Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


From: M
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 11:11 PM
To: Subject: eschatology interpretation HOSEIN

Dear sirs,
I have tried to send the below email to Sheikh Imran Hosein, since I think it will be of interest to his Islamic eschatology. I tried to send it to him through his website, but received an email that his address is not working. Would it be possible for you to forward it to him, or send me an address where I can send the below mail?
Kindest regards,
M.
Dear Sheikh Imran Hosein,
I discovered your lectures and writings approximately two years ago. I am Orthodox Christian of Russian descent living in the former Yugoslavia. I would like to thank you for your insightful work and your development of Islamic eschatology, which has a depth that, unfortunately, cannot be found in the vast majority of contemporary theological and philosophical writings.
 
In the following letter, I would like to provide an eschatological interpretation of Soviet history, which I think, 1) aids in the clarification of the primary tensions which constitute the final eschatological war, and, 2) supports your analysis of the alliance between Rum as (Russian-led) Orthodoxy and Islam.
 
In some recent lectures, you have stated that the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 was prosecuted by Zionists. I humbly offer an alternative position.
 
The date when the transfer occurred has a deep symbolic significance and was explicitly communicated in the official Soviet narratives at the time of the event. The year 1954 marked the 300 year anniversary of a decisive moment in Russian history: the Treaty of Pereyeslav. The treaty was signed between the Cossack leader Bogdan Hmelnitski and the Tsar of Muscovy. In general, the context of the Treaty was as follows. What is currently called Ukraine was in Hmelnitski’s time occupied by Western-Catholic Poland. Hmelnitski led a Cossack and broader Orthodox people’s uprising against the Polish oppressors. Whereas the uprising succeeded, Hmelnitski needed a strategic partner to secure the gains made. Naturally, Hmelnitski looked to Moscow, which shared the same Russian and Orthodox heritage. This treaty essentially reunited the peoples of the kingdom of ancient Orthodox Rus’. Some contemporary Ukrainian nationalists, of course, either ignore the treaty entirely or offer different interpretations of its parameters for an obvious reason: it commits to the homogeneity of the Russian Orthodox people.
 
Thus, when Hrushchov transferred to Ukraine on the 300 year anniversary of the treaty, this evoked the same homogeneity between Ukraine and Russia, that is, the people of Rus’. It was a gesture that essentially meant “what is ours is also yours since we are the same.”
 
The 1954 transfer date is also significant because of its occurrence at the beginning stages of the Cold War. Namely, the event of Crimean transfer may be viewed from within the context of a gradual “dezionification” of the Soviet Union, which established the East-West division that informed the Cold War itself. In other words, the Cold War began, according to this interpretation, because of this same dezionification.
Certainly, that the formation of the Soviet Union was prosecuted by Zionists is a credible interpretation, as demonstrated with the murder of the Romanovs and the suppression of the Church. However, the Soviet Union over a period of some decades moved away from its initial Zionist dominated policy. Many key events in the history of the Soviet Union can be cited so as to identify this process of the USSR’s dezionification. For example:
 
1) In Lenin’s death testament, he strongly criticized Stalin, suggesting that if the USSR was to continue to develop in the direction initiated by the 1917 revolution Stalin must not follow him as successor. In the vacuum after Lenin’s death, Stalin– who had studied to be an Orthodox priest in his youth – was, of course, victorious in this power struggle, primarily against Trotski, who has been connected by numerous historians to Zionism.
2) In 1934, a Jewish autonomous region was established under Stalin’s “nationality policy” act with the aim of having the Jewish minority of the USSR live in this designated area. The geographical position of the autonomous region, known as Birobidzhan, may be interpreted as having a significance. Birobidzhan is located on the periphery of the Soviet Union, far, far, away from Moscow, on the border with China and near the Soviet Union’s Far East border with Korea, indicating a desired minimization of influence.
 
3) The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, whilst of primarily geopolitical significance, also can be viewed as consistent with the dezionification policy, since Stalin clearly had no problems signing such an agreement with an openly anti-semitic Nazi Germany. When Hitler violated the pact, this could be said to have slowed the dezionification process in the USSR. Paradoxically, however, it also accelerated it, as many patriotic elements (as references to Holy Rus’ and the new activity of the Orthodox Church) were introduced so as to strengthen the fighting spirit of the people.
 
