Talk:Islamic eschatology/Archive 1

Archive 1

What is this

Is this a shia, sunni or Muslim doctrine? --Striver 00:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the article. This article is about Muslim beliefs referring to the end of the world. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah... ok... No comments from my side, dont know much about that... Im more historicaly oriented :)--Striver 01:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Spiritual/Physical

I don't know much but I'm thinking the afterlife in Islam is physical, not purely spiritual (Qur'an 75:1,3,4):

• I do call to witness the Resurrection Day;
• Does man think that We cannot assemble his bones?
• Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.

Maybe the last paragraph in Punishment needs removing/citing? Ackie00 03:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think more information about the spirit or roh is needed because many people reading this won't understand that. Citing will help. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Quran states that humans cannot know what form their next existance will take:

"We have decreed Death to be your common lot, and We are not to be frustrated

from changing your Forms and creating you (again) in (forms) that ye know not." (Quran 56:60,61)

In an attempt to describe the unknowable most people would probably feel comfortable using the term "spiritual". Nazli 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That's BS. If the afterlife is purely spiritual, how can the unbelievers skin be burned off? Believers on the last day are, according to one Hadith, going to meat and beat eachother until they are "purified." This and many other instances seem to indicate that a physical afterlife is intended for believers and non-believers alike. After all, how can "spirits" enjoy such lust sex lives and drink of such flowing water and wine?

Also, the part about the skin have nerve receptors is also pure BS. The Quran nor the Sunnah never mention any such thing, although the article would like you to believe that (how can "spirits" have nerve receptors anyway? you can't have it both ways). It's proselytizing pure and simple, the old "Scientific Miracle Quran" baloney Islamic apologists try to pull over everyone else's eyes all the time. This is not the place for that.

Just to let you know, you can't take "one Hadith" as being representative of Muslim belief, especially as you don't state where its from.Ackie00 05:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Number 542:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Allah's Apostle said, "The believers, after being saved from the (Hell) Fire, will be stopped at a bridge between Paradise and Hell and mutual retaliation will be established among them regarding wrongs they have committed in the world against one another. After they are cleansed and purified (through the retaliation), they will be admitted into Paradise; and by Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, everyone of them will know his dwelling in Paradise better than he knew his dwelling in this world."

This seems to imply, at least to me, physical "retaliation." I suppose "beat", though, might not have been the word to use; my other points still stand.

The hadith immediately before explains more fully:

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 8, Book 76, Number 541:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever has wronged his brother, should ask for his pardon (before his death), as (in the Hereafter) there will be neither a Dinar nor a Dirham. (He should secure pardon in this life) before some of his good deeds are taken and paid to his brother, or, if he has done no good deeds, some of the bad deeds of his brother are taken to be loaded on him (in the Hereafter)."

I don't have any problems with your other points. Ackie00 22:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's confusing aite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.57.49 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Mahdi

Section discussing Mahdi was either written by someone confused or with some kind of agenda, they placed an Ahmadi source under the Shi'ite views. There was in addition an unsubstantiated remark about Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran which had no connection whatsoever to the subject matter.41.86.96.159 (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Untitled comments

This article is inaccurate and misleading. Please see the following link on Imam Mahdi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi

___________

Who ever has written this page, I'll say that you are so much sex obsessed, you didn't find anything else in Islamic teachings about the pleasures of heaven, except for that sex with the huris, the concept of heaven in Islam is very pure and its not as you have portrayed it . I must say that this type of people shouldn't allow to give their less studied opinions on net as they can misguide others, I am not saying that this concept is wrong but its not as frustrated as it has been represented here. one should go and check Quran for the right information. NADIA

Comment from User:217.44.75.41:

note from a reader-- this pornographic essay is fairly obviously not scholarly but propagandistic in its focus. How would you like it if I put some similarly juicy passages from the Siphra Tzdiniutha into a summary article on Kabbalah?

Note: The Quran explicitly says what the article says in more than one place - read it. However, I would say there are equally troubling (to liberal, modern eyes) parts of the Bible. There's no point denying things that can be easily looked up by anyone.

