Question about Islam and the Mahdi

Great Debates
1

So I was talking to a muslim today about the Iraq thing and we got onto wider topics ie Islam itself.

(Note to self: stop grilling people sceptically about their religion. One day someone’s going to hit you)

Anyway, most muslims I speak to are moderate but this one today was one of the more extreme types. The conversation went thus:

(Note: my opponent in this debate knows the Koran by heart and has been studying Islam for 3 years at an Islamic school that is connected in some vague way to Mullah Omar)

ME: Afghans followed a different style of Islam before the Taliban came along. Taliban Islam was Saudi (arab) influenced.

HIM: Yes but the Taliban were generally Afghans (with others from around the world). The arabs were Bin Laden and his bunch.

ME: But you cannot deny that the Kabul people were glad to see the back of the Taliban.

HIM: That is because the time has not yet come but it will come soon.

ME: oh really, how soon?

HIM: Very soon.

ME: How do you know?

HIM: Because the Hadiths tell us there will be ten signs before the coming of the Mahdi (the Caliph) who will unite all the muslims under one ruler.

ME: Hmm, this whole Caliphate idea seems a bit suspect to me. Let’s face it, no muslim country wants to be ruled by another muslim country. Bangladesh don’t want to be ruled by Pakistan. Syria and Egypt joined together in 1959 but that only lasted 2 years before Syria said “fuck this, we’re going to be independent again”

HIM: That’s because the Madhi hasn’t come yet. Once the Mahdi comes the scales will fall from peoples eyes and all will join together.

ME: You keep going on about this Mahdi guy but when’s he going to come?

HIM: The Prophet said that he will come very soon.

…at this point he gestured with his right hand holding his two forefingers apart…

HIM: The Prophet said the time between his (Mohammed’s) appearance and the Mahdi’s appearance would be this short.

…pointing to the gap between his index finger and his next finger…

ME: Well, the Earth is 15 billion years old, maybe that gap (pointing to the gap between his fingers) is a thousand years or even a million years.

HIM: No, because the gap the Prophet was talking about isn’t the gap between the creation of the earth and the coming of the Mahdi, it’s the gap between his time on earth and the coming of the Mahdi.

ME: Even so, that gap could be a thousand years.

HIM: Yes but there are ten signs that will precede the coming of the Mahdi and some of these have already been fulfilled

The conversation covered other stuff too eg:

HIM: If America invades Saudi then all the muslims will rise up.

ME: I don’t doubt it. However America isn’t going to invade Saudi

HIM: Because they’re scared

ME: Wee-ell I don’t think they’re scared as such. I just don’t think they want to. You are right that part of the reason they wouldn’t do it is that they don’t want to offend muslims.

HIM: Invading Iraq is an invasion of a muslim country

ME: Yes but I think you need to understand that American foreign policy isn’t geared towards starting a religious war. That may just be an unfortuate side-effect but it’s not something that factors into American thinking. America is a capitalist country they just follow the money.

HIM: America’s time will come

ME: Of that I have no doubt. All empires fall - look at Rome, Greece, the British empire, the Ottomans. Maybe China will be the next world power.

Anyway I checked on the net to see what these “ten signs” were that will precede the coming of the Mahdi and from what I can discover they seem to include things like:

  • Jesus will come again and pray behind the Mahdi at Mecca (thus making all the Christians convert to Islam)
  • There will be a big earthquake in Saudi (hmm, is Saudi even on a fault line? When was the last earthquake in Saudi?)
  • The sun will rise in the west

So, I’m thinking - it’s not going to happen any time soon then.

The only signs that may happen soon are that there will supposedly be a lunar eclipse at the start of Ramadan and then a solar eclipse in the middle of Ramadan.

Now apparently this will happen in November this year (during Ramadan). Although the lunar eclipse won’t be impressive because the moon will be just a sliver at the time so most people won’t even notice it and the solar eclipse will only be visible from Antartica (and in any case happens right at the end of Ramadan).

But it seems some extremist muslims want to take this as one of the signs. sigh, does this mean we can expect more trouble from the lunatic fringe come November?

