ISHMAEL AND THE THREE WOES: Identifying the Role of the Islamic World in Bible Prophecy Part 2

by | Aug 23, 2020 | Bible Prophecy | 0 comments

ISHMAEL AND THE THREE WOES: Identifying the Role of the Islamic World in Bible Prophecy Part 2

Introduction

The previous instalment laid out a summary of the history of the Islamic world from the birth of Ishmael to the end of Turkish hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean. It brought to view the character of the Islamic ‘militants’, and their role in Bible prophecy—to particularly expose the unilateral character of the United States in relation to other international players whose stakes are cast in the region. It is the work of the Modern Islamic world to urge America towards political fundamentalism and international alienation, weakening Washington’s diplomatic power broking influence in the region, while simultaneously strengthening its use of brute force. This prepares the way for the most significant alteration in the global geopolitical order—a rebalancing of power that signals the disintegration of the entire global political system into chaos. It is the burden of this article to identify the sequence of events that initiate the history of the third woe, a history that will contribute to the foregoing state of affairs.  

The Rule of Triple Application

Inspiration can only be correctly understood by employing consistent Biblical rules of interpretation. The overarching methodology can be summarised in the term “parable” which was the teaching method of Christ when He was on the earth (see Matthew 13:10-17). Parable methodology is multifaceted and must not be limited to the idea that “the literal represents the symbolic”. One of the illustrations of a parable is the triple application of prophecy. Parables basically equate one thing with another according to a specific context. Christ would phrase this in the words “the kingdom of heaven is like…”. Triple application operates on the same principles, likening or equating aspects of the first and second entities with a third. It is also based on the principle of the Hebrew religious and judicial system. 

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. (Deuteronomy 19:15)

This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (2 Corinthians 13:1)

The strength of a claim on an argument is established by two or three witnesses. It was true in Hebrew civics and religion, it is also true in the case of Bible prophecy. This rule can be conceptualised in different ways; one way is ‘1 = 2 = 3’, where particular characteristics are identical in all three entities. Another way is ‘1 + 2 = 3’, where unique principles in the first and second find common ground (are combined) in the third. Both must be considered when applying this rule. It is also important to differentiate relevant features from those that are irrelevant when making application. Furthermore, the two previous literal entities must be applied symbolically in the third, for the end always looks different from the beginning (see 1 Corinthians 15:46; 2 Corinthians 3). The two witnesses, correctly understood, reveal truths about the third which would otherwise remain unknown. This is in line with the purpose of parable teaching (see Matthew 13:10-17), and this principle will be the basis of the understanding of the third woe presented in this article. We will now consider the historical setting for the fulfilment of the third woe using the structure of the fifth and sixth trumpets and first and second woes.

Prelude to the Repetition of the Fifth Trumpet: Islam’s Metamorphosis in the Global Conflicts of 1914-1919

The rise of Islam as a political force took place at the close of a protracted conflict between two medieval superpowers, the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires. By this, we can conclude that the rise of Modern Islam onto the political stage would take place at the conclusion of a long war between two 20th Century superpowers, the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R)/Soviet Union. Preceding the collapse of the Sassanids, both empires had established spheres of influence in the Arab world to counterbalance each other. This set the stage for Islam’s interaction with the two powers when it eventually came on to the stage of action. Preceding the collapse of the USSR at the end of the Cold War, it as well as the USA, had forged strategic alliances in the Middle East to contain what each thought were the villainous activities of the other. But in order to understand the regional order during the Cold War and beyond, it is important to understand the changes that occurred in the Muslim world during the First and Second World Wars. These provide an important context for making sense of the Muslim world of today.

“Few events in world history have had a more profound impact than that of World War One (1914-8). Although the German attempt to dominate Europe was thwarted in the end, the equilibrium of the region was also destroyed by the fierce fighting between its different elements. The Middle East was no less affected by the conflict. After four centuries of continuous rule, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, creating a vacuum that contributed to tensions between local inhabitants and external powers or interests.” – {The Middle East during World War One. (2011, March 10). BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/middle_east_01.shtml}

“The Middle East’s role in World War II fundamentally altered Americans’ conception of the region. For the first time, U.S. officials saw the geopolitical orientation of the Middle East as vital to American national security—a view of the region that persists to this day.” – {Military history: The Middle East in World War II. (2020, June 16). The Great Courses Daily. https:// www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/the-middle-east-in-world-war-ii/}

The First World War ended in defeat for the Ottoman Empire and resulted in the formal collapse and partition of the Ottoman Empire. The Western powers carved out strategic spheres of influence from the ruins of the Sultanate that kept them politically relevant as power brokers in the region, and fed their economic interests.  

“The partition of the Ottoman Empire (Armistice of Mudros, 30 October 1918 – Abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate, 1 November 1922) was a geopolitical event that occurred after World War I and the occupation of Constantinople by British, French and Italian troops in November 1918. The partitioning was planned in several agreements made by the Allied Powers early in the course of World War I, notably the Sykes-Picot Agreement, after the Ottoman Empire had joined the Ottoman–German Alliance. The huge conglomeration of territories and peoples that formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire was divided into several new states. The Ottoman Empire had been the leading Islamic state in geopolitical, cultural and ideological terms. The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire after the war led to the domination of the Middle East by Western powers such as Britain and France, and saw the creation of the modern Arab world and the Republic of Turkey. Resistance to the influence of these powers came from the Turkish National Movement but did not become widespread in the other post-Ottoman states until the period of rapid decolonisation after World War II.” – {Partition of the Ottoman Empire. (2006, October 30). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Partition_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#}

In the midst of World War I, another development worth noting, took place—the rise of Arab nationalism in the Arab revolt of 1916. Encouraged by the British in order to weaken the Ottoman Empire from the inside, various Arab tribes rebelled and warred against the Ottoman government in pursuit of independence. The paradoxical result was the creation of British and French mandates or occupation zones in different parts of the Arab world including Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Transjordan and Mesopotamia (later to be known as Iraq)1. This revolt also led to the eventual establishment of the kingdom of Nejd and Hejaz in the Arabian peninsula, as well as British protectorates (that would later become the Gulf States)2. Yet through a series of internal conflicts, the kingdom of Nejd and Hejaz would become the kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932. Six years later, Saudi Arabia would discover vast oil-reserves, making the royal family instantly wealthy, and helped them to forge an alliance with an emerging superpower, the United States. 

