Is 2015 the year of the Mahdi ?

Glossary - 'Hadith' is an Islamic historical account of the Prophets words and actions

With the Islamic event of Mid-Shaban having just passed us this week (June 3^rd-4^th), a few sources like discoveringislam.org are of the opinion that this would be the year that the Mahdi will appear. The conditions are ripe according to them, with Syria currently in a devastating war, an event prophesied by the Hadith as a condition for the arrival of the Mahdi during the Mid-Shaban. For the uninformed, Mahdi in simple terms is Islam’s answer to the modern messiah and just like Christians expecting the return of Jesus, there is a lot of anticipation building on the Mahdi’s arrival, given the state of the world today. 

According to the Hadith, the period of the Mahdi’s arrival will also coincide with the return of Jesus and an entity known as ‘Dajjal’, who for years has been speculated to signify everything from a deranged person to technological innovations like the internet / TV to even countries like the U.S and Russia.  Whatever ‘Dajjal’ maybe, we know that it contrives in propaganda, imparting suffering and sin. If I were to look at all this rationally, it might all seem far-fetched with inklings of some extraordinary story told by the Bedouins of Arabia but you cannot take away the fact that these narrations have accurately predicted the fall of modern day Iraq, Syria and more recently Yemen, three regions which at the time of the prophet were hugely successful. 

I have said in my earlier posts on how certain parts of the Hadith can in many cases seem suspicious with hidden agendas of people and it should therefore never be used to make decisions that affect people and their livelihoods. The Hadith however, for historical buffs like me, provides amazing insight into the thoughts and blocs of knowledge shared during the times of the prophet which makes a scintillating read. Take for example the paraphrased extract of the articles on the appearance of the Mahdi, ‘Dajjal’ and Jesus: 

 "The Mahdi will be among my nation. If he lives for a short period, it will be seven, and if he lives for a long period, it will be nine, during which my nation will enjoy a time of ease such as it has never enjoyed...”

Reference

: Sunan Ibn Majah 4083

 “He (Dajjal) would be twisted and blind in one eye…. He would appear on the way between Syria and Iraq and would spread mischief right and left….. We said: Allah's Messenger, how long would he stay on the earth? He (ﷺ) said: For forty days, one day like a year and one day like a month and one day like a week and the rest of the days would be like your (normal) days….and it would be at this very time that Allah would send Christ, son of Mary, and he will descend at the white minaret in the eastern side of Damascus wearing two garments lightly dyed with saffron and placing his hands on the wings of two Angels."

Reference: Sahih Muslim 2937a

It appears from these extracts that the sequence of the timeline would be Mahdi's appearance for 7 to 9 years, post which Dajjal and Jesus appear. Based on a continuing paragraph, Jesus and the Mahdi will then kill Dajjal at the gates of Lud in modern day Tel Aviv Israel. I understand from this text that Israel will also be involved somehow which doesn’t seem likely if we were to take 2015 as the year of the death of Dajjal (considering that Tel Aviv is now covered by a blanket of security). 

I also noticed that the word ‘day’ in Arabic in the text about Dajjal is actually translated to ‘period’ which could mean anything but let us assume for the purpose of this discussion the definition of ‘Period’ as per the Quran i.e 1000 Earth years. In other words, 1 day/period in the sight of God is equivalent to 1000 earth days/periods.

It follows that the Dajjal will be alive for 40 days/ periods where the first period/ day is equivalent to 365,000 Earth days (1 year), the second period/day is equivalent to 30,000 Earth days  (1 month) and the Third period/ day is equivalent to 7000 Earth days (1 week).  The remaining 37 days will be 37 Earth days. This sums up to 1101 Earth years.

We have established (based on an assumption of course) that the Dajjal will be present for 1101 years before being vanquished. The question remains now on what would be the starting point for Dajjal and for this I refer to this text:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "The greatest war, the conquest of Constantinople and the coming forth of the Dajjal (Antichrist) will take place within a period of seven months."

