The Palestinian Papers

[Corvus]

Keep an eye on Israel and the countries around them - the pro-terrorist news service Al Jazeera and the Socialist run newspaper the Guardian of Britain have colluded to release secret documents stolen from Fatah. I believe this was done to inflame the passions of both the Arabs occupying Judea and Samaria (which they have renamed the West Bank) under Fatah as well as progressives who are to a very great degree Anti-Semitic.

We may see Fatah fall to riots sparked by the revelations contained in these documents or we may see Fatah ramp up their efforts to destroy Israel to buy peace from their people and other Muslims. Meanwhile in the West we may see "demonstrations" (a.k.a. riots) by various dissident groups such as Anarchists, leftist students, Western based Muslims and organisations linked to George Soros' Tides Foundation (most leftist groups are these days). It has already got the passions of Twitter's resident Anti-Semites inflamed and I see a steady stream of hate directed at Israel, strangely enough from people I am not even following (no I don't post there, at least not yet, I use it to follow various news groups to keep up with what is going on in the world)

I don't know whether or not this has anything to do with progress towards the last days - I won't speculate as the brothers have advised - but even so I believe this will spark renewed and increased violence against Jews in various parts of the world (in the US Jews are on the receiving and of over half of all hate crimes according to the FBI).

[Astrid]

interesting...

there's so much going on these days:popcorn:

[sianrose]

Meanwhile in the West we may see "demonstrations" (a.k.a. riots) by various dissident groups such as Anarchists, leftist students,

that is certainly ramping up...

and on the religion scene...it has to be something big is going to happen...for the UN to say there will be peace and try to abolish religion...

I Thess 5:3 Rev 18

[Poly Ester]

This is extremely interesting

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/palestine-papers-distortion-truth-reaction

The road-map to peace is there for a reason I feel....and I am sure that one day something of interest to us will come from the Bible lands

[Corvus]

This is extremely interesting

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/palestine-papers-distortion-truth-reaction

The road-map to peace is there for a reason I feel....and I am sure that one day something of interest to us will come from the Bible lands

I have that feeling too, Satan seems to think there is still something important about the Jews, he's spent an extraordinary amount of effort through humans trying to kill them over the centuries especially the 20th when the Nazis killed about a third of all Jews. The Muslims seem to be going to play an important part in whatever happens in the future, they are deeply involved in the UN which is all but under their control now with just a few non-Muslim countries standing between them and total domination of it but nearly all those countries are friendly to the OIC. Muslims also have a Hadith or "saying" of the prophet that at the last day they would fight and kill the Jews until they are no more and the end will come. So I get the feeling that even though the Israelites/Jews are no longer God's exclusive they are somehow still important, perhaps because of the promises God made to them, and Satan knows this and wants them destroyed. Many Muslims seem obsessed with Jews so much so that every strange animal is a Zionist spy (they've "arrested" vultures, squirrels and other animals in various parts of the world and declared that the shark attacks in Egypt last year were carried out by Zionist trained sharks). The grand sheikh of Al Azhar University in Egypt has declared the Palestinian Papers a "Zionist plot" to defame Islam and divide the Arab world.

But then again it may just be that the Muslims are growing to be a world super power in their own right and all it will take is for them to appoint and accept a Caliph and they will explode out of the lands they currently occupy to bring Jihad and conquest to the rest of the world. Currently there are over 95,000 people descended from Mohammed which means many thousands of potential Caliphs. According to the Sharia laws they need the Caliph to command aggressive Jihad. They are allowed "defensive Jihad" which means that they can attack and even conquer those attacking them - which is why groups like Al Qaeda always have a list of "grievances" by maintaining such a list they can justify Jihad against Kuffurs. There are between 1 and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world today and over 10% support or actively participate in violence against non-Muslims or Muslims seen as "not Muslim enough" that's between 100 and 150 million who openly admit to this - there are likely to be many more sympathisers who will not say. With those numbers, which are growing rapidly, and with Christendom in serious decline Islam is likely to play a major part in whatever happens in the future.

