• December 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov    
  • Truth about Islam and Shari’a law

  • Blog Stats

    • 67,706 hits
  • Must Read! Click Picture!

  • Must Read: click picture!

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 33 other followers

  • Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

    Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

  • We love & support Israel!!!

  • Get Educated & Educate Others!! Click the Picture!



  • Key Strategies for the Counter Jihad!

    Click on image above - read about strategies!

New FBI Hate Crime Stats: Another Blow to Islamist Fictions

by David J. Rusin  •  Dec 15, 2014

The FBI’s newly released hate crime statistics for 2013 offer a fresh example of how reality refuses to conform to the dubious narrative of widespread Muslim victimization at the hands of American bigots. As in previous years, most hate crimes were not religiously motivated, most religiously motivated hate crimes were anti-Jewish, and Muslims suffered fewer total incidents than many groups and fewer per capita than gays or Jews. Anti-Islamic crimes did not involve greater violence than others and have not become more frequent. A glance at the details:

  • Of the 5,928 incidents of hate crime tabulated in 2013, 135 (2.3 percent) were anti-Islamic, an increase of five over the prior year but still slightly below the annual average of 139 from 2002 to 2011.
  • The small rise in recorded anti-Islamic incidents could be attributable to improved data collection rather than a true uptick. Reports submitted by law enforcement agencies covered a population of 295 million Americans in 2013, 18.6 percent higher than in 2012.
  • There were 1,031 incidents inspired by religion last year, 625 (60.6 percent) of which were anti-Jewish. Anti-Islamic ones constituted just 13.1 percent.
  • Anti-Islamic incidents were also outnumbered by those targeting blacks (1,856), whites (653), gay men (750), lesbians (160), LGBTs in general (277), Hispanics (331), and people of other ethnicities (324). Anti-Asian incidents (135) equaled anti-Islamic ones.
  • Based on a 2013 estimate of 2.95 million Muslims derived from Pew’s 2011 figure and typical growth of 100,000 per year, there were 4.6 anti-Islamic incidents per 100,000 Muslims in 2013, the same as 2012’s rate and lower than the average of 6.0 per 100,000 for 2002–11. The 2013 rate for Muslims was less than half that for Jews (9.6 per 100,000 for a population of roughly 6.5 million) and homosexuals/bisexuals (11.0 per 100,000, assuming that they comprise 3.5 percent of the U.S. population). The rate for blacks was similar to that of Muslims (4.5 per 100,000 for a population of 41.6 million).
  • Anti-Islamic hate crimes were no more violent than others in 2013. Of the 6,933 offenses spanning all hate crimes, 734 (10.6 percent) were aggravated assaults and 1,720 (24.8 percent) were simple assaults. The 165 anti-Islamic offenses mirrored this breakdown: 17 (10.3 percent) were aggravated assaults and 41 (24.8 percent) were simple assaults. Further, none of the five deaths in 2013 resulted from anti-Islamic hate crimes.

On April 15, 2013, Muslim terrorists murdered three and injured hundreds at the Boston Marathon, prompting familiar warnings about an imminent anti-Muslim backlash. The FBI’s findings are proof that such collective punishment did not materialize — as it almost never does. How have Islamist groups greeted the FBI data? With silence. It is the sound of disappointment on the part of radicals who need Muslim victims, preferably real ones, to serve as human shields for the Islamist agenda. Bad news for Islamists is once again good news for the rest of us.

Posted on 15 Dec 14 by Islamist Watch

Obama set on obstructing Netanyahu’s re-election

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report December 4, 2014

President Barack Obama and his White House National Security team headed by Susan Rice have decided to seize on the political crisis besetting the Israeli government and the upcoming general election on March 17 for action to bar Binyamin Netanyahu’s reelection to a fourth term as prime minister.

This decision reverberated through Future party leader Yair Lapid’s assertion Wednesday night, Dec. 3, after he was sacked as finance minister, that Binyamin Netanyahu would not be next prime minister. He laid claim to the premiership himself.

The Obama administration has maintained close ties with Lapid during the foreshortened 22 month-life of the departing Israeli government.

The White House is still working on a detailed plan of action, but has lost no time in setting up appointments for the president to receive heads of the parties sworn to overthrow Netanyahu – among others, ex-minister Lapid, opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog of Labor and Tzipi Livni (The Movement), who was fired this week as Justice Minister along with Lapid.

