Talk:Mahdi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Picture

Please stop adding that strange picture with the strange caption. If it is related then it needs some explanation. Cuñado - Talk 18:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is it a strange picture? I can fix the caption. The person was a follower of Mahdi. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-1 18:19

The Mahdi is not a person. The Mahdi is an idea of a forthcoming individual, like the return of Jesus in Christianity. Some people have claimed to be the Mahdi, and if that person is a follower of one of those beliefs, he should be noted as such, and not a follower of "Mahdi". Cuñado - Talk 03:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So why not fix that, rather than just deleting the whole thing? That makes just as little sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-2 03:38

I'm not responsible for cleaning up nonsense.Cuñado - Talk 04:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Prophecy fulfilled?

So Baghdad and Iraq will be swallowed up when the Mahdi comes? Hasn't that happened recently? Why haven't I heard of any Shi'ites suggesting that this is a sign? — Gulliver ✉ 01:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian belief biased link-remove or report page

I strongly agree that the christian belief part is biased and it is hate speech. I am a muslim and I don't think all christians think of muslims as satanic devil worshipers and their prophecies are satanic inspirations. Plus it is got a whole wrong idea of the messenic AL-MAHDI. All we (Sunnis) know about this figure that he will play a role in uniting muslims to defend themselves aganist the Anti-Christ's attack on Mecca and Medina. There is no Hocus-Bocus stories of him fighting jews or christians. I strongly deny what is there in that link.He will not be able to defeat the Anti-Christ, then Jesus (the one who christians and Jews know)will have his second return and he will reveal which of the three relegions is to be followed. Then, All will follow the Christ's belief and he (Jesus) will personally kill the Anti-Christ. The Anti-Christ will not stand the power of Jesus. He will dissolve like salt in water upon the approach of Jesus. When Jesus reaches to kill him he will already have been evaporated. This is the story that we now. It is not fabricated so as not to be provokative to the Christians or the Jews.All sunni's belief of Mahdi as a defendant of Mecca and Medina aganist the Anti-christ. It is belived that he will survive the Anti-Christ but his fate after that is not known.Besides, the Quran never mentions this figure (Al-Mahdi) it is only mentioned in many hadith which may vary in the degree of reliability.—  Mkaddah 20:00, 26 February 2006

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Mkaddah 04:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is for reporting of facts and various people's views. This should be done with as neutral a point of view as possible. It is unfortunate that the reporting of these views sometimes offends people. The intention is to inform, not to offend. A western english encyclopedia tends to allow more freedom and less censorship that some cultures are happy with. ^rossnixon 10:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If this is to note that our cultures is closed for christianity preaching, sur you know that your clutures are closed to islamic preachings too....it is very comparable...Wikipedia is for all....that's why we keep a very neutral view of what is written ...most of what is written about islam in wikipedia does not satisfy me but I don't impose my ideas on others....and as for censorship and freedom on the internet, these ideas are found everywhere over the internet even in my own language (Arabic)....not in Western English Language :-)...we are just trying to get wikipedia out of this field.— Mkaddah 8:42, 1 March 2006

Why was the Mahdawi Sources part Removed?

A Revision of this article as of 06:08, 1 August 2006 shows that a sub-topic Mahdavi sources was removed from under the Birth of the Mahdi.

Was it really an unnecessary piece of information??? Not meeting wikipedia requirements??!?!?

As a matter of a fact a whole mass of a community exists out there called Mahadwis (They spell it Mahdavis).

Along with a big amount of elaborately presented evidence and appropriate interpretation of traditional prophecies and logical and reasonable answers for everyone who could present a doubt about their belief, they are thriving after the passage of their Mahdi 500 years back.

Does any other such mahdawi (followers of Mahdi) group other than this one exists??? That too surviving the opposition from all the other dis-believing sects and groups from Islam around them trying to subdue and refute their belief - all the five hundred years of the long time???

Presently, although they are a part of the sunni part of Islam on the basis of the school of thought they follow, they keep themselves quite separate from the remaining bigger sunni group world around. In the matters of Islamic practices and rituals they are perfectly sunni and follow any of the four schools of thought among the sunni sect. They call present themselves to be strictly sunni.