But at the moment these documents are causing consternation in the Arab world - there have been attacks on Al Jazeerah's Ramallah office quite possibly by Fatah/PA troops pretending to be rioters and I think it will get somewhat worse before it is sorted out especially now that left wing Jew haters have been given a new thing to attack Israel over thanks to these documents.

[jeremy]

Stuart, or anyone. Is the release of these papers to Al-Jazeera part of the Wikileaks goings on? I must admit I know very little about all these things.

[sianrose]

The Palestine papers

"The bulk of the documents are records, contemporaneous notes and sections of verbatim transcripts of meetings drawn up by officials of the Palestinian negotiation support unit (NSU), which has been the main technical and legal backup for the Palestinian side in the negotiations.

The documents – almost all of which are in English, which was the language used by both sides in negotiations – were leaked over a period of months from several sources to al-Jazeera. The bulk of them have been independently authenticated for the Guardian by former participants in the talks and by diplomatic and intelligence sources."

guardian.co.uk/

[Corvus]

Stuart, or anyone. Is the release of these papers to Al-Jazeera part of the Wikileaks goings on? I must admit I know very little about all these things.

It is in a sense, the Guardian newspaper was the main driving force behind the Wikileaks releases, one of their editors tracked Assange down and spent six hours convincing him that it would be a good idea to do so. Of course they were one of the main beneficiaries of the releases along with the NY Times and one of the big German papers whose name escapes me. This has been pushed by the Guardian in conjunction with Al Jazeera so in a sense it is part of these goings on, though Wikileaks doesn't seem to be directly involved if they are at all.

What I find interesting is who they pick for these things and who is involved - they constantly claim it is in the interests of truth and justice but they only release ones that harm Western countries such as the US or nations allied or friendly to the West. So far they have never released so much as a single document from dictatorships such as China or Venezuela or even Russia. But then it isn't surprising since the Guardian is progressive leaning and allegedly several of its senior people are openly Marxists. One of the senior editors is a pro-Gaza Arab Anti-Semite who I have seen on video calling for the destruction of Israel. Not in so many words of course, but the effect of what he says would lead to the country being flooded by Muslims and its destruction as a nation. You also might remember it was the Guardian who was the main promoter of the story that the Society was being hypocritical by being a UN NGO and claiming they were actually deeply involved rather than just accessing documents.

[jeremy]

Thanks for that. Okay, I think I'll push my head back in the sand now.

[Corvus]

Thanks for that. Okay, I think I'll push my head back in the sand now.

LOL It is rather complicated - they keep it that way so it is harder to stop them.

By the way, the demonstrations have moved to Egypt now with calls for Hozni Mubarak (spelling?) to quit, apparently his son and family have fled to Britain. The article I linked to mentioned that the Muslim Brotherhood were part of the protests. Anony-Ops, a wing of the infamous Anonymous, are now threatening Algeria, which has another secularist or moderate Muslim government.

[jeremy]

It is all interesting. You are kind of making all the connecting lines for me. I just see a news item on TV etc, and don't really connect it to last weeks news item or next weeks. Keep it coming if you feel inclined. Thanks Stuart

[nvl]

WRT to Islam uniting under a Caliph, think about Islam like Chistendom. In the same sense that all of Christendom considers themselves Christian yet are split into thousands of factions, sects, etc., Islam is primarily split into Sunni and Shi'ite. Those are two very different versions of Islam and are the two main factions.

The chances of Islamm uniting under a Caliph, either theologically or politically, is about as likely as all of Christendom uniting under the Pope.

Also, heredity has nothing to do with in (in theory). The first Caliph elected after the death of Muhammad was not related to him at all. At times the Calpihate has been based on nepotism, others it has not.