4) Whereas the Soviet Union was the first state to give de jure recognition to the new Israeli state after World War II, this has been interpreted by some historians as a purely geopolitical stratagem directed against the primary enemy of the West. From this perspective, as Israel more strongly aligned itself with the West, the Soviet Union then moved towards support of the Arab nations against the Zionists, which continued until the end of the Cold War. From another perspective, Israel initially received support from the Soviet Union and the West. Israel could have strategically decided to play a double game and continue to cultivate relationships with both West and USSR, taking assistance from the world’s two superpowers and thus radically strengthening its position, but, for some reason, did not. This perhaps indicates the Israeli concern about this very dezionification and that the USSR could not be trusted.
 
5) In 1952, one year before Stalin’s death, the “Prague trials” occurred, where eleven Jewish party members were executed on charges of participating in a “Zionist-Trotskyist-Titoist” conspiracy. At this time, the American fascist Francis Yockey, who had journeyed to Prague to follow the trial, advanced a highly controversial thesis within right-wing circles. For Yockey, the Prague trials indicated that the USSR was no longer a Zionist state and that rightists — despite the historical antagonism between rightist movements and communism — should look to the Soviet Union as an ally against what Yockey diagnosed as the liberal Zionist west. Yockey died in 1960 in an American prison of an apparent suicide.
 
If Yockey’s thesis is correct, this further underscores that the transfer of Crimea in 1954, app. 2 years after the Prague Trials, was not a Zionist act, but the exact opposite: an attempt to promote the brotherhood of the Russian people within the context of a USSR that had finally broken from Zionist influence. (Of course, Hrushchov did not anticipate the collapse of the USSR and the difficulties which the transfer caused). Thus, the gradual dezionification of the Soviet Union established the poles of the Cold War: an anti-Zionist east and a pro-Zionist west. In short, if the Zionists did create the Soviet Union, the Cold War signifies that they had lost control of the very entity they had created.
 
This also explains why after the collapse of the USSR, oligarchs with overwhelmingly Zionist ties purchased the key strategic resources of the Soviet Union. The acts of the oligarchs in the early 90s was essentially a second Zionist takeover of Russia, repeating the 1917 Revolution. It was only with the arrival of Putin in the late 90s, who emerged from the anti-Zionist Soviet military and secret service, that Russia was able to regain these resources from the oligarchs, thereby creating the new Cold War situation between anti-Zionist East and Zionist West. The first and second Cold War are thus shaped by:
 
1) Geopolitics. Mackinder’s Heartland theory and the world strategic significance of Russia.
 
2) Economics. Communism as an alternative to capitalism in Cold War 1; in Cold War 2, BRICS qua alternative against capitalism, as you point out in your interview of early September 2014.
 
3) Eschatology. Moscow, i.e., Russia as the Third Rome. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow, as the only sovereign authentic Christian (Orthodox) nation, was recognized by some to be the Third Rome. This eschatological notion was contained in the prophecy of the Russian Orthodox monk Filofey in app. 1510 who declared Russia the Third Rome and stated that “there will not be a fourth.” Filofey’s prophecy: “два убо Рима падоша, а третий стоит, а четвертому не быти” “Two Romes have fallen, a third stands, but a fourth will not be.« (There are also some interesting geographical symbolic connections between the first two Romes and the third Rome, for example, Rome, Constantinople and Moscow all lie on top of 7 hills).
I would propose the following hypothesis: It is only when Russia is once again Orthodox — as opposed to a secular USSR — that the third eschatological element becomes explicit and thus why this Cold war 2, unlike Cold War 1, becomes a “hot war.”
 
But God knows best. “And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein.” (Surat Qaf 50:16)
 
I apologize for the lengthy nature of my remarks. However, I hope some of the points contained within this letter will be of interest to your study of Islamic eschatology. I believe, for example, that the above interpretation entirely supports your views on the Rum-Islamic alliance in the eschatological war.
 
Once again, thank you for your stimulating and compelling work.
Respectful regards,
M.