There is also no point highlighting what is truly minor elements and misrepresent them as having more importance than they are given in the muslim texts.

Furthermore, the discussion of the afterlife in this article are out of place. This article should cover the ample references and prophecies of things to occur toward the end of history and the end of the world.

There are the minor signs and the major signs. The signs that have occured and those that haven't.

finally, the persistent mention by this and other anti-muslim authors of the Ahmadiyya as a "minority" group of muslims is laughable.

It is akin to inserting the views of unitarians or branch davidians in every article about christianity, or inserting the views of madonna's kabbala , or modern day jewish atheism (like herzl's and ayn rand) into articles about judaism.

The shi`a are an example of a minority among muslims. The ahmadiya are not.

Of 1.2 billion muslims in the world, even if there are 100,000 Ahmadiya today (which I doubt) that would be equal to 0.0083 percent of muslims.

That's not even minority. That's nothing - just a clearly isolated case of splinter heresy - especially that they are regarded as heretics by a consensus of ALL muslims (shi`a and sunnah).

This just goes to show the unreliability of this article's author and perhaps his motivation to distort and confuse rather than educate.

Book 37, Number 4310:

Since Christianity is the worship of Jesus I found a bit ridiculous that Jesus would ban it. So I checked the book and lo and behold I could find one mention of Christianity.

Since the report didn't mention a spefic line(See Below ***) I'll assume the author meant this one.

Book 37, Number 4310: He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah.

I don't know what break the cross means but 1)kill swine http://www.webziner.com/islam/whypork.htm

     first google link

http://www.eat-halal.com/articles/pork.shtml

  The abstention from eating pork is one of the steps taken by Islam to     practise hygiene and to attain purity of soul.

2)abolish jizyah http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/term.JIZYAH.html

   a tax paid by non-Muslims living in a Muslim State. Since the non-Muslims are exempt from military service and taxes imposed on Muslims, they must pay this tax to compensate. It guarentees them security and protection. If the State cannot protect those who paid jizyah, then the amount they paid is returned to them.

There is a hadith that states that upon the return of Jesus ('Isa), he will abolish Christianity

• • • I can see now why the author never include a direct link to the above mentioned line because it would be obvious how full of shit the statement was. So instead it was buried amognst many other lines

Not bad for a an athiest eh? Grade F-

Break the cross

If Jesus died on the cross I'd think he'd want to break the cross too.

Breaking the cross probably means removing the idolatry about his dead. In Islam he didn't die on the cross(or to be more specific did not mentioned to be dead at all) but raised up to sky(Could be another dimention) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.142.92.74 (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Like the other Abrahamic... etc

I removed this phrase from the article because I was fairly sure that Judaism, an Abrahamic faith, doesn't necessarily hold immortality of the soul as a tenent. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=118&letter=I This academic source seems to support my recollection. My edit was reverted, and I was warned to do tests in the sandbox - but this isn't a test. It's a correction of an inaccuracy. I'm going to reinstate my edit.--Colindownes 05:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Signs of "day of judgement"

The list of "Minor Signs" implies that cellphones, dancing, and working women (amongst other things) are signs of an upcoming "day of judgment", with no direct references to the Koran in support. It can only be assumed that proselytizers have concocted this list to try and show how "evil" modern liberal societies are, and also to show how accurate Islam is in predicting a large number of developments (the Iraq War, etc, etc). I have deleted the list. People who are familiar with the original Koranic verses can add items back into the list when they have the applicable Koranic references in support. (The Hadith may also provide suitable references.) Otherwise, the list seems too much like the product of a biased religiously-motivated writer to be trusted as an accurate factual source.

I do agree with you concerning the list of minor signs. I went ahead and removed it again. Dyaa (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

The article was very poorly written, referenced incorrectly. I removed redundant or improper wording and significantly cleaned it up. I did not change content signfiicantly. Parsh (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Concept of faith: While rewriting, I keep butting my head against this paragraph about the concept of faith in different parts of Islam. It is not well written or referenced, but I can't convince myself that it doesn't belong in the article. As it stands, it is a complex philosophical argument in the middle of an article that doesn't even come close to covering the basics of the subject. I am going to store it here for now, but wanted anyone's thoughts on whether it belonged in the article, and if so where.