[Corvus]

WRT to Islam uniting under a Caliph, think about Islam like Chistendom. In the same sense that all of Christendom considers themselves Christian yet are split into thousands of factions, sects, etc., Islam is primarily split into Sunni and Shi'ite. Those are two very different versions of Islam and are the two main factions.

The chances of Islamm uniting under a Caliph, either theologically or politically, is about as likely as all of Christendom uniting under the Pope.

Also, heredity has nothing to do with in (in theory). The first Caliph elected after the death of Muhammad was not related to him at all. At times the Calpihate has been based on nepotism, others it has not.

You are right up until the second paragraph. Islam is separated into dozens of sects with Sunni and Shi'a being the largest but comparing them to Christendom isn't quite correct. You see in Christendom or Christianity in general (including us in the mix) where there are theological differences two groups rarely talk to each other because each separate group sees most others as heretical or apostate to some degree and this generally prevents all from working together let alone uniting for a common cause it is only when they abandon core principles of their sect that they are able to cooperate in groups such as the WCC. Also Christians have never had any real human on the earth politico-religious leader - not even the pope was seen in this way because we have all, no matter who we are or what our theological stance, have believed that Jesus is our ultimate leader and that he has no successors and even the Pope was seen as a vicar or "substitute" inferior to Jesus. Islam is a whole different kettle of fish because their leadership is so firm. The rules for the followers of the Caliph include one that they obey the Caliph in literally everything he tells them to do regardless of how corrupt or dissolute he may be. Popes have been murdered or removed from their positions for being corrupt and wicked because even though the Pope is seen as the "vicar of Christ" by Catholics he is still merely a human and ultimately subject to all the same rules as other humans - the Caliph is not. The Caliph is seen as a direct successor to Mohammed and it doesn't matter whether he is truly related or not - after all the Caliphate rested with the Turks and Mohammed was a Muslim and it didn't come to them because they married into his family. In short there are only two ways all of Christianity would unite - firstly if they found a document provably written in the first century and provably by an Apostle of Jesus that gave clear instructions on what we are to believe or secondly if Jesus himself came down from heaven and gave us all a metaphorical kick in the backside and told us what we should be doing. The first is next to impossible (they may surprise us and actually find something like this but I doubt it) and the second will actually occur one day but that day will be the end of the system.

Islam is not like Christianity with a myriad of warring sects because even if they do kill each other and say that others aren't "real Muslims" they are still Muslims first and despite their theological differences they still unite under the black flag of Jihad when they feel it is necessary. There have been examples of Shi'ite Iranian agents and others helping Al Qaeda which is a Sunni terror group. We also see it in Gaza where Hezballah, Shi'ites, provide training and support for Hamas, who are Sunnis to fight against Israel. All it will take to unite the majority of Muslims is a Caliph who enough can be convinced is really entitled to be Caliph and we will see armies of Jihad marching on the non-Muslim world once again under the same black flag, the Rayah, that Muslims frequently wave at demonstrations in the West. This flag is used by Jihadis in Dar el Harb, the "house of war" or the lands of the non-Muslims who resist Islam and Islamic rule.

Sorry about the length of this, but there is a fair bit to cover, nearly finished though.

When you research how the Caliphate works you will see that there are basically just two conditions for the Caliph to rule over all Muslims - the Sunnis require that the Caliph be elected by the "Shura" or by Muslims in general, this doesn't mean that he has to have even the majority of Sunni Muslims, for example if a man stood up and a large number of Sunni politico-religious leaders (Imams, Sheikhs, Emirs and the like) said "This man is the true Caliph" the majority if not all of the Sunnis would follow him. For him to be acceptable to the Shi'ites he just has to be descended from Mohammed's Ahl al-Bayt, "house" or "clan". So basically to find a Caliph who would unite all Muslims, Sunni and Shi'a alike, all they need is one who could get the popular acclaim of the Sunnis and who is descended from Mohammed's Ahl al-Bayt. It is a great deal simpler to unite Muslims than it is Christians. Even without the Shi'ites the Sunnis make up about 80-90% of Islam which basically means anywhere between 800,000,000 to 1,350,000,000 people. The Shi'ites and other sects are essentially irrelevant and would probably either submit and join in as they did before the Umayads took the Caliphate in 750 AD.