Reference:  Sunan Abi Dawud 4295

We know from history that Constantinople fell on May-June 1453 which means the Dajjal would have appeared 7 months later that is in 1454. If we add the 1101 years, which we got from before, the death of Dajjal is roughly placed in the year 2555. This means that Mahdi would appear 7 to 9 years prior which is either the year 2548 or 2546. 

This is all speculation at this point and I truly believe that the Almighty knows best, however if my calculations are right, it would mean that the state of affairs in Syria may not improve for the next 500 years which is really disheartening unless there is a scenario where the situation improves and then deteriorates around the year 2548 to match the prophecies of the hadith.

In any case, I am convinced that 2015 is in no way significant and we have many centuries to go before we enter the final days of our existence as a species. I leave it to the Almighty to decide when that might be.

Personality Profile: Is Alexander ‘the Great’ actually the Quran’s Dhul-Qarnayn ?

The Holy Quran in many ways is mysterious in that it remarkably conveys multiple facets of a story within a single verse or a bunch of verses. It is therefore only natural that over the course of history, multiple interpretations (or ‘tafsirs’) have come about to help Muslims understand the meaning of these stories. Though most of the interpretations have remained more or less similar, the identification of characters in the Quran to history have somewhat been ambiguous. One such example is the story of Dhul-Qarnayn (Zulkarnain). The Quran describes him as a just ruler who built a great iron wall for a foreign group of people to save them from the threat of ‘Gog’ and ‘Magog’.The interpretations of ‘Gog’ and ‘Magog’ are itself a topic for another day, however, this implies that the conditions for any historical figure to meet the description of Dhul-Qarnayn (Zulkarnain) are as follows: 

1. He should have been a great conqueror from history who was known to be just and righteous
2. He should be identified with the literal translation of ‘Dhul-Qarnayn ‘which could mean ‘the one with two horns’ or alternatively it could also mean ‘the one who leads two generations’.
3.  Among the nations, he has conquered should be a land where in the language is foreign and not of his own
4.  Among the lands he has conquered should be an iron gate / wall to protect its people from the threat of what is arguably a ravenous tribe from a land referred to as Gog/ Magog
5. Given his reference in the Quran, he should have been a proponent of’ Tawheed’ i.e the oneness of God

Alexander the Great

Merriam-Webster dictionary describes Alexander as follows: 

Alexander the great, (born 356 BC, Pella, Macedonia—died June 13, 323 BC, Babylon) was King of Macedonia (336–323) and the greatest military leader of antiquity. The son of Philip II of Macedonia, he was taught by Aristotle. He soon showed military brilliance, helping win the Battle of Chaeronea at age 18. He succeeded his assassinated father in 336 and promptly took Thessaly and Thrace. In 334 he crossed to Persia and defeated a Persian army at the Granicus River. In 332 he completed a seven-month siege of Tyre, considered his greatest military achievement, and then took Egypt. There he received the pharaohs' double crown, founded Alexandria, and visited the oracle of the god Amon, the basis of his claim to divinity. Conquering what is now Tajikistan, he married the princess Roxana and embraced Persian absolutism, adopting Persian dress and enforcing Persian court customs. By 326, he reached the Hyphasis in India, where his weary men mutinied; he turned back, marching and pillaging down the Indus, and reached Susa with much loss of life. He continued to promote his unpopular policy of racial fusion, a seeming attempt to form a Persian-Macedonian master race. He fell ill at Babylon after long feasting and drinking and died at age 33. He was buried in Alexandria, Egypt. His empire, the greatest that had existed to that time, extended from Thrace to Egypt and from Greece to the Indus valley. 

Alexander's Empire

Condition 1: He should have been a great conqueror from history who was known to be just and righteous.

The greatness of Alexander’s empire is without doubt unparalleled and hence he fits this description easily. Whether he was a righteous ruler or not, is subject to debate.  An incident of his meeting with the leader of Jews, Simeon (‘the just’) relates that on meeting Simeon, Alexander withdrew from his carriage and bowed down inciting criticism from his followers as it was not customary for a man of Alexander’s stature to bow to a Jew. This incident shows he was certainly not arrogant, yet there are other incidents the describe Alexander’s love for Alcohol, women and even men that casts doubts on if he was a righteous ruler. My verdict on whether this condition is met is therefore partial.