They will be accorded attractive photo-ops with Obama and joint communiqués designed to signify to the Israeli voter that the US president would favor their election to the future government and the country as a whole would gain tangibly from a different government to the incumbent one.

This White House campaign would be accompanied by leaks from Washington for putting Netanyahu and his policies in a derogatory light. Messages to this effect were transmitted to a number of serving political figures as an incentive to jump the Likud-led ship to opposition ranks. The US administration has begun hinting that it may emulate the Europeans by turning the screws on Israel as punishment for the prime minister’s signature policy of developing West Bank and Jerusalem development construction.
Accounts reaching debkafile speak of an outburst of joy in the White House over news of the Netanyahu government’s breakup. It was seen as an opportunity to finally get rid of Binyamin Netanyahu and a golden opportunity to bring Israel back to negotiations with the Palestinians with the Obama administration finally chalking up a success.

At the same time, some senior sources in the US capital confided to debkafile that administration joy over political developments in Israel could quickly prove premature – either in view of another round of violence overtaking the Middle East, or by once again misreading Israel’s political map before stepping in and so failing in its object. But for now the circles around the US president are “highly optimistic” about their chances of forcing Netanyahu’s exit, comparing them to the former success of the first President George Bush in forcing the ouster of the late Yitzhak Shamir as Israeli prime minister in the 90s.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday night, Dec. 3, US Congress passed the US.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act that raises by $200 million the value of emergency US weapons stocked in Israel to a total of $1.8 billion, and guarantees Israel’s qualitative military edge over its neighbors and foes. The motion, passed by a voice vote in the House after clearing the Senate unanimously last September, also promotes closer links in energy, water, homeland security, alternative fuel technology and cyber-security. The bill now goes to President Obama for his signature.

Posted on 4 Dec 14 by Debka files

[Watch] Franklin Graham Has An Epic Message For Radical Muslims

Egypt Uses Ferguson to Hit US Over Brotherhood Policy

When Egypt cracked down on violent Muslim Brotherhood protests, the US urged ‘restraint.’ Egypt is now giving the same advice to the US.

Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on America; Will America Notice?

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. Another old article, but one that is holding true. The Muslim Brotherhood planned its war against America (the Islamic “Great Satan”) in 1991. They wanted to put in an Islamic Trojan horse president, and they did…they wanted to slowly changed the American laws to incorporate and then to change completely over to Shari’a (Islamic law), they are in the process of doing that successfully, they are fulfilling their mandated, Islamic act of lesser jihad (does not have to be violent, however; according to their text as well as their scholars and their “sacred law”, it is considered “Holy War” against non-Muslims), they are doing this successfully as well, by using our own civil laws against us. With their Trojan horse president, he is doing things that is also part of trying to comply with Shari’a…like gun banning…]

By Barry Rubin October 9, 2010

This is one of those obscure  Middle East events of the utmost significance that is ignored by the Western mass media, especially because they happen in Arabic, not English; by Western governments, because they don’t fit their policies; and by experts, because they don’t mesh with their preconceptions.

This explicit formulation of a revolutionary program makes it a game-changer. It should be read by every Western decision maker and have a direct effect on policy because this development may affect people’s lives in every Western country.

OK, enough of a build-up? Well, it isn’t exaggerated. So don’t think the next sentence is an anticlimax. Here we go: The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has endorsed (Arabic) (English translation by MEMRI) anti-American Jihad and pretty much every element in the al-Qaida ideology book. Since the Brotherhood is the main opposition force in Egypt and Jordan as well as the most powerful group, both politically and religiously, in the Muslim communities of Europe and North America this is pretty serious stuff.

By the way, no one can argue that he merely represents old, tired policies of the distant past because the supreme guide who said these things was elected just a few months ago. His position reflects current thinking.

Does that mean the Egyptian, Jordanian, and all the camouflaged Muslim Brotherhood fronts in Europe and North America are going to launch terrorism as one of their affiliates, Hamas, has long done? No.

But it does mean that something awaited for decades has happened: the Muslim Brotherhood is ready to move from the era of propaganda and base-building to one of revolutionary action. At least, its hundreds of thousands of followers are being given that signal. Some of them will engage in terrorist violence as individuals or forming splinter groups; others will redouble their efforts to seize control of their countries and turn them into safe areas for terrorists and instruments for war on the West.