Faith, or imān, ensures salvation although there are differing views on the concept of faith. "For the Asharis it is centred on internal taṣdīḳ [internal judgment of veracity], for the Māturīdī-Ḥanafīs on the expressed profession of faith and the adherence of the heart, for the Muʿtazilīs on the performance of the 'prescribed duties', for the Ḥanbalīs and the Wahhābīs on the profession of faith and the performance of the basic duties.""Imam", Encyclopaedia of Islam Online The common denominator of these various opinions is summed up in bearing witness that God is the Lord, L. Gardet states. Muhammad stated that "No one shall enter hell who has an atom of faith in his heart" or that "Hell will not welcome anyone who has in his heart an atom of faith". These quotations can be interpreted differently.Those who consider performance of religious duties to be integral, such as Ḵh̲ārid̲j̲īs, consider anyone gravely sins to be unfaithful. The majority of Sunnis who view life as a process of perfecting the faith, hold that a sinner with faith will be punished temporarily, but ultimately achieve salvation. There is disagreement over the possibility of immediate grace (As̲h̲ʿarīs) rather than permanent suffering (Māturīdīs).

If anyone comes to this talk page in the next few days, please note that I am basically completely rewriting this article with new references, so it is in progress. I will update this page as it proceeds. Parsh (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Merger from Islamic view of the Last Judgment

I believe the articles are redundant (see: Wikipedia:Avoid writing redundant essays, satisfying criteria for Wikipedia:MERGE. I think this article is the larger, more comprehensive and more well researched piece, and that one should have its valuable information combined into this one, which I would be happy to do. Please discuss, thanks. Parsh (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Bueller? Parsh (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think 2 weeks is long enough, I will start the process of merging. Please comment if suggestions or concerns. Ramwithaxe talk 18:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I have merged the two articles. I will come back and fix redundancies, but the article looks far better now (much was rewritten). Ramwithaxe talk 19:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Jesus/Isa dies?

Hadith reference both the Mahdi and Isa simultaneously and the return of the Mahdi will coincide with the return of Isa. He will descend from the heavens in al-Quds at dawn. The two will meet, and Mahdi will lead the people in fajr prayer. After the prayer, they will open a gate to the west and encounter Masih ad-Dajjal. After the defeat of ad-Dajjal, Isa will lead a peaceful forty-year reign until his death. He will be buried in a tomb beside Muhammad in Medina.[39] Though the two most certainly differ regarding their role and persona in Islamic eschatology, the figures of the Mahdi and Isa are ultimately inseparable for according to the Prophet. Though Isa is said to descend upon the world once again, the Mahdi will already be present.

So Jesus descends from Immortal Heaven & then dies after the WAR + 40 years of "peace"...there being no Ressurection or any other miracle that could be performed, proving that Muslim Jesus Isa is the real deal?

& The Mahdi will survive afterward.....

Am I understanding this correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.218.87 (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a big mistake in the Sources section?

In the list that comes right after "The Qur'an describes the Last Judgment, with a number of interpretations of its verses. There are specific aspects:", look at this, please:

3. Those who have been dead will believe that a short time has passed between birth and death.

Shouldn't that be "Those who have been dead will believe that a short time has passed between death and the Last Judgment."?

Just asking... Dontreader (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional material to Other Signs

I have removed the following quote from the Other Signs section.

"And there will be disagreement concerning succession. Then a man will emerge out of Madina. He will hurry to Makkah. And the people of Makkah will come out to him and urge him and try to force him to accept the Bai'aa. Dawud :: Book 36 : Hadith 4273"

The above statement, specifically the first and last sentences, is not consistent with reliable sources. A reliable translation to English of the cited source linked here is as follows.

