The eternal dream of Islam is a single global caliphate (religious government) to which all the world will fully submit and all factions of Muslims will swear total allegiance. Islam means “submission” to the God of that theocracy – supposedly the God of the Bible who supposedly bequeathed spiritual and worldly authority to Abraham’s son Ishmael (conceived with Sarah’s handmaid Hagar) and not to Sarah’s son, Isaac.
In contradiction to that theology, our Christian Bible recognizes the claim of Isaac and his descendants to the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant and characterizes Ishmael as “wild donkey of a man, and his hand will be against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; he will live in hostility toward all his brothers” (Genesis 16:12). In my Aug. 8, 2024, WND column, titled “Islamo-Hebrew relations from Hagar to Hamas,” I attributed the enduring hatred of Muslims for Jews to that original inheritance dispute.
The submission of nations to the God of Islam is to be achieved through any necessary means (including immigration) but primarily military conquest, as demonstrated by the life and works of its founder, Muhammad. From its start Islam has been a religion of war and conquest whose most dramatic eras have featured the winner-take-all clash of Christian and Muslim kingdoms and nations. These clashes include the period of the Crusades, which were a long-delayed Christian reaction to persistent Muslim aggression and land-grabs over centuries.
The last Islamic caliphate, supposedly inclusive of all Muslim factions, was the Turkish Ottoman Empire with its capital in “Istanbul,” formerly Constantinople, the crown jewel of the Christian Byzantine Empire. Indeed, the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims in 1453 marked the transition of regional power to the Ottomans and the effective end of the Byzantines (whose heir in exile is, in my assessment, not Greece but Russia).
In 1516 the Ottomans expanded their imperial reach to include Jerusalem, which remained under their control until the Christian British Empire wrested the Holy Land away from them by military force in 1917 and essentially gave it back to the Jews. This gift, notwithstanding present-day anti-Zionist rhetoric by both Jew-hating Christians and Muslims, was fully within the Brits’ right as a conqueror’s prerogative in the ancient and natural law of war.
The history of the world since the rise of Islam has been dominated by the “family infighting” of the “People of the Book” – Jews, Christians and Muslims – whose complex relationships have centered on repeated titanic clashes of Islam and Christianity, but are also influenced by constantly changing secondary dynamics. These secondary dynamics arise in part from factionalism in both of the larger religions (e.g., Roman Catholic vs. Protestant, and Sunni vs. Shiite) and in part to the machinations of the Jews, whose dramatically smaller numbers and history of suffering sometimes genocidal persecution under both Islam and Christianity have led them to pursue strategies and tactics that leverage their strengths, such as banking, information and distribution systems. Denying that they have and wield these asymmetrical powers is a politically necessary defense mechanism against the constant threat of “majority rule” populism (for which I do not fault them – except when they abuse these powers to push anti-biblical public policies).
The authority for Hebrew influence in this manner was set by God in the Abrahamic Covenant (i.e., “Your descendants will possess the gates of their enemies,” Genesis 22:17) and was modeled in the Bible by Joseph and Daniel precisely as it is manifested today in the modern world. (To reiterate, yes, the Jews have outsized influence, and if you don’t like it, take it up with God – who never promised that influence would always be benign.) I say this as a staunch Hebrewphile and strong supporter of Israel for reasons not related to its cultural and political policies.
World history thus tracks the path of a perpetual minuet of three biblically inter-related dance partners on the world stage – the study of which is the key to understanding both geo-politics and prophecy.
My insights on this topic result from a 10-year research project for a book-in-progress on the history of Christian and Jewish cooperation and cross-pollination around the common doctrine of millennialism. My educated hypothesis is that the common experience of religious persecution during the Spanish Inquisition suffered by Jews and proto-Protestants over the doctrine of millennialism spawned an intermittent partnership that facilitated both the Protestant Reformation and the rise of the British Empire to the status of world domination. The key elements of this partnership included the marriage of British royalty with Jewish banking and trade interests. This was undergirded ideologically and culturally by the theory and doctrine of “British Israelism” in which the British royal line was deemed a continuation of the biblical Judean monarchy, reflected in iconic symbolism in the heraldry of the British royal family and cherished artifacts such as the Stone of Scone.
Importantly, while I believe there may be some factual elements of the theory as originally postulated, which I am still researching, British Israelism as it was known in the late 19th and early 20th centuries is almost universally considered debunked and disproved today. However, what is most critical to recognize is that it was a doctrine believed to be true by key British decision-makers for a period as long as five centuries, and only fully abandoned AFTER the Balfour Declaration formally invited the Jews to resettle what is now the nation-state of Israel.
At the very least it was a doctrine highly politically expedient for British elites intent on world domination and the suppression of Islam, which, on balance, I approve with reservations. I approve their first major success: the Protestant British supplanting of the Roman Catholic Spanish Empire as the dominant force in the West. I approve the rapid spread of Protestant Christianity across the world through colonialism. And I approve the conquest, destabilization and division of the Islamic theocracies into modern nation-states with divergent, exploitable interests. Among other things, I do not approve of the British slide into Marxism from the middle of the 19th century – reflected in increasingly unethical, unbiblical and manipulative geopolitical strategies and tactics toward the rest of the world, including especially the Russian empire.
It has been British-dominated NATO’s missteps toward Russia on the Ukraine front that now threaten to undo the balance of power that kept Islam in check, and have opened the door (as a cost of regime change in Syria) to Turkish resurgence toward its openly stated desire to reconstitute its former empire. NATO’s shameful breaking of its promises not to expand eastward to the Russian border has driven the Russians and some Islamist factions together in alliances of common necessity that have greatly strengthened the Muslims – to the severe disadvantage of Israel and the great benefit of NATO member Turkey.
In my next article, “America deserves a new and better ‘special relationship,’” I will propose a plan of action for Trump that could leverage the current crisis in geopolitics to maximum advantage to America and Judeo-Christian civilization.
* * *
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.