When the extreme and arguably marginal British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary says that Islam will conquer the West and raise its flag over the White House, that can be treated as wild rhetoric. His remark is getting lots of attention because he said it in English in an interview with CNN. Who cares what he says?

But when the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood says the same thing in Arabic, that’s a program for action, a call to arms for hundreds of thousands of people, and a national security threat to every Western country.

The Brotherhood is the group that often dominates Muslim communities in the West and runs mosques. Its cadre control front groups that are often recognized by Western democratic governments and media as authoritative. Government officials in many countries meet with these groups, ask them to be advisers for counter-terrorist strategies and national policies, and even fund them.

President Barack Obama speaks about a conflict limited solely to al-Qaida. And if one is talking about the current military battle in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen that point makes sense. Yet there is a far bigger and wider battle going on in which revolutionary Islamists seek to overthrow their own rulers and wage long-term, full-scale struggle against the West. If it doesn’t involve violence right now it will when they get strong enough or gain power.

More than three years ago, I warned about this development, in a detailed analysis explaining, “The banner of the Islamist revolution in the Middle East today has largely passed to groups sponsored by or derived from the Muslim Brotherhood.” I pointed out the differences-especially of tactical importance-between the Brotherhood groups and al-Qaida or Hizballah, but also discussed the similarities. This exposure so upset the Brotherhood that it put a detailed response on its official website to deny my analysis.

Yet now here is the Brotherhood’s new supreme guide, Muhammad Badi giving a sermon entitled, “How Islam Confronts the Oppression and Tyranny,” translated by MEMRI. Incidentally, everything Badi says is in tune with the stances and holy books of normative Islam. It is not the only possible interpretation but it is a completely legitimate interpretation. Every Muslim knows, even if he disagrees with the Brotherhood’s position, that this isn’t heresy or hijacking or misunderstanding.

Finally, this is the group that many in the West, some in high positions, are urging to be engaged as a negotiating partner because it is supposedly moderate.

What does he say?

–Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded. Governments have no right to stop their people from fighting the United States. “They are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme” over all non-Muslims.

–All Muslims are required by their religion to fight: “They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.” Notice that jihad here is not interpreted as so often happens by liars, apologists, and the merely ignorant in the West as spiritual striving. The clear meaning is one of armed struggle.

–The United States is immoral, doomed to collapse, and “experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise.”

–Palestinians should back Hamas in overthrowing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and unite in waging war on Israel.

Incidentally, what Melanie Philips has written on this issue fits perfectly here:

–Rational calculations of the kind applied by the West to its adversaries, mirror-imaging, assuming that Muslims won’t act in a revolutionary and even suicidal manner want a better future for their children, etc., do not apply to the Islamist movement:

“Allah said: ‘The hosts will all be routed and will turn and flee [Koran 54:45].’ This verse is a promise to the believers that they shall defeat their enemies, and [that the enemies] shall withdraw. The Companions of the Prophet received this Koranic promise in Mecca, when they were weak…and a little more than nine years [later], Allah fulfilled his promise in the Battle of Badr…Can we compare that to what happened in Gaza?…Allah is the best of schemers, and that though Him you shall triumph. Islam is capable of confronting oppression and tyranny, and that the outcome of the confrontation has been predetermined by Allah.”

This says: It doesn’t matter how long the battle goes on, how many die, how much destruction is unleashed, how low your living standards fall, how unfavorable the odds appear to be, none of that is important or should deter you.

In the real world, of course, the Islamists are unlikely to win over the long run of, say, 50 or100 years. But those views do mean that these 50 or 100 years are going to be filled with instability and bloodshed.

Equally, Badi’s claims do not mean all Muslims must agree, much less actively take up arms. They can have a different interpretation, simply disregard the arguments, and be too intimidated or materialistic or opportunistic to agree or to act. Yet hundreds of thousands will do so and millions will cheer them on. And by the same token, neither the radical nor the passive will assist in moving toward more moderation or peace or compromise.

Well, will the problem go away if people in the West condemn “Islamophobia” or make concessions or apologize or produce a just peace? No.