Book 36, Number 4273:

The Prophet said: Disagreement will occur at the death of a caliph and a man of the people of Medina will come flying forth to Mecca. Some of the people of Mecca will come to him, bring him out against his will and swear allegiance to him between the Corner and the Maqam. An expeditionary force will then be sent against him from Syria but will be swallowed up in the desert between Mecca and Medina. When the people see that, the eminent saints of Syria and the best people of Iraq will come to him and swear allegiance to him between the Corner and the Maqam.

Notice that there is no explicit mention of succession, and no mention of "force him to accept the Bai'aa." Those seem to be inferences not supported by the text or reliable source. Mamyles (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There might be a problem

I read this page a while back and in one place it stated the distance of time between the first and second blowing I of the trumpet but before that on the fifty fifth bullet point it said that this period of time was undetermined this is a matter of religon so please fix it quickly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.191.194.194 (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

New Article on The Judgement Day

A new article on Judgement Day (Islamic Eschatology) is needed as this article has got too big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.16.254 (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision

Can someone check if a hadith from sunan Al-Tirmidhi given below in the references is actually weak since it states so with the reference in brackets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.155.246 (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

suggestion for a step towards cleaning this article

i guess the whole "mahdi" section is a copy of the main article. maybe the whole part with mahdi, jesus and dajjal should be summarized up to keypoints of different branches of islam? like --eschatologic figures and events-- ---Sunnism--- ---Shia--- ---Ahmadiyya view--- (since AMJ does not believe in an apocalyptic event like sunnism and shia) instead of discussing each figure on it's own and then each time, again mentioning how they are perceived and how not, additionally it should not be the same like the main article, thus we would have to adjust change everytime on both.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted changes

My changes were reverted as 'unexplained changes', so I'll explain them here:

I modified the IPA for the Arabic terms to better convey that the u's are i'rab and parts of the previous word. There was also a y in lieu of j. All instances of Allah were changed to God as per MOS:ALLAH --Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 07:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Signs of the end time

@Dhtwiki:,There remain some issues with this edit. First of all most of material didn't refer to RS. Second, it is too long and should be shortened and summarized. Finally, the most important point is that based on Islamic thought, there is the difference between the sign of Resurrection and Appearance of Mahdi and these signs refers to the Appearance of Mahdi, not Resurrection.Saff V. (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Saff V.:The lists could stand to be given more context, via modern scholarship, rather than just a set of items sourced to scripture (I assume the items accurately reflect their sources). However, because it's not perfect, we shouldn't just delete the material, unless there is something terribly wrong. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Dhtwiki. 72.140.114.159 (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You are right, we have to add RS rather deleting but the material is in detail and it is better that we just point to most crucial signs. In addition, it needs to move the appropriate part.Saff V. (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Please stop removing material directly related to this article and moving it to Shia article. So seems like you don't have problem with the material but you just don't want it on this article. We need to find secondary sources for this material and not completely remove it from this article. 72.140.114.159 (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought that such as this edit is clear and no need to discuss.

1. First, we have an article relevant to signs of end time. In addition, minor signs are too much and based on RS they are "uncertain". All in all, I suggested to make shorten article, prepare an opportunity for adding other sourced material summarize minor signs and move rest of material to Signs of the reappearance of Muhammad al-Mahdi.
2. Secound,the appearance of the Mahdi is one of the major events of the end time and this event has some signs that they are nominated as signs of the end time in the article, I [corrected] it but it was reverted.
3. Third, The terms of "alamatu's-sa'ah al-kubra" refers to signs of Ma'ad not end time. I corrected it again but... .Saff V. (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Isa/Jesus

Given this is English Wiki, why is Jesus spelled in Arabic? Why not English?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Time line

According to Islamic thought, some special event will happen at the end of the world and it is necessary to describe event "chronologically". The timeline of events is taking place in the following:

• First, End of time that includes Appearance and Raj`a
• Finally, Ma'ad includes Barzakh and Resurrection (Bodily and Spiritual Resurrection).