Shouldn't the Mahdavi Belief sub-topic brought back from the time as it was in Revision as of 19:12, 31 July 2006.

How to do it??? Should it be reverted or just copied and pasted??? Please guide.

Azgs 22:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bihar ul Anwar

Is that true that 16th volume of Bihar ul Anwar claims that Mahdi will be born at the end of (Islamic) 14th century, i.e. before 9 November 1980? If so, what is the contemporary Shiite view on Bihar ul Anwar's prophecies about Mahdi? · Naive cynic · 18:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

1-As I know the 13th Vol. of Bihar ul Anwar is about Mahdi.

2-I read the Persian translation of it but I don't see such a thing.

3-This idia is against Shiite beliefs but Bihar ul Anwar is a collection of hadiths and there is some untrue Hadiths.

4- Can you tell exactly wich one you mean. Then I can answer you definitly.--213.217.50.140 09:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jesus' Family

In the section about the emhergence of the Mahdi it says, "According to some traditions, Jesus gets married, has a (another?) family, and dies. There is a grave reserved for him next to Muhammad's grave in Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina." Just currious why this "(another?)" is there.Dhawk1964 21:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is unreliable so I removed it. If anybody want to add it again, he/she should add reliable reference too.--213.217.50.140 09:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I thought it didn't sound right. Thanks. Dhawk1964 20:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Viewpoint

There some parts of article which is similiar between Shi'a and Sunni like "He will fill the world with justice and fairness at a time when the world will be filled with oppression". So we can make a new section and put these parts there.--Sa.vakilian 05:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Traditions

The See Also link Traditions about Mahdi redirects to here, and there's no such section.

---

The portion pertaining to the Mahdi not being in Sahih Muslim is inaccurate.

Here is a reference:

Abu Nadra reported:" We were in the company of Jabir b. 'Abdulldh that he said it may happen that the people of Iraq may not send their qafiz and dirhams (their measures of food stuff and their money). We said: Who would be respolisible for it? He said: The non_Arabs would prevt them. He again said: There is the possibility that the people of Syria may not send their dinar and mudd. We said: Who would be responsible for it? He said This prevention would be made by the Romans. He (Jabir b. Abdullab) kept quiet for a while and then reported Allah', s Messengdt (may peas be upon him) having said There would be a caliph in the last (period) of my Ummah who would freely give handfuls of wealth to thd people wiothout counting it. I said to Abu Nadra and Abu al-'Ala: DO you mean 'Umarb. 'Abd al-Aziz? They said: No (he would be Imam Mahdi.).

- Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6961

Source: University of California Website [1]

---

I replaced the following text from the article with a sentence about the dispute, based on sites arising from [2], such as [3], which I expect are also disputed.

This has only happened once when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad announced that he was the Promised Messias and Mahdi. The eclipses that took place when he made his announcement were seen all over the world.

The previous text was:

This has never happened before in history [as of Jumaada al-awal 1424 AH / July 2003 CE]. Only the year 2005 stands out uniquely when a Solar and Lunar eclipse would both occur during the month of Ramadan and these eclipse be visible from Middle East and Arabia.

Perhaps someone else can incorporate the various beliefs about the eclipses in a verifiable and NPOV manner ...? -- Zigger 09:49, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)

---

Does this sound wrong to anyone else? :

'In reality, Al-Mahdi will be an Imam and a Caliph, among other Caliphs who rule Muslims with justice. ' In reality? I'm not sure, but it seems this is arguing for one belief against another, which un-encyclopedic at least, and not NPOV. Isn't it? I'm not sure I want to rework it (and other text in this article that seems to me similarly biased) because I am so unfamiliar with the subject matter, but "in reality" struck me as particularly odd, since about 5 billion people in the world (assuming Muslims are still about 1 billion) are not Muslims and don't consider anything about Mahdi to be "reality." As I said, Iim too unsure to take action, but I wanted to bring this to the attention of anyone better equipped to improve it.165.176.123.2 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC) --- The comment about occultation in Birth of the Mahdi (Shia Sources) confuses me. Occultation as I understand it is a solely astronomical phenomenon, unless used metaphorically. I'm assuming it's the latter, which I still wouldn't understand. Some clarifacation would help the unexperienced user such as myself. Thanks.

