Welcome      As Believers Draw Closer to a Tribulation Period Scripture Interpretation becomes Clearer!

As Believers Draw Closer to a Tribulation Period Scripture Interpretation becomes Clearer!

As Believers Draw Closer to the Tribulation Scripture Interpretation is Clearer
There will be a HUDNA style peace for Israel in the Negev after --- Leaves
The Gaza Conflict Eventually Ends in a hudna (truce) Twixt Israel and Hamas!
Then Islam’s Caliph Drives Israel into Negev after --- Departs in Feb 2017!
Then Islam Antichrist with His Daniel-Revelation 10 drives Jews into the Negev
But Breaks a UN peace treaty by Islam Gog some 3 to 4 years Later on Trump 7
After which God’s 7 horrific vials of wrath if poured on the lost left on the Earth
But God will bring his pre-determined remnant of flesh and blood through it All

July 21, 2014


All This is Specifically Diagramed on our Archive Prophecy Update Number 321
UN Truce Is Reached at Beersheba that to the Antichrist will be an Islam Hudna
Hudna’s broken during 7th trump rapture to begin God’s Wrath on Gog’s Army
Israel and world will say they finally have peace after 3 plus years of No Rockets.

I Thessalonians 5:3-12 – For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. [4] But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. [5] Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. [6] Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. [7] For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. [8] But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. [9] For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, [10] Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. [11] Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do. [12] And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;

I have described the differences in the ways that exist between the infidel and Islamic way of understanding the “hudna” in many of my Web Site transmissions. But we are drawing nigh to the end of the Gentile Age, so I am now issuing it once again because it is important to understand these differences.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hudna is an Arabic term meaning a temporary “truce” or “armistice” as well as “calm” or “quiet”, coming from a verbal root meaning “calm”. It is sometimes mis-translated as “cease-fire”. In the Lisan al-Arab (Ibn al-Manzur’s definitive dictionary of classical Arabic, dating to the 14th century) it is defined as follows:

“hadana: he grew quiet. hadina: he quieted (transitive or intransitive). haadana: he made peace with. The noun from each of these is hudna.”

A particularly famous early hudna was the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah between Muhammad and the Quraysh tribe.

In English, the term is most frequently used in reference to a cease-fire agreement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly one that would involve organizations such as Hamas. The concept of hudna was introduced to the conflict by the Israeli businessman Eyal Erlich in 2001, after seeing a hudna being declared in order to calm a feud in Jordan (cf. Haaretz, January 2, 2002); he and some others proposed, unsuccessfully, that Israel should suggest a mutual hudna as a prelude to a more lasting peace.

Despite the Israeli government’s rejection of the idea, in summer 2003 — following pressure from Abu Mazen and Egypt — Hamas and Islamic Jihad unilaterally declared a 45-day ceasefire, or hudna. Its proponents commonly argued that such a cease-fire would allow hostility to die down and make a full reconciliation possible; its opponents commonly argued that it would be a mere tactical maneuver enabling Palestinian groups to re-group and muster their strength in preparation for further attacks on Israelis, or Israel to continue expanding settlements, blockading Palestinian towns, and arresting members of such groups. The hudna started on 29 June 2003.

In an IDF operation to arrest Hamas militants gunfight broke out in which an Israeli soldier and two alleged Hamas militants were killed. Hamas responded with a suicide bombing on August 12, killing one Israeli civilian. Fatah claimed responsibility for a second suicide bombing on August 12 killing another Israeli citizen. Despite this de facto violation of the hudna, Hamas stated that the cease-fire would continue. Hostilities then escalated: the Israeli army killed Islamic Jihad’s Muhammad Seeder on August 14; the Jerusalem bus 2 massacre by Hamas and Islamic Jihad on August 19, killed 23 and wounded 136 people ; and Israeli forces killed Hamas’s Ismail Abu Shanab on August 21. After the killing of the two high-ranking leaders, Hamas eventually called off the hudna.