Saff V. (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Barzakh

@Dhtwiki: as you know, the concept of Islamic eschatology is complicated and I am trying by using RS make more sense but I face with your revert. I wonder if you tell me what is explained in detail? or please edit if you think it needs. The current material about Barzakh doesn't include enough information.Saff V. (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought your added information, though relevant, gave too much detail for that section, as well as the wording being ungrammatical. One of the stage between the moment of death to the day of resurrection is the grave that in fact is referred to the concept of Barzakh... is not good English. "One of the stages between the moment of death and the day of resurrection is that of the grave, which is described by the concept of Barzakh... " is better phrasing. Since this concept has its own article, I wonder why we need so much detail here. In any case, it has to be expressed more clearly. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki:Thanks for edit the sentence. I am not against with removing in detail material. But the current version of article does not cover brilliant information about Barzakh. Pay attention to this sentence "In the Qur'an, barzakh (Arabic: برزخ‎) is the intermediate state in which nafs of the deceased are held between realities to rest with loved ones until Qiyamah", It prepares ambiguous concept about it and has nothing to do with being an article in related to Barzakh.Saff V. (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutraility and Primary sources

Hello, Although the article useses some secondary sources, it seems that the main focus is on Quran and Hadith or it cites the opinnion of selective used scholars. There we go to the next point: The article does not represent the whole concept of Islamic eschatology, it rather (almost selectivly) uses scholars, which held certain ideas and mentiones them aside. For example, ibn Taimiyya along with Ghazali, who both adhered to an only bodily resurrection (I removed ibn Tamiyya, since the sentence stated him along with "most classical scholars" and since he only played a marignal role in classical Islam, he is only out of place there) but dismisses, for example, the accounts of ibn Sina's spiritual resurrection (For example: Search for "Roads to Paradise: Eschatology and Concepts of the Hereafter in Islam"). It also follows one strant of narrative, telling a story elaborated by certain scholars. The Mahdi, for example, was also dismissed by some Sunnis entirely. I also wonder why such eschatological figures, such as Jesus, Dajjal, Mahdi take so much space here: Eschatology, from a scholary perspective is not only about "signs" and promenent figures, but also about the hereafter conceptions inherent in Islamic tradition. There we came to the next point: So many "signs". Most of the article lists "signs" and in which order they appear. Not only is this biased, as it only represents one strant or one narrative, it also fails the scope of that an encyclopedic entry should be. Other important aspects, such as "individual judgment", "images of heaven and hell", "apocalyptic visions during Mongol invasion" "the situation in barzakh" are dismissed entirely. Others just play a marignal role, such as refering to the different types of resusrecction. I know we worked here to finally remove the template above, but I think it is necessary again to palce it there. I visited this article some months ago and it went into the right direction, but it agains looks biased and primary source focused.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Source ideas

Hello, I did some looking around for sources for the article and came across these. Would they be helpful as far as adding secondary sources or to add other perspectives and avoid bias? Khalil, Mohammad Hassan. Between Heaven and Hell. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, Caner K. Dagli, Maria Massi Dakake, Joseph E. B. Lumbard, and Mohammed Rustom. The Study Quran. New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2015. Rustomji, Nerina. The Garden and the Fire. New York, New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. Bradgaskin98 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

If you find something good, just add it. I would like to read them too, but I currently lack time for more literature, unfortunetaly, but would check them out, if noone else makes contributions meanwhile.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

THE DAY OF RESURRECTION JOHN MACDONALD seems to be another good source I want to mention here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 18 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amygugliemino, Bradgaskin98, Marleej47.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Original research

Just like Signs of the appearance of Mahdi, it seems like this page has a lot of WP:OR, specifically in how the notes and references are tied to the items in the list of signs. It needs to be heavily edited down so we are just portraying what the sources say and not making our own connections and research. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, #19 of the minor signs for example does not relate to the begining of the final hour, instead it is a prediction for people living durring his time, never about the people of the future. Affiliating (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Colgate University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article heavily relies in primary sources to list what the signs are; these need to be replaced with reliable secondary sources. This should also resolve the debate over the strength of the various hadiths. BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)