Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
That article had no sources, do you happen to have a transcript of what the Ayatollah Khamenei said exactly? Also they're enriching Uranium which to my knowledge can also be used for energy purposes.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That article had no sources, do you happen to have a transcript of what the Ayatollah Khamenei said exactly? Also they're enriching Uranium which to my knowledge can also be used for energy purposes.
I think Fundamentalist Christians believe that. In any case:Please correct me if I'm wrong...
It's my understanding that Iran's leaders want to hasten the return of the Madhi (Messia). To do this means creating as much anarchy & havoc in the world as possible.
To me, thinking you can influence God's timetable is an "Arrogance" that knows no boundries.
I think any Western aid or strategic support for Israel should be tied to the requirement that Israel immediately begin to comply with the Geneva Conventions on human rights, dismantle their illegal West Bank settlements, dismantle or realign their wall wherever it separates Palestinian farmers from their fields and fairly negotiate the boundaries for a separate and autonomous Palestinian state.
The US has a particularly irritating policy of supporting everything Israel ever does, however unanimous the opposition from the rest of the members of the UN happens to be. If they would stop vetoing every meaningful UN resolution relating to the conflict, progress towards peace could begin.
And I would think they don't want havoc and anarchy. But that's just me.
Iran: Mahdi will defeat archenemy in Jerusalem - Israel News, YnetnewsThe Islamic Republic of Iran broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a program called 'The World Towards Illumination,' that the Mahdi will reappear in Mecca and form an army to defeat Islam's enemies in a series of apocalyptic battles, in which the Mahdi will overcome his archvillain in Jerusalem.
Just because Ahmadinejad was a student of Mesbah Yazdi's does not mean he shares all his beliefs, and to the same extremes.The Iranian leader's mentor thinks war would hasten the Mahdi's return:
Ahmadinejad's messianic connections | Meir Javedanfar | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
guardian.co.uk said:However, Mesbah Yazdi is different. He is an ultra-conservative cleric who is considered too rightwing, even among the conservative clergy, and this has made him somewhat isolated among them. This is why none of his supporters managed to get elected in the Assembly of Experts elections of 2006.
guardian.co.uk said:There are also Mesbah Yazdi's other allies, who have steadfastly stood by Ahmadinejad. One is Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi. After Khamenei, this man has the most direct influence on the president.
First of all, few believe that war would hasten the arrival of the Mahdi. And even if Ahmadinejad agrees with that view (it is not mentioned explicitly), it is ultimately Ayatollah Khamenei that calls the shots.guardian.co.uk said:Ahmadinejad's messianic beliefs, and his increasing reliance on Mesbah Yazdi, should be a source of concern to those inside Iran and outside. However, such concern must be accompanied by reality.
First and foremost, Mesbah Yazdi's view that a great war would hasten the return of the Mahdi is shared with only a small minority. According to the Bright Future Institute in Iran, which specialises in religious issues regarding the Mahdi, "No one, not even the Mahdi himself can decide upon his return. Only God decides. Meanwhile, all Muslims can do is to pray and to be good human beings." This is the view held by a majority of Iranians and is in direct contradiction to that of Mesbah Yazdi and his allies.
More important than that is the fact that this group does not have the last word over the nuclear programme. Ayatollah Khamenei does, and he is not a messianic. Nor are any of the people who are thought to be next in line to take over him.
Looks like the website they linked to no longer exists (the page, anyway). Also, it's from 2006 (half a decade ago?) and I still see no havoc and anarchy. Finally, it only seems to refer what people believe will happen after the return of the Mahdi. If you don't believe in him, there doesn't seem to be anything to fear.
Aaand... I watched 8:57 minutes to... learn that Ahmadinejad believed he was surrounded by an aura of light? What does that have to do with havoc and anarchy? In fact:Ahmadinejad talking about his mystical visions during his speech in the UN General Assembly:
[youtube]j2dde95hxT8[/youtube]
YouTube - Ahmadinejad and Mahdi
YouTube said:We caught up with the President, and asked what he meant when he said Iranians should prepare for the return of the Mahdi.
The reply: they must be pure and devout.
There are many religious opinions within Iran like in other countries, and Ahmadinejad as the article says promotes the political influence of Yazdi. Yazdi has supported Ahmadinejad in his campaign in the 2005 elections in which Ahmadinejad has won. one of the 'messianic colleagues' of Ahmadinejad mentioned by the article is secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. he is the chief nuclear negotiator of Iran.All right, finished looking at each. Let's go link by link.
Just because Ahmadinejad was a student of Mesbah Yazdi's does not mean he shares all his beliefs, and to the same extremes.