He also said something about other signs being that music will appear all over the world and lots of muslims will die. He said that all muslims should be ready to die for their faith. I reminded him that this would probably apply to Christians too (the Christian martyrs) and that people have always made music both before and since the Prophet’s time.

Also I don’t think the Koran has any prohibition against music.

All in all, what a depressing world view this guy must have. He wants to ban music, ban alcohol, cut off people’s hands who commit offences etc etc.

So the great debate here anyway is, I’ve decided to make this guy my pet project and convert him from radical Islam. To me radical Islam is like a religious cult, they are brainwashed. They are force-fed ideology and don’t have the time to think for themselves.

In this first conversation with him I was fairly easy-going and just asked him questions to ascertain where he stood. Next time, I’m going to go on the offensive.

The difference between me and him is, whilst we are both certain we’re right, I actually am right. But, hey, I’m up for a head-to-head in which we both try to convert each other. My money’s on me to win.

2

Well…okay. But I’m still not getting what the debate here is supposed to be about.

Do you to discuss debate strategies re: tackling fundamentalist Islam? Do you want to debate whether or not fundamentalist Islam is screwy? Do you want to debate whether it is moral to try to convery someone away from their faith? Something else?

I’m a bit lost.

  • Tamerlane
3

Tamerlane,

I’m not really sure myself but I think the first and third of your questions - debate strategies and the morality (and wisdom) of even doing it.

4

Also please note I don’t want to convert him from Islam, just radical Islam.

5

Have you read the Q’uran? Like debating fundamentalist Christians, you probably need to be pretty conversant with his holy book if he’s even going to take your arguments seriously. And there’s a lot of material there that will help.

6

Well, the morality question is a pretty personal decision. From my own perspective, while I like intellectual discusdions of religion, I really dislike being aggressively proselytized to and have a tendency to assume as a default that most folk feel the same. So I suppose I’m a little biased against the idea, unless I thought there was some overriding moral imperative ( i.e. it was a friend or acquaintance in a cult or sect that I thought was doing immediate harm to them ). But I should note that I am an atheist of the “live and let live” sort, so saving souls or trying banish superstition don’t rate real high as motivators from my perspective.

From a practical standpoint, if he really is a well-read fundamentalist the odds of you succeeding are probably pretty poor. Well-read zealots, even if the material they’ve read is trash, are extremely frustrating to debate because they usually have an answer for everything and even vague answers can sometimes be unassailable in religious discussions - Faith is a pretty hard argument to get around.

If you decide you really must try to attempt a conversion, instead of attacking head-on you might try an oblique approach and get literature and arguments from liberal Islamic organizations/sects that counter/dispute his conservative views. Present them in a non-confrontational way as an intellectual exercise and see if he is interested in at least debating the relative merits of the non-fundamentalist viewpoint. That’s probably the best way to get a fundamentalist to think and find chinks in the armor of absolutism.

  • Tamerlane
7

ok thanks for the advice hansel and Tamerlane.

I did think I saw one chink in the armour though. The idea that “The End Is Nigh”. This is a familiar religious cult tactic - make your followers think that the end could come at any time. This makes it easier to work up religious fervour (if you think that Judgement Day may happen later this year, as opposed to some undefined point in the future).

Having a “The End Is Nigh” philosophy helps engender a sense of urgency (and panic) in the followers. All the best religious cult leaders had a “The End Is Nigh” message. Didn’t Manson and Jim Jones and Koresh?

At least these guys had the decency to name a particular date so that, once that date had passed without incident, we could all point at them and laugh.

A “The End Is Nigh” philosophy would seem to be de rigoure for your honest, hard working religious cult these days. This appears to be the difference between radical muslims and ordinary muslims. The radical ones have swallowed the “The End Is Nigh” argument.

So all I have to do is convince him that The End Is Not, In Fact, Nigh and I’ve won the argument.

8

I’d have to agree with Tamerlane that an oblique approach is best. Leading him gently astray from the most radical doctrines will work better than a direct challenge. Use the Socratic method–draw him out with questions that can lead to contradictions or absurdities, and be prepared to offer answers that resolve apparent paradoxes.

