August 22 revisited
In today's Wall Street Journal (subscribers only edition), the eminent scholar of Islam Bernard Lewis warns the world to pay close attention to August 22. Excerpt:
There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers.
In Islam as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time -- Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined.
[President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the US about nuclear development by Aug. 22," which this year corresponds "to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to 'the farthest mosque,' usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).
This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.
...A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or wwe will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."
(I assume you meant "rogue" states"; but "rouge" states conjures up a very amusing image. ;-) )
You make a good point. But I don't think most advanced nations have very often engaged in the sort of rhetoric that Iran consistently directs against Israel -- coupled with the obvious effort by the Iranians to get their hands on an atomic weapon.>
Sorry, that was me, not "anonymous"; one again I'm using someone else's computer and forgot to double-check the settings.
The Great Powers have always taken it upon themselves to police the world. Yes, one can ask who appointed them to that post, and why should those particular nations have that power. But the world is generally better off when it is policed by self-appointed Great Powers than when it is policed by nobody. Britain's command of the seas in the 19th century made global commerce possible, as did America's power in the mid to late 20th century.>
Actually, I think some of the regular posters here wouldn't terribly mind living in a "rouge" state. So it's a felicitious typo. Then again, they probably wouldn't mind being ravaged by a swashbuckling "rogue" either. And a rogue wearing rouge would no doubt be ideal!
I'm straying from the subject, I know. I'm just struck by the irony of that misspelling, given my experience with certain characters who I know like to post here.>
Re Andy Nowicki's post about being ravaged by a swashbuckling rogue wearing rouge...
Does that mean we may be invaded by a horde of Rudolph Valentino impersonators? :-)>
About the argument cited above that it is unfair for the U.S. or the world community to say who can have nukes and who can't -- just as a practical point, as a greater number of the world's countries acquire nuclear capability, the chance that one of them will actually start a nuclear war, or that their technology will be stolen by terrorist, becomes exponentially greater.
A friend of mine who was (essentially) raised as a European made the same dumb (IMO) argument about the unfairness of denying other countries their chance to acquire nukes.
I couldn't believe that someone who claims to be against war (which he does) would argue for something that is so likely to increase the possiblity of a devastating war.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.