Also, no one appears to have greater direct influence on the President than Khamenei.
And the clincher:
First of all, few believe that war would hasten the arrival of the Mahdi. And even if Ahmadinejad agrees with that view (it is not mentioned explicitly), it is ultimately Ayatollah Khamenei that calls the shots.
So, since the article doesn't refer to Ahmadinejad specifically holding those views, and since it really doesn't matter, because Khamenei is the real one in power (and he does not share those beliefs), I don't see the havoc and anarchy I mentioned.
Less than 4 years ago sounds more realistic than 'half a decade ago'.Looks like the website they linked to no longer exists (the page, anyway). Also, it's from 2006 (half a decade ago?)
before the era after the arrival of the Mahdi comes, the end of days events must take place namely an apocalyptic battle.and I still see no havoc and anarchy. Finally, it only seems to refer what people believe will happen after the return of the Mahdi. If you don't believe in him, there doesn't seem to be anything to fear.
I think its important to understand that a world leader claims to have mystical visions while making speeches in the UN. being surrounded by white light and what not. it's not reassuring considering his personal religious beliefs.Aaand... I watched 8:57 minutes to... learn that Ahmadinejad believed he was surrounded by an aura of light? What does that have to do with havoc and anarchy?
Did you expect him to talk about the apocalyptic battle that needs to take place before the return of the Mahdi? they interviewers themselves said this part was intentionally left out.So pure and devout somehow translates to "we must wage war so the Mahdi will return"?
All you have said is that they do not want havoc. but that is exactly what they have in Iran. and the trends by Iranian figures such as Ahmadinejad to deny the holocaust and to make provocative gestures are certainly a source of more strife. the belief held by many about the apocalyptic events that need to take place before the arrival of the Mahdi are used as a political card to sway masses of people, or as an inspiration for insurgency in Iraq. so the phenomena exists, at least to a certain extent. how it is handled and contained by the expanded political spectrum of Iran's elite is another question.Would you accept the fact that none of what you said counters what I said? If not, please enlighten me to something I may have missed.
And the most influential religious presence is not 'messianic'. And, like you said, there are many religious opinions. I am saying that the Iranian government, overall, is highly unlike to take a stance whereupon they would declare war to hasten his arrival. And since they'd likely need the okay from Khamenei, and he'd likely say no, I don't foresee that happening. (Of course, I'm no mind reader, and things could change.)There are many religious opinions within Iran like in other countries, and Ahmadinejad as the article says promotes the political influence of Yazdi. Yazdi has supported Ahmadinejad in his campaign in the 2005 elections in which Ahmadinejad has won. one of the 'messianic colleagues' of Ahmadinejad mentioned by the article is secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. he is the chief nuclear negotiator of Iran.
so again, while not everyone in the Iranian elite have the same theological background, the messianic Mahdi issue is used by figures such as Ahmadinejad in politics, and in elections, because of the sway it might have on the Iranian masses. the Mahdi philosophy is also politically played in Lebanon and Iraq, militias in Iraq such as the 'Mahdi Army' have been carrying the messianic Ideologies linked to the Mahdi and the end time scenario leading to the Islamic judgment day.
Ah, good point. It was published 31 December. Bad choice of words, I apologize.Less than 4 years ago sounds more realistic than 'half a decade ago'.
That doesn't mean that wreaking havoc, causing a possible apocalyptic battle, would necessarily mean that the Mahdi would come. There have been many wars throughout history, and like other religions, everyone probably thought the war they were living was the apocalypse. And some probably welcomed war. But most people realize that starting a war won't necessarily bring the Mahdi, and most people wouldn't want a war period. Because, you know, they could get killed and all.before the era after the arrival of the Mahdi comes, the end of days events must take place namely an apocalyptic battle.
If he thought he could burn people, I would be more concerned. I wonder how many people might have beliefs like that, but obviously don't articulate them?I think its important to understand that a world leader claims to have mystical visions while making speeches in the UN. being surrounded by white light and what not. it's not reassuring considering his personal religious beliefs.
The interviewers said that? I didn't hear anything about that. And even if he said that... what's the problem? Christians talk about Revelation. I don't see people getting worried all the Christian leaders will encourage strife in the hopes of starting that apocalyptic battle.Did you expect him to talk about the apocalyptic battle that needs to take place before the return of the Mahdi? they interviewers themselves this part was intentionally left out.
