Last week (May 3-7, 2021), I once again played maven on two topics: President Biden’s claim that “white supremacist terrorism” is the greatest such threat to America; and the danger posed to American and the world by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s weaponized belief in the Twelfth Imam of Shiism.
Insofar as Iranians are white–and they most certainly are–then a claimant to the mantle of the putative 12th Imam al-Mahdi, should he ever shake loose the occultation coil, would pose a true threat to America and the entire world’s population of Christians, Jews and all non-Shii Muslims. But even sans his presence the IRI, as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, one also seeking nuclear weapons, represents a far greater danger to America than Trump supporters–even ones that broke into Nancy Pelosi’s office. Beware folks sporting turbans far more than those in MAGA hats–or even buffalo-horn headgear.
Listen to my interview, and read my article; then decide for yourself which white supremacist threat is real, and which is imagined.
In a similar vein, although admittedly more speculatively, about this time last year I published an article entitled “How Middle-earth Can Help Us Deal with the Middle Kingdom.” In it I looked at the grand strategy of the leaders of the West in The Lord of the Rings in terms of how they eventually defeated Sauron’s bid for conquest of Middle-earth–and whether that provides any guidance as to how the West should deal with the rising power of Communist China.
We can probably learn more from the Ottoman Empire than from Gondor–but why not take a look at both?
March 29 is the (alleged) birthday of Muhammad b. Hasan “al-Mahdi,” the twelfth and final Imam of Twelver Shiism [which I write sans correct transliteration, because such causes my text here in WordPress to change font size]. He is said to have been born 870 AD/256 AH. These Imams are believed by this sect–which comprises a majority in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Azerbaijan, as well as minority pockets elsewhere–to be the rightful and Allah-ordained leaders of Islam, as descendants of Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law Ali. After the death of the eleventh Imam, Hasan al-Askari (probably poisoned by the Sunni Abbasid Caliph), his son Muhammad at the age of four or five allegedly disappeared from human sight but stayed in contact with his followers for the next 37 years. In 941 AD he then went radio silent, and will not be heard from again until Allah sends him forth from this mystical occultation to lead the world–by conversion and conquest–to (Shiite) Islam.
The Islamic Republic of Iran’s Mehr News Agency last week ran a long story about the “Hidden Imam,” entitled “Mankind in Need of a Savior.” Since this coincided with our Western Christian Holy Week, I thought it a worthy topic of discussion.
Both Sunnis (the majority branch of the religion) and Shiis believe in the Mahdi, the “divinely-guided one” whom Allah will send to make the entire world Muslim. This will be done with a little help from his friend, the non-crucified and thus non-resurrected Jesus, who will have returned and revealed he was a Muslim all along. The only real difference is that the Sunnis believe he’s not yet been here and thus will emerge onto the stage of history, eventually being acknowledged, while the Shiis, as noted, think he will be the returning-from-hiddenness Muhammad, son of Hasan al-Askari. The Mahdi will combat the forces of evil (both human–particularly Christian states–and supernatural, notably the Dajjal, or “deceiver”/antichrist), take over the world in tandem with Jesus, enforce Islamic norms and laws, and eventually die. While the Iranians, and indeed many other Muslims (to include Sunnis), refer to the Mahdi as “savior,” he’s much more of a religious warlord. Any “salvation” he engenders is entirely in the military and political realm, not the spiritual or personal one.
Besides this martial element, the biggest problem with the Twelfth Imam is his total lack of historicity. There are no sources, outside an extremely small coterie of Twelver Shiis true believing ones, corroborating that Hasan al-Askari even had a son. And of course only a member of the sect could buy the story that a five year old boy would be put on ice for over a millennium. As a historian and, yes, a Christian, I think Ockham’s Razor points to the eleventh Imam dying sans progeny, with the mythology of his son being created to keep this sect of Islam alive. And in this the fiction succeeded all too well. But even if the Shii Twelfth Imam were historically verifiable–what difference would it make? He has no truly salvific power in his lifetime, and is long since dead and gone, just like all the other Imams. Or Muhammad himself, for that matter. Dead desert warlords, at best; deluded false prophets, at worst.
Contrast Muhammad, or his epigone the Mahdi (Sunni or Twelver), with the true Savior of Mankind–Jesus Christ. We know He existed, historically, for not just pious Christian sources (the Gospels, Epistles and early Fathers) but antagonistic pagan or Jewish Romans (Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus) attest to His historicity. Furthermore, He died on the Cross to expiate our sins; and His Resurrection not only proved Him right, but allows us to align our lives with His and, ultimately, to achieve eternal life. Can the Twelfth Imam do that?
Yes, Iranian news outlets are entirely correct that mankind is in need of a savior. But it’s not the Mahdi. It’s the Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, Crucified and Resurrected. May all Iranians, and indeed all peoples, come to that saving knowledge before it’s too late.
A number of conservative and Christian outlets (such as this one) are very concerned that a prominent Church of Sweden theologian claims that “Christians can view Muhammad as a prophet.” Jakob Wirén, in To Make Room for the Other?, advises Christians to view the founder of Islam as analogous to an Old Testament prophet. (I cannot find any information about this book other than second-hand; and all the links in the afore-cited article go to Swedish sources. However, Wirén’s 2017 bookHope and Otherness: Christian Eschatology and Interreligious Hospitality seems to cover the same topic. Perhaps his new one is a more popular version this work.) Wirén is a systematic theologian at Lund University and an advisor to the Archbishop of Uppsala.
First, the Lutheran Church of Sweden is (in)famous for its extreme theological liberalism. It not only ordains women, but blesses homosexual “marriages” and ordains practicing homosexuals. That might have something to do with its membership going from 95% of Sweden’s population in 1972 to 56% in 2019–and many of those are not even practicing, or believing, Christians.
Second, this attempt to mainstream Muhammad into Christianity goes back many years, and is not new with Swedish apostates. The French Catholic scholar of Islam, Louis Massignon (d. 1962), was perhaps the 20th century’s leading proponent of such. His ideas greatly influenced the Vatican II documents such as Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate which, among other things, declared that Islam was a fellow “Abrahamic faith” and that it contained genuine, if imperfect, revelation from God. In more recent years Catholic theologian Hans Küng has argued that “if we acknowledge Muhammad as a post-Christian prophet, then to be consistent we shall also have to admit…that…his message is not simply Muhammad’s word, but God’s word” (Christianity and the World Religions, 1986, p. 31). He also contends that “perhaps…it is only dogmatic prejudice when we recognize Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah, as prophets, but not Muhammad” (p. 26).
I just recently finished a slim bio of the Ethiopian Christian martyr Reverend Gudina Tumsa, killed by the Communist regime there in 1979. Tumsa was the head of the Ethiopian Evangelical Chuch Mekane Yesus (EECMY) before his untimely murder. He had studied in the US and traveled to South Africa, where he met Anglican Bishop (then) Desmond Tutu. While Gudina agreed with Tutu on the horror and ungodliness of apartheid, he parted ways with him on the ecumenical movement. Reverend Gudina believed that salvation is NOT possible outside of Christianity and that the primary task of the Church is to evangelize the world. “His concept of ecumenism was based on the authority of Scripture” (Urga, p. 46).
African Christianity in general is growing by leaps and bounds. Even a decade ago 1/4 of the world’s Christians lived in Africa–the percentage here in 2021 is undoubtedly higher. Five of the world’s ten largest Lutheran bodies are found in Africa or Asia. The Ethiopian church is the world’s largest, followed by the one in Tanzania. Also in the top ten are Lutheran churches in Indonesia, India and Madagascar. One might well speculate that Africans’ adherence to orthodox Christianity has something to do with this. The EECMY, for example, broke with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) back in 2013 over its support for abortion and homosexuality. Now the Ethiopian Lutherans are affiliated with my own denomination, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod–which so far still takes I Corinthians 6:9, 10 seriously. And refuses to heed the Quran.
Although I have not blogged since December 2020, rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated. I’ve just been busier than a one-armed suicide bomber. I taught a month-long intensive, online world history course over Christmas. And I’ve published seven articles over at The Stream in the interim. Then spring term began. But enough excuses! Once more unto the blogging breach!
And what better topic than an ideological, and legal, spat over the Quran? According to The Indian Express (March 14, 2021), “PIL by Shia board’s former chief on Quran draws massive backlash.” One Wasim Rizvi filed Public Interest Litigation (akin to a class action suit, it seems) “seeking the removal of 26 verses from the Quran that he alleged promote terrorism and jihad.” The reaction was swift–and brutal. Sunni and Shia clerics in Uttar Pradesh condemned Rizvi for “insulting the Quran” and “hurting the religious sentiments of Muslims.” The General Secretary of the Indian Ulama’s Assembly slammed him as a “Yazidi.” Not to be outdone, the head of an Islamic Welfare Association, Hasnain Jaffrey, literally put a bounty of ₹20,000 on Rizvi’s head. “Whoever will bring the head of Wasim Rizvi, I will reward them” with 20,000 Indian rupees. Refusing to totally lose his head, a Kashmiri BJP (ruling Hindu nationalist party) politician merely filed a criminal complaint against Rizvi for “spreading hatred.” This FIR (FIrst Information Report) states that “the Quran teaches us peace, not violence” and that “any kind of blasphemous act against the Holy Quran is intolerable to humanity in general and Muslims in particular.” Yet another BJP pol called on the Indian government to “act quickly against Rizvi and arrest him for….hurting the religious sentiments of billions of Muslims across the globe,” adding that “Rizvi’s remarks are unacceptable and…Quran teaches love, brotherhood and peace, not violence.”
Mr. Rizvi is a brave and honest man. I will pray for him. I have long said that Shia (yes, even the Twelver brand) Islam is potentially more flexible and moderate than the majority Sunni version, because Shias are allowed to read the Quran in non-literal ways. If they can survive, that is. And the holy book of the world’s second-largest religion needs cleansing of its archaic exhortations to violence; doing so with the hadiths (Muhammad’s alleged sayings) is necessary but insufficient to defang that religion. But Rizvi is too optimistic, for there are actually some 164 jihad verses in the Quran. Still, Rizvi was willing to acknowledge the problem.
Muslims constantly assert that Islam is the one, true religion. (Fair enough–we Christians make the same argument about our faith.) But many Muslims (and some non-Muslims) go much further, contending that Islam is tougher, more masculine than other religions–particularly that milksop, “loser” one whose founder was crucified. So the irony is thick enough to cut with a scimitar when Muslims prove so laughably thin-skinned and, well, downright wimpy. They get their feelings hurt–at least according to their leaders–by the very suggestion that parts of their holy book promote violence. And I’ve never understood how an inanimate collection of writings can be “insulted.” Have you ever heard of “insulting the Bible?” I think not. Seriously, Muslims: grow up and, as one of my old military buddies used to say, “grow a pair.”
Remember: Allah, in the Quran, teaches “love, brotherhood and peace, not violence.” And since Wasim Rizvi implied otherwise–off with his head!
Finally, I leave you with this Tweet from the Muslim World League. See if you can square it with this fracas among Indian Muslims:
Advent began on November 29, for those of us in Western liturgical churches. It’s the first of four Sundays before Christmas, as my Baptist/Evangelical followers might not know (I was a Southern Baptist for 23 years, so I can poke fun at them). But theologically Advent (from the Latin for “coming, arrival”) points not just to Jesus’ incarnational birth–it also looks to the Second Coming, when, as all three (Western) “ecumenical Creeds” state, “He will return to judge the living and the dead.” That is why the Gospel reading for this past Sunday was Mark 13:24-37, wherein Jesus said:
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it[b] is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard! Be alert[c]! You do not know when that time will come. 34 It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.
35 “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37 What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’”
Christ makes three major points in this passage: 1) celestial disruptions will accompany His return, so even CNN won’t be able to miss it 2) less overt signs indicating His return is nigh will appear, but no one knows the exact time and date 3) be ready for it!
The Orthodox Study Bible (p. 1351) has several interesting and helpful glosses on Christ’s words here. “This generation refers to all believers at all times (i.e., the generation of the Church), and not merely those alive at the time of Christ. Christ’s prophecy is that the Church will continue to thrive until His return, regardless of how desperate things may sometimes appear.” Also, “[t]hough Jesus declares that the Son does not know the day of His own return, St. John Chrysostom [who else?!] teaches that this is not to be understood literally, but as a figure of speech. The meaning is simply that Christ will not reveal the exact day to anyone, and that believers should not be so brazen as to inquire of Him.”
I am reminded, as well of the scene from the original Ghostbusters in which Dr. Ray Stanz (Dan Ackroyd) and Winston Zeddimore (Ernie Hudson) are riding in the Ghostbustermobile and discussing the book of Revelation (although Ray quotes Revelation 6:12 but calls it 7:12). Besides that, can you imagine a modern movie (Ghostbusters came out in 1984, recall) that explicitly mentions Jesus–and approvingly?
Winston: “Ray, do you believe in God?”
Ray: “Never met him.”
Winston: “Well, I do–and I love Jesus’ style!”
Finally, since I revisited St. John’s final book of the Bible for this post, I’d really like to draw parallels between Gandalf as the “White Rider” of The Return of the King and the rider on a white horse in Revelation 6:2 “And I looked, and behold! a white horse. He who sat on it has a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.” But that would be a stretch. Per the excellent (and lengthy) study of Revelation by Dr. Louis Brighton of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (pp. 75ff), the white rider of 6:2 resembles Jesus Christ on a white horse of chapter 19–but the former merely claims the divine right to conquer and does not actually possess it. However, the OSB also points out (p. 1723) in a note on 6:2 that this white rider “probably represents liberators of the oppressed people of God.” In that sense, one is reminded of Gandalf helping lead the beleaguered peoples of Middle-earth to fend off Sauron’s conquest. This is probably a better analog for Tolkien’s White Wizard than the returned Jesus Christ of the latter parts of Revelation. Gandalf, recall, was merely an angel (a Maia), not actually divine. And although he was sent back from death after the battle with the Balrog, his role was not that of Judge; nor did Gandalf defeat Sauron by his own power, as Christ will Satan when He returns.
Previously, on Occidental Jihadist [imagine TV narrator voice], I discussed the character Abraham Van Helsing in the novel and play Dracula. Let’s go once more to the vampires’ well, this time to examine a striking line that shows up in both Bram Stoker’s book and Steven Dietz’s stage adaptation. The former has this phrase, uttered by Dr. John Seward in regards to his sanitarium inmate Renfield: “a strong man with homicidal and religious mania might at once be dangerous. The combination is a dreadful one” (p. 87). The latter condenses Seward’s observation to “homicidal mania and religious fervor would be a dangerous combination” (p. 20).
With my academic and work background, when I first saw that line during rehearsals for the stage play I assumed that Dietz, writing in 1995, had inserted it as a comment on Islamic terrorism–which in its modern incarnation was quite active in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1983 Hizbullah Shi`i suicide bombers, with Iranian assistance, blew up two buildings housing American and French military personnel, killing 307 in total. In 1993, Sunni terrorists under the direction of Khalid Shaykh Muhammad set off bombs under the World Trade Center, attempting to bring at least one of the towers down. They failed, but killed seven people and injured hundreds. These are but the most notable of Islamic terrorist/insurgent activities prior to 1995.
Then I dug out Stoker’s novel and, as noted, found a very similar quotation. But in his time, religious terrorism of any kind was virtually unknown. He was writing right in the middle of what historians of terrorism call the Anarchist phase, which lasted from the 1880s to the 1920s. Violent anarchists were active mainly in Europe (especially Italy, Spain and France), although one did assassinate US President William McKinley in 1901. They truly embodied what Alfred told Bruce Wayne (regarding the Joker) in The Dark Knight: “some men just want to watch the world burn.” They hated all political structures, and hoped to bring them all down. But if anything Anarchists were irreligious–indeed, even anti-religion, as many of them were Marxists.
Most likely, however, Bram Stoker was taking a jab at the Crusades. The 19th century had seen the the enormous popularity of Brit Sir Walter Scott’s novels such as The Talisman, The Betrothed, Ivanhoe and Count Robert of Paris, which “painted a picture of Crusaders who were brave and glamorous, but also vainglorious, avaricious, childish, and boorish…. The worst of them were the brothers of the military orders, who may have been courageous and disciplined but were also arrogant, privileged, corrupt, voluptuous, and unprincipled” (Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam, p. 65). Crusader-bashing was a favorite approach of Enlightenment writers, and this carried on well into the 19th century–both in Europe and in the Middle East, as Riley-Smith unpacks in his informative but slim volume.
But in the 21st century, with the Crusaders long since turned to dust like Dracula, 77% of transnational terrorist groups wage jihad in the name of Allah. So it’s clear where dangerous homicidal and religious mania resides today–and it’s not in Christianity. In this regard, Stoker has proved all-too-prescient.
Over Halloween I was privileged to play Dr. Abraham Van Helsing in the Steven Dietz stage adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, put on by the River Arts District Playhouse in Rome, Georgia. Nerd that I am, I did quite a bit of background reading on the character. And before stowing all that resource material in my study, why not share what I learned?
Forget the action figure portrayal by Hugh Jackman in the 2004 Van Helsing movie. The protagonist of the novel, as well as most 20th century films and movies, was a scholarly professor and doctor who checkmated the nefarious Count with knowledge, faith and leadership–although he didn’t hesitate to lop off heads, if need be (as he did with Dracula’s three evil vixens).
Van Helsing was both a man of Christian faith and a scientist. His friend and former student, Dr. John Seward, calls him “the most advanced scientist of your day,” and “a philosopher and a metaphysician” who “knows more about obscure diseases than anyone in the world.” Unlike anyone else in the novel or play–all Church of England, or Protestant of some kind–VH is Catholic, and deploys distinctly Catholic weapons against vampires: consecrated bread (wafers) and a crucifix, in particular. He also quotes Scripture quite a bit–mostly Psalm 62 (when confronting Dracula), although a bit of 1 John 1 in the conclusion. In his “sermon” to Seward, Jonathon Harker and Mina Murray, VH calls them to “a steadfast belief in science” as well as “a fierce reliance on faith.” As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I mused early on that an indeterminate “faith” avails little or nothing; I also noted that not once in the stage play is Jesus Christ mentioned, although the crucifix stops vampire Lucy, and even Dracula himself, dead in their tracks (pun intended). Perhaps Steven Dietz, who adapted the play from Stoker’s novel in 1995, didn’t wish to appear too Christian. Still, the play leaves it clear, although not as much as the novel, that Abraham Van Helsing is a staunch Catholic Christian and that that faith is at least half of what enables him to lead the defeat of Dracula and his minions.
Count Dracula, is of course, the main attraction of the novel and the play. Evil always steals the show. But the excellent actor who played Dracula in our production confided to me, backstage one night, that the play should probably be entitled Van Helsing; not only does the Dutch doctor drive the action (see Garcia, “Van Helsing as the Moral Driver in Stoker’s Dracula“), but he speaks directly to the audience several times, explaining what is going on. VH serves a role similar to Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings: he has more knowledge than anyone else, but doles it out sparingly so as to protect others; he forms the “fellowship” which defeats the primary evil character; while kindly, he also possesses something of a short fuse; and, as mentioned, he sometimes acts as narrator. Indeed, Van Helsing’s “semi-deified role” is that which “carves the moral and religious reasoning that moves the plot forward.” He is “the anti-thesis to Count Dracula” (all quotes from Garcia)–although one might just as logically maintain that it is Dracula who is the anti-thesis to Van Helsing, since the former is evil while the latter is good (albeit exasperating).
Along with the aforementioned description, Seward also refers to Van Helsing as not just friend but as “master.” This is symmetrical to the relationship between the pathetic Renfield and Dracula. The mad Renfield has been bewitched by Dracula and yearns for his coming to England, although just how this happened is never explained in the novel or the play. Renfield several times asserts that “my Master is coming,” and of course eventually invites him into the sanitarium where he is locked up–only to have his “savior” kill him. Contrast this with the Van Helsing/Seward relationship, in which the former saves the latter (from the vampire Lucy), as well as from Dracula, and eventually helps him achieve his personal and professional independence, if you will–as well as comforts him after the death of his dear Lucy.
Van Helsing proves an enduring figure of interest to folks enamored of the horror genre, as shown not only by his many epigones on the screen (both large and small), but by the publication of fiction books about his life both before and after the events of Dracula. In 2004 Allen C. Kupper published The Journal of Professor Abraham Van Helsing, which purports to tell how VH became a vampire hunter. The same year The Many Faces of Van Helsing came out, edited by Jeanne Cavelos and consisting of 21 short stories about the domineering Dutchman, both pre- and post-settling the Count’s hash. Cavelos’ “Introduction” is particularly insightful. Van Helsing represents order to Dracula’s chaos (in this respect, he is thus Batman to the Joker–if the latter literally drank the blood of his victims). “As Holmes is to Moriarity, as ego is to id, Van Helsing is to Dracula” (p. xii). She points out, rather brilliantly in my opinion, that Van Helsing is the archetype for Carl Kolchak of one of my favorite shows from the 1970s, Kolchak: The Night Stalker; and that Van Helsing’s faith-based and scientific sides were split into Mulder and Scully of The X-Files (p. xiii).
Finally, playing Van Helsing and studying him reminded me of the Aldous Huxley novel The Devils of Loudon, which I read many years ago. The book is about the (alleged) mass demonic possession of nuns at a French monastery in the 17th century. Huxley points out that “no man can concentrate his attention upon evil, or even upon the idea of evil, and remain unaffected. To be more against the devil than for God is exceedingly dangerous.” Crusading against that which we hate, rather than defending and promoting that which we love, has become all too common in the modern world. Abraham Van Helsing reminds us that we need both sides of that coin.
But that it wouldn’t hurt to carry a crucifix, as well.
I promise, this is the last time I’ll mention my latest book–at least this month. Master of “strategery” Mark Safranski, who helms the brilliant zenpundit blog, recently reviewedThe COIN of the Islamic Realm: Insurgencies & the Ottoman Empire, 1416-1916. And quite favorably. (You can get it in either Kindle or paperback at Amazon.)
In early November a Tunisia-based terrorist group called “al-Mahdi” claimed responsibility for the murders at the church. For those new to my site, the Mahdi is the “divinely-guided one” of Islamic traditions (Hadiths, alleged sayings of Muhammad) who will come before the end of time to make the entire world Muslim, mainly by conquest. This group is believed to have ties to ISIS and/or al-Qa`ida, which makes sense, since both organizations are eschatological themselves–although the former (as I spell out at length in my book Ten Years Captivation with the Mahdi’s Camps) is more overtly so.
“Somebody’s comin’….whoa oh!”
Not to be outdone, the Iranians weighed in via regime spokesman Hujjatollah Muhammad Mousavi, who sermonized that when the 12th Imam al-Mahdi returns, he will not merely lop off a few infidel Christian heads; oh no, he will full-bore “annihilate the peoples of the West.” (Twelver Shi`is of Iran, Iraq and a few other places believe that the Mahdi has already been here, in the form of the 12th descendant of Muhammad through Ali’s progeny–and that he will return as the End Times Mahdi. Sunnis believe that the true Mahdi will emerge into history as a great Islamic warlord, but that he has not yet come to earth.)
So we’ve got that to look forward to. When I went to the annual Mahdism conference in Iran in 2008, I heard the same sort of fulminating–as I wrote about in an article in The Washington Examiner, “The Importance of being Mahdist.”
In a related story from earlier in 2020, an Iranian professor and former government official said that the Americans never made it to the moon: only after the 12th Imam comes will space travel to other worlds be possible. It’s not clear who will have the technology to do this, since he will also have wiped out all the Westerners with their spaceships. But on the plus side, Imam al-Mahdi will get rid of all diseases–so finally we’ll be able to take off these damn masks.
The contention that “the 12th Imam will wipe out all Westerners” reminded me of the classic scene in Ghostbusters where Louis Tully, possessed by the Keymaster, Vinz Clortho, tells the NYC carriage driver that “you will perish in flames, you and all of your kind!” Gozer, Vinz’s boss, does share some characteristics with the Hidden Imam. The former is an ancient deity worshipped by the Hittites and other contemporary cultures which periodically reappears in history from a nearby parallel dimension and destroys entire civilizations with a “Destructor” minion based on a particular civilization’s cultural icons; the latter is a small child who disappeared, in the 9th century AD, into a nearby parallel dimension and will reappear at some point, now post-puberty, and destroy entire non-Muslim civilizations. Who’s to say whether Gozer or the 12th Imam is more fictional–or which one makes more sense?