Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Can Iran Be the King of the South?

The United Arab Emirates have decided to inspect any ships from Iran lest they carry any contraband and froze 41 bank accounts connected to Iran. As reported by
Bernard-Henri Lévy in his article The Arab World Against Ahmadinejad?

Lévy also mentions that during the time of the assassination of Hamas operative Mahmud al-Mabhuh, the UAE was working with Israel to secure their borders from possible mischief by Iran.

And he cites the claim that Saudi Arabia has allowed Israeli jets (Yes-what was called the "Zionist entity" by many Arabs) to use its airspace. This has since been denied by the Saudis but Lévy seems unconvinced.

He concludes:
First of all, [these events are important] because it reminds those who refuse to observe the fact that Islam is not a bloc. Islam of peace exists, vs Islam of war; moderate Islam vs fanatical Islam; and, of course, in this case, Sunni Islam vs Shiite Islamor, [sic] to be exact, vs this heresy of Shi'ism that is the apocalyptic Islam of the loonies and the gangsters who, a year ago, stole their vote from the Iranians.

And then, it demonstrates as well that the front of refusal against the Iranian regime and its plans for total war is growing larger and taking shape and consistency.
This is a good point. For us Westerners we may know the difference between the French and the Spanish, but we often are unable to see the diversity within the Dar al-Islam.

I mention this because PCG claims that Iran will become the King of the South and lead a great Muslim entity which will a) play a role in destroying the USA, Britain and Israel in the Great Tribulation and b) eventually provoke the European Beast Power to wage war against the King of the South and to over run it and quickly seize control over them.

While there was some tentative declarations in old WCG that there would be a future Muslim power in the future it was Gerald Flurry who declared that Iran would be the King of the South.

These recent events suggest that Flurry was totally wrong to make this prediction.

I wonder, when he declared Iran to be the King of the South sometime in the 1990s, if he knew the differences that exist between Iran and the rest of the various Arab states. Iran is predominently Shi'ite, and because of this many Arab states have been quite suspicious and fearful of Iran.

Lévy's news is not much of a surprise to me since there has been bad relations between various Arab states and Iran. The Arab states fear Iran's power and wish to counteract it.

This is contrary to what Flurry "prophesized."

The idea that Iran will lead a vast Muslim power in the end time just seems extremely unlikely. The Iranians are not Arabs, Iran is a theocratic and authoritarian republic never seen before which the monarchies and secular republics of the Arab states, as far as I can see, have no wish to imitate. Why would they follow Iran?

I cannot help but wonder whether Gerald Flurry was aware of these things when he declared that Iran is the King of the South sometime in the early 1990s. Would he have said that if he knew these things?


  1. The only way Flurry could be right is if Iran conquered the other Muslim nations.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, though - I don't recall the King of the South being predicted to come together in that way. So I don't see how Iran, being the King of the South, is prophesied to conquer other nations in order to become said King of the South.

  2. It is a great mystery how this type of logic would work anyway.

    We are dealing with a nation that uses muslim logic, and so all others - whether christians or jews - can't really "know" what some of the signals from Iran are all about.
    What may seem as confusion may very well end up in complete unity if the US handles events badly. I'm here especially thinking of the atomic energy situation. If the US handles the crisis badly the reaction could be rather strong, and disunified arab nations could suddenly come together if they feel their "honor" is being disregarded.

    A related idea is how people might come together with either Syria or Egypt. Such forces already have an anti-Israel history, and might attract some with a muslim mindset.

    But it is all speculation, and certainly a time-consuming hobby among many ex-Armstrongism members...

    Have a nice weekend. :-)

  3. I think I've mentioned here before another aspect of this, which hurts the Flurry argument -- the geographic one.

    The old WCG determined "north and south" based on the location of Jerusalem. Iran is EAST of there, not south.

  4. "I cannot help but wonder whether Gerald Flurry was aware of these things..."

    Well, awareness of facts was never one of his strong points. He, like all so-called prophets, is just making it up as he goes along. And that kind of creative project doesn't leave much time for fact-checking.