Japan and Taiwan. For decades, China has made it clear that it plans to reunite Nationalist China—the island of Taiwan—with the mainland, using force if necessary. Taiwanese leaders worry about the strength of U.S. commitment to their security in the event of a military strike by the People's Republic.

China has raised the tension level with Japan by recently claiming a vastly extended airspace. Its claimed new "air defense identification zone" covers most of the Sea of Japan and includes several small islands that Japan has long claimed as its own. When the United States raised protests in favor of Japan, a Chinese defense spokesman bluntly told America to "butt out."

American criticism of the air zone announcement is "completely unreasonable," Col. Yang Yujun, a Ministry of National Defense spokesman, said in late 2013 in response to a protest lodged by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. The dispute, like so many in the world, remains unresolved, with the White House finding it can do little to influence the Chinese.

Russia undeterred

Recent months have witnessed a development in Europe not seen by the world since the late 1930s—the brazen takeover of part of a European nation by Russia. 

Smarting from the recent rejection of its puppet, Victor Yanukovich, as president of Ukraine, Russia brazenly fomented discontent among the majority Russian-leaning citizens of the Ukrainian province of Crimea, then simply annexed the region.

European nations that share a common Russian border feel threatened, none more than the three former Soviet republics of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, which gained their independence from Russia following the collapse of the Soviet empire in the early 1990s.

Estonia, with its large Russian-speaking population, is clearly worried. As reported by Reuters in late March, Russia has signaled "concern" over supposed mistreatment of the Russian-speaking segment there, as it did earlier with the Russian speakers of Crimea. History remembers that Adolf Hitler also used concern for German-speaking Czechs to justify his takeover of the Czech Sudetenland in 1938.

As of mid-May the Ukrainian crisis was worsening, with Russian sympathizers in control of many government buildings in Eastern Ukraine. Increased economic sanctions by the United States and Europe were doing little to deter Russian actions.

In fact, on May 21, 2014, Russia announced that, after years of negotiations, it had signed a $400 billion, 30-year agreement to supply China with natural gas. The deal provides Russia with an enormous cash flow from an emerging economic and military giant and provides a strategic buffer against the loss of any of Russia's western European markets while providing China with needed energy resources to help fuel its economy.

With the West alienating Russia with threats of economic sanctions, it only succeeded in driving Russia into further embrace with the world's other great totalitarian, anti-Western regime. At the same time, elements of Russia's Pacific fleet were beginning joint naval drills with the Chinese navy, and both governments announced closer financial collaboration.

Return to the Cold War?

One hears increasing talk of a return to the Cold War of decades ago. A New York Timesstory earlier this year quoted Stephen Hadley, President George W. Bush's national security adviser, stating it would be harder to recover from this clash than in the past because Mr. Putin is effectively rejecting the international order established after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"He wants to rewrite the history that emerged at the end of the Cold War," Hadley said. "We have fundamentally different approaches to what Europe is going to be" (quoted by Peter Baker, "If Not a Cold War, a Return to a Chilly Rivalry," March 18, 2014).

Many centuries ago God thundered a prophetic warning to America and the other nations descended from ancient Israel: "I will break the pride of your power . . . And your strength shall be spent in vain" (Leviticus:26:19-20
, emphasis added throughout).

Nowhere is this more apparent than in recent and current U.S. intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite more than a decade of warfare and more than a trillion dollars spent, Iraq is disintegrating into civil war. In Afghanistan, U.S. forces have announced a timetable for withdrawal, while Afghan President Hamid Karzai ignores America and even refused to meet with President Obama when he flew to Afghanistan on May 26, 2014.

Historians agree that the reason for the United States "winning" the Cold War in the early 1990s was its military and economic strength. Yet today we see that strength draining away. Though America still has the strongest military and the largest economy in the world, its enemies are catching up. The nation is steadily losing its advantages and ability to influence world events.

Where should we turn?

History does have a way of repeating itself. But what should be our attitude towards these events? In such a world, where is one left to turn? 

The same God who said, "I will break the pride of your power" also commands His people to remain vigilant in a time of growing world crisis. "Watch therefore," Jesus Christ told His followers when they asked him about the future (Matthew:24:42).

That same command applies to us today. America's decline on the world scene will have tragic consequences. It is high time we open our eyes to what is going on in the world around us, as ancient prophecies begin to be fulfilled in our headlines.