Basically it wouldn't be that hard really.

[Micah]

Wow!!! Not sure if this is proper or not, but I actually can't wait til they come after us. That only means it won't be long before they Jehovah's eye!!! :

[nvl]

WRT to Islam uniting under a Caliph, think about Islam like Chistendom. In the same sense that all of Christendom considers themselves Christian yet are split into thousands of factions, sects, etc., Islam is primarily split into Sunni and Shi'ite. Those are two very different versions of Islam and are the two main factions.

The chances of Islamm uniting under a Caliph, either theologically or politically, is about as likely as all of Christendom uniting under the Pope.

Also, heredity has nothing to do with in (in theory). The first Caliph elected after the death of Muhammad was not related to him at all. At times the Calpihate has been based on nepotism, others it has not.

You are right up until the second paragraph. Islam is separated into dozens of sects with Sunni and Shi'a being the largest but comparing them to Christendom isn't quite correct. You see in Christendom or Christianity in general (including us in the mix) where there are theological differences two groups rarely talk to each other because each separate group sees most others as heretical or apostate to some degree and this generally prevents all from working together let alone uniting for a common cause it is only when they abandon core principles of their sect that they are able to cooperate in groups such as the WCC. Also Christians have never had any real human on the earth politico-religious leader - not even the pope was seen in this way because we have all, no matter who we are or what our theological stance, have believed that Jesus is our ultimate leader and that he has no successors and even the Pope was seen as a vicar or "substitute" inferior to Jesus. Islam is a whole different kettle of fish because their leadership is so firm. The rules for the followers of the Caliph include one that they obey the Caliph in literally everything he tells them to do regardless of how corrupt or dissolute he may be. Popes have been murdered or removed from their positions for being corrupt and wicked because even though the Pope is seen as the "vicar of Christ" by Catholics he is still merely a human and ultimately subject to all the same rules as other humans - the Caliph is not. The Caliph is seen as a direct successor to Mohammed and it doesn't matter whether he is truly related or not - after all the Caliphate rested with the Turks and Mohammed was a Muslim and it didn't come to them because they married into his family. In short there are only two ways all of Christianity would unite - firstly if they found a document provably written in the first century and provably by an Apostle of Jesus that gave clear instructions on what we are to believe or secondly if Jesus himself came down from heaven and gave us all a metaphorical kick in the backside and told us what we should be doing. The first is next to impossible (they may surprise us and actually find something like this but I doubt it) and the second will actually occur one day but that day will be the end of the system.

Islam is not like Christianity with a myriad of warring sects because even if they do kill each other and say that others aren't "real Muslims" they are still Muslims first and despite their theological differences they still unite under the black flag of Jihad when they feel it is necessary. There have been examples of Shi'ite Iranian agents and others helping Al Qaeda which is a Sunni terror group. We also see it in Gaza where Hezballah, Shi'ites, provide training and support for Hamas, who are Sunnis to fight against Israel. All it will take to unite the majority of Muslims is a Caliph who enough can be convinced is really entitled to be Caliph and we will see armies of Jihad marching on the non-Muslim world once again under the same black flag, the Rayah, that Muslims frequently wave at demonstrations in the West. This flag is used by Jihadis in Dar el Harb, the "house of war" or the lands of the non-Muslims who resist Islam and Islamic rule.

Sorry about the length of this, but there is a fair bit to cover, nearly finished though.