Condition 2: He should be identified with the literal translation of ‘Dhul-Qarnayn ‘which could mean ‘the one with two horns’ or alternatively it could also mean ‘the one who lead two generations’.

Egyptian God Amun

By 333 B.C, Alexander had reached Egypt, and one of his first directives there was to declare himself the son of the Egyptian God Amun , thus linking him with divinity. Amun, the Egyptian God is depicted with two plumes on his head that look like horns and coins that were produced in Alexander’s land at the time had this depiction. Consequently, the people started identifying Alexander as the ‘one with the two horns’.

As for the second translation, it could obviously not be literal since Alexander’s rule lasted for less than 15 years and his son who would be his successor died at the age of 12. There is, therefore no direct relation to this version of the translation.

Given that at least one version of the translation matches, I will consider this condition to have been met.

Condition 3: Among the nations, he has conquered should be a land where in the language is foreign and not of his own

Alexander’s Empire spanned many kilometers and modern day continents. This condition is therefore easily met.

Condition 4: Among the lands he has conquered should be an iron gate / wall to protect its people from the threat of what is arguably a ravenous tribe from a land referred to as Gog/ Magog

If we look at the traditional definition of a gate, its main purpose is to define a boundary whereby the other side is restricted from entering. In most cases, this means that there is only one road that leads into the area that the gate is protecting. Going by this definition, it follows that identification of a single path leading to Alexander’s lands are a starting point to see if this condition holds true. For example: Mountain passes. Furthermore, investigating if this area had or still has a gate like structure would confirm that this condition holds true.

The Cilician Gates in Turkey

Alexander’s lands extended from his home in Macedonia (Greece) to the edge of India and from parts of modern day Iran to modern day Egypt. Given condition 3, we can safely discount Macedonia and its surrounding areas since the language would have been easily comprehended by Alexander. The remaining lands were foreign to Alexander and this is where this condition should most likely be tested. If we assume mountain passes as the most likely pathways in which such a gate would have existed on, Egypt can be crossed out since there are no major mountain passes in the Egypt that Alexander had conquered. The closest mountain pass in this area is the Halfaya Pass at the border of Libya and at the time Alexander had not conquered this region.  The highest probability therefore of such a mountain pass lies in the Afghan plains towards the borders of modern day Tajikistan and Iran or on the Anatolian plains of Turkey. There are multiple large gate-like structures here including the ‘Gates of Alexander’ in Derbent close to Tajikistan, Great wall of Gorgan in Iran and the Cilician Gates in Turkey. All of these are close to naturally forming iron and copper deposits making it ideal that this could be the gate identified in the Quran. Thus, it can be safely assumed that this condition is very possible in the case of Alexander.

'Gates of Alexander' near Derbent

Interestingly, if we look at the empires that existed beyond the approximate locations of any one of these gates, the description of Gog and Magog could be referring to the Scythians, a nomadic tribe who are considered to be ancestors of the Mongols thus fulfilling the prophecy that they would cause widespread death and destruction. 

Condition 5: Given his reference in the Quran, he should have been a proponent of ’Tawheed’ i.e the oneness of God

 Alexander, soon after his Egyptian campaign, associated himself with divinity. In fact even during his teens, he was constantly told that he would go on to do great things since he was spawn of the Greek Gods. This surely instilled a lot of confidence but it also contributed to him believing in multiple Gods. He therefore fails miserably to fulfill this condition.

Conclusion:

Depiction of Cyrus the Great

With 3.5 of the 5 conditions being met, it is NOT very probable in my opinion that Dhul-Qarnayn (Zulkarnain) was a description of Alexander. Among scholarly interpretations, there is one other ruler who fits the conditions slightly better i.e Cyrus the Great, King of Persia. In addition to his emblem having two horn like structures, all the lands he conquered were similar to that of Alexander. Furthermore, he was also known to be righteous and a monotheist. It is also interesting to note that in a mere oddity among great civilizations that existed at the time, Cyrus’ empire was carried forward by only his sons before being taken over by Darius I. Thus, only two generation of rulers lead the empire further meeting the definition of Dhul-Qarnayn – “The one who leads two generations”.