His words provide some important points for people in the West to consider:

“Resistance is the only solution…. The United States cannot impose an agreement upon the Palestinians, despite all the means and power at its disposal. [Today] it is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance – and the wars of Lebanon and Gaza, which were not so long ago, [are proof of this].”

First, the more the likelihood that U.S. policy might obtains a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, the more anti-American violent activity will be sparked among the Islamists and their very large base of support, the more Iran and Syria will sponsor terrorism. Desirable as peace or even progress toward peace might be, the West should have no illusions about those things providing regional stability, and they will produce more instability.

Second, U.S. actions of apology, concessions, and withdrawals-whether or not any of the specific steps are useful or desirable-they are interpreted by the Islamists and by many in the Middle East as signs of weakness which should spark further aggression and violence. There are hundreds of examples of this reaction every month. Here’s a leading moderate Saudi journalist explaining how many Iraqis and other Arabs are viewing the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq means that it is turning the country over to Iran. Wrong but an accurate show of that very common Middle East way of thinking.

Indeed, this last factor explains the Brotherhood’s timing. Note that he says nothing about fighting Egypt’s government, which won’t hesitate to throw the Brotherhood leaders into prison and even to torture them. Still, the coming leadership transition in Egypt, with the death or retirement of President Husni Mubarak, seems to offer opportunities.

The new harder line coincides with the Brotherhood’s announcement that it will run candidates in the November elections, another sign of its confidence and increased militancy. The Brotherhood is not a legal group but the government lets members run in other parties. Its candidates won about 20 percent of the vote in the last elections, especially impressive given the regime’s repressive measures. If the Brotherhood intends to defy Egyptian law now there will be confrontations, mass arrests, and perhaps violence.

Most important of all, however, Badi and many others sense weakness on the part of the West, especially the U.S. leaders, and victory for the Islamists.

Even former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is warning about such things. Blair comes from the British Labour Party. Many conservatives understand these issues. But the West can never respond successfully without a broader consensus about the nature of the threat and the need for a strong response. Where are Blair’s counterparts in the left-of-center forces in North America, the kind of people who played such a critical role in confronting and defeating the previous wave of anti-democratic extremism, Communism?

This new hardline signals

1. Increased internal conflict in Egypt, the start of a decade-long struggle for power in the Arabic-speaking world’s most important country.
2. The likelihood that more Brotherhood supporters in the West will turn to violence and fund-raising for terrorism.
3. The true nature of the radical indoctrination–preparing people for future extremism and terrorism–in the mosques and groups they control.
4. A probable upturn in anti-American terrorist attacks in the Middle East and Europe.

In August 1996, al-Qaida declared war on America, the West, Christians and Jews. Nobody important paid much attention to this. Almost exactly five years later, September 11 forced them to notice. Let it be said that in September 2010 the Muslim Brotherhood, a group with one hundred times more activists than al-Qaida, issued its declaration of war. What remains is the history of the future.

Update: A well-informed friend in Egypt just said that while he’s been expecting this move by the Brotherhood for some time that I have been the only one who’s noticed it outside the country. This is the kind of service I’m trying to give my readers.

Posted on 9 Oct 10 by Gloria Center

Is the Islamic ‘state’ doomed to failure?

Smoke rises behind an Islamic State flag after Iraqi security forces and Shiite fighters took control of Saadiya in Diyala province from Islamist State militants, Nov. 24, 2014. (photo by REUTERS)

Smoke rises behind an Islamic State flag after Iraqi security forces and Shiite fighters took control of Saadiya in Diyala province from Islamist State militants, Nov. 24, 2014. (photo by REUTERS)

This Islamic State (IS) is offering a new job for those interested. No, it’s not aimed at carrying out a suicide mission or executing hostages, but rather it’s a high-paying position involving managing one of the organization’s oil refineries in exchange for 140,000 British pounds ($220,000) per year.

IS today controls a section of land stretching between Iraq and Syria that is more than three times the size of Lebanon and contains 8 million people. In the event that a political project attracting Arab Sunnis in both Iraq and Syria does not emerge, the area IS controls could extend west toward Aleppo and south in the direction of Baghdad, and perhaps even beyond. It is very likely that we are currently witnessing the birth of a new nation in the Middle East, but the question is: what will be the nature of this state?