“The United States, first through its oil industry and then through government contacts, established a relationship with Saudi Arabia’s founder, King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, and his successors that evolved into a close alliance despite a stark clash in values. U.S. businesses have been involved in Saudi Arabia’s oil industry since 1933, when the Standard Oil Company of California (now Chevron) won a sixty-year concession to explore eastern Saudi Arabia. It made its first oil discovery there in 1938.” – {U.S.-Saudi Arabia relations. (n.d.). Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-saudi-arabia-relations}

Other developments of importance in WWI was the conflicting promises of Britain to the Arab nationalists, France and the Zionists (Jewish nationalists). Britain’s actions for short-term goals would have long lasting effects on the stability of the region. It created a deep sense of betrayal and resentment among the Arab community towards Western power and influence, and would eventually lead to a regional conflict between the Jews and the Arab world that stretches to this day.

“Britain had been reluctant about to the idea of a revolt when approached prior to the war by Husayn’s older son, ‘Abdullah ibn Husayn, King of Jordan (1882-1951). Now fully embroiled in the war, however, the British government quickly changed its stance. British High Commissioner in Egypt Sir Arthur Henry McMahon (1862-1949) corresponded with Sharif Husayn about the matter from July 1915 through January 1916, promising, albeit in intentionally vague terms, British financial and military support of a revolt and the recognition of an independent Arab state after the war…Meanwhile, Britain also entered into negotiations with both French and Zionist leadership culminating in the signing of two agreements that would conflict with the terms of the HusaynMcMahon correspondence: the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), which allocated British and French post-war spheres of control and influence in the region, and the Balfour Declaration (1917), which promised British support in establishing a homeland for Jews in Palestine.” – {Revolutions and rebellions: Arab revolt (Ottoman Empire/Middle East) | International encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1). (n.d.). 1914-1918-Online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1). https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/ revolutions_and_rebellions_arab_revolt_ottoman_empire}

Prelude to the Repetition of the Fifth Trumpet: Islam’s Metamorphosis in the Global Conflicts of 1919-1989

The post-war settlement in the Middle East set the stage for the countries in the region to throw off the yoke of European colonialism following the conclusion of World War II in 1945. However, given the economic, security and political needs of colonies transitioning into independent states, the end of WWII presented a tremendous threat as well as enormous opportunities for the United States and the Soviet Union in their battle for global influence. The latter power was quick to try and establish ties with the emerging Arab and non-Arab states in the region, and the former responded in a similar fashion. The needs of the Muslim states converged with Washington and Moscow’s willingness and ability to supply those needs. Thus, the Middle East quickly came to mirror the bipolarity of the international system. Further to this, the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 (based on the promises of WWI), and its subsequent aggression towards the Arab world3, along with the 1953 CIA-orchestrated instalment of a pro-Western monarchy in oil-rich Iran4, and the alignment of Turkey with the United States in 1947 through 19525, exacerbated the Cold War in the Middle Eastern theatre. It also brought about a lasting tension that has created the Modern Middle East. Consider the following excerpt from an analysis on the Middle East done by Ross Harrison, a Professor of Strategy at Georgetown University:

“Both the United States and the Soviet Union saw this emerging Arab landscape as fertile ground upon which to compete with the global ambitions of the other. Each of the superpowers competed for Arab allies in an effort gain the upper regional hand, thereby containing what they saw as the nefarious ambitions of their adversary. It was the convergence of the needs of the newly independent Arab countries for outside support, and the available supply of that support from the United States and Soviet Union, that created the modern Middle East. Arab states, at their most vulnerable moment of transitioning from colonial vassals to independent states, sought and received support from the superpowers. Conservative monarchies, like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, fell squarely into the camp of the United States, risking their domestic legitimacy to ensure regime security. Syria, Libya, Iraq and Egypt (up until 1978), states whose legitimacy depended on the flouting of European and American norms, aligned themselves with the Soviet Union. (2) Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser, initially in the 1950s tried to resist superpower entreaties and pursued a policy of non-alignment. But even he ultimately succumbed to the reality that this wasn’t sustainable and aligned his country with the U.S.S.R.

Non-Arab countries too figured into the Cold War equation, though they weren’t as contested by the superpowers as the Arab states. Turkey, Iran and Israel all tacked towards the west, putting them squarely in the U.S. camp. (4) The result of this intersection between the advent of the Cold War and the security and economic needs of independent Arab states is that the region started to mimic the bipolar structure of the international system. Evidence of this was an Arab Cold War that mirrored the global superpower conflict. This divided the Arab world into two camps, with the Soviet backed, leftist leaning, Arab nationalist camp led by Egypt’s Nasser pitted against the more conservative U.S. supported camp, consisting of Saudi Arabia and Jordan.” – {Shifts in the Middle East balance of power: An historical perspective. (n.d.). Al Jazeera Center for Studies. https:// studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2018/09/shifts-middle-east-balance-power-historicalperspective-180902084750811.html}

The region east of the Mediterranean had once again been carved up into two spheres of influence as it had been prior the rise of Mohammed. And with the region thus bound to this international system for domestic legitimacy and regional security, the furnace of modern Islam would face containment until an essential key was provided. But before discussing this key, it is essential to note the elements and personalities of modern Islamic ideology that would parallel the framing of the original Islamic religion in the time of Mohammed.

The Star and the Furnace: The Creation of the Modern Islamic Ideology (1950s-1979)

In the build up to the advent of the new oriental religion, we find the to-be prophet Mohammed greatly disturbed by the materialism and paganism (polytheism) that characterised the Arab world in his day based on their powerful mercantile economy. He sought to draw his Arab brethren away from that to what was to his mind a pure, holier monotheistic faith. He desired to see morality enforced in Arabian society. To this end he created the ideology of Islam, submission to the will of God, and the idea of jihad—‘struggle’ or ‘holy war’ to spread this understanding of God’s will throughout the peninsula6. The concepts of Modern Islamic ideology, particularly those of global jihad (holy war), began to materialise in the 1950’s with the ideas of a member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb. Qutb railed against Western materialism and secularism, claiming these were responsible for the ills and immorality that were creeping into the Muslim world through the Islamic secularism of the post-colonial era. He called for an overthrow of these ‘unIslamic’ governments, the establishment of Islamic theocracies and the formation of a Muslim vanguard to engage in a global fight against western ideals. His ideas laid the foundation for the transnational ideology which would later be used to mobilise Muslims to war against non-Islamic actors in the region. Their ultimate goal was and is still the realisation of an Islamic utopia across the globe. Consider the following from a book written by Richard H. Shultz, Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.