When you research how the Caliphate works you will see that there are basically just two conditions for the Caliph to rule over all Muslims - the Sunnis require that the Caliph be elected by the "Shura" or by Muslims in general, this doesn't mean that he has to have even the majority of Sunni Muslims, for example if a man stood up and a large number of Sunni politico-religious leaders (Imams, Sheikhs, Emirs and the like) said "This man is the true Caliph" the majority if not all of the Sunnis would follow him. For him to be acceptable to the Shi'ites he just has to be descended from Mohammed's Ahl al-Bayt, "house" or "clan". So basically to find a Caliph who would unite all Muslims, Sunni and Shi'a alike, all they need is one who could get the popular acclaim of the Sunnis and who is descended from Mohammed's Ahl al-Bayt. It is a great deal simpler to unite Muslims than it is Christians. Even without the Shi'ites the Sunnis make up about 80-90% of Islam which basically means anywhere between 800,000,000 to 1,350,000,000 people. The Shi'ites and other sects are essentially irrelevant and would probably either submit and join in as they did before the Umayads took the Caliphate in 750 AD.

Basically it wouldn't be that hard really.

I am not sure where your information comes from, but basically Islam split with the very first election of the very first Caliph after the death of Muhammad, one group wanted a Caliph based on hereditary and familial ties and one group wanted a Caliph elected based on ability or popularity. Not all groups recognize all Caliphs.

Not all Muslims are "Muslim first" or unite under the black banner of jihad or promote violence. Not even MOST Muslims and not even a significant minority of Muslims feel that way. To suggest that is to suggest all of Christendom unites in the same way that Westboro Baptist does.

Historically Muslims have warred against each other in sectarian violence. The very first Caliph, Ali, spent years putting down rebellions and insurrections and eventually assassinated by another Muslim faction.

Only briefly in their history was "all" of Islam united under a Caliph during what is called the Golden Age of Islam. The rest of the time it was rebellion and battle and assassination, both internally and externally, with at one point, a second "shadow" caliphate coming into existence.

Given the fractures is Islam today and the fact that there hasn't been a Caliph in decades AND that the last few hundred years there was a Caliph it was a titular Turkish state title and not a theological title, I don't see how there would even be a mechanism for organizing and electing a Caliph over all of Islam.

I am open to seeing where I am wrong.

[trottigy]

You are correct. As it is going, these people will never unite under one ruler/ Caliph. This is just one more point of evidence that we need God's Kingdom, for without out this system is only going to continue to disintegrate into more and more parts rather than join together. So :bible: "May Your name be sanctified. May Your Kingdom come. May Your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven!!!"

[Poly Ester]

Things are hotting up in the middle east and changing by the minute, evidently tomorrow is going to be the day that the Muslim brotherhood unite .......whatever that means ??

[trottigy]

Well we can be sure it does not mean that all of the Muslims will be united towards any one goal any more than we would ever see all of the so-called "Christian" religions do the same.

[Poly Ester]

Well we can be sure it does not mean that all of the Muslims will be united towards any one goal any more than we would ever see all of the so-called "Christian" religions do the same.

I get the feeling that it is meant as in united in marching against the governments .

[trottigy]

From their site - "For the third consecutive day Egypt has witnessed nationwide protests with further indications it will continue through Friday.

Political opposition has called for additional protests on Friday with a massive demonstration of solidarity following the Friday prayers.

The demonstrations are expected to strengthen as journalists and lawyers call for the release of their colleagues who were arrested earlier in the demonstrations this week.

The last count has revealed at least 7 deaths as a result of the Security's aggressive responses and more than 100 injuries. Over 1500 people have been arrested or detained and Human rights groups have reported that security officials have blockaded the entire city of Suez, preventing individuals from either leaving or entering and authorities have cut electricity and water to many areas where protesters are living or demonstrating.

Media spokesman for the The country's strongest political opposition the Muslim Brotherhood Dr. Mohamed Morsy has confirmed that the group will participate in the demonstration scheduled in order to achieve popular demands. He added that it is not necessary for the Brotherhood to take a leading role in the protests, but if the situation requires, its members will maintain a strong street presence."