The majority of analyses on IS have revolved around the organization’s ideology and speeches, and in particular its brutality and the doctrine of violence that it believes in. Yet if we want to understand the nature of the state IS is establishing, our analysis should not be limited to statements made by the group. Rather, we should be concerned with its actions. We can conclude from the analysis that IS is repeating the bad model of the states that existed in the Middle East, and whose failure led to the popular revolts known as the Arab Spring.

IS has begun to establish an economy based on oil that is no different from the system that existed in Iraq under the rule of [former Prime Minister] Nouri al-Maliki, or even before him under [former President] Saddam Hussein. To operate the oil and gas facilities that the group now controls in Iraq and Syria, IS is in dire need of engineers and directors, because of the fleeing of many technicians that were living in the largest Iraqi and Syrian cities that fell under IS control. The recent air raids carried out by coalition forces targeted oil product facilities in order to direct a blow at the organization’s economy. In response, IS is searching for volunteers from Arab and Islamic states, recently calling on Saudi youth working for oil companies to volunteer to join the “Islamic caliphate” and help it manage its oil sector.

Available reports reveal that oil production lies at the head of IS’ “new” economy. After the acts of violence perpetrated by IS drove away technicians and managers, the group is urgently in need of workers possessing the necessary qualifications to move the wheels of the economy. Otherwise, in the end it will be forced to face the wrath of the large number of residents under its control — reaching 8 million today — or will be unable to provide food to fighters raising its black banners, whose numbers range from 30,000-50,000.

The volume of IS’ oil production has been estimated at 80,000 barrels per day (bpd), but it has declined since the start of the US bombings. This figure only represents a fraction of Iraqi oil production, amounting to 3.4 million bpd in 2013, or Syrian production, which reached 400,000 bpd in the same year.

In addition, IS will realize that the Arab young people, who are enchanted with ideological vows, have limited wherewithal; thus IS will be forced to relinquish some of its ideological fervor to attract cadres from the former regime. The enticing authorization to grant a salary of 140,000 British pounds is only the beginning. All revolutions, from the Russian Revolution of 1917 to the anti-colonialism movements, passed through similar stages whereby the choice lay in either allowing for the collapse of existing economic and political institutions, or integrating “ideological enemies” into the new state.

IS controls 11 oil refineries, bringing in an estimated daily income from oil sales ranging between $2 million and $3 million. Given that oil is its primary source of income, the state that IS is working to build will not differ from that of the Iraqi government in power today, nor from the one that managed the affairs of the country under the Baathist regime. With oil at the heart of the organization’s economic activity, this will define the features of all other activities and sectors, something known as the “Dutch disease.” Non-oil imports will become easier and cheaper than developing domestic production, whether industrial or agricultural.

Available information suggest that IS sells oil at a low price, not exceeding $20 per barrel domestically and $40 per barrel for exports, while the international price stands at about $80 per barrel. The low quality of the oil produced may be the reason it is selling for such a low cost, as its production is considered illegitimate and therefore must be sold at a cheaper price. The second reason as to why IS is selling oil at cheaper prices within the areas it controls is to supply local residents with cheap oil sources. This is a policy pursued by oil-rich countries to support the local economy and stimulate consumption.

Taxes, alongside embezzlement and the looting of ancient treasures, is one of the means used by IS to gain profit. The organization also receives support from wealthy donors abroad, with the value of total gifts estimated at $40 million during the past two years.

The worst repercussions of IS policies are evident in the social and educational sectors. In order to understand the method IS will adopt to manage its state, one cannot ignore the group’s ideology. It has excluded half of the workforce — women — from the labor market. IS has also implemented strict control on the educational system, excluding any reference to evolution, Darwin, democracy, elections and many other things. In the field of media and communications, the group has imposed laws and strict controls on journalists, requiring them first and foremost to express their loyalty to the “caliphate,” not to the truth or their readers.

IS has not shown any signs of having a clear vision for projects related to agriculture, aside from the destruction of farms belonging to those who do not share their beliefs. However, the decline of the agricultural sector should be of concern to IS leaders. The Jazeera region of northeast Syria has been totally destroyed as a result of years of drought, which caused the collapse of thousands of farms and led to the internal migration of a large number of residents. This is one of the causes for the current conflict in the country. Population growth and declining water supply — which can be attributed to a number of reasons, including climate change and the construction of dams in Turkey — will only increase these pressures in the coming years.