Having havoc is different than wanting it. (On a side note, did he deny the Holocaust or call for a revision of some of the historical facts? Not a rhetorical question, by the way.) The belief of the Mahdi is a very old belief. I'm not sure if all Shi'as believe it, but definitely many, if not most. And yet it looks like there hasn't been a widespread call to bring it about.All you have said is that they do not want havoc. but that is exactly what they have in Iran. and the trends by Iranian figures such as Ahmadinejad to deny the holocaust and to make provocative gestures are certainly a source of more strife. the belief held by many about the apocalyptic events that need to take place before the arrival of the Mahdi are used as a political card to sway masses of people, or as an inspiration for insurgency in Iraq. so the phenomena exists, at least to a certain extent. how it is handled and contained by the expanded political spectrum of Iran's elite is another question.
I don't see Iran's agenda being to turn the whole world against it so they declare war and maybe nuke Iran off the face of the Earth. Many places may now want this, but that doesn't mean the Iranians want this to hasten the return of the Mahdi.It's my understanding that Iran's leaders want to hasten the return of the Madhi (Messia). To do this means creating as much anarchy & havoc in the world as possible.
I usually say, that as much as the Iranian regime orchestrates disturbing realities within Iran, promotes a dystopian state for its citizens, and runs proxy wars, it is also a *stable* regime in the sense that while it might use some propaganda which is out there, they will do what they can to use realitistic politics in order to maintain their position. so no, I would not expect them to do anything dramatically crazy.And the most influential religious presence is not 'messianic'. And, like you said, there are many religious opinions. I am saying that the Iranian government, overall, is highly unlike to take a stance whereupon they would declare war to hasten his arrival. And since they'd likely need the okay from Khamenei, and he'd likely say no, I don't foresee that happening. (Of course, I'm no mind reader, and things could change.)
I don't find it reassuring when world politicians believing they are part of a supernatural story. how would democrats feel if Obama would describe how he was surrounded by white light during a speech in the UN assembly. its just lunacy.If he thought he could burn people, I would be more concerned. I wonder how many people might have beliefs like that, but obviously don't articulate them?
The video also says there there are Iranians who are worried about the Iranian leader who may be reorienting their nations's politics around the Mahdi's return. just like many Americans are criticizing Christian fundamentalists' apocalyptic dogma.The interviewers said that? I didn't hear anything about that. And even if he said that... what's the problem? Christians talk about Revelation. I don't see people getting worried all the Christian leaders will encourage strife in the hopes of starting that apocalyptic battle.
Semantics. I find it absurd that the Iranian leadership tries to revision WWII, what possible reason? does the fact that the same leadership calls Israel 'the little Satan' has anything to do with it? what major part did Iran play in WWII, how is it possibly involved in the scholarship of WWII? and when does real scholarship comes in instead of implying that Jews want to dominate the world.Having havoc is different than wanting it. (On a side note, did he deny the Holocaust or call for a revision of some of the historical facts? Not a rhetorical question, by the way.)
The Mahdi is central in Shia Islam. that doesn't mean that most Shiites believe they can hasten his coming.The belief of the Mahdi is a very old belief. I'm not sure if all Shi'as believe it, but definitely many, if not most. And yet it looks like there hasn't been a widespread call to bring it about.
Should the US distance itself from Israel? Why or why not?
Would putting some distance between the US and Israel be in the best interests of the US? Why or why not?
There's nothing anti-Semitic in that....
anti semitism has no relation to this thread. but an interesting point has been raised.I am not concerned in this thread with whether the US should distance itself from Saudi Arabia, and to suggest that I should be is illogical. And, by the way, sir, the anti-semite card has been played -- and misplayed -- so often by mindless little twits that it has lost all meaning. Try again.
anti semitism has no relation to this thread. but an interesting point has been raised.
perhaps in a just world, it would be Israel that could ponder distancing itself from the US. the US has been involved world wide with political and military strife created for the imperialistic gains of the US. the US has been using Israel for decades as an extension for its imperialistic interests in the middle east, from the times of the cold war, where Israel was used to counter the Soviet influence in the region, and later as an instrument together with the pre-Islamic revolution Iran in what was known as the 'two pillars' in American quest for oil control from the Med in the east to the Persian gulf in the western Middle east.
so perhaps this would be a more fruitful attempt at a mental/rhetoric excercise.
I am not concerned in this thread with whether the US should distance itself from Saudi Arabia, and to suggest that I should be is illogical. And, by the way, sir, the anti-semite card has been played -- and misplayed -- so often by mindless little twits that it has lost all meaning. Try again.
Lets give it a rest, starting a thread on political issues is fair game. Levite, if you have something to say about singling out Israel than make that case, this is the place. but its completely uncalled for to imply that the thread was started with an 'antisemitic' agenda.No one, I am sure, would want to actually look inside the selfless humanism of their condemnation of the Jewish State and find something unpleasantly hateful at the heart.