“In the 1950s an ideology of Salafi Jihadism began to take shape. As it evolved over the next half century it came to reflect the characteristics and role that ideology played in the revolutionary insurgencies of the period following WWII…The key early theorist, who articulated an adaptation of the traditional Salafi call,…, was Sayyid Qutb, a member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. His influence on what has become the global Salafi Jihad movement was crucial…They [Qutb’s views] are based on his interpretation of the Qur’an and Islamic history , assessment of the social and political ills of Egypt, and an evaluation of the polluting impact of Western decadence, materialism, and faithlessness on the culture of Islam…Qutb came to believe that nearly all of Islam was in dire decline, devolving into a state of ignorance equivalent to that which characterised the era of preIslamic Arabia.” – {Global Insurgency Strategy, Richard H . Shultz, April 2008, pg.59-62}

Qutb was executed in 1966, but his ideas lived on and would develop further. In the year of his death, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, a Palestinian-born Sunni scholar who would become the central figure in establishing the modern day Jihadist movement, graduated from the University of Damascus with a Bachelor of Arts in Sharia Law. An Islamist reformer was already in the making. In 1967, after Israel’s Six Day War7, he joined the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood to engage in guerrilla warfare against the Israelis. He was soon disillusioned however, for ideological reasons. Later that year, he moved to Egypt and while there obtained a Master’s Degree at the Al-Azhar university. He graduated and went on to acquire a PhD in Islamic Jurisprudence at the same university. It was within this time that he became acquainted with the family and the ideas of Sayyid Qutb and would incorporate them into his resulting ideology. He would in his own way continue

Qutb’s legacy. Sometime following the period of his studies, he became a lecturer at King Abdul Aziz university in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia where he met Osama bin Laden (who at that time was enrolled as a student), becoming his teacher and mentor8. The combined ideological and organisational work of both men would result in the creation of a pan-Islamic trans-national movement that was defined not by national identity, but by religious loyalism9. This erased restrictions that the idea of national borders had heretofore imposed on the jihadis.

“Palestinian-born Islamist Dr. ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam (1941-89) played a leading role in promoting and developing the modern Islamist concept of jihad. Little known in the West despite lengthy stays in the United States, ‘Azzam was responsible for internationalizing the Islamist struggle against secularism, socialism, and materialism. Though a scholar, ‘Azzam took his campaign to the front lines of Afghanistan during the Afghan-Soviet war, organizing the agency that would evolve into Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. In many ways the life and work of ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam have already made him one of the most influential figures in modern times. As forms of jihad erupt from Algeria to the Philippines, it is important to understand the man whom so many mujahidin cite as their inspiration. By tracing ‘Azzam’s thought through his most important influences, mediaeval scholar Ibn Taymiyah, Muslim Brother Sayyid Qutb, and Egyptian radical Muhammad Faraj, it is possible to see how the Shaykh’s ideology transformed radical Islam from a group of disparate movements defined by national borders into a potent (if scattered) force in the international arena.” – {View of “Jihad and the rifle alone”: ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam and the Islamist revolution | Journal of conflict studies. (n.d.). Centre for Digital Scholarship Journals. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/ article/view/219/377}

The state of the Muslim world during the Cold War according to the Islamists was strikingly similar to the state of pre-Islamic Arabia during the Byzantine-Sassanian conflict. And the work of Dr. Abdullah Yusuf Azzam of framing a modern, somewhat revolutionary concept of Sharia and Islamic jihad, as well as that of transforming a group of “disparate movements defined by national borders into a potent force in the international arena” corresponds with the work of the prophet Mohammed in the 7th century. It is therefore the suggestion of this article that Azzam is the modern day ‘star’ of Revelation 9. His journey to establish a modern Islamic ideology capable of challenging western capitalism/secularism and eastern communism can be understood as the kindling of a fire that would burn as a great furnace, the smoke of which would envelop the world at a subsequent time. Reckoning either from 1963 with his studies on Sharia or from 1967 with his move to Egypt, advanced Islamic studies and his coming into acquaintance with the ideas of Sayyid Qutb, we can trace the ideas that would shape his concept of modern jihad and Islamist polity. 

The Star and the Furnace: The Creation of the Modern Islamic Ideology and Polity (1979-1989)

Dr. Azzam left Saudi Arabia in 1979. As the Saudi regime began to deal with internal crises involving Islamic fundamentalist elements that threatened their political legitimacy, he was forced to leave. He accordingly moved to Pakistan to be closer to the Afghan Jihad10. These events coincided with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan meant to contain what was seen as a growing Islamic, anti-communist threat. In response, Azzam issued a ‘fatwa’, an Islamic decree, identifying resistance to the Soviet invasion as a personal obligation for all Muslims, and part of the broader jihad against non-Islamic infidels and the elements of sin. This brought about an international coalition of ‘holy warriors’, the ‘Afghan Arabs’ who combined with the Afghan rebels,—the Mujahideen11—brought together by the common cause of jihad. He was central in the coordination of military recruitments and trainings, securing financial support and promoting fundamentalist propaganda for this war effort in Afghanistan. He, for a time, lectured at the International Islamic University in Islamabad, Pakistan in order to support himself. He afterward moved to the border town of Peshawar to set up a base of operations at the doorstep of Afghanistan and committed himself more fully to the Islamist resistance12. Peshawar and Pakistan overall would be come an important centre for maintaining Islamic terrorism. Thus, it is in the time of the Soviet-Afghan war, 1979-1989, that we see the crystallisation of the modern Islamic resistance movement. This premise is confirmed by Thomas Hegghammer, a Norwegian academic who writes about terrorism and jihadism. His idea on the link of modern jihadism with the 10 year proxy war in Afghanistan was published in an article by the Guardian in 2017.

“Jihadism, in the sense that Hegghammer is concerned with, is a relatively new phenomenon. He dates it to the Afghan war against the USSR in the 1980s. Since then it has taken many forms in places as diverse as Chechnya, Bosnia, Nigeria and Somalia.” – {Anthony, A. (2018, March 21). The art of making a jihadist. the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/23/ the-culture-that-makes-a-jihadi-thomas-hegghammer-interview-poetry-militancy}

It is important to note that in 1988, al-Qaeda, the Islamist terror network that would primarily be responsible for sparking future Islamic holy wars, was formed; particularly by Osama bin Laden. Recent studies suggest that Dr. Azzam supported the founding of the terrorist organisation as opposed to the idea that he directly participated in its formation13. But what is certain is that the advent of al-Qaeda can be attributed to Azzam’s broader work of Islamic reform in the region. On November 24, 1989, Abdullah Azzam was assassinated in circumstances that are still unclear. Following this, bin Laden became the de facto leader of not only al-Qaeda, but the entire Jihadi movement. He would be responsible for exporting the jihad, conducting international terror operations, and hence, taking the fight global14. This is reminiscent of Early Muslim Expansion under Abu-Bakr following the death of Mohammed. The Islamic resistance of the modern day however is more diverse, more multifaceted than the expansion in the time of the early caliphate. In addition to the aforementioned Sunni insurgency, 1979 also witnessed the beginning of a Shiite revolution in Iran, and the establishment of the first modern Islamic theocracy under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—a government diametrically opposed to Western interference in Muslim political affairs (more on Iran later). 

