Prefatory Note: I realize that some of the readers of this blog are unhappy with long blogs, and so I offer an apology for this one in advance. My attempt is to deal with a difficult set of issues afflicting the Middle East, especially the seemingly disastrous Egyptian experiment with democracy that has resulted in a bloody coup followed by violent repression of those elected to lead the country in free elections. The essay that follows discusses the degree to which anti-Muslim Brotherhood polarization in Egypt doomed the transition to democracy that was the hope and dream of the January 25th revolutionary moment in Tahrir Square that had sent shock waves of admiration around the world! This has been revised and corrected since its original posting to take account of comments from readers, and my own further reflections. These themes in a rapidly unfolding series of political dramas require an openness to acknowledging failures of assessment.
**************************************************************************
When Polarization Becomes Worse than Authoritarianism Defer Democracy
Doubting Democracy
We are living at a time when tensions within societies seem far more disruptive and inhumane than the rivalries of sovereign states that have in the past fueled international wars. More provocatively, we may be living at a historical moment when democracy as the government of choice gives rise to horrifying spectacles of violence and abuse. These difficulties with the practice of democracy are indirectly, and with a heavy dose of irony, legitimizing moderate forms of authoritarian government. After years of assuming that ‘democracy’ was ‘the least bad form of government’ for every national setting, there are ample reasons to raise doubts. I make such an observation with the greatest reluctance.
There is no doubt that authoritarian forms of rule generally constrain the freedom of everyone, and especially the politically inclined. Beyond this, there is a kind of stagnant cultural atmosphere that usually accompanies autocracy, but not always. Consider Elizabethan England, with Shakespeare and his cohort of contemporary literary giants. There have been critical moments of crisis in the past when society’s most respected thinkers blamed democracy for the political failings. In ancient Greece, the cradle of Western democracy, Plato, Aristotle, and Thucydides came to prefer non-democratic forms of government, more fearful of the politics of the mob than that led Athens into imprudent and costly foreign adventures.
Of course, there are times when the established order is fearful of democracy even in countries that pride themselves on their democratic character. Influential voices in the United States were raised during the latter stages of the Vietnam War in opposition to what were perceived by conservatives to be the excesses of democracy. Infamously, Samuel Huntington in an essay published by the influential Trilateral Commission compared the anti-war movement in the United States to the canine disorder known as ‘distemper,’ clearly expressing the view that the people should leave the matter of war and peace in the hands of the government, and not expect to change policy by demonstrating in the streets.
It was only twenty years ago that the collapse of the Soviet Union was hailed throughout the West as an ideological triumph of liberal democracy over autocratic socialism. Prospects for world peace during this interval in the 1990s were directly linked to the spread of democracy, while such other reformist projects as the strengthening of the UN or respecting international law were put aside. European and American universities were then much taken with the theory and practice of ‘democratic peace,’ documenting and exploring its central claim that democracies never go to war against one another. If such a thesis is sustained, it has significant policy implications. It would follow, then, that if more and more countries become ‘democratic’ the zone of peaceful international relations becomes enlarged. This encouraging byproduct of democracy for sovereign states was reinforced by the internal experience of the European Union, which while nurturing democracy established a culture of peace in what had for centuries been the world’s worst war zone.
This positive assessment of democratization at the national level is offset by the extent to which Western liberal democracies have recourse to war to promote regime change in illiberal societies. The motivations for such wars is not purely political, but needs to be linked to the imperatives of neoliberal globalization, and to the class interests of the 1%.
In the post-9/11 period the Bush presidency embraced ‘democracy promotion’ as a major component of a neoconservative foreign policy for the United States in the Middle East. Skepticism about the nature such an endorsement of democracy was widespread, especially in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Harsh criticism was directed U.S. Government self-appointed role as the agent of democratization in the region, especially considering the unacknowledged motivations: oil, regional hegemony, and Israeli security. By basing democracy promotion on military intervention, as in relation to Iraq, the American approach was completely discredited even without the admitted failure resulting from prolonged occupation of the country. The supposed antii-authoritarian interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya have not implanted a robust democracy in any of these places, but rather corruption, chaos, massive displacement, and persisting violent conflict. Beyond this disillusioning experience, foreign leaders and world public opinion refused to accept Washington’s arrogant claim that it provided the world with the only acceptable political model of legitimate government.
Despite this pushback, there remains an almost universal acceptance of the desirability of some variation democracy as the only desirable form of national governance. Of course, there were profound disagreements when it comes to specific cases. There were some partial exceptions to the embrace of democracy. For instance, there was support in the Middle East for monarchies as sources of stability and unity, but even these monarchs purported to be ‘democratic’ in their sympathies unless directly challenged by their subjects/citizens. Democracies maintained their positive reputation by protecting citizens from abuse by the state, by empowering the people to confer authority on the national government, generally through periodic elections, and by developing a governing process that was respectful of the rule of law and human rights.
Issues during the last decade in the Middle East have brought these issues to the fore: the Green Revolution against theocratic democracy in Iran, the secular de facto rejection of majoritarian democracy in Turkey, and the various transitional scenarios that have unfolded in the Arab countries, especially Egypt, after the anti-authoritarian uprisings of 2011. The torments of the region, especially connected with the Anglo-French colonialist aftermath of the Ottoman Empire, followed by an American hegemonic regime tempered by the Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union, and aggravated since the middle of the last century by the emergence of Israel, along with the ensuing conflict with the dispossessed Palestinian people, have made the struggle for what might be called ‘good governance’ a losing battle, at least until 2011. Against such a background it was only natural that the democratizing moment labeled ‘the Arab Spring’ generated such excitement throughout the region, and indeed in the world. Two years later, in light of developments in Syria, Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere it is an occasion that calls for sympathetic, yet critical, reflection.
In the last several years, there has emerged in the region the explosive idea that the citizenry enjoys an ultimate right to hold governments accountable, and if even a democratic government misplays its hand too badly, then it can be removed from power even without awaiting of elections, and without relying on formal impeachment procedures. What makes this populist veto so controversial in recent experience is its tendency to enter a coalition with the most regressive elements of the governmental bureaucracy, especially the armed forces, police, and intelligence bureaucracies. Such coalitions are on their surface odd, bringing together the spontaneous rising of the often downtrodden multitude with the most coercive and privileged elements of state and private sector power.
The self-legitimizing claim heard in Tahrir Square 2013 was that only a military coup could save the revolution of 2011, but critics would draw a sharp distinction between the earlier populist uprising against a hated dictator and this latter movement orchestrated from above to dislodge from power a democratically elected leadership identified as Islamic, accused of being non-inclusive, and hence illegitimate.