---

Tense

An easy to fix, but prevalent problem with this article, is the use of "to be" or "will be". All wikipedia articles are supposed to be done in present tense. freestylefrappe 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

--

Isn't that because the article talks about things that are expected to happen in the future? Ojii-san 11:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No. freestylefrappe 00:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"All Wikipedia articles are supposed to be done in the present tense"? Eh? How, then, do we write about the Battle of Hastings, or the Big Bang, or the 1996 US presidential election, all of which -- as far as I know -- happened in the past and have finished? Andrew Craig 132.185.240.120 12:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit if not merged

I pulled out the following text, as well as removed one extremist link (Will look at the rest tomorrow). Primarily this was directed at emphasizing the (already existing within the article) dispute between Sunni and Shia views of the Mahdi as well as removing what are listed as Sunni sources but are entirely lifted from Shia sources. I still think this is a disservice to the lay observer, but if consensus points to keeping these separate articles, then I can at least clean up this one. Elijahmeeks 05:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If the logic behind my changes is faulty, please explain it instead of performing a revert. I think the following sections are unencyclopedic and should be removed. Likewise, I think some of the sources are suspect. Finally, there are basic grammar and vocab changes that need to be made to make the article readable. Elijahmeeks 19:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed Text Characteristics of the Mahdi Shia sources

• His name is generally accepted to be ???, just like Muhammad's full name. Muhammad is just a title. Muhammad literally means "praised one".
• Some Muslims claim that his name can be an accepted variant of Muhammad such as Ahmed or Mahmoud; Supporters of this idea quote a passage from Muhammad in the Hadith which is interpreted: "If there remains only a day for the world to come to an end, Allah will prolong this day till He raises a man from my nation and my progeny. His name will be my name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity as it would have fraught with injustice and oppression." (Muntakhabul Asar by Lutfullah Safi Gulpaygani, p. 153)
• His appearance is similar to that of Muhammad.
• His character is like that of Muhammad, he would follow him perfectly and shall err not.
• Walī al-‘Aṣr (Arabic: ولي العصر), meaning 'Guardian of the Era', is a title for the Mahdi.

Sunni sources

• He has a fair complexion.
• He has a broad forehead and a prominent nose.
• He will be from Ahl-ul-bayt (people of the household of Muhammad)* Muhammad said: "al-Mahdi is one of us, the members of the household (Ahlul-Bayt)."
• He will come from the East (i.e East of Arabian Peninsula).
• His majority followers will be from a poor Nation from the East.
• His majority followers will be from the Muslims belonging to the Lost Tribes of Israel or the family of Prophet Ishaq living in the East.

Signs indicating the emergence of the Mahdi Shi'a sources

• According to Shia sources no one can detemine the time of Imam Mahdi's emergence (Not even himself). Only Allah knows the exact time and whoever determines any specific time is a liar (Kamal ul-din, p 484, Hadith #4). Nevertheless, there are some signs for his emergence, most of which are not necessary conditions for his reappearance.
• The 6th Shi'a Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq, is reported to have said:

"Before the appearance of the one who will rise, peace be upon him, the people will be reprimanded for their acts of disobedience by a fire that will appear in the sky and a redness that will cover the sky. It will swallow up Baghdad, and will swallow up Kufa. Their blood will be shed and houses destroyed. Death will occur amid their people and a fear will come over the people of Iraq from which they shall have no rest."

• There will be an insurgence by the Sufyani, a descendant of Abu Sufyan. Abu Sufyan is considered by Shias to have been one of Muhammad's worst enemies, along with his son, Muawiya I and Muawiya's son, Yazid. According to Shia narrations, the Sufyani's revolution will start from Palestine/Jordan, and his reign of tyranny will span the Middle East from Iraq to Egypt.
• A loud call from the sky signals the Mahdi's appearance.