“1979 became a pivotal year for Islamic fundamentalism, with three huge revolutionary events in the Muslim world. First, on January 16, 1979 the Iranian Revolution began with the forced exile of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, which then brought about the world’s first modern Muslim theocracy under the rule of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.”– {Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. (n.d.). Info:Main Page – New World Encyclopedia. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/ Abdullah_Yusuf_Azzam}

Khomeini also died in 1989, but the perpetuity of this revolution had been secured by this time. The evidence of this is that his anti-imperialist, anti-western ideology and theocratic form of Islamic government remained intact independent of support from America or the crumbling Soviet Union. Iran’s involvement in the founding of the Islamic militia group Hezbollah as a permanent and powerful presence in Lebanon to counter the political Zionism of Israel is another evidence—the Shiite resistance had begun to spread15. A third item of evidence can be seen in Iran’s ability to see off an 8 year assault from an Arab and Western supported Iraq without much assistance. These developments demonstrated that the ideology of Shia Islam was also on course to securing a political voice in the global community of nations.

“1989 was a watershed year in the history of the Islamic Republic: Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued his fatwa (in effect, a death sentence) against novelist Salman Rushdie, rupturing relations between Iran and the countries of the European community; the destructive eight-year Iran-Iraq War was over, and post-war reconstruction could begin; and in anticipation of Khomeini’s death, the constitution was revised, concentrating even more power in the hands of the supreme leader.” – {Rise of the Post-Khomeini era. (2014, July 29). https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/ quarterly/summer-2014-1989-and-the-making-of-our-modern-world/rise-of-the-post-khomeini-era/}

Hence, we can conclude that 1979-1989 set Modern Islam on its path to revolutionise the Middle East and wage a long war with western civilisation at both state and non-state levels. These 10 years hold the same significance as the 10 years of 622-632 A.D. when Islam established a permanent ideological presence in the Arabian peninsula and also became a political force. It is important to highlight that Azzam’s resistance movement was mainly Sunni and the forces of Iran’s resistance were primarily Shia. The Sunni-Shia split that seemed rather inconsequential in 632 A.D., at the end of the 10 year struggle, would take on great significance in 1989 with the regional order changing. One example of this can be seen in the legislative changes in Lebanon that had for the first time since the country had become a French mandate, brought Shiites and Sunnis into political equality with the previously dominant Maronite Christians and also symbolised a phase of growth of Iranian proxy influence in the region through the consolidation of Hezbollah.

“By the time of the signing in October 1989 of the Taif Accord among the warring Lebanese factions, the Shi‘a had gained enough power to codify their place within the Lebanese confessional system. For the first time since independence from the French, which had given Christian Maronites power disproportionate to their actual numbers, the Taif agreement established overall Muslims population at parity with Christians, who had previously enjoyed an elevated status. Despite these gains, the political influence of Lebanon’s Shi‘a community still lagged its true demographic strength. Before Taif, the Sunni Muslim prime minister was appointed by the Maronite president. Now, the prime minister answered directly to the elected legislature. The agreement increased the power of the Sunni and changed the power-sharing arrangement, and thus the political dynamic, among Lebanon’s competing sects and faiths. This redistribution of power also benefited the Shi’a. Most importantly for Hizballah, Taif called for the demilitarization of the Lebanese militias but exempted Hizballah on the grounds that it was fighting Israel’s presence in southern Lebanon. This was effective recognition that Hizballah, with its organizational strength, ideological discipline, and unmatched military skills represented the single most powerful political actor on the Lebanese stage.” – {https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/sunni-shia-abdo.pdf}   

It is interesting to note that dating from 606 A.D. when the Adventist pioneers mark the retirement of Islam’s prophet to the cave of Hira to the beginning of the Arabian conquests in 622 A.D. is 16 years. But dating Islam’s birth from 610 A.D., which most modern historians note, to the time of the conquests is 12 years. 622 A.D. then marked the inauguration of a 10 year struggle to ensure the future of the Muslim cause. It can similarly be noted that from the beginning of Azzam’s Bachelor’s studies in 1963 to the beginning of the Soviet-Afghan war in 1979 is 16 years and from the beginning of his Master’s studies in 1967 to 1979 is 12 years. This was also followed by a 10 year struggle for the establishment of a modern Islamic religious and military ideology and a modern Islamic political force. The ancient and modern timelines can be illustrated as follows: 

Having delineated some of the very first ideological and political events and the political players that led to the creation of ‘third woe Islam’ and paralleling them with those of the first woe, we can now consider the key that unlocked these Islamic forces to the international stage.

The Key of the Bottomless Pit: The Shattering of Soviet Resistance  

Mohammed’s revolutionary ideology had been restricted to Arabia because of a bipolar regional order brought about by the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires. Accordingly, we can conclude that the revisionist forces of the Modern Muslim world faced containment because of the bipolarity of the region created by the United States and the Soviet Union. The key to Islam’s first rise was the shattering of Persian resistance at the decisive battle of Nineveh in 627 A.D. Similarly, the key to Islam’s final rise was the shattering of Soviet resistance to the American phenomenon in 1989. The symbol of this development in Eastern Europe was the fall of the Berlin wall on November 9, 198916. And the significant Middle Eastern development was the complete withdrawal of the Red Army from Afghanistan in defeat.

“The war in Afghanistan became a quagmire for what by the late 1980s was a disintegrating Soviet Union. (The Soviets suffered some 15,000 dead and many more injured.) Despite having failed to implement a sympathetic regime in Afghanistan, in 1988 the Soviet Union signed an accord with the United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and agreed to withdraw its troops. The Soviet withdrawal was completed on February 15, 1989, and Afghanistan returned to nonaligned status.” – {Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/ event/Soviet-invasion-of-Afghanistan}

While the Soviet Union continued for another two years, it was too weak to exert any meaningful influence in the Middle East. This left the United States as the sole political arbiter in the region and the sole superpower of the world. But the United States seemingly disinterested with Muslim world affairs, the region ushered in what appeared to be an era of regional autonomy and selfdetermination. The bottomless pit had once again been opened. Professor Ross Harrison puts it this way:

There were several effects of this momentous event that rocked the region. First, all countries aligned with either superpower took a strategic haircut. For the United States and the Soviet Union, alliances in the region were seen largely as instruments for battling and containing each other. When the Soviet Union collapsed, this strategic imperative ended for the United States. While the Middle East remained important to Washington given its reliance on oil and gas from the Persian Gulf and ties with Israel, the Cold War glue that held the United States riveted to the region gave way.” – {Shifts in the Middle East balance of power: An historical perspective. (n.d.). Al Jazeera Center for Studies. https://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2018/09/shifts-middle-east-balancepower-historical-perspective-180902084750811.html}

It is this apparent disinterest in the Middle East that led to Saddam Hussein’s bold invasion of proWestern Kuwait in 1990. This however, rather than confirm the idea of regional autonomy, revoked it. The United States demonstrated its unipolarity and preferred approach to Middle Eastern foreign policy in its response to Hussein’s actions. A Republican-led America favoured military force over dialogue and diplomacy which it had had ample opportunity to choose. The Gulf War of 1991 would become the first test of an American dominated world order, a foretaste of what we were to expect in future times. Notice the following excerpts from a speech given on September 11, 1990 by George H. W. Bush concerning the significance of America’s response to the Gulf crisis which substantiate the foregoing claims of this article.

“We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a new world order — can emerge: a new era — freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony… The test we face is great, and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle…Recent events have surely proven that there is no substitute for American leadership. In the face of tyranny, let no one doubt American credibility and reliability. Let no one doubt our staying power.” – {The other 9/11: George H.W. Bush’s 1990 New World order speech. (2019, August 25). Dallas News. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/ 2017/09/08/the-other-9-11-george-h-w-bush-s-1990-new-world-order-speech/}

The Middle East would continue to mould this unilateral version of American foreign policy. Hence, we can conclude that Islam’s role in the third woe is to wear out the United States’ diplomatic veneer, particularly its willingness to cooperate with the international community, and reveal the unilateralism it covers to the gaze of the entire world through constant antagonism. As negative as this may seem, it is a necessary development for the fulfilment of the prophecies of the third angel’s message such as the resurrection of the Papacy and the enforcement of the Mark of the Beast by the two-horned beast (the United States). Islam’s prophetic activity proves our point and validates our message. This shall become apparent. Ishmael again becomes a curse and a blessing. The results of the post-Cold War regional order should not be restricted to the Gulf crisis however. They can also be seen in Afghanistan, a country that had been the scene of international war and carnage for a decade. 

Post-Cold War Afghanistan: The Launchpad for International Jihad

Without a robust transitional plan mediated by the occupying powers, Afghanistan descended into a chaos which culminated in 1996 with the rise of the Taliban, a metamorphosis of the Afghan Mujahideen, as the de facto government.

“The end of the 10-year Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1989 led to fighting between warring groups collectively known as the mujahideen. The 1992 civil war led the country into another chaotic conflict. Due to political instability, there could neither be any governance nor infrastructure development. In this atmosphere, Taliban came up with the idea of founding a state under “Islamic principles”. The name Taliban, which means “students,” refers to pupils educated in madrassas (schools for religious education) in the eastern and southern regions of Afghanistan, mostly resided by the Pashtun ethnic group. In September 1994, Mullah Omar founded the group in the country’s southern Kandahar province with 50 students. He was among the mujahideen who fought the Soviets…

He demanded a system based on Islamic values after toppling of the country’s communist regime… On 26 Sep. 1996, Masud and his forces left the city to the north of Hindu Kush Mountains, in order to reorganize against the Taliban invasion. The next day, Taliban entered Kabul and ended the temporary government, announcing the establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. By 1998, it controlled 90% of the country’s territory.” – {Rise, fall and resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan. (n.d.). Anadolu Ajansı. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/rise-fall-and-resurgenceof-taliban-in-afghanistan/1750222#}

Based on a relationship they had forged with Osama bin Laden and other ‘Afghan Arabs’ during the Soviet-Afghan war, their principle of hospitality, and a dysfunctional society, Taliban-led Afghanistan became a safe base of operations for al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. After Soviet withdrawal in 1989, Osama bin Laden travelled to Saudi Arabia to secure more financing for al-Qaeda’s cause. He was at odds with the Saudi royal family (but not so much with the radical Saudi clerics) and moved to a more Islamist-friendly Sudan where he remained for a few years. He was appalled by America’s actions in the Gulf crisis, including the fact that American soldiers had been stationed in Mecca, Islam’s holiest site. These developments helped to shape the Sunni insurgency’s next phase of jihad, and bin Laden’s theory that the United States had to be taken out of the way in order for jihad to triumph in the region and internationally. He determined that he would focus on symbolic acts of terror rather than conventional military operations, demonstrating that this was going to be more of an ideological conflict, an information war. Accordingly, he began a series of intermittent terrorist attacks on American people and facilities between 1991 and 2001.

“After one more year of preparation [1991], al Qaeda struck for the first time: A bomb exploded in a hotel in Aden, Yemen, that had housed American troops on their way to a peacekeeping mission in Somalia. (No Americans died in the blast, but two Austrian tourists did.) Emboldened, bin Laden and his associates embraced violent jihad in earnest. For example, they trained and armed the Somali rebels who killed 18 American servicemen in Mogadishu in 1993. They were also linked to the 1993 bombing of New York’s World Trade Center; the attempted assassination of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarek in 1995; the bombing of a U.S. National Guard training center in Riyadh that same year; and the truck bomb that destroyed the Khobar Towers, an American military residence in Dharan, in 1996…the scale of al Qaeda’s attacks continued to increase. 

On August 7, 1998, bombs exploded simultaneously at the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, where 213 people were killed and 4,500 were injured, and Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, where 11 people were killed and 85 were injured. Al Qaeda took credit for the bombings. Then, on October 12, 2000, a small boat loaded with explosives plowed into the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, an American naval destroyer docked off the coast of Yemen. 17 sailors were killed and 38 were injured. Bin Laden took credit for that incident as well.” – {History.com Editors.(2009, December 16). Osama bin Laden. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/osama-bin-laden}

In 1996, he returned to Afghanistan; and from here, he would coordinate plans for a ‘long war’ with the United States. Islamic terrorism would also assume different forms in different places during the time of bin Laden’s campaigns. The history of 1989 to 2001 thus became a period of preparation for the third woe, characterised by intermittent attacks, similar to the period of preparation for the first woe from 633-1299. And on the 11th anniversary of George H. W. Bush’s new world order speech, September 11, 2001 (colloquially known as 9/11), the greatest assault on American soil took place, inaugurating the third woe of Bible prophecy. 