The Arab Upheavals
The great movements of revolt in the Arab world in 2011 were justly celebrated as exhibiting an unexpected surge of brave anti-authoritarian populist politics that achieved relatively bloodless triumphs in Tunisia and Egypt, and shook the foundations of authoritarian rule throughout the region. Democracy seemed to be on the march in a region that had been written off by most Western experts as incapable of any form of governance that was not authoritarian, which was not displeasing to the West so long as oil flowed to the world market, Israel was secure, and radical tendencies kept in check. Arab political culture was interpreted through an Orientalizing lens that affirmed passivity of the citizenry and elite corruption backed up, if necessary, by a militarized state. In the background was the fear that if the people were able to give voice to their preferences, the end result might be the theocratic spread of Iranian style Islamism.
It is a sad commentary on the state of the world that only two years later a gloomy political atmosphere is creating severe doubts about the workability of democracy, and not only in the Arab world, but more widely. What has emerged is the realization that deep cleavages exist in the political culture that give rise to crises of legitimacy and governability that can be managed, if at all, only by the application of repressive force. These conflicts are destroying the prospects of effective and humane government in a series of countries throughout the world.
The dramatic and bloody atrocities in Egypt since the military takeover on July 3rd have brought these realities to the forefront of global political consciousness. But Egypt is not alone in experiencing toxic fallout from severe polarization that pits antagonistic religious, ethnic, and political forces against one another in ‘winner take all’ struggles. Daily sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shi’ia in Iraq make it evident that after an anguishing decade of occupation the American crusade to liberate the country from dictatorship has failed miserably. Instead of a fledging democracy America has left behind a legacy of chaos, the threat of civil war, and a growing belief that only a return to authoritarianism can bring stability to the country. Turkey, too, is enduring the destabilizing impact of polarization, which has persisted in the face of eleven years of extraordinary AKP success and energetic and extremely capable leadership periodically endorsed by the voting public: strengthening and civilianizing political institutions, weakening the military, improving the economy, and greatly enhancing the regional and international standing of the country. Polarization should not be treated as just a Middle Eastern phenomenon. The United States, too, is increasingly afflicted by a polarizing struggle between its two main political parties that has made democratic government that humanely serves the citizenry and the national public good a thing of the past. Of course, this disturbing de-democratizing trend in America owes much to the monetizing machinations of Wall Street and the spinning of 9/11 as a continuing security challenge that requires the government to view everyone, everywhere, including its own citizens, as potential terrorist suspects.
The nature of polarization is diverse and complex, reflecting context. It can be socially constructed around the split between religion and secularism as in Egypt or Turkey or in relation to divisions internal to a religion as in Iraq or as between classes, ethnicities, political parties, geographic regions. In the concreteness of history each case of polarization has its own defining set of circumstances, often highlighting minority fears of discrimination and marginalization, class warfare, ethnic and religious rivalry (e.g. Kurdish self-determination), and conflicting claims about natural resources. Also, as in the Middle East, polarization is not merely the play domestic forces struggling for ascendancy. Polarization is also being manipulated by powerful external political actors, to what precise extent and to what ends is unknowable. It is revealing that in the demonstrations in Cairo during the past month both pro- and anti-Morsi protesters have been chanting anti-American slogans, while the government invites a series of Western dignitaries with the aim of persuading the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood to accept the outcome of the coup.
Egypt and Turkey
The circumstances of polarization in Egypt and Turkey, although vastly different, share the experience of Islamic oriented political forces emerging from the shadow land of society after years of marginalization, and in Egypt’s case brutal suppression. In both countries the armed forces had long played an important role in keeping the state under the rigid control of secular elites that served Western strategic and neoliberal economic interests. Up to now, despite periodic trials and tribulations, Turkey seems to have solved the riddle of modernity much more persuasively than Egypt.
In both countries electoral politics mandated radical power shifts unacceptable to displaced secular elites. Opposition forces in the two countries after enjoying decades of power and influence suddenly saw themselves displaced by democratic means with no credible prospect of regaining political dominance by success in future elections, having ceded power and influence to those who had previously been subjugated and exploited. Those displaced were unwilling to accept their diminished role, including this lowered status in relation to societal forces whose values were scorned as anti-modern and threatening to preferred life styles that were identified with ‘freedom.’ They complained bitterly, organized feverishly, and mobilized energetically to cancel the verdict of the political majority by whatever means possible.
Recourse to extra-democratic means to regain power, wealth, and influence seemed to many in the opposition, although not all, the only viable political option, but it had to be done in such a way that it seemed to be a ‘democratic’ outcry of the citizenry against the state. Of course, the state has its own share of responsibility for the traumas of polarization. The elected leadership often over-reacts, becomes intoxicated with its own majoritarian mandate, acts toward the opposition on the basis of worst case scenarios, adopts paranoid styles of response to legitimate grievances and criticisms, and contributes its part to a downward spiral of distrust and animosity. The media, either to accentuate the drama of conflict or because is itself often aligned with the secular opposition, tends to heighten tensions, creating a fatalist atmosphere of ‘no return’ for which the only possible solution is ‘us’ or ‘them.’ Such a mentality of war is an anathema for genuine democracy in which losers at any given moment still have a large stake in the viability and success of the governing process. When that faith in the justice and legitimacy of the prevailing political system is shattered democracy cannot generate good governance.
The Politics of Polarization
The opposition waits for some mistake by the governing leadership to launch its campaign of escalating demands. Polarization intensifies. The opposition is unwilling to treat the verdict of free elections as the final word as to an entitlement to govern. At first, such unwillingness is exhibited by extreme alienation and embittered fears. Later on, as opportunities for obstruction arise, this unwillingness is translated into political action, and if it gathers enough momentum, the desired crises of legitimacy and governability bring the country to the brink of collapse. Much depends on material conditions. If the economy is doing reasonably well, calmer heads usually prevail, which may help explain why the impact of severe polarization has been so much greater in Egypt than Turkey. Morsi has succumbed to the challenge, while Erdogan has survived. Reverse the economic conditions, and the political outcomes would also likely have been reversed, although such a possibility is purely conjectural.
The Egyptian experience also reflects the extraordinary sequence of recent happenings. The Tahrir Square upheavals of January 25th came after 30 years of Mubarak rule. A political vacuum was created by the removal of Mubarak that was quickly filled by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAP), but accompanied by the promise that a transition to democracy was the consensus goal binding all Egyptians, and once reached the generals would retire from the political scene. The popular sentiment then favored an inclusive democracy, which in 2011, was a coded way of saying that the Muslim Brotherhood should henceforth participate in the political process, finally being allowed to compete for a place in the governing process after decades of exclusion. There were from the beginning anxieties about this prospect among many in the anti-Mubarak ranks, and the Brotherhood seemed at first sensitive to secular and Coptic concerns even pledging that it had no intention of competing for the presidency of Egypt. All seemed well and good, with popular expectations wrongly assuming that the next president of Egypt would be a familiar secular figure, almost certainly drawn from the renegade membership of the fuloul, that is, a former beneficiary of the regime who joined the anti-Mubarak forces during the uprising. In the spring of 2011 the expectations were that Amr Moussa (former Secretary General of the Arab League and Mubarak Foreign Minister) would become Egypt’s first democratically elected president and that the Muslim Brotherhood would function as a strong, but minority, force in the Egyptian parliament. As the parliament would draft a new constitution for the country, this was likely to be the first show of strength between the secular and religious poles of Egyptian political opinion.
Several unforeseen developments made this initial set of expectations about Egypt’s political future unrealizable. Above all, the Muslim Brotherhood was far more successful in the parliamentary elections than had been anticipated. These results stoked the fears of the secularists and Copts, especially when account was taken of the previously unappreciated political strength of several Salafi parties that had not previously shown any interest in participating in the government. Religiously oriented political parties won more than 70% of the contested seats, creating control over the constitution-making process. This situation was further stressed when the Brotherhood withdrew its pledge not to seek control of the government by fielding its own candidate for the presidency. This whole transition process after January 2011 was presided over by administrative entities answerable to SCAP. Several popular candidates were disqualified, and a two-stage presidential election was organized in 2012 in which Mohamed Morsi narrowly defeated Ahmed Shafik in the runoff election between the two top candidates in the initial vote. Shafik, an air force commander and the last Mubarak prime minister, epitomizing the persisting influence of the fuloul. In a sense, the electoral choice given to the Egyptian people involved none of the Egyptian revolutionary forces that were most responsible for the overthrow of Mubarak or representing the ideals that seemed to inspire most of those who filled Tahrir Square in the revolutionary days of January 2011. The Brotherhood supported the anti-Mubarak movement only belatedly when its victory was in sight, and seemed ideologically inclined to doubt the benefits of inclusive democratization, while Shafik, epitomizing the fuloul resurgent remnant of Mubarakism, never supported the upheaval, and did not even pretend to be a democrat, premising his appeal on promises to restore law and order, which would then supposedly allow Egypt to experience a rapid much needed economic recovery.
It was during the single year of Morsi’s presidency that the politics of extreme polarization took center stage. It is widely agreed that Morsi was neither experienced nor adept as a political leader in what was a very challenging situation even if polarization had not been present to aggravate the situation. The Egyptian people anxiously expected the new leadership to restore economic normalcy after the recent period of prolonged disorder and decline. He was a disappointment, even to many of those who had voted for him, in all of these regards. Many Egyptians who said that they had voted for Morsi expressed their disenchantment by alleging the ‘nothing had changed for the better since the Mubarak period,’ and so they joined the opposition.
It was also expected that Morsi would immediately signal a strong commitment to social justice and to addressing the plight of Egyptian unemployed youth and subsistence masses, but no such promise was forthcoming. In fairness, it seemed doubtful that anyone could have succeeded in fulfilling the role of president of Egypt in a manner that would have satisfied the majority of Egyptians. The challenges were too obdurate, the citizenry too impatient, and the old Mubarak bureaucracy remained strategically in place and determined to oppose any change that might enhance the reputation of the Morsi leadership. Mubarak and some close advisors had been eliminated from the government, but the judiciary, the armed forces, and the Ministry of Interior were fuloul activist strongholds. In effect, the old secularized elites were still powerful, unaccountable, and capable of undermining the elected government that officially reflected the political will of the Egyptian majority. Morsi, a candidate with admittedly mediocre credentials, was elected to the presidency by an ominously narrow margin, and to make matters worse he inherited a mission impossible. Yet to unseat him by a coup was to upend Egypt’s fledgling democracy, with currently no hopeful tomorrow in view.
The Authoritarian Temptation
What was surprising, and disturbing, was the degree to which the protest movement so quickly and submissively linked the future of Egypt to the good faith and prudent judgment of the armed forces. All protest forces have received in exchange was the forcible removal of Morsi, the renewal of a suppressive approach to the Brotherhood, and some rather worthless reassurances about the short-term nature of military rule. General Adel-Fattah el-Sisi from the start made it clear that he was in charge, although designating an interim president, Adly Mansour, a Mubarak careerist, who had only days before the coup been made chief judge of the Supreme Constitutional Court by Morsi’s own appointment. Mansour has picked a new prime minister who selected a cabinet, supposedly consisting of technocrats, who will serve until a new government is elected. Already, several members of this civilian gloss on a military takeover of the governing process in Egypt have registered meek complaints about the excessive force being used against pro-Morsi demonstrations, itself a euphemism for crimes against humanity and police atrocities.
Better Mubarakism than Morsiism was the underlying sentiment relied upon to fan the flames of discontent throughout the country, climaxing with the petition campaign organized by Tamarod, a newly formed youth-led opposition, that played a major role in organizing the June 30th demonstrations of millions that were underpinned in the final days by a Sisi ultamatum from the armed forces that led to the detention and arrest of Morsi,. This was followed by the rise to political dominance of a menacing figure, General Adel-Fattah el-Sisi, who has led a military coup that talks of compromise and inclusive democracy while acting to criminalize the Muslim Brotherhood, and its leadership, using an onslaught of violence against those who peacefully refuse to fall into line. This military leadership is already responsible for the deliberate slaughter of Morsi loyalists in coldblooded tactics designed to terrorize the Muslim Brotherhood, and warn the Egyptian people that further opposition will not be tolerated.
I am certainly not suggesting that such a return to authoritarianism in this form is better for Egypt than the democracy established by Morsi, or favored by such secular liberals as Mohamed ElBaradei, who is now serving as Deputy Prime Minister. Unfortunately, this challenge directed at a freely elected democracy by a massive popular mobilization to be effective required an alliance with the coercive elements drawn from the deep state and private sector entrepreneurs. Such a dependency relationship involved a Faustian Bargain, getting rid of the hated Morsi presidency, but doing so with an eyes closed acceptance of state terror: large-scale shooting of unarmed pro-Morsi demonstrators, double standards dramatized by General Sisi’s call to the anti-Morsi forces to give him a populist mandate to crush the Brotherhood by coming into the streets aggressively and massively. Egypt is well along a path that leads to demonic autocratic rule that will likely be needed to keep the Brotherhood from preventing the reestablishment of order. General Sisi’s coup will be written off as a failure if there continues to be substantial street challenges and bloody incidents, which would surely interfere with restoring the kind of economic stability that Egypt desperately needs in coming months if it is to escape the dire destiny of being ‘a failed state.’ The legitimating test for the Sisi coup is ‘order’ not ‘democracy,’ and so the authoritarian ethos prevails, yet if this means a continuing series of atrocities, it will surely lead to yet another crisis of legitimacy for the country that is likely to provoke a further crisis of governability.
The controversial side of my argument is that Egypt currently lacks the political preconditions for the establishment of democracy, and in such circumstances, the premature attempt to democratize the political life of the country leads not only to disappointment, but to political regression. At this stage, Egypt will be fortunate if it can return to the relatively stable authoritarianism of the Mubarak dictatorship. Because of changed expectations, and the unlawful displacement of the Morsi leadership, it has now become respectable for the Tamarod, self-appointed guardians of the Tahrir Square revolution to support the ‘cleansing’ the Muslim Brotherhood. It is sad to take note of these noxious odors of fascism and genocide now contaminating the political atmosphere in Egypt.
The very different experience in Iraq, too, suggests that ill-advised moves to install democracy can unleash polarization in a destructive form. Despite his crimes, polarization had been kept in check during the authoritarian rule of Saddam Hussein, The attempted transition to democracy was deeply compromised by coinciding with the American occupation and proconsular rule. It produced sectarian polarization in such drastic forms that it will likely either lead to a new authoritarianism that is even more oppressive than what Saddam Hussein had imposed or resolved by a civil war in which the victor rules with an iron hand and the loser is relegated to the silent margins of Iraqi political life.
In the post-colonial world it is up to the people of each country to shape their own destiny (realizing the ethos of self-determination), and outsiders should rarely interfere however terrible the civil strife. Hopefully, the peoples of the Middle East will learn from these polarization experiences to be wary of entrusting the future of their country to the vagaries of majoritarian democracy, but also resistant to moves by politically displaced minorities to plot their return to power by a reliance on anti-democratic tactics, coalitions with the military, and the complicity of the deep state. There is no single template. Turkey, although threatened by polarization, has been able so far to contain its most dire threats to political democracy. Egypt has not been so lucky. For simplistic comparison, Turkey has had the benefits of a largely evolutionary process that allows for a democratic political culture to take hold gradually at societal and governmental levels. Egypt has, in contrast, experienced abrupt changes in a setting of widespread economic distress, and a radical form of polarization that denied all legitimacy to the antagonist, transforming the armed forces from foe to friend of the opposition because it was the enemy of their enemy. If this is the predictable outcome of moves to establish democracy, then authoritarian leadership may not be the worst of all possible worlds in every circumstance. It depends on context. In the Middle East this may require a comparison of the risks of democratization with the costs of authoritarianism, and this may depend on the degree and nature of polarization.
The presence of the oil reserves in the Gulf, as well as Iran, Iraq, and Libya, along with Israel’s interest in avoiding the emergence of strong unified democratic states in the region makes the Middle East particularly vulnerable to the perils of polarization. In other regions similar structures of antagonism exist, but generally with less disastrous results. The dynamics of economic globalization cannot be divorced from the ways in which nominally independent sovereign states are subjected to the manipulative storms of geopolitics.
##
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
Richard, once again you display the difference between Professor and Preacher.
This is such an intelligent, lucid, organized and reasonable, realistic, probable analysis of the spirit and temper of our Times. I can only aspire to write so well. It truly is a ‘no spin zone.’
Reading it reminded me of Jack Webb in Dragnet. Just the facts, ma’am! Just the facts! I would like to re-post it to my Blog.
From my individual perspective and experience, as to the globalization of polarization you point out, I see it as putting meat on the bone, the details, to this General Spiritual vision recorded some 2600 years during the Captivity of Imperial Babylon, the world’s 1st Superpower.
The US has been the late, greatest Nation to wear that mantle over these thousands of years of Nations appearing and disappearing in this world. This Bible history talks about the same polarization you write in an even better way, in real world, real Time, secular terms.
THE KING´S TERRIFYING NIGHTMARE
February 26, 2011
http://ray032.com/2011/02/26/the-king%C2%B4s-terrifying-nightmare/
Observing from CanaDa, I’m surprised Americans and especially the major media, do not awaken the people to the Federal Court overturning a lower Court ruling that made a section of the 2012 NDAA unconstitutional.
The US Military NOW has the legal authority to grab any American Citizen off US streets and hold them indefinitely in some Gitmo like holding facility based only on “suspicions” they do not have to prove in a Court of Law.
This is rife with the potential for bureaucratic abuse in an economic depression or severe downturn. Now that the NSA can listen to any American phone conversation and read any email, even peaceful organizors planning a peaceful demonstration can be rounded up and just disappear before any peaceful demonstration takes place.
The infrastructure of a Police State is already erected in the US and the Land of the Free appears to be blind to what can be seen.
The 1st Right the peasants were given by the ruling elites was Habeus Corpus. It is now taken away without a whimper. What can be expected?
Ray: Thanks for such a supportive response to what I intended as an exploratory essay, which I am sure the biblical analogue has a depth and clarity that I would never pretend, or aspire to. Of course, re-post. It
will be pleasing to me, and hopefully, not annoying to your readers. With greetings from Turkey, Richard
From Turkey? Close to the action again eh, Professor!!!
Re-posted this under a different name. Hope you like the lead picture of you I found out of the many in Google Images.
You know I like to include many images in my articles. A 30 second sound byte society prefers pictures to reading. I have a lot of image searching to convey the essence of your writing. I have to find appropriate music video as well.
UNITED WE STAND – DIVIDED WE FALL IN THIS WORLD
August 6, 2013
http://ray032.com/2013/08/06/united-we-stand-divided-we-fall-in-this-world/
Richard, I’ve inserted many images into this article re-posted to my Blog I hope conveys the spirit of your letter.
If any of your readers know of other relevant images, I hope they would share the link.
Ray: I am impressed by the way you have enlivened my post. Thanks for showing me the importance of visualization! Warm greetings, Richard
Richard: We often talk about democracy as if it has clear-cut dimensions and margins, which it does not. While we talk a great deal about it, we have never settled down to defining clearly the roles of the state and the boundaries of the liberty of the people. Yet I suspect that this distinction is clearer in many people’s heads than it is in the crafted papers of states. We walked, we thought artfully, around that by specifying that what has not been explicitly given to the state remains with the people. Since that allocation, the clarity of the proposition has not been materially improved. Even so, in my small Central Wisconsin hometown, we feel basically free because we are not interfered with. Maybe that is all we need.
In most dictatorships, the majority of people who do not get involved in the politics usually are not interfered with.
Dear Mr. Arnold, Dear Mr. Cormier,
I do have some brain-storming on some issues presented here. I also have kids in my hair today, and I cannot bring about a valid process of thinking…to begin with. So, I have to delay my inputs, all together.
The only thing would be of a key importance (that I can think on): a valid interference, in order to be acceptable to begin with (if any). I would just say that.
Dictatorship has nothing to do with liberty of the people (on ground), all together. Likewise, a democratic approach to a governing will not assure one a valid right to the liberty, in fact. But it cannot restrict it (as well as dictatorship regimes can’t restrict the liberty of the people).
What would liberty be, in fact… from a people’s perspective? I would just focus on that.
Unrelated to the content (which was wonderful, as usual), I have two comments:
1. I take no issues with the length of your blog entries. Don’t feel pressured by the attention-deficit-happy internet to reduce the length. The topics you are addressing are complex and deserve to be fully discussed, even if that means that the entries are longer than most other bloggers.
2. There is a typo beneath the sub-section “The Arab Upheavals” in the first paragraph, third sentence. The last word (“militarized stat”).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Thanks for your encouragement, and for pointing out the typo, which has been corrected..
Reblogged this on The Word – Ray Joseph Cormier.
Richard,
Terrific essay! I learn and benefit from your insight. But, gotta tell ya, I didn’t send it to a colleague because he goes nuts when he sees grammatical and proof reading errors, and then loses the context. Man, you gotta clean it up, it’s not just Cole’s typos. I’m not offering to proof read, but just sayin’.
Keep up the good work.
Yuri
Thanks, Yuri, both for your encouragement and criticism. It prompted me to correct and revise. I
hope that I did a decent job.
Richard
I so very much appreciate the expected clarity and balance that informs so completely, and connects the dots so well. I was also quite delighted with the length; not too long, but long enough for us to understand the process, and while the polarization examples here are for Egypt and Turkey, and against the backdrop of the entire region, I find many similarities, (with some differences as well) to the current state of polarization in the US, and specifically in terms of the former ruling party to be in active obstruction of the elected (and in the case of the US, overwhelmingly…no small margins) executive branch. And of course here, (and this is true of the Western media in general) the media actually operates as a Ministry of Propaganda for the same 1% interests who gain even more leverage from a polarized environment.
Thanks again, and I will now share widely with all the people I’ve been arguing with, and even the ones I haven’t been arguing with. They will surely appreciate it as much as I have, even with the real time acknowledgement of the gloomy outlook, at least for Egypt. I think we still have a chance to save ourselves via the electoral process next year, but that too largely depends on the polarization that continues to escalate across important social issues, like gun control, just to mention one of several.
Hope you’re good and enjoying your time in Turkey, and regards to Hillal as well.
Dear Richard,
I cannot speak concerning Turkey as I have no personal insight gained.
And what we observed concerning Libyia, Tunesia was more an “installed revolution” from outside forces. It was a lie blatantly put forward – bombing a country into an age where the infrastructure is completely destroyed can hardly be a proof for “democratic aspects”.
However, concerning Egypt I am in the position that my view point differs. I lived in Egypt a long time and therefore my view points are shaped by the people and personal insights and experiences I met/encountered.
For a first point I would say that the Islamic Brotherhood had never had more than five percent within the population’s appreciation. Egyptians are very moderate when it comes to religion.
However, after Sadats death and the election of Mubarack as a president of Egypt it became clear that Saudi Arabia as well as USA (too on behalf of Israel) supported extremely the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt in order to gain some “foothold”.
The marjority of the Egyptian population was aware of that.
The second revolution this year shows only that the marjority of the Egyptian population smelled the foreign influence. That’s why. The former election with Morsi was to a great part a “paid” election. It just has to be waited until it will become clear on which “side” the military stands. The bloodshed nowadays don’t tell it very clear and informations differ.
But in my point of view any country on our globe takes several years – some longer, some less – until some sort of “government on behalf of the people” can be established and a working constitution developed. It takes time and one or two years is – looking at history – short.
Iraq has been bombed into a time where no infrastructure was availabe and today has parts of soil and water not safe for people to be used because of its uranium-waste-material pollution.
What can be expected when people have no jobs ? No money ? When approx. five million orphans had been “created” ?
Moreover, Shia and Sunni reminds me of Roman-Catholics and Protestants. Their fights were exteme. Roman-Catholic church confiscated/seized to a great deal the properties of converted Protestants if they were not willig to “return” to the Roman-Catholic church. Many had to flee within a time period of days.
So this is nothing new – and the European continent experienced it a long time.
Concerning our Western “so-called democracy” I doubt very much that USA had been a real democracy. For too long the black people suffered. And how can a government allow any secret service carry out experiments with “prescribed” drugs by “willing = “bribed” doctors without the permission of these individuals. This had (and I am sure it’s not all over!!) been carried out in USA and in Sweden and I think in Beligum under the “auspiecies” of USA.
So seeing and following-up the developments in the past years doubts should be implemented.
And even reading the EU-newer-constitution (a monstrum of several hundred pages!!!) raises doubts – that for sure when it concerns democracy !!
Any country and its inhabitants should fight for their rights – indepedently from foreign influences.
Europe for instances – as you mentioned – took a long, long way to the formed European Union (so it has its flaws and is still a puppet of USA).
However, I am of the opinion we should not “judge” any population which way they are trying in order to bring more justice into their countries. The ways can be different. The ruling ways for any sort of governments too.
I think we haven’t arrived yet to a satisfying democratic formula.
And ancient Greece wasn’t a real democracy – women were very badly off concerning their rights during ancient times.
Take care of yourself,
monalisa
Dear Mona Lisa,
I just had a reflection that I had during the last few days.
There is really no technology that supports refuge mission in this point in time. Meaning, when people decide to go to the war they should also be required to allow for a security support of refuge mission in a parallel way with/of their war-on procurers. I see that the same infrastructure that comes up within weeks/months/years to support the troops should be present in some designated areas for refugee camps/mission.
I reflect upon conditions of refuges in Africa that are stuck in middle of warfare, and there is nothing going on for them. By implementing of the same infrastructure and system-support (in reference to the war efforts and refugee camps) feeding and education of children would be possible. Meaning, this would allow for some acceptable food pantry (which is abounding in many lands), and living conditions that are not as they are now.
It is best for military efforts to be shifted toward security efforts/service toward the refugee/exiles at some point in time.
Also, the war that was applicable to Iraq was nothing but genocide. Further war efforts in Middle East should be watched closely because it would cause genocide.
It seems that there is a valid reason why dictatorship is a good governing approach, all together. If democracy is not achieved by peaceful action of citizens, then is best for the citizens to stop beyond that and submit to the rule that is appointed. I would not support them in their undertaking beyond peaceful actions. This is simply because there is a spiritual consequence (of democracy) in lands that are not spiritually mature (or equipped) to allow for a form of a democratic government.
I reflect the situation in Bosnia: as soon as land was open without valid oversight, the priests were moved by Spirit of God to apply solid Church-mission and start to baptize entire region by free-fall of God’s Spirit. Meaning, traditional grafting in of the population was no longer safe, and not efficient.
When false Gospels are circulating around they will spiritually excommunicate population. A false Gospel will spiritually excommunicate Muslim believers, and will harm youth to a great extent. (Some Gospels are in power of hell).
Valid Gospel will not harm Muslim believers, but only can add to their Faith. In Bosnia, for example when Church has their gathering/ fellowship, then Muslims come to the congregation, as well. When the Charismatic Church is ministering to the whole people, and Spirit of God fall on them they do not convert to the Church-Catholic (if Muslims or Greek-Orthodox), nor there is really a need for them to do that. This is in general, but I am not sure if individuals are moved by God to the Church at some point. The work of God’s Spirit cannot be restricted. It is for the safty of belivers, in general.
In general, Church freedom and mission of the Church has to be present because of the tribes that cannot be grafted in by the Law and works of Faith, alone. This is inflexible for any land—or they will have spiritually excommunicated tribes (just as it is here in US). Only democratic government can sustain that which is spiritually excommunicated because these who are spiritual will find a way out, somehow.
When comes to Muslim population we have Hebrew Line (Abraham) and Jewish exiles intermingled with few other tribes. I pray for unity of Muslim people because that is what I hope for them—these are their spiritual needs. When Muslims are united then other believers in the land are doing well, and foreign and visiting fellowships can be well and not harmed, but they should not cause spiritual harm and disorder in the land.
This is what I see.
By Faith,
K.F.
Additional remark:
According to the German weekly magazine Der ‘Spiegel’ the Egyptian military gets a yearly “donation” from USA in the amount of approx. 1,3 billions US Dollars.
Maybe the figures differ slightly by other informations.
However, knowing this I do hope that not the worst will happen.
monalisa
In the Olden Days it was called paying Tribute. That was to pay the Egyptians to sign the Camp David Accord.
Israel gets 3x as much in Tribute to support the illusion of Pax Americana, which the whole world can see falling apart Today.
Dear Mr. Cormier,
Can you give me Reference to that which you are referring to (both Historical and/or Scriptural)? I have difficulty understanding what part of the Scripture you are referring to: “Camp David Accord.”
This is why: The Prophets (Writings) of the Scriptures cannot be interpreted unless (writing) has already taken place. This is according to the Scriptural context that explains how the Scripture (prophetic) was interpreted according to the reference in the Gospels and Apostolic teaching/writings, specifically Paul’s teaching.
(It can be studied), and there is a small difference there. It also has to be studied and interpreted in the same Spirit and the Gifts that was written.
Therefore, I like to see those references (just curious about the issues that you are pointing to).
Thank you,
K.F.
Kata, I’m not too sure what your question is? The Camp David Accords are not part of ancient Biblical Prophecy.
The Camp David Accord is the 1st Peace Treaty signed between temporal Israel recreated from the Bible, and an Arab State, Egypt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords
The US committed to pay both Israel and Egypt in perpetuity for signing the deal, some $1.5 billion annually to Egypt and some $3.5 billion annually to Israel, mostly in the form of military hardware. This saves many American manufacturing jobs.
On September 13, 1976, The Kansas City Times published a “prophetic” article implying the Camp David Accord using this language:
¨There are 30 months before the fate of the world will be sealed with EITHER destruction OR the universal brotherhood of man,¨ he said. ¨The 30 month figure concerned a Treaty between Israel and Egypt.¨
Not 29 or 31, but exactly 30 months later, in March 1979, history shows a Treaty between Israel and Egypt was signed, The Camp David Accord. History shows the talks broke down on the 12th day and no Treaty was to be signed. Begin and Sadat were leaving.
It was on the 13th Day, as in the date of the Article and the picture accompanying it, an unexpected window of opportunity appeared and opened the way for the Treaty to be signed.
This signified the Universal Brotherhood part of the quote.
The Kansas City Times article published the following express words;
“He came to town for the Republican National Convention and will stay until the election in November to do God’s bidding:
To tell the world, from Kansas City, this Country has been found wanting and it’s days are numbered”…………………………He gestured toward a gleaming church dome. “The gold dome is the symbol of Babylon,” he said.
These are the 1st two parts of the 3 part Writing On The Wall in the Captivity of Babylon from the Book of Daniel. The 3rd part of that ancient Writing on the Wall speaks of the decline of the world’s 1st Superpower, ancient Babylon now known as Irag, and the rise of Persia/Iran.
If Israel attacks Iran, the world will have opted for the Destruction part of the 1976 prophecy.
You can expand the images and read the original 1976 Kansas City Times articles here:
From the Revolutionary Spirit of ’76 to the Revolutionary Spirit of ’11
February 23, 2011
http://ray032.com/2011/02/23/from-the-revolutionary-spirit-of-76-to-the-revolutionary-spirit-of-11/
Dear Mr. Cormier,
I was boggled in my mind because I understood that there is no such thing as “Camp David Accord” that I ever saw in the Scripture (by any reference). However, there is a use of a Biblical term (in part) for Tabernacle of David. As you know, during the time of David (the King), the Ark of Covenant was not in a Temple. (I see that it is a mockery of a spirit in reference to “Camp David Accord”).
As you know that they are not submitted to any rule and Law that is appointed (nor is Judah or David a rule over them).
Thank you for deep explanation of points that I was wondering about.
By warmth of the Spirit,
K.F.
Reblogged this on An Activist Abroad and commented:
For those keen to understand what is happening in Egypt, then this from scholar, activist and UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk. He is legendary in his analysis. Trust me.
If America needs Eygpt sooo much it has to bring America into the same economical state as them then please send our great leaders there or pick-up the NATO in New York, NY to resolve, but please do not direct ANY future media to me if its not to resolve America chaotic pressing matters… its silly that we have been wagged by the dog…:(
Yes–that cartoon has it right…we all have seen that funny cartoon, and could not laugh. 🙂
K.F.
@pabmarqpab marq
I had a reflection…perhaps that funny cartoon is wrong, in part? About resolve chaotic:
“Please pray for me guys. My passport, laptop, IPad, wedding ring, etc were stolen in San Antonio on the way to ministry in Mexico.”
-Pastor Jonathan
“Pastor Jonathan, in 1994, we had a situation where all the money we had was stolen in a lie related to an apartment. The law of God is that if a thief is caught, he must pay double back. Ex. 22:9 I realized that the devil had caused this. I claimed this scripture plus a few others that say the same thing. It happened in August, that December, we were given twice as much as what was lost from a new and totally unexpected source. God restored all. Love you, Pastor, I believe in what God can do in anything!”
-A parishioner
About Egypt
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/world/meast/israel-sphinx/index.html?sr=fbmainintl
Dear Richard,
I’ve admired many of your articles over the years. Thank you for these.
With respect to the present one, I hope you would consider that, with respect to Egypt, it was quite expected that failures on the part of the elected government would lead to protests, which is what happened. This is just part of the democratic process. However, instead of allowing space for further discussion and resulting correctives to policy (as should happen in a democracy), the military has used the situation to suspend democracy.
Why does this justify authoritarianism over a “polarized” democracy as a matter of principle? Shouldn’t a heavier burden of proof be required of authoritarians? Especially by western citizens in whose name the authoritarians are receiving obvious Orwellian diplomatic (a coup is not a coup) and continuous military support (which would have to be suspended if the fact of the coup were to be admitted)?
In my mind, it justifies the opposite: the suspension of authoritarianism and the unhindered continuation of the process of democracy through participation and discussion.
Best regards,
Navdeep
About 55 years ago I made a comment about China and I now have the same thing to say about Egypt (and many other places, as well): only a dictatorship (in China it was and is the Communist Party) can give a country the long term stability it needs in order to evolve into a democratic type of society. It takes time (a lot of it) for the process to be completed. You can’t just jump from dictatorship into democracy. It has to evolve. China is slowly evolving into their version of democracy. If their economic developement has a serious “burp”, that process may well stop.
Egypt did not evolve but “jumped” and found itself caught by a group of extemists who want a Caliphate. That is what many Islamists tell us and they are upset that they have been stopped from using the democratic process in order to accoplish that goal: military dictatorship to democracy to religious dictatorship. We delude ourselves if we believe that Islam and the democratic process are compatible. They are not (and so say a number of Imams of the “Islamic” stripe). Egypt has to go back to the first step and start over again. It will be painful, but that is part of their process. In a sense, this is what happened to France in the late 18th early 19th Cent. and in a variation is partially taking place in Russia today.
As for Turkey: the only thing keeping them from going through the “Egyptian” process is the fact that they are doing very well in the economic sphere and, like Egypt, the military has much to say about how the country is run. That keeps Erdogan in check. Remember that he, too, is basically a MB person who seeks a Caliphate (he said recently that he hopped by the early 2070’s).
For those who “buy” the arguement that Islam (as practiced by the strict constructionists of that fath) means “peace” , I suggest that you again read the Koran. If you are not a “believer” it means that you must “submit” to Islam as a Christian or a Jew before you get their second class citizenship. The Copts in Egypt understand what that means. If you are not a “believer”, Christian or Jew … well, you really do not want to be there. Be careful about what you really expect of Egypt. Sadat forgot.
After a long history of the Christian West being at war with Islam, it fundamentally is an ongoing religious war all these centuries.
God raised up Islam at a time when the Pope of Rome was the continuation of the Emperor of Rome, having changed face and vestments. All the Principles of Christ concerning the exercise of power were perverted and inverted.
If one is to strip away all illusions, the struggle has always been over a world Caliphate, either Christian or Muslim. The new Pope named himself Francis I after Francis of Assisi. He was awakened to the Spirit of Christ returning from the 5th Crusade in 1213. What it it now from the Islamic POV? The 13th?
The God of Abraham has guided History so that all 3 branches of religions claiming to be better examples of God’s Peace on earth, now meet in Jerusalem where Christ was crucified.
Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called the Children of God.
This transcends Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Atheism.
It is not up to governments to make Peace among the People. It is up to all the Jews, Christians and Muslims living in Jerusalem to make Peace with each other.
If the ordinary people, all the people of Jerusalem can face and meet this challenge, then Israel will be on the path to being a Light unto the Nations instead of the astonishment it is become.
You hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draws nigh unto me with their mouth, and honours me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
I have a reflection to the lates two postings between oldguyincolorado and Mr. Cormier:
Anything that I write down about Quran as a Holy Book, I am not intending to use it in any type of evil will. I may violate some perceptions; however, this is not to offend anyone in any way, but what I precive about different things. (This may be corrected by anyone who is under prophetic anointing). I myself do try in all my ability to exclude all strife to myself, especially when comes to the Secret text. (This is so due to sensitivity toward other believers, and also my limited knowledge about different traditions, and believes).
Again, I hope that no one is offended as I look from a different perspective.
Quran is a prophesy; it is not a false Gospel. In addition to that, when a prophesy is not discerned when it takes place/is written, it must remain as it is…it cannot be changed, unless appointed by God Himself to be done. (This is just by some general Church-order).
Christians and any other religion have no business going about discerning of Quran in this point in time, and directing this toward Muslim believes. Any criticism would be definitely of a grave harm, even according to the Gospel to touch anything that took place in time-pass.
It is not a false Gospel, so that it can be judged by the Church and modified by these who are under prophetic anointing within the Church. Muslim’s under prophetic anointing would have a full Spiritual authority over the Quran.
In Church Catholic, alone, we are still stuck with works of either false prophets—or prophets that were under spiritual attacks so that Church that is under prophetic anointing has either had to modify (just slightly under direction of the Spirit, or has added on to false things, correct things so that now they are in appearance of some sort of art/tradition, not necessarily a heresy that Church is going about)—or on some things the Church has not be appointed to go about…things such appointing of the Pope, as Pope always remains either in the place of the priest, or prophet—or the king.
It is very difficult, almost tricky when we deal with the discerning the role of the Pope. This is why: The Pope is a Spiritual Authority of the Chatolic Church and by that alone—this part of the Church order of Chatolics cannot be touched. It is inflexible, as inflexible as it is priority of celibacy of the priest and absolutely no ordination of the woman. (Only heretics—man and women—ordain the women, especially in charismatic ways). Now, not that a woman cannot assist some spiritual role in the Church, have some spiritual knowledge, so that they do the works of the Gospel. Ordaining a woman, however, and giving her a Spiritual authority over the Church is a way of heretic, Scriptures according to Paul clearly teach and indicate that.
The Church is rule Ecclesiastical for the Church, and I am thankful for spiritual authority of the Pope, but not so much spiritual authority of an Anti-Pope…now this depends on condition of the Church leadership, as always.
They also have had usually a difficulty placing “High Priest” in his appointed/appropriate areas in Church age. (Church Doctrine can be difficult). Sometimes, Pope is just a priest that is fully emerged in humbling service as a Pope, and he will be submitted to the prophets (or not). Usually priests do not care where they are, they will say, “whatever.”
A long time ago a priest has said, and I am not sure if you also knew that Pope John Paul II was very much under spiritual attack, as he was thinking to be adding Mary to the Holy Trinity…which in turn would have plunged entire Church-Catholic into occult, and no one would even get a chance to be grafted into the Church either by Faith—or Spirit. Only Charismatic Church would be fine, and those who are under prophetic anointing. (This, according to the priest was restricted by the prophets in the Church that are cardinals and bishops, and often they are the just the priest under prophetic anointing).
Meaning, when comes to Church Catholic, the Spiritual authority it surely is on tap…
Now, all false Gospels fall under condemnation—or criticism, especially by Christians due to instruction of Paul how a Church order is to be. When comes to Quran, the closest thing according to Paul in fact it would be a prophesy. However, according to Paul Apostle every prophesy has to be discerned, as well.
Where Christianity was when Quran was written down? Now it is too late to go about discerning. Still there must be something that Church needs, which is written down in Quran. It just has to be if is prophesy…one has to look a line by line. (Each line has to be looked at). Now to look for that which Church needs it has to be by Spirit of God appointed, and anointed by Spirit (fully, under a corporate prophetic anointing) otherwise, they will fall under judgment of God. (This is no task for a individual, or just a foolish few…I assure everyone even to try to go about dicerning Quran, without Spiritual authority given by God Himself will definitely yield upon themselves condemnation and judgment of God).
It is so that one cannot just approach the Secret text in any way the will—or are to be mulling about.
The Holy Book that is in Islamic Stewardship is called Quran, but what exactly is it? It is not a false Gospel. Could it be the closed Book of Daniel that evangelicals are so much yapping about, and often they say hurtfull things to Quran and Islam so much? (If there would be any of such things?). It is possible that it is very importent to the Church, if that is what it may be.
We also have to understand that Mohamed did not write down things; it was another person writing things down for him, on his behave. Mohamed was illiterate, could not write. (This is what is said/general knowlege). However, Mohamed was a prophet. What kind of spiritual attack they were under? We do not exactly know, but we only see “from our perspectives.” Can we look from different perspectives…theirs and the Historical context when the Book was written, during the Church age? Who has ever wondered what exactly Quran is?
Perhaps, I will suggest that Sharia Law is acceptable, when under International Law.
By the Gift of God’s Spirit
Kata, the Quran does acknowledge Jesus as a Prophet of God. They don’t see him as equal to God, or as the only begotten Son of God.and If you read the Scripture carefully, Jesus always said God is Higher and Greater than he. People who see Jesus as the only begotton Son of God don’t understand this from their Bibles;
But as many as received him, to them gave he power TO BECOME THE SONS OF GOD, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1
This is certainly implies a different possible take on the common assumptions of God’s Chosen People.
As to this query, Where Christianity was when Quran was written down? Now it is too late to go about discerning.”
Co-incidentally, I wrote about just that question in The Washington Post Today in a discussion of the deteriorating situation in Syria.
“This war is a Religious war between Sunni and Shia factions of Islam that started over the succession of Muhammad after he died. Christians should be very familiar with religious wars, Northern Ireland being the most recent example.
With the turn of a page in human history, the Pope of Rome replaced the Emperor of Rome with a new face and different vestments. Meet the new Boss! Same as the old Boss!
The Christian Nations power structures came from that 1000 year period when the Church was also the government.
So much for the vain repetition ‘Thy Kingdom come, thy will be don, on earth as it is in Heaven.
Imagine! 1000 years of power and they couldn’t get it right!
When the Church of Rome totally perverted and inverted all the Principles of Christ in the exercise of power, God raised up Muhammad to challenge the corrupted Church. This is not too different than God raising up Jesus when the Jews lost the Way some 700 years earlier.
The problem for the West is God put the oil in the Muslim Countries, and without it flowing freely, the Global economy would indeed crash and there would be Hell to pay.
I can see there could be non Muslims in covert actions fanning the flames so Islam does does not come together and heal the ancient rift.
Jesus prophesied 700 years before Islam, the Day will come when they will kill you thinking they are doing God service. Islam cannot present itself to the world as a religion of Peace until they make Peace between themselves. The same applies for the Christian Nations and the Jewish State.
We have arrived at the point of failing to do it, this is the alternative
[14] For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth (Pope, Presidents, Prime Ministers, CEOs, the Rich and other Idols of the people) and of the whole world, (the rest of us) to gather them to the Battle of that great Day of God Almighty
Revelation 16
It’s developing on the horizon. Can’t you see it?
Christians kill (they are that hideous woman—church— on that beast/spirits of Satan filled individuals) that is drunk on blood of the saints and servants of God. (This is the false prophet and false church- wicked-charismatic, and not charismatic). And yet they think that they are doing the service unto the God. I think that some misinterpretation of the text is applicable. (You cannot attach all guilt to those who are outsiders to Christianity, start with Christians…first). They are in all blasphemies and abominations.
Under Spiritual authority of Paul who interpreted Gospel for Gentiles, I only give you reference to believe in Jesus of Nazareth whom Paul Apostle preached, I do not know any other. (I do not discern things of Quran, only things of False Christianity).
I do not think that you have full ability to understand what I wrote about, in the first place. You have misinterpreted/miss corrected what I was writing about.
I do not believe that you are in full ability to understand and make corrections on that which I had reflections about. (Meaning, you lack Spiritual gifts to do that and with that have no Spiritual authority to make decrement on such things).
However, you may be well in your appointed areas…I usually avoid stepping out of my appointed areas; however, I will step out when I must, only if directed by Spirit of God. (I am moved—or I am not).
P.S. Look and see Church-Catholic-Charismatic has two Popes!!!! (One is a priest, and other is…I am not sure what he is up to…he is a Jesuit, right!). Yes, it was a long ago when they started out, as Jesuits…all they went is about Church doctrine Charismatic—or not charismatic, and they have established nothing that is valid? What a pity that would be…or is. I tell you, women in Church Charismatic with prophetic anointing referee to Pope as “Baboon”. Our Baboons…