Emergence of the Mahdi Sunni sources

• A prophetic tradition says that he is born between Mecca and Medina
• He emerges during the last days of the world from Mecca
• He comes with Divine Power that no mortal can oppose
• He and Isa (ie. Jesus) are two different individuals; This so accepted by consensus of earlier scholars, although it counters the prophetic tradition presented by famous Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun. He quotes Anas ibn Malik that Muhammad said, "لا مهدي إلا عيسى بن مريم," literally meaning, "There is no Mahdi but Jesus son of Mary."
• He precedes the second appearance of Jesus
• He establishes justice, peace and truth throughout the land (or World: the Arabic word "الأرض", pronounced al-ardh, does not necessarily refer to the World, but from its basic meaning, 'land', could mean one country or even just a region.)
• Jesus defeats the Deceiving Messiah or Antichrist, known as al-Masih ad-Dajjal, and then destroy the crucifix and kill the pig (destroying the symbols of prodigality).
• Once the Deceiving Messiah is defeated, Jesus and the Mahdi live on Earth to live out their natural life
• The Mahdi will correct the false or corrupted practices in Islam and through him all Muslims will agree and come together. Jesus will likewise correct false practices done in his name (i.e. Christianity).
• Some scholars also established Jesus would be praying behind the Mahdi.
• Before his coming, a third of the world will die in a war, another third will die in famine and sickness caused by this great war and only a third will survive.

Shi'a sources

• He was born in Samarra in the year 255 AH at the dawn of 15th Shaban.
• Upon his emergence, the young among his followers, without any prior appointment, reach Mecca that very night
• Each of his soldiers has the power of forty strong men
• Sinful opposers call their own followers to fight
• A large number of non-believers will revert to Islam once they see that the signs in the reports have occurred

Battles of the Mahdi 1. The Mahdi will be a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. It is said he will have appearance and clothes like the Bani-Israel (Children of Israel) but will have the complexion of an Arab. He will be from the Hejaz region.

2. His army will come from the East of Arabia in the lands of Ancient Khurasan with black flags.

3. Muslims from the East from the family of Prophet Ishaq (Isaq) will unite under him.(The Muslims from the Lost Tribes of Israel will be his main followers as Ishaq is father of Israel)

4. Will come under attack from Iraq, Syria, and Rome.

5. The attackers will be swallowed in the desert in the land between Mecca and Medina.

6. The gates of Constantinople will open and the land will surrender to him by his army of seventy thousand people from the Bani Ishaq (i.e Children of Prophet Ishaq )

7. Will establish a just rule in the land of Israel and will give wealth away freely without counting it.

New Additions

The Brief Discourse on the Portents of the Awaited Mahdi and The Rose Fragrance Concerning the Reports on al-Mahdi? These are scholarly works? Has anyone got any books by scholars from the past thirty years dealing with this subject? Quoting hadith and 1100-year old philosophers may be fine for islamqa.com, but that's not encyclopedic. Elijahmeeks 17:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge Hadith about the Mahdi

I agree. There's nothing notable about the hadith themselves and should be merged into the Mahdi article appropriately. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 15:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sunni sources about Mahdi

I found some information in islamonline.net-an authentic Sunni source- which describes the Sunni's viewpoint about Mahdi:What Islam Says About the Mahdi, Authenticity of Hadiths Pertaining to Al-Mahdi , Antichrist and the Second Coming of Jesus, The Appearance of Mahdi, Is it true that imam Mahdi is already born, Who is the "Mahdi"--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Quran or Hadith?

Can someone confirm if the Mahdi is mentioned only in the Hadiths, or is he also specified in the Quran? If so where? mpa

The word Mahdi does not occur in the Qur'an, though the related participle Muhtadin does... AnonMoos 21:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I'm having a hard time finding it in Hadith either. The same goes for Qa'im. Peter Deer (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization?

I am unfamiliar if the use of capitalization is officially ruled on in wikipedia. For uses such as capitalizing deific nouns and pronouns (Prophet, His, Lord, God, etc.)

On this matter I can't see how it would make it any less accurate from an encyclopedic standpoint, so it would be allowed within the censorship rules, but would it be allowed within the neutrality guidelines?

I personally have no objection either way, despite my personal attitude of respect and reverence towards Prophets, I just noticed that there had been some editing that seemed to indicate that this was disputed. Peter Deer (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Most Well-Known?