Furthermore, demographics is another issue that should be of concern to IS. Syria was one of the countries experiencing rapid population growth, witnessing an annual increase of 2% before the outbreak of the war, compared with a growth of 2.9% — equivalent to 1 million people — in Iraq in 2013. Unemployment among youth was a common problem that arose in 2011, the year in which the “Arab Spring” began. How will IS solve this problem in the areas under its control?

Worst of all, IS is establishing a state mired in permanent conflict. While the organization maintains power in a limited geographic region, its ideology knows no boundaries. As a result, there will be an ongoing war with its neighbors. Here, too, the organization has brought nothing new. The two Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria did not resolve the borders of their states, and they were living in a state of constant conflict with their surroundings and with each other.

At its core, IS is no different — in terms of both its economic system and its oppressive and ideologically heavy-handed social policies — from the former Baathist regimes, or from Abdul Hamid II, the last of the “real” caliphs and the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire in the final decades preceding its collapse. History is repeating itself in the Middle East — the region will not experience a new farce, but rather an ongoing tragedy.

As for the 140,000 British pound salary being offered by IS, the British Daily Mail noted that while the amount may be high for the group, the same is not true for an international oil director with many qualifications.

Posted on 9 Dec 14 by al-Monitor

Which nations does Psalm 83 really include?

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. This is a re-blog of an old article, but it is a prophecy…I do go on about this prophecy a lot, but it is because I want people to understand that the end time is coming close, and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God will be coming again quickly with the prophecies being fulfilled…looking at the signs of the times, this will happen, in my opinion, in about year to a year and a half…that part isn’t a prophecy, it’s just a guess…this will happen before the Gog and Magog War (Ezekiel 38 -39) which is coming quickly as well because Russia is starting to team up with Turkey and Iran…countries that will be participating in that prophesied war…that one should take place, once again in my guessing, about late 2016 early 2017, before Russia (as prophesied and is gearing up and planning currently) attacks America in late 2017…]

Published: 08/02/2012

I was recently visiting with some Christian friends from Egypt, and the discussion turned toward their disappointment and disagreement with a particular view concerning the prophetic destiny of Egypt, as espoused by many American Christians these days. Because I was in complete agreement with their concerns, I thought it good to take a few moments to address them here.

Among ardent students of biblical prophecy, there is presently a popular belief that Psalm 83 predicts an imminent invasion of Israel. According to Bill Salus, author of the books “Isralestine” and “Revelation Road,” the specific nations listed in this Psalm essentially represent all of the nations that immediately surround Israel today.

The following chart represents Salus’ identification of the nations of Psalm 83:


Thus, according to this popular prophetic scenario, a coalition of nations, including Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian peoples, will very soon join forces to attack Israel.

Further, according to Salus, Israel will overcome this attack, ultimately engaging in a conquest of these nations, occupying them and vastly expanding her borders. According to Salus:

“Because of this Israeli conquest over the inner circle of the core surrounding Arab populations of Palestinians, Syrians, Saudi Arabians, Egyptians, Lebanese, and Jordanians, Israel’s borders are enlarged, prosperity increases, and national stature is enhanced.”

Of course, for those familiar with the region, the idea of Israel actually occupying Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia is quite a wild, if not a completely impossible scenario to imagine. Yet many students of prophecy have fully accepted this story line and are even eagerly anticipating its imminent fulfillment.

While there are many problems with this interpretation, on both a practical as well as an exegetical basis, one of its most glaring problems is that some of the key nations identified by Salus are simply are not supportable by the historical or biblical record.

The first nation not included in the Psalm 83 coalition is Egypt.

Get Joel Richardson’s newest blockbuster book: “Mideast Beast: The Scriptural Case for an Islamic Antichrist”

Although Salus identifies the Hagarenes (or Hagarites) as representing modern-day Egypt, this is simply not the case. Salus bases his identification of Egypt on the idea that “Hagar is the matriarch of the Egyptians.” But this is not historically accurate. Hagar was of Egyptian descent, but in no way is she the “matriarch” of the Egyptian people. This would be akin to me saying that because I am of Portuguese descent, I am thus the father of all of Portugal. This simply doesn’t make any sense. Such reverse genetic engineering may make for interesting science fiction, but it is not proper hermeneutics by any stretch of the imagination. Hagar was simply an Egyptian woman who migrated out of her homeland. During the life of Asaph, the author of this Psalm, in the 10th century B.C., the Hagarenes were a people who lived in the region of northern Jordan, east of Gilead. Of this, the Scriptures are quite clear:

“In the days of Saul, they (the tribe of Rueben) made war with the Hagarites, who fell by their hand: and they dwelt in their tents throughout all the east land of Gilead.” (1 Chronicles 5:10)

Below is a map highlighting the land of the Hagarenes, east of Gilead, during the 10th century B.C.:


But beyond the Hagarenes, the Psalm also lists Amalek as one of the offending parties. Salus identifies Amalek as correlating to the Sinai Peninsula and thus Egypt. But again, if one simply examines any number of Bible atlases, he will see that the ancient land of Amalek is almost entirely contained within the borders of modern-day Israel.

Below is a map highlighting the land of Amalek in the 10th Century B.C.:


See also the Bibleatlas.com entry for Amalek.

The second, and third significant nations that are only partially represented in the Psalm 83 coalition are Syria and Iraq. Salus arrives at the view that both Syria and Iraq are among the Psalm 83 nations, based on the inclusion of Asshur (or Assyria). The problem with this, however, is that during the 10th century B.C., when the Psalm was written, Assyria was a region largely limited to northern Iraq, southeastern Turkey, and a smaller region of northeast Syria. But among the names that are clearly not mentioned in the Psalm 83 coalition is Aram, the capital of which was Damascus.

See the map below, which represents the region of Assyria during the 10th century B.C.:


If, in fact, Psalm 83 represents a specific future war, then the inclusion of Assyria is a peculiar reality to ponder. Ultimately, it neither points fully to Syria nor Iraq or Turkey, but instead only a relatively smaller segment of each nation. But if the inclusion of Assyria infers the inclusion of Syria, then consistency would also mandate that Turkey be included. Yet Salus includes Syria, but not Turkey.

Another very important point must be emphasized here: When it comes to identifying the names in various Old Testament prophecies, conservative commentators and Bible scholars will almost universally advocate for utilizing the geographic-correlation method of interpretation. This method identifies the region where the particular peoples lived when the Psalm was written. It is also quite common, however, to find among untrained Bible teachers the effort to trace the migrations, intermarriages and movements of various peoples down through history in an effort to identify their modern day bloodline ancestors. This problem-fraught method of interpretation is responsible for numerous questionable prophetic beliefs, however, with Anglo-Israelism being among the most widespread and well-known.

But in considering the popular view of Psalm 83 advocated by Salus, it must be highlighted that he switches back and forth from one method to the other, from one name to another, never adhering to one method consistently. With Edom for instance, Salus uses both the ancestral-bloodline-lineage method to identify Edom as correlating to the Palestinians, but he also uses the geographic-correlation method to point to southern Jordan. On the other hand, with regard to the Ishmaelites, Salus does not use the bloodline method. Instead, he limits his identification of the Ishmaelites to modern-day Saudi Arabia. Of course, if a consistent method were used, then one would be forced to look to most of the Middle East and virtually all of northern Africa, which is largely inhabited by the Arab descendants of Ishmael today. But because using a consistent method would not work for Salus’ theory, he must switch from one method to the next from name to name.

Below is a map highlighting the regions specified in Psalm 83 as identified using a consistent geographic-correlation method of interpretation:


In the end, the only modern nations solidly included in Psalm 83 are Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian territories. Beyond this, the Psalm also points to the limited region of northern Iraq, southeastern Turkey and the northern border of Syria. But Egypt is nowhere to be found in this Psalm.

Unfortunately, too many American Christian prophecy watchers seem to approach biblical prophecy as if it is a football game. From the comfort of their recliners, they eagerly await the ground offensive to begin as if it is were a kick-off. But for my dear friends in Egypt, these issues are much more than prophetic trivia. This is their future.

To be clear, in no way is this article intended to be a personal attack on any who hold to the popular “Psalm 83 War” theory. But for the simple sake of truth and my dear friends in Egypt, it was important to demonstrate some of the ways in which the popular view of Psalm 83 is simply not in accord with the Scriptures.

Posted on 2 Aug 12 by World Net Daily


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers

%d bloggers like this: