Wahhabist Saudi Arabia's grand mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz responding to Iran's handling of the annual Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca has declared that Iranians are no longer Muslim. His fatwa came in response to Iran that regards Wahhabist Saudi Arabia as their "enemy". The Iranians, he says, are "Zoroastrians, an ancient pre-Islamic Iranian religion."
So its time to revisit this divide, delve to understand it, clear both prophetic and historic western misconceptions, in order to comprehend why this divide alone is so crucial and how it will plunge the world into a major coming conflict: World War III.
Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Al ash-Sheikh
Let slowly and carefully re-examine the first misconception westerners believe, that what we have in the Muslim world is a "Sunni-Shiite divide" that plagues the Middle East.
This one over simplification causes many faulty policies, misjudgments and erroneous prophetic conclusions. Fact is, there has always been a divide-not a Sunni-Shiite divide-but a divide between the Saudi Wahhabists on the one hand versus on the other hand Iran's Shiites and Turkey's Sunni Sufis. Wahhabism is exclusively Saudi Arabian. The latter makes a huge prophetic difference.
It is time to stop believing the clichés as we shall carefully explain in detail from history and current events.
ISIS's theology, for example, is strictly Saudi Arabian Wahhabism, which does not encompass all Sunni Muslims, as many falsely claim, and is why Muslims who hate ISIS's methods as result are beginning to also hate Saudi Arabia as result. This leads to further isolation of Wahhbist Saudi Arabia, not just ISIS.
In fact, this (Saudi wahhabist vs. non-wahhabist, including both Sunni and Shiite) is the divide which is alluded to in scripture. So few focus on the prophetic sense where in John's apocalypse 17 regarding the desert city (Mecca), it explains that the beast with its ten horns, "will hate the harlot":
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Much focus needs to be made on the underlined. Most do not even pay close attention as to what did "God put in their hearts"? Answer: hate; "these shall hate the whore," that is, the entire kingdom of Antichrist will hate the harlot that controlled them spiritually. In other words, God says that He will plant division and hate between the beast and the harlot that has been riding this beast. Therefore, there is a remarkable difference between the two which we shall also examine. This hatred is planted by God which becomes clear from the text: "God has put it into their hearts". This is the divide between Arabia, the heart of Islam, including it wahhabist ideology versus all non-wahhabist sects which encompass all Sunni plus Shiite branches of Islam.
This is crucial. This means that the Islamic beast is made of mainly non-wahhabism and non-Arab and is why we see the Arab (Sheba and Dedan) stand idle by the wayside during the invasion of Israel (Ezekiel 38:13). This is why we find the text says "God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree". All these branches must "agree" in unity and not just some over the others. This is done "to give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled". This allegiance therefore with Antichrist is not exclusively the hatred of the Jews, but the hatred of Arabia as well. This is further proof why Sheba and Dedan are on the sidelines when it comes to Jew hatred.
And today we see this already forming. Saudi Arabia has been also making historic peace gestures to Israel after realizing its isolation in the Middle East.
When the text says that God will "put it [this hatred] into their hearts," it makes it clear that this destruction is not caused by a Sunni-Shiite divide, but a divide between a nation [Saudi Arabia] vacillating on the issue of Israel, hypocritical wahhabist Arabia, versus all non-wahhabist who want Israel's destruction. This "Sheba and Dedan" in Ezekiel 'standing on the wayside' is a crucial clue.
Both history and current events confirm this divide to be true. This is why students of scripture should pay less attention to the so-called Sunni-Shiite divide and more attention to the wahhabist versus non-wahhabist divide. This is what we already see quickly coming together.
Image of Mecca showing the luxury by Al Saud and the destruction of holy places considered holy to other Sunni sects. Take example the house of Muhammad's wife, Khadijah, was made into a public toilet
This is why studying a single verse or two in Scripture must be done extremely carefully weighing inductively other verses with careful attention to geography, history and also theology. Scripture is mainly a theological argument and not just prophetic.
The second misconception we can clear up by studying just these two verses jumps in the face of the insistence by some that God never plants hatred. He does: "these shall hate" (not love) "the whore" and it is "God" Who "hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will". God plants the hate, puts it in their heart to fulfill His will.
It can't get any clearer than that.
God has zero trouble with the hatred of evil. This demands a "divide and conquer".
Therefore, to "divide and conquer" is biblical and has always been the historical signature of the Christian West when dealing with the Islamic world. Call it the Christian version of Taqiyya, Kitman and Muruna if you will. God even says that He does this in order that "the words of God are fulfilled".
These couple verses are loaded with both theological and prophetic wealth should encourage us to delve into what most have never seen or heard of regarding the secrets hidden in just these two verses.
It is impossible to understand how the hatred develops for Arabia to be destroyed by her spiritual offspring unless she is hated by them. This means a unity between Shiites and non-Wahhabi Sunnis against Arabia including wanting Mecca out of Al-Saud's control. This is what Iran this week called on all Muslims to do; to abandon Saudi Arabia. This complete abandonment will not happen unless it is coupled by Turkey's abandonment of Arabia as well. While all Muslims honor Mecca, this Turkish abandonment is not far-fetched, as we shall examine.
The Shiites would simply want this abandonment of Saudi Arabia done by completely opting for Karbala as the center of Islam instead of Mecca which their theology teaches it will be destroyed (1). This Muslim prophecy simply confirms biblical prophecy. This escalation will continue the divide until Mecca is destroyed where another divide will arise again, this time at Armageddon, but this one, we presume, will be a Sunni versus Shiite divide (after Mecca's destruction) to cause "each sword to go against his brother".
And while you read the headlines in the secular West, that Saudi Arabia is anathematizing Iranians, what you do not see them explaining, is the anathematization of Saudi Arabia itself. These two verses of hating wahhabist Arabia is beginning to get its initial fulfillment.
For example, who in the West even discusses the Grozny Conference? It was even held just last month during August, 2016, under the auspices of Egypt's Sunni Mufti, Sheikh Al-Azhar of Egypt.
This is huge. Al-Azhar is the hub of Muslim scholarship par excellence in the Sunni (not Shiite) world. This was done with participation of 200 senior Sunni scholars, emphasizing that Saudi Wahhabism is no longer "Sunni" since the Wahhabists anathematize the Ash'ari and the Sufi Muslims who with the Shiites make up a majority in the Muslim world.
These are major Sunni, not Shiite scholars, attending a gathering in the city of Grozny, Chechnya to legitimize the exclusion of all Wahhbist/Salafi scholars as "non Muslim"
How could Sunnis anathematize their headquarters, Mecca, is unheard of.
THE HISTORY OF THIS DIVIDE FOR DUMMIES
So lets first delve into this intriguing journey explaining this arising divide from eastern eye opening sources in a way you would never see or read in today's headlines. We will start from the beginning, to make it all easy as in Shiites plus Sunni Sufis etc, vs. Wahhabists for dummies.
Another major misconception by westerners is that Islam is simply "another world religion".
Islam is a Christian schism and a cult, its unitarian, an extension of the Arian heresy, and not just some other foreign religion. This is why it gets the title of being an Abrahamic faith. This is why it encompasses all heresies "mother of harlots" and is why its history is filled with legends inspired by jinn (demons) mimicking biblical stories.
And just to show the examples of the mimmic of biblical stories, there was once upon a time, Hashim and Abd Shams (literally means worshipper of the sun). These two were conjoined twins - born with Hashim's leg attached to Abd Shams' head. It was said that they had struggled in the womb, each seeking to be firstborn. Their birth was remembered for Hashim being born with one of his toes pressed into the younger twin-brother, Abd Shams's, forehead.
The family history is true, yet it is mixed with legend, a fabrication of the truth written in the Bible regarding Jacob and Esau's birth. Legend says that their father, 'Abd Manaf ibn Qusai, separated his conjoined sons with a sword and that some pagan Arab priests believed that the blood that had flown between them signified wars between their progeny.
Hashim (like Sarah did) banished Abd Shams from Mecca. Abd Shams (sun worshipper) gave birth to Ummaya and from that line came forth the Umayyads clan which turned out hostile to Hashim's clan.
The astrologers of Arabia opined that Abd Munaaf, their father, had committed a grave error when he separated his sons by means of a sword; they did not regard his deed as a good omen which later haunted Muslim history until our day.
From the lineage of Hashim, came the Muslim Messiah, Muhammad, born and raised to become the big boss and founder of Islam. His best friend was Ali, his cousin, adopted son and son-in-law of Mohammed. He became 'son-in-law' because Ali married Mohammed’s daughter, Fatima, in AD 624. In other words, from western technicality, Ali married his sister. Ali was the first to follow Muhammad in accepting Muhammad's prophethood. So if Muhammad was 'king' Ali was 'prince Ali'.
Muhammad also married. After his first two women, he also fell in love with a third, an under aged girl named Aisha. I was sort of like Abraham taking Hagar. Aisha was the daughter of Muhammad's other buddy, Abu Bakr. I say she was a Hagar because she caused a major division and shift within Islam (more on that later).
Muhammad later on died after he conquered Mecca removing all pagan idols except the black stone. Obviously his successor should have been Ali, or even Ali's son, Hussein, to become "prince of the faithful" to keep it within Muhammad's bloodline. Aisha, Muhammad's surviving wife, of course wanted her daddy (Abu Bakr) to be Caliph instead of 'prince Ali'.
Even though Ali was married to Muhammad's daughter, Fatima, Aisha Muhammad's third wife had the upper hand after her husband passed away, of course. She was joined and echoed in this posture by protégés, her dad Abu Bakr of course (who became the first Caliph) and Umar (Ibn Khattab, who became the second Caliph), whose daughter Hafsa was also married to Muhammad while prince Ali was left aside. These guys passed women and girls like passing Christmas presents. Aisha also had other relatives on her side like the third caliph, Uthman (Ibn Affan), who married Muhammad's daughters Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum (this one had two sisters in his bed).
Thats how whacky Muslims were
Ali only had the descendants of his and Fatima's branch of the Prophet's family. Ali lost and Aisha's daddy Abu Bakr, Muhammad's father in law won (beware of in-laws).
This established the Rashidun Caliphate (the Muslim empire's first head) which its first horn was Abu Bakr. It continued with the second Caliph Omar, and the third Caliph Uthman who married Muhammad's two daughters as we stated.
So similar to Catholics where St. Peter was the first Vicar of Christ (Pope), Islam too had its vicar of God on earth (Caliph), or Khalifat-u-Allah, literally the vicar of Allah. To the fathers of the Shiites, Ali should have been the first Caliph and instead Abu Bakr became the first Caliph, then was succeeded by Omar bin al-Khattab and then Uthman who was assassinated by Egyptian rebels in 656 and continued through the four-year reign of Uthman's successor Ali ibn Abi Taleb, Muhammad's favorite, Fatima's husband. But his reign ended in 661 when Ali's heir Hasan his son concluded a treaty acknowledging the rule of another of Muhammad's companions, Muʿāwiyah, the third horn, who began the first Umayyad caliphate (second head of the Islamic Empire). The Umayyad were of the 'Esau' if you will, the descendants of Abd Shams (sun worshiper).
So the divide was between Muslims who believed that Ali’s authority was usurped by the first three caliphs: Abu Bakr and Umar ibn a-Khatab (both fathers-in-law of Muhammad) and Uthman ibn Affan (also a son-in-law) but unlike 'prince Ali', none of the men were blood relatives of Muhammad. This was the point of contention for Ali’s supporters, who believed that the succession should be hereditary. These Caliphs were elected through democracy.
Before the fiasco, Islam expanded militarily into Syria and later Egypt. Finally Ali was nominated and reluctantly accepted and was Caliph, Ali, Prince of the Faithful. But his rule was under much turmoil since most governors where loyal to another, Muʿāwiyah ibnʾAbī Ṣufyān, who derives from Umayya ibn Abd Shams (the Muslim Esau), not Hashim (the Muslim Jacob) who rejected Ali's caliphate. This is where this Muslim version of 'Esau' (Abd Shams) vs. 'Jacob' (Hashim) divide begins where it is this 'Esau' who got the birthright instead.
Aisha wanted her cousin Talha to succeed Uthman (The first Umayyad caliph) and was jealous of Ali. She ignored the Prophet's fore-warning about taking part in such a conflict. But the argument that Ali was the preferable claimant to Muhammad's succession as commander of the faithful never died out.
When Aisha heard of the killing of Uthman, the third Caliph, she became so angered by his unavenged death, and was angered by the naming of Ali as the fourth caliph, that she took up arms against those supporting Ali. She gained support of the big city of Basra and, for the first time, Muslims took up arms against each other. This battle is now known as the First Schism (Fitna), or Muslim civil war.
The result was war between Ali and his opponents, who were enraged by his failure to punish Uthman’s killers and suspected him of involvement in the murder. They included Muhammad’s widow Aisha (Abu Bakr’s daughter of course) and Uthman’s cousin Muawiyyah, who was governor of Syria.
Ali won the battle (Battle of the Camel). At this point, Muawiyya’s men fixed copies of the Koran to their spears and cried out to let Allah decide who is to be Caliph. Ali’s army agreed and he had to accept independent arbitration. The panel of arbitrators ruled against Ali and Muawiyya claimed the caliphate for Muawiyya. In other words, it went to the Esau of Islam.
Ali, who had moved his capital to Kufa in present-day Iraq, by this time, refused to accept the decision. Ali became the victim of intrigues and was assassinated in 661 AD. But the drama of Shiism has less to do with Ali himself, than with the trauma of prince Ali's son, Hussein, the only true lineage to Muhammad through Muhammad's daughter Fatima.
Ali and Fatima's son, Hussein, even 20 years later in 680 (61 AH) refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid I, the Umayyad caliph (second head of the Islamic Empire) because he considered the rule of the Umayyads unjust. As a consequence, he left Medina, his home town, and traveled to Mecca. There, the people of Kufa sent letters to him, asking his help and pledging their allegiance to him. So he traveled towards Kufa in Iraq. At Karbala his caravan was intercepted by the Umayyad's, Yazid I's army. He was captured and beheaded by Shimr Ibn Thil-Jawshan, along with most of his family and companions, all were beheaded, including the kids and a baby, Ali Al-Asghar (literally, Baby Ali) ending the true bloodline of Muhammad.
So from this story stems Shiism (pro-Hussein), the question becomes is how do Sunnis who hate Arabia deal with this issue? Do they convert to Shiism? No. Depending if one has a Salafi (Wahhabi influence) they would argue that in Karbala, Hussein fighting Yazid was wrong and illegitimate. Others say that such judgmental view on Hussein's resistance is rooted in the arid and poisonous soil of the early Umayyad historians.
In this twist of Muslim history, Allah could not keep his pledge to Muhammad, here we have Islam's 'Esau' (sons of Abd Shams), the Umayyads defeated Islam's 'Jacob' (Hashim). This defeat became the key reason for future back and forth bloody vengeances. This was known as the Âshûrâ tragedy where Hussein was considered 'martyr' and 'messiah' where blood atonement is made by Shiites, sort of like the Mayan blood letting in Mesoamerica which Sunnis do not practice.
Shiism robs from Catholics who celebrate the Eucharist, which has a double purpose, being the literal (Flesh and Blood of Christ) and is taken as a grain offering. With the Shiite celebration of Âshûrâ, to commemorate the martyrdom of Hussein, they consume a grain and fruit offering, the sort of which can mimmic Cain's offering and Essau's porridge as memorial. And for the literal blood sacrifice, these mark their foreheads, not just with the mark of allegiance, but with the literal blood and wailing which according to Shiism, such practice remits sin. It is an extremely demonic act they call "Latmiyeh" (self affliction) on the body with chains and daggers to ensure being registered by Hussein (their messiah) in the book of life. The mimic, flavors, marks and imitations speaks of Antichrist. This makes it easy for Muslim converts to Christianity to comprehend reading the eastern text of the Bible and to spot Islam's forgeries. See Iranians and how they mark their forehead
This Ummayad versus Ali split continues, even until now. When speaking to Shiites, Umayyad and Yazid are viewed as Christians view antichrists. From Ali and his wife Fatima, comes the Shiite loyalty, lamenting Muhammad's bloodline to rule instead of being democratically elected.
The most common misconception by westerners is this Sunni-Shiite divide. Fact is, there is a certain Shiite-Sunni alliance and not a divide. It is from Ali, Shiism's icon, that stems the progenitor of nearly all Sunni Sufi orders. This is huge. This will encompass Turkey and several central Asian nations leaving Wahhabi Saudi Arabia out. It is truly a Wahhabi-Excommunicated divide and not a Shiite-Sunni divide.
The story of Islam is like the initial Esau-Jacob divide, then to later evolve into some sort of Protestant-Catholic divide. Islam is an attempted mimic, a forgery of biblical narratives, but unlike the Catholic narrative, where lineage and succession was crucial, and kept in accordance the promises of God; Islam failed to keep the lineage or succession issues intact. So besides the Ali/Hussein bone of contention, you also have Karbala, sort of like Protestant Geneva , where Hussein was killed and his tomb becoming the holiest place to Shiites even more than Mecca itself. Wahhabists prohibit worshipping at tombs and even destroyed many. It was in Karbala, Iraq, after all, that their Messiah, Hussein (al-Ḥussein ibn ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib) was martyred, a sort of a garden-tomb where Shiites pilgrimage to besides Mecca.
To Shiites, Hussein is literally their Messiah, as Jesus is to Christians, and Fatima (Ali's wife) is as crucial to Shiites as Mary is to Catholics. If one examines this brand of Islam one finds that it attempts to mimmic the Catholic faith in many ways, one of which, Hussein is now 'the savior' while Fatima is a saint to be the symbol of motherly sacrifice. Shiites accuse Aisha whom Sunnis view as Umm Al-Munineen "mother of the faithful" of bing nothing more than a "whore" and Muhammad's disciples (besides Ali) as traitors to Islam.
While Protestants reject Mary being the "mother of God" and "mother of the faithful," they would never attribute such derogatory labels towards Mary or deny the Virgin Birth, except to Catholics Mary remained virgin and was assumed to heaven.
Therefore, with such a schism, there is absolutely no turning back; Islam is set to eventually self destruct in inner conflicts. Anger at Hussein's death was turned into a rallying cry that helped undermine and ultimately overthrow the Umayyad Caliphate (sons of Esau in our parallel).
UNDERSTANDING THE GROWING SECTARIAN DIVIDES WITHIN ISLAM
Now that we know the root of the problem, for westerners to comprehend the sectarian differences, not just Shiite-Wahhabi divide, but the divide within Sunnis and the hatred of Wahhabism. But without delving too deep into each sect, it is best to perhaps refer to the Catholic-Protestant divide, not in the sense that these have common goals with Islam (God forbid), but in the sense of making it easier to understand the divides and approach to faith and religion.
But this conflict flips when comparing it to the Catholic-Protestant divide, where in Islam, it is the puritanical Wahhabis (protestant) who had control over the central headquarters, Mecca, as it is for Catholics in the Vatican.
Wahhabists are Salafist who insist on using the original texts. Therefore, the use of "Salafist" became synonymous with Wahhabism.
Saudi Arabia being the center of Islam kept Islam puritanical from the sense that there was not much room for change and theological development. Mecca etched the rules as Vatican etched Catechism, which other sects of Islam refuse to follow. Salafism is associated with literalist (sort of like the Puritan Protestants).
And if Christendom had a reformer, Martin Luther, the Arabs had the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah who greatly influenced Abd al-Wahhab (1703 – 1792). Ibn Taymiyya had a strict and puritanical approaches to issues of faith and interpretation, unlike the other sects, which tend to be charismatic and allow much latitude and new opinion. Taymiyya was the dynamo behind Wahhabism which went directly to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his exclusionist puritanism was put forth by Ibn Saud, a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of Arabia's Nejd desert. This is the wilderness "desert" John spoke of in the Apocalypse chapter 17:3 and Isaiah in chapter 21.
Abd al-Wahhab
And it is here where one finds in Islam the type of back and forth arguments between Protestants and Catholics where Protestants insist on "chapter and verse" whenever they question theologies developed from historic traditions by the Catholic Church.
Abd al-Wahhab wrote Kitab al-Tawhid (the book on unitarianism), sort of like Luther's 95 Theses, a short essay which draws from material in the Quran and the recorded doings and sayings (hadith) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. These questioned many Sufi and Shiite practices as "innovations" much as Protestants accuse Catholics and Orthodox regarding 'prayer to saints'.
Abd al-Wahhab accused the Sunni Ottomans proclaiming that they are "not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims" similar to certain Protestants who anathematize Catholics. The Ottomans so much aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, by their erecting of tombstones, and their “superstition” (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine).
Abd al-Wahhab got everything from the Mujadid (reformer) Ibn Taymiyah. And like Luther who proclaimed "the Bible alone", he revived the strict adherence to the Quran and Hadith and the first disciples of Muhammad.
And if Ibn Taymiyya became the Martin Luther of the Wahhabists, the non-Wahhabists considered him as anathema, just as Catholics do with Luther. One would find arguments back and forth as one finds Protestants versus Catholics where Sufis would denounce Taymiyya's Kitab-ul-Arsh, "Allah sits on the Arsh [throne], and He leaves space for His Messenger [Muhammad] to sit next to Him" condemning the idea that Muhammad sits on the right side of God. Of course, such ideas shows that Islam's theology intended to mimic Christianity.
Taymiyya condemned the Sufi dhikr as innovation and heresy, and he made vicious slanders on Sufi masters. Dhikr is when Sufis make a circle, a form of devotion, in which the worshiper is absorbed in the rhythmic repetition of the name of Allah or his attributes to get themselves into a frenzy state.
All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida — forbidden by God.
Like Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad’s stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society they called “the best of times”, to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate, similar to Luther's call to emulate the apostles in the Holy Land and their journeys as written in the New Testament and nothing after. This was essentially called Salafism.
Salafism therefore is Islam's protestantism. In other words, similar to Protestants where they cling to the apostles while they kept out Catholic tradition as "innovation".
Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi’ism and Sufism and even spoke out against visiting the grave of the prophet Muhammad and the celebration of his birthday, similar to some Protestant Messianic rejection of Christmas and the visiting of the traditionally accepted Catholic holy sites. And similar to Protestants, he declared that all such behavior represented mere imitation of the Catholics. Abd al-Wahhab declared war calling on Muslims to deprive Shiites and Sufis of immunity of property and life, similar to the Beeldenstorm where the Iconoclastic Fury of outbreaks and destruction of religious images that occurred in Europe in the 16th century by the Calvinists.
The key idea of takfir doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute authority of the Quran and Hadith. All Muslims who honored the dead, saints, or angels was condemned since they detracted from the complete subservience to Allah banning any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints including the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, and even prohibited the use of gravestones when burying the dead.
Those who would not conform would be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated. Shiites, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, Abd al-Wahhab considered as no longer Muslim just as Sheikh Abdul-Aziz, the Saudi Mufti did this week responding to Iran's handling of the annual Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. In other words, unlike the Catholic-Protestant wars, the Orthodox Muslim wars on non-Orthodox continues till our day.
The Sufi Turks attacked Abd al-Wahhab for destroying the domes that were built over the graves of Muhammad's disciples. Arabs say that the Hadith said that such things are the actions of the Jews and Christians, and that those who build such things are the worst of creation and that the Prophet cursed such practices that are clearly forbidden. This is why Saudi Arabia destroyed over 90% of Muslim holy sites including the destruction of Khadijah's home (Muhammad's wife) to built a toilet.
So Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (1703 – 1792) came to "purify" Islam by returning it to what, he believed, were the original principles of that religion.
The attitudes by Saudi Arabia towards Shiites was no different when it comes to the Sufi Turks. Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism despised “the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca.”
Islam's expansion into Persia and other places where converts incorporated Zoroastrian concepts seeped into Shiism and Sufism. Salafists became hostile to certain practices. Saudi Arabia destruction of every temple where a Muslim 'saint' is buried will not stop whats coming since Salafists can never terminate certain spiritual aspects of their denominations.
For example, Salafists reject the literal presence of God, similar to Protestants rejecting the Eucharist as the literal Blood and Body of Christ. But there is one area where Sufis and Shiites, sort of like Catholics, do believe that God can have a literal presence, not the presence in the bread per say, but in a man. And while Catholics believe in Theosis (union with God), the Muslim non-wahhabist corruption of this is called Fana, eliminating the self to become God (2).
This makes many of these Sunnis mystical where Allah can be present in man. This is what makes the none-Wahhabists ideal to follow the man the Bible calls the Antichrist. This explains why the Bible does not include the whore (wahhabist) as part of the beast (non-wahhabist) which worships the Antichrist instead of submitting to her control. Her rejection of such worship becomes her demise.
This is why, in reality, it is not a Sunni Shia Divide as westerners like to assume, the divide has always been Mecca's Islam vs the excommunicated.
Erdogan's recent emergence in reviving Islam's Ottoman splendor began to reveal this Sufi trend. He is also attempting to heal the non-Wahhabi Sunni-Shiite divide to unite all factions. While such attempts will succeed on the surface, the deep wound will always be there, despite the commonality.
However, while the Shiite Sufi differences can heal easier where the two can cooperate for the sake of Islamic unity and interests, Turkey's Sufi and like Shiism versus Wahhabi divide is impossible to heal. The Ottomans and Arabia have a history of conflict similar to the Shiites had with Arabia.
This further isolates Saudi Arabia. Sufis are charismatic and believe that man can have the essence of God. Erdogan for example is seen as deity in Turkey:
شاهد ال #فيديو واسمع صوت الكفر والزندقة!#أردوغان #تركيا #سلمان_العودة #العودة #محمد_العريفي #العريفي #سعد_البريك pic.twitter.com/4H258e3P9Y
— مجتهد السعودية (@mujtahede) September 1, 2016
Here the Saudi Wahhaists expose Turkey's Sufism by revealing how Erdogan is worshipped as "prophet" and "God". In several clips pieced together it reveals statesman and politician declaring Erdogan is worthy of worship.
"The greatest leader since the dawn of history has appeared to us" says the first. "To us he is the second prophet" says the second clip. "To touch Erdogan is a form of worship" says the third clip. "Behold, I introduce to you Erdogan who has all the attributes of Allah in Him. He has the ability to solely manage the earth" says the fourth clip.
Wahhabists completely see this as 'anathema' rejecting the idea of Allah in the flesh. Therefore, westerners should pay close attention, it is another myth to say that all Muslims completely reject the idea of an incarnation. The Muslims simply know how to cloak it. The Sufi doctrine of Fana (man becoming God) is completely rejected by Wahhabists.
THE CRUCIAL WESTERN MISCONCEPTIONS TO BIBLE PROPHECY
The Protestant wrong view of making Rome "harlot," while completely ignoring "Arabia," which is literally mentioned as Babylon in Isaiah 21, and coupling this to the geography of these anti-Arabia sects, which this beastly empire encompasses becomes a major oversight by Protestant theologians. These ultimately destroy and burn the harlot, Mecca, not the Vatican.
Lets first compose the massive geography to show how western misunderstanding of the difference between Salafi and Shiite-Sufi theology undermines the reality. For example, Islam is the second largest religious body after Christianity where Sunnis make up 75% of all Muslims. This makes the Shiites a minority. But this analogy must include the similarities between certain Sunni sects with Shiism. When this is taken into consideration, reality will reveal a much different scenario as to certain loyalties where Salafism becomes the minority and not the majority. Salafism does not form the main version of Islam, Sufism, Shiism, Ahmadia, Ashari, Ismaili ... collectively make the bulk and are in a way anathematized, excommunicated protestant denominations by Arabia. And once you combine these 'protestant' sects, the magnitude becomes overwhelming.
Scripture in fact reveals this. God knows more than western headlines and it becomes crystal clear once we examine the geography in the Bible regarding this beastly fragmented end-days empire. Shia Muslims are in the majority in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Azerbaijan and Yemen and extends as far as the Indian subcontinent. There are large Shia communities in Afghanistan, India, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Qatar, Syria, Turkey, the UAE and even in Saudi Arabia itself who already hate Arabia.
But we must also consider in this equation even the much bigger giant, the other Sunni styles with Sufi bent like Zikrism. This expands deeply into Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, the Balkans, modern-day Turkey, Chechnya, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kirghizstan, northern Afghanistan, the Turkoman province of Iran and even all the way to the Uygur district of Xinjian province of China.
Zikrism is a form of Sufism. Notice minute Wahhabism, the grey in Saudi Arabia.
And with this geography confirmed without doubt by Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, John and even Jesus warned that Lucifer's dominion in Pergamum it becomes crystal clear that God foretold such divisions since this beast is a divided kingdom. Ezekiel and John warned about a Gog (Ezekiel 38) who is "chief prince of Meshech and Tubal" which are in Turkey. And then Gomer and Beth Togarmah encompass this geography as well. Ezekiel also warned about the beautiful Cherub becoming man (Ezekiel 28) including naming the very nations who are cast into the pit with him (Ezekiel 28-32), most seem to be within the Sufi and Shiite regions we just explained. Isaiah warned about a man who makes the earth tremble possessed by the fallen angelic lucifer (Isaiah 14) where Paul in II Thessalonians 2 predicted this man to declare himself as if he is God. Even the region in which this multitude stemming from “the north” is as Jesus foretold would be the seat of the devil in Pergamum (Turkey).
This completely debunks the notion of Rome being the focal point of scripture when it comes to the beastly empire.
THIS BEAST ALREADY CAME (WAS) AND WILL COME AGAIN (YET IS NOT)
Islam's beast already came with its seven heads and 10 horns. (To understand this click here). We are awaiting the coming of the eleventh (Antichrist). The end days beast "looks like a lamb with two horns [Sunni/Shiite, Turkey/Iran] but speaks like a dragon.
Keep in mind, the two verses of discussion here, "the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore ...". The 10 horned beast came from the sea, went into the pit (the earth) which comes back from the earth (the pit). This is the one that will utterly destroy and burn the whore.
So how could the previous Islamic caliphates have hated the whore?
Mecca (the whore) in fact was always hated from the first horn down to the tenth. If Mecca was so loved, why would Ali, the fourth caliph, move the power choosing Kufa as his capital instead of Mecca?
The Umayyad Caliphate (2nd head) also moved the capital to Damascus in Syria instead of Mecca.
The Abbasid Caliphate (3rd head) also moved the capital from Mecca to Baghdad, in ancient Babylon, which remained the center of the Islamic Empire for nearly 500 years.
Mecca then re-entered Islamic political turmoil during the Second Islamic Civil War, when it was held by Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, an early Muslim who opposed the Umayyad caliphs (sons of Abd Shams). If they loved Mecca so much why was Mecca itself twice besieged by the Umayyads, in 683 and 692? For some time thereafter the city figured little in politics, remaining a city of devotion and scholarship governed by the Hashim clan.
If Mecca was so loved, why would the Muslims in 930, attack and sack Mecca again by Qarmatians, a millenarian Ismaili Muslim sect led by Abū-Tāhir Al-Jannābī from east Arabia? Even the Black Death pandemic hit Mecca in 1349.
To attempt to bring back Mecca's status, in 1803 the city was captured by the First Saudi State, which held Mecca until 1813. This was a massive blow to the prestige of the (Turkish) Ottoman Empire, which had exercised sovereignty over the holy city since 1517. The Ottomans assigned the task of bringing Mecca back under Ottoman control to their powerful Khedive (viceroy) of Egypt, Muhammad Ali Pasha who successfully returned Mecca to Ottoman control in 1813.
Turkey holds a historic long memory against Saudi Arabia’s aid of Britain to oust the Ottomans during the Sharif Hussein revolt (1916-1918) when the Turks shelled Mecca and hit the Kaaba itself burning it as John predicted "burn her with fire" which will repeat when Iran and Turkey destroy the harlot (see Isaiah 21).
The Wahhabist also hold a historic long memory how Turkey bombing the Kaaba. Sharif Hussein's own letter lamenting:
We have sufficient proof of how they [the Turks] regard the religion and the Arab people [Wahhabists] in the fact that they shelled the Ancient House [Kaaba], the Temple of the Divine Unity, of which it is said in the word of God, "Purify my House for those that pass round it," the Qibla [direction of prayer] of Mohammedans, the Kaaba of believers in the Unity, firing two shells at it from their big guns when the country rose to demand its independence.
One fell about a yard and a half above the Black Stone [which means it hit the Kaaba] and the other three yards from it. The covering of the Kaaba was set in a blaze. Thousands of Moslems rushed up with shouts of alarm and despair to extinguish the flames.
To reach the fire they were compelled to open the door of the building and climb on to the roof. The enemy fired a third shell at the Makam Ibrahim in addition to the projectiles and bullets aimed at the rest of the building. Every day three or four people in the building itself were killed, and at last it became difficult for the Moslems to approach the Kaaba at all.
We leave the whole Mohammedan world from East to West to pass judgment on this contempt and profanation of the Sacred House.
This asteroid that fell and poisoned the waters (people) received a hard blow. It is broken into fragments, held with black-reddish epoxy that continually needs maintenance:
Who can imagine, this, ridiculous put together object that seven heads which are the seven Caliphates (3) all had to submit to. The woman (Mecca) is the sole rider of a beast which adds up perfectly to four and seven, just as history breaks down this empire to exact. Four in the case of Daniel's breakdown, and seven in the case of John's apocalypse. History acknowledges Four Main Caliphates (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman) yet they also break it down to seven caliphates (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, Ayyubid, Almohad and Ottoman) with exactly ten crowns which represent these seven caliphates that also arise in the end as looking like a lamb with two horns (Turkey and Iran/ Sufi and Shiite).
THE SPIRITUAL HUMPTY DUMPTY MAKEUP OF ANTICHRIST
There are only two faiths, God's or lucifer's. There are only two offerings, one acceptable to God (Abel's) and another is not (Cain's). And today, it is through charismaticism, there is unity in allowing seducing spirits to enter in the last days. This, Scripture foretold. Demonic utterances, bobbling heads (see Hillary), barking, crawling on the belly as the snake's curse, jerking, uncontrolled laughter ... did not initiate in the U.S., as we see in charismatic chaos, but is imported from the east, and is spreading like wildfire across the globe. But this is no new phenomenon, it is ancient. Here enter Iran's mosques and temples:
Similar to Shiites, Sufis practice Muraqaba (meditation). Besides, they practice visitation highly. These are pilgrimages to various tombs of saints, great scholars and supposedly the righteous people. Sufi students enter the faith by seeking a teacher, a master of the way who comes through as an unbroken lineage (spiritual lineage) from the prophet. The Shiites of Iran have much in common with the Sunni Sufis. And just like in Turkey, you will find circular chants in Shiite Iran:
In Turkey they have Sufi Dhikr/Zikr (Zikrism, Meditation) in a Circle:
To the Wahhabists, the Ottomans are considered as Muslim shaman, like their Siberian counterpart who cultivates personal relations with spirits to supposedly help individuals through what they believe as healing and divination which is what we see in the charismatic chaos. This is definitely inline with the religion of the fallen cherub: lucifer. This ‘Islamized shamanism’, covers a huge geographic area of the world. It will not only encompass Muslims but fallen Christians as well.
Turkey is especially plagued with Sufi Islam and Edorgan was raised as a Sufi Muslim and Shamanism pervaded Turkish Sufism which naive western tourists are fascinated with watching Dervishes spin into a trance where mysticism plagues the west as well. Shia Islam in Iran follows metaphysical Sufism, and pre-Islamic shamanism. The figure of the shaman has always been a prominent motif within the Islamic world, particularly in relation to the mystical domain of Sufism.
Sufism has its orders within both Shia and Sunni and transcends the Shiite-Sunni divide and find more commonality than difference just as charismatic chaos transcends Catholic-Protestant divide.
The communion of devils always attempt to mimic. Shia Muslims and Sufi Muslims celebrate Ashura and practice a communion in remembrance of Ashura, in which they consume grains with fruit, which is done once a year for remembrance of also the Passover of Moses and the resurrection of Christ excluding His Crucifixion since Islam denies it.
Erodgan of Turkey passing the Ashura meal out of a Pumpkin to commemorate Moses and the Resurrection of Jesus
What is not known by many is that all Muslims observe a communion feast, but it is the feast of Cain and not of Abel. For Shi’a Muslims they commemorate Ashura and Sunni Muslims view it as a victory God gave to Moses and God parting the Red sea and Christ’s resurrection. In their view it purifies from sin.
They, in mosques, provide free Ashura meals called Nazri “fruit offering,” sort of like Cain’s fruit offering. Ashura is Cain’s meal and Esau’s porridge and in Islam is understood literally as “porridge” including similar offering to Cain's, Ashura includes a mixture consisting of grains, fruits, dried fruits and nuts.
For Shiite Muslims, Ashura, is the day when Mahdi demand allegiance to him:
“It is as if I can see Hadrat Qa’im [Mahdi] on Saturday on the day of ‘Ashura’ standing between Rukn and Maqam (Mecca) with Jibril (Archangel Gabriel) standing in front of him and calling on the people to pay allegiance to him.” (Shaykh at-Tusi, Ghaybah, p. 274; Kashf al-Ghammah, vol. 3, p. 252; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 52, p. 290.)
Everything in Islam is set up to coincide with biblical prophecy. This would be the spark of the beginning for the “seven year” allegiance with “many”.
It becomes clear, the founding of ISIS resonates amongst those who recall the history of the Wahhabists who roared back into life when the Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I with Al Saud's 20th century renaissance uniting the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi spirit of Abd-al Wahhab seizing Arabia from the Ottomans by the early 1800s. Wahhabist Abd-al Aziz later captured Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926.
With the advent of the oil, Saudis goals were to spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world. This backfired. Today even ISIS, born of Wahhabism, undermines of the legitimacy of Al-Saud, which today, in street terms, no Muslim supports.
Saudi mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad is neo-wahhabi, but with Saudi Arabia being a kingdom, how could there be a caliphate from? Even Wahhabi ISIS hates Wahhabi Arabia. A caliphate will make null and void all Arabia's kings and princes since a caliphate is elected by democratic means where the Muslim world must pledge the bay'at (allegiance) to this beast. Therefore, Arabia must be warred against by all Muslims and by this you know how the rest of the story in John's apocalypse 17 ends:
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Hasta entonces, voy a seguir la melodía exacta de la flauta de mi pastor: Until then, I will follow the exact tune from the flute of my Shepherd:
Post a Comment