On the claims of Muhammad Ahmed being the most well-known claim to the title in the west is there any basis of this or should it be removed on using weasel words?

I'm going to put a 'fact' tag on it for now. Peter Deer (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mahdi (Peace be on him)

Welcome to Wikipedia, user:Wiki-caretaker. We do not carry on discussions regarding content of articles on individual user talk pages, so please don't post to mine with whatever issues you might have with any of my edits. We can carry on content discussions on the article's "Discussion" page if you wish. I'm glad whenever editors take an interest in the Mahdi page, because it's sorely lacking strong content. To answer your question, we have to word things in an encyclopedic way, so phrases like "In actuality" are not acceptable, and neither is "(Peace be upon him)" EVER to be used in an article. These affections are not appropriate here, no matter how compelled we might feel to extol them. I'm sure you understand. The policy for citing sources explains how to properly cite sources. I'm afraid providing eight links to various websites is not how to properly cite sources. I'm not familiar enough with the sentiments you are trying to purvey, or I might be of greater assistance in helping you add this new content. We can surely easily tweek the wording, and cite it correctly to have your new sentiments included. To cite a book ref please refer to the link above for how to add content from verifiable sources. Let's hammer this out here to avoid wasting yours, or anyones time. Baha'i Under the Covenant (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mahdi title

At the beginning of Abbasid era Mahdi is a well known and glorified title. There is an article about the isse:Khurasani revolutionaries and al-Mahdi Title; Culture and Memory in Medieval Islam: Essays in Honour of Wilferd; pp 279-317--Seyyed(t-c) 12:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Shi'a Resources

Most of references in this article belong shi'a beliefs. They cannot proof sunni's doctrine. Anywhere that is claimed anything about sunni's belief must refer to their books. These two branches of Islam are totaly separated.--JackNiki (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Momen is independent of either so is probably exactly what WP is looking for as a source. The citation is WP:V. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I do know the WP rules. I've been participating in an other WP language for two years. The matter is the controversy of religions. Just people of a specific religion can claim something about their own religion. In this case, that Shi'a reference cannot claim anything about Sunni's beliefs.(JackNiki/Becuse Login Problem)--85.9.117.136 (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not always easy, but it's best to approach matters such as this with a broad objective view. As MARussell has already noted, the content you're removing comes from a verifiable source, Mr. Momem, who's not a Shi'a or Sunni, so the objections you're raising are benign. Moreover there's no Wiki policy or guideline to the affect that "Just people of a specific religion can claim something about their own religion". That's not how things work on any Wiki page in any language. In fact, an unbiased source like Momem is preferable in such cases as he doesn't have an agenda, and provides a neutral view. He's a reliable source by all accounts, and it's a lost cause to try and excise him from this article. You are of course welcome to bring forward contributions from your own reliable sources and improve the article, but I'm afraid removing content from noted scholars on subjects they're considered experts upon will not likely be deemed a contribution. Regards. _Disarray^General 06:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanz al-Ummal???

I was just wondering, why is Kanz-al-Ummal mentioned under the topic Sunni sources, without mentioning that this book is heavlily critisised for having weak or no isnad in many of its traditions?

Kanz al-Ummal is a very good (not perfect but near perfect) Urdu translation of the Quran by Aala Hazart Ahmed Raza Bralivi. ChJameel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChJameel (talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge

I propose we merge from this article into Muhammad al-Mahdi. This article is a mess, and even a cursory examination by a non-expert reveals that its sources are misleadingly described at best and quackery at worst. The Muhammad al-Mahdi article is much more serious and addresses this topic in a more scholarly and intelligible manner. If there's anything at all that can be saved from this article, then we can put it into there.Elijahmeeks 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: Mahdi is the promised person which introduced by the prophet. Muhammad al-Mahdi is the 12th Imam of Shi'a and Shi'a believe that he's the Mahdi while don't believe in him. I remove the tag.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove the tag until there has been more input--though it seems to be the general tenor that the merge is not a good idea, let's leave a little more time for others to comment upon it. Elijahmeeks 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Mahdi and Muhammad al-Mahdi are two different things. It should not be combined. Tarikur 04:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree Imam Mehdi and Muhammad al-Mehdi are two different persons. Ch Jameel 26 April 2009. The spelling should Mehdi not Mahdi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChJameel (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mehdi

This topic should be renamed Imam Mehdi because he is a very revered and respected personality. Ch Jameel 26 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChJameel (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Biased section

I removed this material that seemed highly biased. If anyone thinks this is a relevant POV, they could certainly find some sources and reapply it to the article specifically mentioning what groups may hold this view.