In fact, read a bit of Plato and you’ll get the hang of it pretty quick. Socrates was very good as leading the person he wanted to convince into contradictions. Once you have the initiative in the conversation, you can probably get him to go where you want him to go. Then, when you offer a plausible solution to the dilemma, he won’t be hostile to it.

I think the biggest risk is that he decides, consciously or not, that you’re not to be trusted philosophically, which will lead him to reject whatever you say. Then your job is much harder.

You know, I’ve had quite a few conversations with the muslims at work, who are from India and Pakistan. They’re generally extremely open and friendly about their faith if they feel respected.

9

Let us try to get a few points right:

False.

A wide variety of practices were found. The Taleban derived not from Wahhabite thinking but indigenous to the region Salafite movements.

Taleban arose from traditional Pashtun practices, given a slightly more conservative spin.

Kaboul is in the North East, well outside the Taleban homeland. There is as much an ethnic element as a religious / political / social rights element here.

Further, ObL’s radical Islamic movement is highly modernist - in many ways ObL’s type of Islamic revivalism (or better that of the Ikhouan who form the backbone) is opposed to the retrograde Salafism of the Mullah Omar types. Alliance of convenience.

In re the return of the Taleban: not to be excluded.

As for “converting” someone from radicalism, don’t waste your time arguing religion. A learned moderate might be able to do so, but you as a Kafir in his view have no credibility.

10

Welcome back, Collounsbury!

The Taliban’s ideological background is in the Deobandi movement which originated in India in the 19th century; it has grown more hardline and repressive in recent years than it had been. A lot of those extremist violent groups active in Kashmir are also of a Deobandi background. Deobandism became more right-wing as a result of influence from the Ahl-e Hadis tendancy, which is the Wahhabism imported into India in the 19th century. The two have become blended by now to some extent. This accounts for the affinity between Taliban and Wahhabism. Yes, Taliban is what you get when you cross extremist Deobandism with Pashtun culture. The Pakistani version of Deobanism is, if anything, even more virulent.

I already looked into that claim about the new moon/full moon in Ramadan, and debunked it using astronomy. Please see this thread for the debunking. Maybe it can help to plant the seeds of doubt in your fundie friend.

11

I’m still trying to figure out why we’d want to invade Saudi Arabia. Granted, the rulers there are unholy SOB’s, but I have hope we can… dissuade them from their less savory policies in the future.

12

My money is on nobody convincing the other one. As demonstrated many times on this board, religious fundamentalists can’t be convinced by rational arguments. They always find some way to “interpret away” annoying contradictions, for instance. Beside, in the case of a muslim, you would better have some knowledge of the Kuran (and possibly the Hadiths) and its interpretations to even try to argue with him, and be taken seriously. Oh! And don’t forget to read it in arabic, or else when you’ll point to some verse, he’ll just say “that’s a translation! It’s certainly not what the arabic text really mean” (speaking from experience, here).

13

Thanks all for the advice, much appreciated.

Collounsbury said:

Ah yes, but I have a winning smile.

Seriously though, although I’m a kafir I know quite a lot of the muslim community in north London (because of the job I’m currently doing). They are a very tight knit community and I think, with many of them, I’m the only non-muslim they know. I think they think of me as an honorary muslim (eg they allow me to touch their prayer mat, I can get away with asking very cheeky questions re Allah that others may not be able to etc).

Jomo,

Thanks for that link. As you say in that thread, it’s better to argue provable facts where possible rather than getting involved in mystical religious stuff (which just ends up being an argument of opinion).

Bandit said:

I think it’s unlikely too but the impression I got was that, in a strange kind of way, he almost looked forward to the day that Americans tried to enter Mecca because then all the muslim Umma would unite.

I swear I saw his eyes almost glaze over with pleasure at the thought.

clairobscur,

One example of what you are talking about was at one point in the conversation we were talking about the muslim prohibition on alcohol. He claims alcohol is haram but I was saying that if you read the koran, it’s actually a bit vague. It says something like “There is much harm and some good in alcohol but the harm outweighs the good”.