The Third Woe Phase 1: The Middle Eastern Quagmire

This attack, referred to by bin Laden and his crew as the Manhattan Raid17, represented the Sunni insurgency’s loudest protest heretofore against American unilateralism in the Middle East. Ben Rhodes, the former Deputy National Security Adviser under President Barack Obama states this as a fact based on his “careful review” of “al-Qaeda’s broader motivations.” In an article published by the Atlantic, he highlights the following.

“One of the tasks that Hamilton assigned me was to carefully review all of Osama bin Laden’s fatwas, and to examine al-Qaeda’s broader motivations. After reading bin Laden’s own words and studying the lives of the hijackers, I could no longer so easily square their motivations with what Bush had said after 9/11. The people who had attacked us didn’t seem focused on their hatred of America’s “democratically elected government.” What they hated was American foreign policy. What they sought was the overthrow of their own governments—chiefly, that of Saudi Arabia, where bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers came from, and that of Egypt, where the plot’s ringleader, Mohamed Atta, came from.” – {Rhodes, B. (2020, April 6). The 9/11 era is over. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/its-not-september-12-anymore/ 609502/}

That it was conducted on September 11, the very day that George H. W. Bush had 11 years prior announced his version of the new world order, and that it was conducted in the first year of his son’s presidency, 2001, is symbolic confirmation of that fact. The message was clear: Islam’s culture and identity were in opposition to America’s culture and identity. This Islamist belief of an inevitable clash of civilisations has particularly been aggravated by those ideas of American culture that since Bush I’s era have resulted in American unipolarity. It is noteworthy at this point that contrary to the Islamophobic sentiments permeating Western societies in particular, and the rest of the world generally, 9/11 was not motivated by gross animosity of Muslim’s for westerners or an inordinate desire for western blood (particularly Americans). Rather it is the result of decades of Western interference in Middle Eastern affairs; and that, for personal gain at the region’s expense. And America has become the 21st Century epitome of that Western imperialism. This has fuelled the formation of a fundamentalist Islamic ideology bent on resisting western culture and influence.

“For a long time now there has been a rising tide of rebellion against this Western paramountcy, and a desire to reassert Muslim values and restore Muslim greatness. The Muslim has suffered successive stages of defeat. The first was his loss of domination in the world, to the advancing power of Russia and the West. The second was the undermining of his authority in his own country, through an invasion of foreign ideas and laws and ways of life and sometimes even foreign rulers or settlers, and the enfranchisement of native non-Muslim elements. The third—the last straw—was the challenge to his mastery in his own house, from emancipated women and rebellious children. It was too much to endure, and the outbreak of rage against these alien, infidel, and incomprehensible forces that had subverted his dominance, disrupted his society, and finally violated the sanctuary of his home was inevitable. It was also natural that this rage should be directed primarily against the millennial enemy and should draw its strength from ancient beliefs and loyalties.” – {Lewis, B. (1990, September). The roots of Muslim rage. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ archive/1990/09/the-roots-of-muslim-rage/304643/} 

Therefore, while the use of violence cannot be legitimised, and the terrorist threat is real, people must reason from cause to effect. Neither must the negatives of Islam be used as the sole defining factor of the Muslim community; for the same fundamentalist negatives can be pointed out in Christianity18. It is this narrow view of Islam that has produced endless conspiracy theories about an exaggerated Islamist threat; theories which have empowered an arguably greater threat to the West and the rest of the world, the international populist movement19. Western populist leaders are using Islamophobia (and other conspiracy theories) to marginalise immigrants and minorities, strip citizens of their civil rights and consolidate power in the executive in the name of national security. The United States of the post-9/11 era is a classic example of this development20. Nevertheless, the 9/11 attacks would suck the United States into a Middle Eastern quagmire, a long war with no end in sight.

“The post-Cold War era ended abruptly on the morning of September. 11, 2001. From the moment terrorists turned jetliners into weapons of mass destruction, the United States was inescapably engaged in a new “war” against global terrorism. The Bush administration now intends to make that war the central organizing principle of America’s foreign and defense policies…Like the fight against Soviet communism, today’s campaign against terrorism is likely to be nasty, brutish, and long. Because of the diverse nature of the threat, the United States has no clear vision of when or how the war will end.” – {https://www.brookings.edu/articles/nasty-brutish-and-long-americaswar-on-terrorism/}

The Bush administration demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden which they refused to do because of their principle of ‘hospitality to guests’21. They offered rather to have bin Laden tried in another country. In response, the United States launched operations in Afghanistan to unseat the Taliban and crush al-Qaeda. The overwhelming force of American military might led Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban to sue for peace and cooperate with the United States. This offer was rejected and American forces brutally and indiscriminately slaughtered members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. A number of political analysts have identified this as one of Washington’s biggest mistakes in Middle Eastern policy. More information about America’s missteps is provided by the Washington Post which recently published a series of documents known as ‘the Afghanistan Papers’22. They basically highlight the reasons why the United States has been engaged in a seemingly endless war in Afghanistan to this day, and to all intents and purposes has been losing that conflict.

“Officially, the war that began in October 2001 was aimed at eliminating al-Qaeda as a threat. As a corollary, this meant a government in Kabul that would deny that terrorist organisation sanctuary. Could the Taliban be such a government? The US seemed to believe that because Taliban leader Mullah Omar had not taken a sterner line against al-Qaeda during the late 1990s, that he could not be relied upon to do so post-2001. This was a reasonable but tragically flawed line of thinking. It was reasonable because the US had made several overtures to the Taliban before 9/11 to abandon Osama bin Laden and force him out of the country, most likely back to Saudi Arabia, where he would face that regime’s particular form of justice.

