by Rod Amis
THE MAHDI - Rod Amis's third post looks at the intersection of Muslim and Christian eschatology and introduces MiniMe.
3 August 2006: Islam, like the other two monotheistic, Abrahamic religions with which it shares so much common historical tradition, has an extremely strong eschatological strain. Between the Quran itself and the hadithas of the imans, some scholars believe that a third of traditional Muslim writings are focused on the eschaton, the "end of days." This is not discussed much in our times.
Among the signs of this Islamic eschaton, believed in more vigorously among Shi'ia than Sunni sects, it could be argued are:
- The bodily return of Jesus of Nazareth from Heaven.
- The resurrection of the dead.
- The Day of Judgment
It would not be entirely surprising, Gentle Reader, if you did not know that these "signs" are part of the Islamic faith. But there is more.
From the point of view of those who believe in the Islamic eschaton, an important fact that signals its arrival, in common with the belief of evangelical Christians, is the return of the Jewish diaspora to Israel. The similarities between the Christian and Muslim beliefs in the "signs" of the end of times are quite striking, in This Interlocutor's view, and worth pause.
But then things change a bit, because a significant divergence in the Muslim view has to do with the arrival, after Jesus, of the Mahdi. This eschatological Mahdi is the Muslim redeemer and reconciler. The fulfillment of the entire eschatological scenario, who ushers in the new age of peace.
Much of what we are witnessing in the Middle East today could easily be directly ascribed, in one view, to both Christians and Muslims believing that all the cogs are now in place for the beginning of the end of the world as we know it and the ushering in of their respective views of the "Day of Reckoning." I find that a sobering thought.
These people are all, Christian and Muslim, committed to bringing Jesus back from Heaven, where they believe he bodily resides, in order to fulfill their own view of a "Final Judgment" which shall vindicate their religious ideologies. Not just a sobering thought, from this seat, but I frightening one.
Considering the commonality in their cosmologies, you would think that evangelical Christians and Muslims would behave more like the kissing cousins they are!
Okay, I've over-simplified a bit because I haven't stressed the results each side hopes to achieve by having Jesus come back.
For the Christians, everybody who isn't part of Jesus' retributive army goes to a fiery, eternal damnation, which - of course - includes all the Muslims. From the Muslim side, the Mahdi achieves a similar end for everyone who is not one of them, including - of course - the Christians.
Apocalypse.
That Muqtada al-Sadr calls his Shi'ia militia the Mahdi Army is not insignificant within this context.
As I mentioned in the previous post, this impulse toward vengeance, no matter who is comes from, does not strike me as a sign of good mental health.
At its core are hate and fear, not love, though both religions discussed in this post claim to have love at their cores.
Their view of the "end times" simply doesn't strike me as very loving at all and I suspect they must know that themselves. What they are doing to bring about this "end of days" era of peace and justice is brutalizing the very people they claim they mean to save and protect. But these are obvious internal contradictions of their cosmologies upon which we need not linger.
Again, I'm brought back to one of the initial questions of my desire to examine religions as a youth, "Why do people believe?"
I've already expressed that the desire for vengeance/justice in a brutal world where believers think they have been irreparably offended is surely part of that why. But I do believe there are other elements as well and hope to explore them here before ending our titular phrase with the word "Amen."
If you examine the end results of the desires of any of the religious groups we've thus far surveyed here, they are nothing short of terrifying if you are a Buddhist, Hindu, secular humanist, atheist, agnostic, et cetera. Explicitly, all of the rest of us are being asked to give up our diversity and submit - or be destroyed.
That people with money or guns or both define these beliefs as the core of existence is terror if one has ever seen it.
The rigid absolutism defining these visions of a world of "peace and justice" are as fascistic as anything Mussolini had in mind, that should be clear. In comparison to these goals, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun actually begin to look attractive.
Again, why?
I would suggest that we find at the core of these religious aspirations a fear of change. Change, as one Reader who commented to my efforts thus far suggested, is not a matter of choice. Change simply occurs in our lives, and the fullness of time, and requires that we adapt. We cannot choose whether or not it continues and that fact engenders both fear and discomfort.