IMAM MEHDI

Imam Mehdi Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is the awaited Imam Mehdi. Evidence pertaining the arrival of the awaited Imam Mehdi shall become evident for those willing that are aware of the signs of His arrival and seek to establish a connection. They shall see the signs appear clearer than ever, on the moon, the sun, the holy Hajre Aswad, in the Holy Ka'ba also known as the Black Stone and in various other places.

Imam Mehdi shall come for all of humanity, he shall unite the loving souls by Divine light. There is a large misconception that there will exist a literal differential in physical presence of believers on one side and non believers on the other. Although this is partly true, Who ever shall have Gods Divine light, God's love in their hearts shall be on the side of Imam Mehdi. Those that have no light, those who have darkened their hearts shall be on the side of the Anti-Christ.

This is why whether you're a Muslim, a Christian, follow Judaism, follow Hinduism, Imam Mehdi shall be for everyone. Although His Holines shall have different names in different religions they all link to the SAME Essence no matter what the calling name may be.

Furthermore we should hereby rule out the fact that His Holiness is only here to save the Muslims. The Messiah is here to save the Jewish people, Kalki Avatar is here to save the Hindu people. Now to link this with uniting all humanity how shall His Holines unite everyone when they are seperated in sects and religions? What this means is that whichever religion one practices they may keep to their rituals as they are the religion of the body, Imam Mehdi is here to teach us the religon of the soul.

The soul will be what shall gain you eternal life, in the hereafter, as all religions will agree on this fact. When the soul wasn't sent down to Earth it worshipped God and belonged in the company of God. After being sent to the materialistic world, the souls re0directed their aim of worshipping God instead their mis interpretations of holy scripture lead them to indulge in bodily religions. When one is born they are born into a religion of the world. This is why as soon as we're born we inherit the religion of our parents and our families. Food for thought: What religion were we before we were born, and what religion will we become when Imam Mehdi arrives in this world?

Therefore in the light of the above it is highly essential that one does research and acquires in depth knowledge before one can claim and accuse. Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is the awaited Imam Mehdi. Everyone is warmly welcomed to take on this challenge and evaluate which group of souls they might belong to.

It doesn't look very credible to me personally. --TrippingTroubadour 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Imam Mehdi Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (Aliahi Salam) is the awaited Imam Mehdi. There are more than 2 or 3 million followers of Imam Gohar Shahi. I am also one of them. --ChJameel (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Islamic sects not accepting mahdi