In January 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six Day War, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and the unlimited “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees into Israel. Rantissi said the hudna was limited to ten years and represented a decision by the movement because it was “difficult to liberate all our land at this stage; the hudna would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel.” However, Hamas later repudiated this offer and claimed they would never recognize Israel or compromise on their position that Israel needed to dismantled and replaced by a single Palestinian state. The Hamas hudna offers are non-starters with Israel because they demand that Israel cede all of Eastern Jerusalem and accede to the right of return, two elements that have never been accepted by any Israeli governing coalition (whether it was led by liberals or conservatives). Hamas and its supporters have also tended to vary and/or lie about specific numbers related to potential hudna situations (Ian Lustick claimed a separate hudna offer by Hamas had been for a generation–which would equal 25 years–while the actual Hamas offer only covered a 5-year period), as well as making hudna offers when the group perceived itself to be taking losses in its conflict with Israel and eschewing them when it seemed that Israel was on the downside of said conflict. The historical legacy of the hudna concept also drive home a salient point: it was always intended as a way for a losing party to get time and regroup before rising to victory over its enemies.

Begin Excerpt 2 from provethebible.com

“Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” – Hadith 5.59.369

The Principle and uses of skillful lying

The root word “taqiyya” means to protect against or conceal. As you might gather from the quotes above, the principle of al-Taqiyya is the Islamic justification for lying and deceiving. Al-Taqiyya is drawn explicitly from the words of Muhammad, and from the examples he and his successors set.

The Qur’an and other Islamic books condone lying, but they also praise truth-telling. Assuming for the moment these contradictory exhortations intend some salient point (a true assumption considering the principle in question), and assuming one principle hasn’t abrogated the other, approved lying must have a context. That is exactly what Islamic scholars say is the case.

Situations or purposes for which Islamic scholars collectively judge it to be permissible to lie include the following: to reconcile arguments, to settle family disputes, to settle arguments specifically with wives or women, to safeguard one’s “innocent” life (i.e., not for criminals on trial), to protect the lives of other Muslims, to defend one’s honor, to succeed in jihad or combat, and to spread the practice of Islam.

With the admission that Muslims may lie under many circumstances, trusting a Muslim involves a higher than average degree of risk. We’ll get into that later, but recognize that statements like the following only affirm that impression:

“It is not mandatory to practice it (al-Taqiyya) at all times; on the contrary, it is permissible, and sometimes necessary, to abandon it (al-Taqiyya) altogether; as in the case where revealing the truth will further the cause of the religion, and provide a direct service to Islam;” – al-Shaykh Muhammad Ridha al-Mudhaffar

In other words, ‘You don’t have to lie all the time; it’s okay, and even useful, to sometimes tell the truth’.

Not exactly a Sermon on the Mount-caliber message.

At what point is it permissible to start lying?

One point of contention between different Islamic sects is the stress point at which certain situations merit lying The web site al-Islam.org adds this Iranian perspective on when al-Taqiyya can and cannot be invoked:

It seems all Islamic sects agree that deception is good if it’s done to promote Islam. Yet concerning lesser matters, interpretations vary.

The Shi’a sect, for example, boasts of requiring a certain threshold of adversity before lying is justified. One Shi’a writer puts it “that Taqiyya must be practiced only when there is a definite danger which cannot be avoided and against which there is no hope of a successful struggle and victory.”

Sunnis believe that God decides when someone is going to die. Therefore, they believe it is wrong to deny the faith in order to escape torture or death. By contrast, the Shi’a and some Sunnis believe that life is a gift from God and should be preserved…preservation of life takes precedence over anything else…

However, Islamic groups or sects with the strictest thresholds, i.e., are least quick to condone lying, are the more intolerant and western-hating practitioners of Islam. Shia-dominant Iran might be of an example of this. Their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the last string of Ayatollahs have certainly not been the kind of persons one has had to goad, “Tell me what you really think.”

It all begs the question, “In dealing with Islam, should we feel more comfortable dealing with…

A.) those most-likely-to-lie-to-us groups or persons who say they want to be our friends, or …

B.) those most-likely-to-tell-us-the-truth groups or persons who say they want us wiped off the face of the earth?”