Personality profile: Umar Ibn Al Katthab

Over the next couple of weeks, I hope to be introducing a new series of posts in my blog that will talk about leading figures in Islam and history in general. Ideally I would have liked to start with our beloved prophet (PBUH), however given the man that he was and his achievements, I want to take time to research and make it relevant  and special for readers. I therefore start the series with one of his close aides, the second caliph according to the Sunni tradition- Umar Ibn Al khattab. 

Much has been said about the man, and stories relating to his piousness are a part of every Muslim gathering and event.  Encyclopedia Britannica describes Umar as follows : 

“ʿUmar I, in full ʿumar Ibn Al-khaṭtāb    (born c. ad 586, Mecca, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died Nov. 3, 644, Medina, Arabia), the second Muslim caliph (from 634), under whom Arab armies conquered Mesopotamia and Syria and began the conquest of Iran and Egypt.

A member of the clan of ʿAdi of the Meccan tribe of Quraysh (Koreish), ʿUmar at first opposed Muḥammad but, by about 615, became a Muslim. By 622, he had become one of Muḥammad’s chief advisers, closely associated with Abū Bakr. His position in the state was marked by Muḥammad’s marriage to his daughter Hafsa in 625. On Muḥammad’s death in 632 ʿUmar was largely responsible for reconciling the Medinan Muslims to the acceptance of a Meccan, Abū Bakr, as head of state (caliph). Abū Bakr (reigned 632–634) relied greatly on ʿUmar and nominated him to succeed him. As caliph, ʿUmar was the first to call himself “commander of the faithful” (amīr al-muʾminīn). His reign saw the transformation of the Islāmic state from an Arabian principality to a world power. Throughout this remarkable expansion ʿUmar closely controlled general policy and laid down the principles for administering the conquered lands. The structure of the later Islāmic empire, including legal practice, is largely due to him. Assassinated by a Persian slave for personal reasons, he died at Medina 10 years after coming to the throne. A strong ruler, stern toward offenders, and himself ascetic to the point of harshness, he was universally respected for his justice and authority.”

As described correctly, a large part of Sunni Islam as we see it today has roots in policies that were implemented by Umar during his reign. For this reason, my view is that he is easily attributed to be one of (if not the only) true architects of modern Islam after the prophet (PBUH). Many practices that you see today including the Tarawih prayers during the holy month of Ramadhan and the compilation of the Quran into the book we know of are as a result of orders given out by Umar during his reign.  Among the various stories that are prevalent on his humbleness and fairness as the ruler of Muslims (amīr al-muʾminīn), there are two that distinctly fascinate me.

The first one relates to the power he bestowed on the administrative officials of his state during his reign as the second caliph of Islam. Here was an all-powerful ruler, leader of over a billion people, who placed so much trust in his administrative officials, that he himself had to ask permission and seek approval from these officials if their services were to be availed. The story begins on one of the days of Ramadhan when Umar approached the official in charge of the people’s treasury seeking a loan. Despite being the ruler, Umar lived a most humble life and on the advice of his wife decided to take a loan from the treasury to buy his daughters some new clothes on the occasion of Eid. Umar asked the official if he could borrow some money with the intention of repaying once his salary was received at the end of the month (The fact that a ruler at the time received a salary from the treasury and the fact that he had to seek permission to take a loan itself is fascinating for me). But the story goes on to show how capable the people whom Umar placed his trust on were. The official replied that he would gladly give Umar the loan from the People’s treasury provided Umar signs a written affidavit that he would not die till the end of the month!! The official then goes on to say that the treasury was made up of the people’s contribution and to take this money without the guarantee of repaying would be a grave sin. Umar immediately realized his mistake and recalled his decision to take the loan.

