The Malhama and Dajjal’s Day Like a Week, Essay Example

Hosein in Cape Town, South Africa, in February, 2015, provides an analysis to a public gathering of current political events from the perspective of Islamic eschatology, that is to say, a Muslim interpretation of the last days of the human race. In this sense, the primary objective of the speech is twofold. On the one hand, Maulana Imran Hosein is providing an informative discourse to the audience, in so far as he is discussing how current political events relate to the Islamic religion. On the other hand, Maulana Imran Hosein’s speech is at once interpretive. Namely, Hosein is providing a particular reading of political events, as well as a particular reading of Islamic theology, which, when set together aim to provide a unified theory of what is occurring in the world at the present moment to the audience.

The central content of the speech focuses around two concepts. Firstly, the Malhama, which has a Christian equivalent in terms of Armageddon, is the final war that leads to the end of the world, and, secondly, the concept of Dajjal, whose Christian equivalent is the Antichrist. The intent of Hosein’s speech is thus to extrapolate how these two concepts, which are shared by both the Christian and Islamic faiths, who both view Jesus Christ as the Messiah who will return in the last days, are not mythical narratives, but instead discuss very real political events that are happening at this moment. In particular, Hosein discusses how the Islamic State (ISIS) is a creation of Antichrist, namely, the forces of the United States of America, so as to justify a military intervention on the part of Israel and the United States against the Islamic world. In other words, Hosein provides a hostile critique of the ISIS group, condemning them for representing the Islamic world in a negative light and thus contributing to the oppression of Muslims worldwide. Hosein argues that according to Islamic eschatology Muslims will form an alliance with Russia and Orthodox Christians, the last traditional Christians, so as to oppose the forces of capitalism, interest, the banking system and the decline of morality that is embodied in the decadent Western world.

What is most compelling about Hossein’s speech is the way in which he is able to deliver complex material, which requires deep knowledge of religion, theology, politics and economics, in a manner that is easily understood by the audience. Hossein does not use an excess of complicated terminology, but speaks in a quotidian, almost folksy manner, a fact emphasized by his Caribbean accent. In this regard, he can be considered to be a gifted public speaker, as he presents his discourse in an accessible, engaging and even entertaining manner, despite the difficulty of its subject matter. Furthermore, Maulana Hossein performs his speech without any notes whatsoever, entirely speaking in what appears to be an improvised manner, although his subject matter is diverse and complex. This helps create a clear connection with the audience, as the speech almost takes the form of a highly interesting dinner conversation on current events.

In this regard, Hosein’s speech functions as something like a prototype of how a speech should be given. The topic and subject matter must be engaging and compelling, relevant to the lives of those listening. Furthermore, the content of the speech must compel the audience to think of the subject matter from a new perspective. Hosein is not merely repeating clichés, but offering a new perspective on the relationship between theology and politics. Lastly, Hosein’s presentation style shows the mastery of his subject matter, speaking in an almost improvisational and homely manner, which draws the audience to his discourse, effectively using humor, repetition, rhetorical questions and other devices so as to execute an engaging speech.