It seems they are protesting the Egyptian govt. a continuation of the last couple of days of protests. They are hoping to topple the govt as was done in Tunisia, but this seems extremely unlikely to happen. Just more unrest and proof we are at the end of the last days. The clay and the iron doesn't seem to mix too well.

[Corvus]

* Edit to add - sorry about the length, but I wanted to get as many resources as possible to back up what I say.

I am not sure where your information comes from' date=' but basically Islam split with the very first election of the very first Caliph after the death of Muhammad, one group wanted a Caliph based on hereditary and familial ties and one group wanted a Caliph elected based on ability or popularity. Not all groups recognize all Caliphs. [/quote']

From various sources, whether pro anti- or indifferent. According to pro-Muslim and anti-Muslim history alike there was no real split until the second fitna which occurred when I said after the election of the first Umayad Caliph. There were civil wars and the like over who was the true successor (Caliph) to Mohammed but there had been no real split until this time and those who called themselves the "Party of Ali" (Shiatu Ali or Shi'ites) considered themselves part of the same body of Islam as everyone else after the Umayads came to power they finally split from the main body and became a true sect.

Not all Muslims are "Muslim first" or unite under the black banner of jihad or promote violence. Not even MOST Muslims and not even a significant minority of Muslims feel that way. To suggest that is to suggest all of Christendom unites in the same way that Westboro Baptist does.

We can't tell how many are "Muslim first" and how many aren't with any certainty - there are several reasons for this, one is that there is a doctrine called Taqiyya or "concealment" of one's beliefs when one feels endangered by revealing them. It is supposedly a Shia only doctrine but as this page argues the doctrine is also found within Sunni beliefs - indeed we have seen taqiyya successfully used by Muslims to blind Westerners so that they can carry out terror attacks, 9/11 is a perfect example of this as all the men involved for all intents and purposes appeared to be "secular" Muslims. We also see this time after time as supposedly "moderate" Muslims suddenly attack people violently (e.g. the Ford Hood killer) or are caught on video or audio tape urging their followers to Jihad against the West. Many Muslims appear to be peaceful and secularised until suddenly something causes them to reveal who they really are and many of these are connected to religious leaders who appear to the West to be Kuffir friendly moderate and even secularised Imams or the like.

Many are peaceful and secularist but that is because they have no reason to be violent and many see that there are peaceful means of waging Jihad through means such as Dawa (preaching, which is the same as our Witnessing and not Christendom's concept of it) or through "demographic Jihad" simply out-breeding Westerners or through lawful and unlawful emigration into Western nations.

All but the most secularist Muslims (if they truly exist) are taught that the whole world will be Muslim one day and then the end will come. This is a core belief, if one does not believe in the last day then they are Kuffir or "one who covers over (the truth)". But it doesn't matter whether they promote violence or not, most Muslims believe that it is their right to rule the world because the Qur'an tells them "9:29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." This verse is one of about two dozen that tell Muslims that they must fight everyone. The rules for fighting Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians have some prerequisites but they are ordered to fight the pagans (e.g. Animists, Hindus and Buddhists) wherever they find them (9:5). The Sunni Hadiths are no less violent with an entire chapter devoted to Jihad in at least one (Sahih al-Bukhari) where we are told that Mohammed said things like '"I further asked, what is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause."' Even if we take that as peaceful Jihad is one of the most important things for a Muslim to be doing according to Mohammed.

Historically Muslims have warred against each other in sectarian violence. The very first Caliph' date=' Ali, spent years putting down rebellions and insurrections and eventually assassinated by another Muslim faction. [/quote']

True, but remember that Shi'ites are only less than 10-20% of all Muslims - between 80% and 90% of all Muslims are Sunnis.