The second story, similar in context and equally riveting goes something like this: It was late evening when Ali, the son-in-law of the prophet approaches Umar’s house to talk to him on an urgent issue. Umar had just wrapped up a meeting with his administrative officials. On seeing Ali and learning of his purpose of visit, he immediately enquires if the matter he would like to talk about is regarding the state or something personal. Ali replies it was the latter. On hearing this, Umar extinguishes that lamp that was already lit, and lights another lamp. Puzzled by this rather odd reaction, Ali asks for a reason to which Umar replies “ My dear Ali, the oil that burns in the first lamp has been bought with money from the treasury i.e the People’s treasury. To use this lamp while we speak of personal matters would be highly unfair and unethical. For this reason, we can have the conversation at my expense i.e using the second lamp which burns of oil bought from my salary.”

How many of our present day leaders follow such an honest and fair path? How many of our present day leaders can be so accountable? Is this not what the Arab spring set to bring about ? Both these stories coupled with his achievements in history to take Islam far from the lands from where it was born and more importantly to rule these lands in a such a just and right manner makes him in my view one of the greats in Islam’s 1400 year old history. Though there is much controversy among Shia Muslims on his genuineness, they would agree that if not for this ‘commander of the faithful’ and the solid foundations that he laid, Islam today would have not survived the long list of events that took place in the very lands in which he ruled.

 

Middle Eastern Mess

Early in 2010, I ran a research assignment via internet sources to figure out the most prominent countries featured in news headlines over the past 10 years (2000-2010). Given that the decade was most remembered for Sept 11 and its aftermath, and the steady economic growth of China, it was of no surprise that the results yielded U.S and China in the top 2 spots.

Among the top 5 however, were also Israel/Palestine and of course Iraq and Afghanistan among others (Full results here). At the time, there seemed to be a sense that something big was around the corner for the Middle East and the people in that region hoped for something positive.

Cut to 2013, the Middle East is still in the news with changes expected thanks to the Arab Spring. Yet in spite of expecting things to be better, sectarian violence continues in Iraq and Syria, Administrative issues continues to plague Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and a gloom of uncertainty hangs over Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia among other countries. It begs the question- What went wrong?

The reasons in my opinion are many and solutions unfortunately too few. That said let me try to tackle a few. Gaddafi, Saddam, Ben Ali and Mubarak are no longer in power yet the regimes that took over from these nepotistic leaders seem to be no better. Leaders like Assad and his Bahraini counterpart Khalifa are walking on a tightrope held together by the delicate thread of sectarian peace. Assad and his forces are already in the midst of war and will soon reach the breaking point. I predict Bahrain will be the next in line.

If you analyze the structure of countries in the Middle East, there are two main factors that make up stability – Good (or fair) leadership and Sectarian tolerance.  Take away one or more of these, and you end up with an explosive situation. Good leadership translates to happy citizens and sectarian tolerance translates to enlightened citizens.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, Oman, Iran, Israel and Morocco have minimal sectarian divisions and thus good leadership is the only Achilles heel that they should be concentrating on. To some extent Yemen falls in this category too. Egypt, Libya and Tunisia have a new threat in the horizon i.e. the Salafi movement which is steadily taking control and is feeding into the politics of these countries thus fuelling a leadership war. As long as the competition is healthy and with their old leaders gone, at least there is HOPE of a more organized and efficient government.

My assessment is that the worst countries in Middle East currently would be the ones that have both the leadership issue and the sectarian issue namely Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Bahrain. Among these, Bahrain is so far relatively calm but my gut feeling is that the largely Shia dominated population governed by a corrupt Sunni leadership is a catastrophe waiting to take place.

Most unique among the countries in the Middle East is the tiny nation of Lebanon. After years of sectarian conflict, for a very brief period till the Syrian crisis began, they seemed to have found a ‘eureka ‘moment where-in sectarian violence was at an all-time low and the government seemed to be stable and efficient. It’s not a perfect solution, but it was a solution where for the first time in so many years, a troubled Middle Eastern country was in the news for right reasons. Tourism was at an all-time high, trade was booming and the people where ecstatic.  Other Arab countries especially the ones with the dual problem of leadership and sectarianism should take a leaf out of Lebanon’s note book to analyze how they did it. Who knows it could lead through to a breakthrough in peace for the Middle East.