On the other hand, it is instructive that the Washington Post series quotes national security leaders like Jeffrey Eggers, diplomatic officials like Zalmay Khalilzad, and academic experts like Barnett Rubin to exactly that effect: the US could indeed have reached a deal with the Taliban had it adopted a more accommodationist course. And while it was one thing to avoid talks with the Taliban, the Bush administration went much further, rejecting agreements that the Afghan government itself struck with the Taliban in 2001 and 2004 that conceivably could have ended major combat 15 years ago.” – {Butt, A. I. (2019, December 23). The Afghan war: A failure made in the USA. Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/ indepth/opinion/afghan-war-failure-usa-191223104820851.html}

In 2003, the United States added insult to injury by using the threat of global terrorism, which was still fresh in the world’s mind, to unilaterally justify war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Having toppled Hussein’s Ba’athist Party, America disbanded the Iraq army, leaving thousands of Iraqi men embittered and out of work. Iraq descended into chaos and became fertile ground for Islamic extremism. The United States in this, laid the groundwork for al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and the seeds of ISIS that would distress the world in future years. In addition to this, the majority Shia Muslims won the American-funded Iraq elections in 200523, granting Iran, America’s Islamic archenemy a strategic sphere of influence (at least to a significant enough extent) in the region. What the United States had thought would be a quick war in Iraq became a political and military imbroglio to contain a constant terrorist threat and a burgeoning Iran.

“Announcing the start of the “War on Terror” back then, President Bush declared that you were “either with us or against us”. There was no middle ground, no allowance made for the subtle nuances of the Middle East with its ever-shifting alliances and allegiances. In Iraq, which the US and Britain invaded in 2003, this uncompromising position turned potential allies into enemies, laying the foundations for today’s ongoing global jihadist movement. Mina Al-Orabi is the Editor of the UAE newspaper The National. She is originally from Mosul, Iraq’s second city, which was devastated during the battle to dislodge IS from its streets. “‘In Iraq,” she says, “there were clear instances where the United States undercut the Iraqi state. Of course in 2003 the decision to dismantle the police and the military, the decision to put tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of young men out of work… with the idea that they should be completely excluded from the country, that became the nucleus for al-Qaeda in Iraq and then the nucleus of IS.”” – {Gardner, F. (2020, June 24). Will the ‘War on Terror’ ever end? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/ news/world-53156096}

“Iran has significant influence in Iraq but it is far from the all-controlling behemoth that some analysts claim it is.” – {Al-Ali, Z. (2018, May 27). Will Sadr’s victory diminish Iran’s influence in Iraq? Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/ opinion/sadr-victory-diminish-iran-influence-iraq-180525115900074.html} 

The political instability, and consequently, America’s obligations in the region, have continued to grow; the third woe has, since 9/11, been in full force. And this has taken place because of its increasing unwillingness to pursue diplomatic options which involve cooperation with other nations through the vehicle of the United Nations. The Middle Eastern quandary, a rising Iran, the transnational terrorist threat, the instability in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other countries such as Palestine, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Syria have gradually shifted the United States’ focus from economic and security concerns to those of culture and identity. They have brought the United States to a point of fully embracing nationalist thought that favours “hegemonic retreat”, a concept which has accelerated in the Trump Era. Consider the following from an article titled “US Foreign Policy in the Middle East: The Logic of Hegemonic Retreat” by Sean Yom, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Temple University and Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

“The Trump administration’s foreign policy is often perceived as an isolationist ideology that has radically reversed American global leadership in a matter of years. In the Middle East, critics have harangued the Trump Doctrine as an even hastier surrender of the US hegemony that has defined regional order since the 1980s. In reality, American interest in this region has been declining for a decade as expressed by its rising reluctance to leverage its economic and military supremacy to constrain, regulate, and destroy perceived foes as it once did. This waning interventionism precedes the Trump Doctrine. It stems not from any ideological turn, or the financial and military exhaustion of a cresting superpower, but rather a structural dynamic: the Middle East no longer generates credible threats against the US. Whereas in the past alarmist fears of communism and energy insecurity propelled Washington’s regional imperium, today the perceived enemies of US interests – radical Islamism and Iran – do not endanger the political institutions and economic prosperity of American society. Absent a catastrophic terrorist attack, the US will continue to relinquish its hegemonic mantle, turning away from overt interventionism as the logic of coercively dominating a region of diminishing importance runs its course.” – {US foreign policy in the Middle East: The logic of hegemonic retreat. (2020, February 28). Wiley Online Library. https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12777}

The Modern Islamic forces have effectively tormented and weakened the United States not so much by devastating terror attacks and the military and economic costs of protracted war, but by an unfaltering radical Islamic ideology which has fuelled Islamophobia and ideological destruction in the West. By the endless theories that have been (and are being) promoted by Conservative America, the turbulent events attached to the Muslim world have dismantled the United States from the inside. The United States has changed from being the upholder of pluralism, inclusion and international cooperation, the very ideals which gave it its power and prosperity in the first place (see Great Controversy, pg.441.1), to an inward-looking, exclusive dictator. And this change has gained momentum by reason of being embroiled in endless wars far from its own borders. It is of vital importance to remember that behind all the political intrigue portrayed in the United StatesMuslim world relationship is a religious war between Protestant Christianity and Islam. This can be seen in President Bush’s Manichean rhetoric of a war of good versus evil24, it can be seen in the evangelical leaders’ religious interpretation of 9/1125, and in the identity politics that began to increasingly characterise the United States post-9/11. It is a continuation of the conflict that began in the 7th Century and had seemingly paused in the 19th.

“The struggle between these rival systems [Christendom and Islam] has now lasted for some fourteen centuries. It began with the advent of Islam, in the seventh century, and has continued virtually to the present day.” – {Lewis, B. (1990, September). The roots of Muslim rage. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1990/09/the-roots-of-muslim-rage/304643/}

15 years down the line, conservative religious thought has overrun U.S. government and has put nationalism firmly in the White House26. It is the reason for increasingly authoritarian and discursive domestic and foreign policies27. The events of recent years have shown that America has been weakened not militarily or economically, but ethically. In a bid for domestic legitimacy, the Trump White House has enhanced the Bush legacy of political fundamentalism28. But this comes at the cost of international estrangement; for this canonical shift has led America to, as it were, wash its hands of the Middle East and damage its foreign policy image. It is now viewed as an unreliable, incompetent and vacillating powerbroker29. And since these developments have all been caused by America’s own actions, they constitute a voluntary surrender of power reminiscent to that of the Byzantine Empire in 1449. It is important to note that what is ‘retreating’ is resolute American foreign policy, policy driven by economic and security interests and a desire to protect the liberal global order. This is what is dying away; for it is politically impossible for the United States to completely withdraw from the region.