Only briefly in their history was "all" of Islam united under a Caliph during what is called the Golden Age of Islam. The rest of the time it was rebellion and battle and assassination' date=' both internally and externally, with at one point, a second "shadow" caliphate coming into existence. [/quote']

There were several periods where there were at least two "Caliphs" ruling different parts of the Muslim empire. But as I said, there are only two requirements for a Caliph, for the Sunnis he must be elected by the people no matter whether he is related to Mohammed or not and for the Shia he just has to be descended from the clan of Mohammed - if they find a man who can fulfil both conditions the Shia will join with the Sunnis. Ultimately the only real differences between the two is who should be Caliph, acceptance of different Hadiths, the issue of saints and not accepting some verses of the Qur'an because they cannot be interpreted literally. In essence the differences between them are more like the differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees and not between sects of Christendom. They are minor, they cause fighting and even killing, but if they feel threatened by Kuffirs or are called by the Caliph to fight Kuffirs, particularly pagans, they will drop all their differences and join the fight if they are able or give material support if they are not.

Given the fractures is Islam today and the fact that there hasn't been a Caliph in decades AND that the last few hundred years there was a Caliph it was a titular Turkish state title and not a theological title, I don't see how there would even be a mechanism for organizing and electing a Caliph over all of Islam.

I am open to seeing where I am wrong.

No, it was a theological title and as late as the 1600s the Turks were rampaging throughout Europe with the intent of conquering it all. In the end the only thing that stopped them was the rise of European power, firstly with the defeat of the Turks by the Holy League (Holy Roman Empire, the Venetian Republic and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from 1684 and the Russians from 1686) who defeated the Turks and started to drive them back. The Turks remained a threat to Europe throughout the 18th Century and another Holy League was gathered in 1717 that defeated the Turks at the Battle of Matapan in 1717. The Habsburg-Ottoman wars also continued until 1791 and only ended with the treaty of Sistova. The period of peace and stagnation lasted only just over a century and ended when the Ottoman Empire tried to conquer the Caucasus during WWII and were defeated by the Allies. The last Caliph stood down in 1922. So you can see that the office of Caliph was not merely "titular" and nor was it without power except for a very brief period in the late 18th and throughout the 19th centuries, about 130 years in total and that mostly because the Western Europeans, the French and the British in particular were rising in power.

The mechanic would likely come from a well respected source with the power to declare the Caliph - the Turks for example are becoming more and more religious (see e.g. this survey (PDF) in 2007 which shows about 50% consider themselves at least "religious") and it is entirely possible for them to declare a Caliph once again. It would likely leave the Shi'ites cold but Turkey, a Sunni country, is well respected and very friendly with Shi'ite countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria as well as other Sunnis. Don't dismiss it as impossible or near impossible, there are many Sunni forces working to find a Caliph that would be accepted by Sunnis and many Shi'ites looking for the same thing for themselves. As I said, Sunnis make up about 80-90% of all Muslims and even if the "tiny minority" of Muslims (revealed to be about 10-20%) accepted the Caliph and that Caliph declared a Jihad we could see armies of tens of millions sweeping across the nations because 10% of all Muslims is approximately 100-150 million and 20% is twice that and if the average of 50% of Muslims being faithfully religious is the average for all Muslim countries (I believe it is, some are more religious than others) then we have up to 750 million Muslims who will support the Caliph because it is a requirement of their faith, Mohammed said that if the Caliph ordered Muslims to take up arms in the name of Jihad then they are obligated to do so regardless of how corrupt or dissolute that Caliph is.

You cannot, in the end, compare Islam to Christendom, they are a completely different kettle of fish - spend any time really researching them in every resource you can (I have been studying them since 2001) and you will see that there is no comparison of Muslims to Christendom or any other religion - for starters in the case of the religious Muslim their whole life is dictated by Islam from the moment they wake up and perform their morning prayers to the last prayer at night. Things as trivial as wiping their backsides after defecation or as important as relations with Kuffirs (absolutely Haram according to the Qur'an) or how animals are to be slaughtered and what they may eat and not eat to relations between men and women, literally everything is controlled by their religion. This is something we have not seen even in Christendom at the Catholic Church's most controlling there was a huge amount of wiggle room in day to day life.