Answer that question well and maybe you should run for President.

(Refer to the left margin for additional Islamic endorsements, quotations, and justifications for lying and deception.

The practice of hudna

Hudna is an Arabic term that technically translates into “calm” or “truce”, as in a truce struck between two warring nations. But a hudna is not just any truce or ceasefire. A hudna is a “tactical truce” that has it’s beginnings with Muhammad:

In the year 628 AD, when surmising that his [Mohammed's] forces were too weak to overcome the rival Kuraysh tribes, the Prophet Mohammed concluded a ten-year truce accord with the Kuraysh. This agreement became known as the Hudaybiyya Accord, after the place where it was signed. Yet, less than two years later, having consolidated their power, the Muslim forces attacked the Kuraysh tribes and defeated them, allowing Mohammed to conquer the city of Mecca.

Since that time, the term Hudna has been understood by Muslims as a tactical cease-fire that is intended only to allow a shift the balance of power. Once the balance of power has shifted, and the groundwork has been laid for a Muslim victory, the truce can then be broken.

Hudna is the battlefield or political application of al-Taqiyya. It’s purpose is to give the illusion of desiring peace while actively masking a rethinking, regrouping, or rearming when faced with a superior opponent. The above citation was from EmbassyofIsrael.org, obviously experienced in the typical course of Islamic ceasefires. Here is one from Omdurman.org on the same subject affirming a kind of deception that is fundamental to Islam:

What is being touted as a ‘cease-fire’ is something called a ‘hudna.’ A hudna [also known as a hudibiyya or khudaibiya] is a tactical cease-fire that allows the Arabs to rebuild their terrorist infrastructure in order to be more effective when the “cease-fire” is called off.

The awful short of it all

The acceptance among Muslims that lying is permissible, encouraged, sometimes obligatory, and diversely applied, means one should be more cautious than usual when considering to trust them. I know that’s a horrible blanket charge to make against any group of people. It’s only tempered by the fact that all Muslims cannot agree on when and at what point one should start lying.

How do we know which set of “lying circumstances” are acceptable to any given Muslim we may be speaking with? We could ask, but could we believe their answer?

Consider the beginnings of Islam when a spiritual being is said to have confronted Muhammad in a dark cave. In that blackness, the being extolled the virtues of that which would become Islam. Muslims say that a lie to further Islam is acceptable, so by that reasoning there is no guarantee that the being didn’t lie to Muhammad. It furthered Islam, did it not? If one can tell lies to further Islam, then there is no basis for believing anything good you’re told about the religion. I’m not saying there’s nothing good about it, I’m just pointing out the impossibility of trusting a system that openly embraces lying and falsehood as key doctrines.

A consensus view among Muslims today, as much as there is one, is that all the world is a legitimate battlefield upon which Islam should compete and win out as the dominate worldview. No problem – most ideologies compete for dominance like that. But in this battlefield context, the doctrine of al-Taqiyya is justifiable in virtually every situation, and at least radical Muslims exercise it in exactly that way.

Muslims may not all agree when to invoke al-Taqiyya, but they cannot deny that the whole world is an ideological field of battle. What ideology can claim to be moral AND declare the whole world combatants to whom they can unashamedly lie? Answer: Islam.

These doctrines of strategic lying and deception, al-Taqiyya and hudna, showcase the dangerous nature of Islam as much as does the wife beating, honor killing, beheading, and other such practices that the religion embraces. The only thing positive about the doctrines is that they are so integral to the Qur’an and practice of Islam that they cannot be hidden. We know about them, and now knowing we can and should take them into account. Weigh very cautiously what Muslims and Muslim nations are telling us and trying to get us to believe, especially in regard to so-called peace treaties and treaties concerning nuclear weapons.

Hadrat Ali said that in the battlefield one could not observe the highest standard of truth as a Muslim has been exhorted to do in matters of religion. For example in the battlefield one has to hide facts and outwit the enemy – al-Islam.org, Hadith Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, ft. #1446