“The choice the United States is facing is not between engagement and withdrawal, but between being dragged into Middle Eastern conflicts reluctantly and unprepared, or developing a coherent framework for its inevitable involvement. And it must decide whether this framework would be focused on protecting narrow interests and reliant on military force, or whether it will be part of a broad political vision for the U.S. role in the world.” – {https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ 2020/01/27/us-withdrawal-middle-east-is-costly-mirage/}

The the most significant decimation of America’s foreign policy persona is evidenced in the shocking policy roller coaster of 2019. Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew American troops from northern Syria, citing the defeat of ISIS as the reason30. He OK’d a Turkish invasion of that territory rather than broker a peace deal between Turkey, the Kurds and the Syrian government. That actually offered a new lease of life to ISIS insurgents and cost many civilians their lives31. He almost immediately turned against his green-light, imposed sanctions on Ankara, and exerted tepid efforts at peacemaking32. His administration also attempted to strike a deal with the Taliban, a development he upended in September 201933. On top of that, Trump ignored Iran’s aggressive behaviour towards Saudi Arabia that saw the most important global oil facility in the country crippled by drone and missile strikes34. Now, not only its adversaries, but even its allies in the region are looking elsewhere for political help. The United States has been weakened, its mantle of power taken away. 2019 therefore marks the conclusion of the first phase of the third woe; but it simultaneously marks the inauguration of the second (based on the prophecy of the second woe) which will worsen the political crises of the Middle East and further entrench the United States in conflict. This will be the starting point for the next instalment.

Closing Remarks

The United States has been inundated by religious fundamentalism because of its ceaseless conflicts with Islamic fundamentalism and expansionism. The resultant Christian nationalism now directs key institutions responsible for Washington’s internal and external affairs. This in turn has incentivised antithetical Muslim nationalisms to inflame an Oriental region that is already on the verge of collapse. The commercial and security threats that an unstable Middle East presents can only be expected to augment. These threats will force the world to embrace a new world order that is already struggling to be born and will bring about the closing scenes of this earth’s history. 

  1. Partition of the Ottoman Empire. (2006, October 30). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_the_Ottoman_Empire
  2. Partition of the Ottoman Empire. (2006, October 30). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_the_Ottoman_Empire
  3. Milestones: 1945–1952. (n.d.). Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/ creation-israel
  4. CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup. (2017, December 1). the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup
  5. Turkish straits crisis. (2013, May 29). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Straits_crisis
  6. Muhammad: Legacy of a prophet . Life of Muhammad: HTML timeline | PBS. (n.d.). PBS: Public

Broadcasting Service. https://www.pbs.org/muhammad/timeline_html.shtml

  1. Black, I. (2020, May 17). The caravan: Abdallah Azzam and the rise of global jihad review – recent history at its finest. the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/17/the-caravan-abdallahazzam-and-the-rise-of-global-jihad-review-recent-history-at-its-finest
  2. “Along with Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian Sunni Islamic scholar, preacher and mentor of bin Laden, the men began to grow a large financial network, and when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, al Qaeda was created to take on future holy wars. For Bin Laden, that was a fight he wanted to take globally.” – {History.com Editors. (2018, December 4). Al Qaeda: Facts about the terrorist network and its history of attacks. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/al-qaeda}
  3. “A group of Shiites influenced by the theocratic government in Iran—the region’s major Shiite government, which came to power in 1979—took up arms against the Israeli occupation. Seeing an opportunity to expand its influence in Arab states, Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) provided funds and training to the budding militia, which adopted the name Hezbollah, meaning “The Party of God.” It earned a reputation for extremist militancy due to its frequent clashes with rival Shiite militias, such as the Amal Movement, and attacks on foreign targets, including the 1983 suicide bombing of barracks housing U.S. and French troops in Beirut, in which more than three hundred people died. Hezbollah became a vital asset to Iran, bridging Shiite Arab-Persian divides as Tehran established proxies throughout the Middle East.” – {What is Hezbollah? (2005, November 7). Council on Foreign Relations. https:// www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hezbollah}
  4. “On a global level, the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the symbolic end of the Cold War, famously prompting the political scientist Francis Fukuyama to declare it the “end of history.”” – {What happened the day the Berlin Wall fell. (2019, November 7). Time. https://time.com/5720386/berlin-wall-fall/}
  5. “Americans should now know a great deal more about the origins of and planning for what al Qaeda calls the Manhattan Raid.” – {https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ thesearchforalqaeda_chapter.pdf}
  6. The day Christian fundamentalism was born. (2019, May 25). The New York Times – Breaking News,

World News & Multimedia. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/25/opinion/the-day-christianfundamentalism-was-born.html; Seidel, J. (2019, January 8). The ‘Seven Mountains’ Conspiracy. The Advertiser. https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/the-seven-mountains-revelation/news-story/ be825c6262f5e764a3c2cbd385442702

  1. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FP_20190226_islam_far_right_hamid.pdf
  2. After 9/11: ‘You no longer have rights’ – extract. (2017, December 1). the Guardian. https:// www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/02/after-9-11-muslim-arab-american-stories
  3. Pashtunwali. (2004, January 20). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunwali
  4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/documents-database/
  5. Shia delight and sunni gloom. (2005, February 17). The Economist. https://www.economist.com/middleeast-and-africa/2005/02/17/shia-delight-and-sunni-gloom
  6. History.com Editors. (2020, January 27). George W. Bush describes Iraq, Iran and North Korea as “axis of evil”. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bush-describes-iraq-iran-north-korea-as-axisof-evil
  7. God allowed 9/11 to happen to show America it needs him, evangelist says. (2016, May 14). The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-allowed-911-to-happen-showamerica-they-need-him-evangelist-says-a7029296.html; Falwell: Blame abortionists, feminists and gays. (2017, June 24). the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/19/september11.usa9; Pat Robertson controversies. (2010, January 13). CBS News – Breaking news, 24/7 live streaming news & top stories. https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/pat-robertson-controversies/4/
  8. The White House is tearing down the wall between church and state. (2018, July 5). The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/opinion/sunday/churchstate-supreme-court-religion.html
  9. Bill Barr thinks America is going to hell. (2019, December 29). The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/opinion/william-barr-trump.html
  10. “After the trauma of 9/11, the Bush administration constructed a distinctive form of rhetoric to articulate its policies in the ‘new war on terror’. The language was grounded in a conservative religious outlook, characterized by absolutism, a divine hand in history and a sense of American manifest destiny, but also took on a clear political expression and application. David Domke thus coined the term ‘political fundamentalism’ to describe the new fusion of evangelicalism and foreign policy activism that characterized the Bush administration after 9/11.” – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14781150802079714} 29 Russia savors U.S. missteps in Syria, and seizes opportunity. (2019, October 14). The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/world/europe/russiasavors-us-missteps-in-syria-and-seizes-opportunity.html
Please specify the URL of your file

Submit a Comment