Try not to look at Islam through Western eyes and try not to compare them to other religions because the comparison will deceive you - look at what they actually say in their writings and not the pleasing things they tell us through the media because these are designed to mollify our secular leaders who desperately want peace and want to believe that Islam means "peace". It doesn't, it means submission and its holy book and sayings of its prophet tell us and Muslims that they must fight and subdue all non-believers in order for the end to come. Sure, they have different views of what that entails, some are happy simply to have more children than the unbelievers but there are literally hundreds of millions out of that billion plus mass who think that violence is the answer and that groups like Al Qaeda and Al Shababb and Hamas and Hezballah are perfectly correct in what they are doing and who are perfectly willing to give moral or material support to continue armed struggle against the West. Out of the remainder the majority are using peaceful means such as Dawah to convert thousands to Islam or are breeding and shifting populations to shift the balance of power toward them. France is a good example of this in action - today France is passing the 10% mark and their fertility rate is approximately 8 children per woman whereas amongst the French it is about 1.5. There is a huge amount of illegal immigration and there are many areas considered too dangerous for the French authorities to enter without sufficient police escorts. There has been rioting in various places and in several places large numbers are gathering and taking over whole streets to pray forcing residents to hide in their homes or keeping them out of their own streets for up to two hours on Fridays while the Muslims pray.

Okay, we will see many friendly Muslims and they are genuinely friendly but there are many who are not and are equally unfriendly and are masquerading as friends of the West or are openly hostile to us. But we must understand Islam is not in any way like Christendom and many of our notions of Islam come from false images painted by Western media which is hostile to Western culture, particularly to Christendom. Go and look up Islam and read about it and see from what they and others write what Islam is actually like.

[trottigy]

Go and look up Islam and read about it and see from what they and others write what Islam is actually like.

Or just read the Mankind Search for God book, "The prophet’s death provoked a crisis. He died without any male progeny and without a clearly designated successor. As Philip Hitti states: “The caliphate [office of caliph] is therefore the oldest problem Islam had to face. It is still a living issue. . . . In the words of Muslim historian al-Shahrastāni [1086-1153]: ‘Never was there an Islamic issue which brought about more bloodshed than the caliphate (imāmah).’”

"With such a reliable God of prophecy, we can know what is going to happen to the world system of divisive religions. We can also predict what will befall the powerful political organizations that seem to control the world’s destiny."

"This destruction of Satan’s world empire of false religion will be the result of God’s adverse judgment of these religions. They will have been found guilty of spiritual fornication because of complicity with their oppressive political paramours and their support of them. False religion has stained its skirts with innocent blood as it has patriotically played along with the elite ruling class of each nation in its wars. Therefore, Jehovah puts it into the hearts of the political elements to perform his will against Babylon the Great and devastate her.—Revelation 17:16-18."

As they are soon to be destroyed, there is not much need to study them.

[destiny]

It is good to be informed with what is going on. As to studying satans empire of false religions, no need for that.

We need not study the counterfeit, ....we just have to know the genuine...which is the word of God, the Bible.

good info though.

[nvl]

I think it's time to end this discussion for several reasons. Trottigy said it best. We need God's kingdom, the MSFG book said all we need to know about Muslims. It seems to me that your posts are based on fear (they aren't all evil suicide bombers but we can't tell how many aren't") of a group, a poor understanding of history ("sure there were rebellions and insurrections and assassinations after the first election but that doesn't mean there was a split") and is in direct conflict with the slave's information in the Mankind's Search for God Book.

The truth is, it doesn't matter what the Muslims do. Jehovah has this covered. Stay faithful to the end. Grab hold of the real life.

[bookworm]

The headline on the Drudgereport was: Egypt on Fire, along with a very dramatic and fiery picture of what looked like protesters burning something. It sure seems like the entire middle east and Arabic world is about to boil over.