Religious certainty, I have observed, is a means of combating the fear and uncertainty that change requires of us.
In response to the demands of change, the religious person seems to embrace a cosmology where change will fi nally cease and a true believer takes that as the time of respite and relief. The very terms of "end of days," "end of time," seem to imply this belief that change can be halted and the very nature of Time will be irrevocably altered.
Within the process of a lack of change, the believer, it appears, also finally actualizes the desire never again to have to deal with an "Other." In the perfect world the evangelical Christians or Muslims or Wiccans described here believe will be the result of their respective Apocalypses, everyone surviving is just like them in thought and conduct.
What those of us outside of their Stepford Wives-homogeneous weltanschauung would consider both dull and/or terrifying, they take as "Heaven", "Paradise."
A secondary motivation for belief, in the view presented here, has to do with how one defines the suitable response to a slight or injury - in other words, how one believes justice and/or honor can be maintained. This has been an issue of philosophy and the philosophy of religions throughout human history.
I would posit the view that much is dependent on whether one's philosophy supports that notion that justice and the maintenance of honor are based on retribution or recompense. Retribution, in this view, must lead to some form of violence, physical or emotional, but most often the former; recompense calls for some restorative action on the part of the offender. The difference between the two approaches, or philosophies, is stark.
In the Abrahamic religions, the tendency toward and the tenets supporting retribution are strongest. It is only in the synoptic Gospels of the Christian Bible that the notion of recompense is mentioned, frankly.
What are we then to think about an alternative to violent response when so much of the international cultural and religious tradition explicitly sanctions violence as appropriate and just? Some of us can only wag our heads in despair.
INTERLUDE/DIGRESSION:
MiniMe: Okay, Dude, what's wrong?
Me: I don't know. I'm just getting frustrated with putting projects up here.
MiniMe: Because... ?
Me: Because, even though - as I've said umpteen times, I'm competing against virtual cartoons - I entered into this thinking that just maybe there was room for examples of blogging that might pass on some important information and provoke thought.
MiniMe: And your point is?
Me: My point, asshole, is that I'm wondering why I even bother.
It seems the nature of the medium is that people would rather watch pseudo-rednecks blast Baby Boomers in the head or watch the one hundred thousandth parody of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's machinations than try to analyze the motives behind why these things occur.
I was thinking that maybe, just maybe, there was at least one judge here who would appreciate a serious attempt at blogging about issues. Was I hoping too much?
MiniMe: Too many words, Dude! You're losing me.
Me: Arrgh! That's exactly what I mean.
MiniMe: You've always been a dreamer.
Me: Or - or is the point that nothing in this "Festival" should compete with their own blogs?
MiniMe: You think?
Okay, so why bother, as you ask? Masochism perhaps?
Me: I'm starting to wonder. I don't know if I can do this again. Maybe all the Mouthpiece Media folks are right and the Web is not the place for considered opinions, just rants and cartoons.
MiniMe: It's a thought. Personally, my favorite thing on the Web is "The 9" over at Yahoo!
Me: Don't make me hurt you.
MiniMe: That chick is so hot! Am I right?
Me: [Unprintable.]
MiniMe: Lighten up, Dude! Just quit, if it's getting under your skin that much.
Me: This project ends when I can write the word "Amen" after the title.
MiniMe: Now you are just being obdurate and stubborn again.
Me: So you say.
MiniMe: Who knows you better?
Good night and good luck.
Introduction to World Without End
World Without End Two: Other Necros
World Without End Four: The Messiah
World Without End Five: End of Days
World Without End Six: Dance of Death
World Without End Seven: Faith & Reason
G21: The World's Magazine
Rod's First Project at the Huffington Post
Rod's Second Project at the Huffington Post
Rod's Third Project at the Huffington Post
© 2006, Rod Amis.
E-mail your comments to rod@g21.net.