Whilst this clearly means that muslims should avoid drinking it’s not quite as clear cut as it could have been. I think there’s some room for manouvre there. The koran could have said:

“Don’t drink alcohol ever, under any circumstances. It is forbidden by me, God. Don’t even go near the stuff”

But it doesn’t say that. It allows that there is some good. Most muslims I know reflect my interpretation, in practice. They don’t drink themselves and they think that people shouldn’t drink but they aren’t all that bothered about it.

A couple of years ago I went to Kashmir and stayed on a houseboat. I had a bottle of whiskey with me. Once the owner of the houseboat discovered I had a bottle of whiskey, I became his new best friend. He came to visit me every night and polished off my whole bottle (I hardly had any of it).

So the hardline view of alcohol isn’t (in my view) justified by the koran and isn’t what (in practice) most muslims think.

(At least the muslims I’ve met. I don’t know any arab muslims, maybe they take a different view).

14

Jojo, it’s advisable not to go around making statements about the Qur’ân until you’ve read it quite thoroughly. The prohibition on alcohol came about in three stages. The first stage was the verse you quoted—only mildly disapproving. The second stage was in a verse that said, “Approach not prayers when ye are intoxicated.” The third stage was a verse that outright prohibited alcoholic drink, saying directly, “Don’t drink!” This was the chronological order they were revealed in, but the 3 verses are not placed in chrono order in the text. There is not the slightest doubt or loophole about booze being prohibited in Islam. It is definitely categorical.

Now, I have been trying without success to find corroboration for something I heard once: some muftis in the Ottoman Empire ruled that hashish is not covered by the prohibition against intoxicants and is therefore legal. Because the text used the word khamr, literally ‘wine’ in the narrowest sense, therefore, taking it in the narrowest sense, hashish as a non-alcoholic intoxicant must be permissible. This is not the generally accepted rule, however.

15

Didn’t the Mahdi already come? If he didn’t, who was that guy who fought against the British in the Sudan back in the 1880s? Did somebody decide he wasn’t the Mahdi after all?

BTW, Jojo, I don’t know if your friend will understand this, but he’s got things exactly backward. It’s precisely because we’re not afraid of Saudi Arabia that we’re not invading the place. Saddam Hussein, OTOH, scares the bejeebers out of us, so we’re trying to get rid of him. Whether we’re right to be scared of him is another question entirely, of course.

16

It has been my experience that the majority of human beings cannot be convinced by rational arguments at the best of times. If your friend did not come to his beliefs through logic and reason, logic and reason will not displace them.

17

Apparently not. Being the Mahdi seems a lot like being the messiah. If you don’t pull through in the pinch, you ain’t him.

18

Yeah, almost all Muslims, even at the time :). Or pretty much what Catain Amazing said. Muhammed Ahmed was an obscure mystic before he claimed the title of Mahdi and took up the cause of anti-Egyptian and anti-colonial resistance. The reason he became known in the west as THE Mahdi, was do to his popular media exposure and successes as said resistance leader. But in this case, you can consider it as much a political title as anything else. I don’t think there were many Muslims outside the Sudan who really regarded him as the genuine Mahdi ( though I’m open to correction on that - perhapss he briefly stirred imaginations on a wider scale ).

The 15th century Safavid Sufi order regarded their leader as the Mahdi as well ( one of the main reasons they were regarded as borderline heretics in mainstream Shi’a circles ).

I believe a number of people have claimed the title. Self-deluded or self-aggrandizing messianic leaders are not uncommon. However nobody has yet to made good on the claim ;).

  • Tamerlane
19

“The Taleban derived not from Wahhabite thinking but indigenous to the region Salafite movements.”
I thought the Taliban was inspired by the Deobandi school. Is that a Salafite movement?

Speaking of which: could someone provide a good online source which sorts out the different strands of contemporary Islamic extremists and the extent of rivalry and co-operation among them. Alternatively perhaps Tamerlane could write one of his trademark mini-essays.:wink:

20

Urkk. Potentially long topic :). I’ll defer this one for a bit I think, until I have a more unfettered and work-free period of time. Maybe somebody else will come up with something before then.

  • Tamerlane