Please cite a reliable source which affirms the view that all muslims do not accept the arrival of the Mahdi. More specifically, a source to show which muslims do not believe in the Mahdi. Thanks. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Qur'an alone Muslims only accept what appears in the Qu'ran, and since the Mahdi is never mentioned in the Qu'ran, they don't accept it. There's also a source in the article, if this doesn't satisfy you, quite clearly labeled as critical of the existence of the Mahdi. Finally, and this is not sourceable, but every Muslim I know here in California thinks the Mahdi is "Some kind of Shia thing". I'd actually take issue with the 'Most Muslims believe in the Mahdi' claim within the article, but I've found that arguments in these little Islam articles can grow quite fierce, so I just try to maintain as much NPOV as possible. Elijahmeeks 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a reliable scholarly source to show which sect(s) do not accept the coming of the Mahdi. We cannot add our personal views or experiences into the article as that is plainly original research. I've added cn tags to the statement that need sourcing (using ref tags) as I couldn't see which source validates this. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, that's why I haven't added anything. All I've tried to do is keep people from removing things. However, the Ahle Qu'ran statement is pretty clear, there's no OR or RS issues. I think the ref-tags are good, that should get people looking. Elijahmeeks 00:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Ahle-Quran statement is not sufficient to meet the needs of RS & V and for it not to be OR. As it is an issue of contention (evidenced by the multiple reverts), this view must be sourced in this article to a reliable scholarly source. The cn tags are there to give yourself and other editors a chance to source it (while avoiding an edit war) since looking at the references in the article, the opposite case can easily be sourced and added. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 07:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think this article (As with most of these cottage Islam articles) is in desperate need of scholarly sources. Most of them rely on websites of nebulous authority or strange books that no university press would touch. Elijahmeeks 05:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a Muslim and many of the people I know who are sunni don't accept Mahdi. I believe the concept of Mahdi was originally from Shite doctine, which some Sunnis later adopted. Most of the people I know believe in second coming of Prophet Jesus and Dajjal not Mahdi or doubtful about Mahdi. Tarikur 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That is original research. If you can find reliable sources, then the claim can be made. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 06:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What you mean find reliable source? This is a personal belief system. There are are many Sunni that don't accept Mahdi since Quran or any reliable hardcore Hadiths don't mentions Mahdi. For example, look at this site. This Islamic scholar don't accept Mahdi. [4]. And look at this site [5], it says "In Sunni Islam, the "Mahdi" is just one of several important figures, while the "Mahdi" of Shi'i Islam has a real eschatological importance, and is in the future the most important figure for Islam as well as the world." Tarikur 04:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Reliable source as in a notable scholar who makes/supports this claim. Personal views cannot be used in articles as that is prohibitied by the policy on no original research. That's just the way Wikipedia works. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 07:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Can Elijah and Takirah please mention the names of the sects besides Ahle-Quran (or Quran-Alone) who do not believe in Mahdi. I am a sunni Muslim myself and have spent 2+ years in a religious school and was amazed to see how misrepresentative of sunni school of thought this article is. Hanafi sect in Sunnis believes in Mahdi. Sha'afi beleive Hambali believe Ma'aliki believe Deobandi believe Barelvi believe Ahle-hadith (wahabi & salafi) believe

To date, I cannot find a single sect apart from Ahle-Quran which do not believe in Mahdi. Secondly, it claims the consensus of sunni Ulema do not believe in Mahdi. Firstly, the Ahle-Quran people came into existence sometime in the late 1800s, more than 1000 years after Quran came. During these 1000 years, can you name just 10 notable Sunni scholars who did not believe in Mahdi. Even Imam Bukhari, who collected Sahih Bukhari, never said he doesn't believe in Imam Mahdi.

Then, even nowadays, you can find well-known Lebanese publishers who publish CDs that have collections of 1000+ Hadith books (and Sahih Bukhari is just one of them). And it is a well-known fact that it's not necessary for a hadith to be present in all these books to be valid. A Hadith present in Sunan Tirmizi and Ibn-e-Majah but missing in Bukhari or Sahih Muslim is acceptable near all Muslim scholars who believe in Hadith. The article's repetitive mention that sunnis dispute about him because he is not mentioned in Quran or Sahih Bukhari is ONLY representative of the Ahle-Quran. Otherwise, can you show me a single sect that believes in Sahih Bukhari only and rejects all other books of Hadith.

Even the Wikipedia article on Sunnis says: "Most Sunni accept the hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim as the most authentic (sahih, or correct), and grant a lesser status to the collections of other recorders. There are, however, four other collections of hadith that are also held in particular reverence by Sunni Muslims, making a total of six." "There are also other collections of hadith which, although less well-known, are still thought to contain many authentic hadith and are frequently used by specialists. Examples of these collections"

And there is a list of 12 well-known Hadith books. So Sunni scholars accept Hadith from all these books and more. Do you claim that Mahdi is not mentioned in any of these books? Then, if you see the wikipedia Map on Sunni-Shia demographics, you will see that Sunnis live mostly in Africa and Asia. So your claim that that you asked people around California and they agree with your viewpoint on the Mahdi dispute is not enough even if Wikipedia allowed original research.

In the light of this whole discussion, I claim that you enter the names of the specific sects into the article which do not believe in Mahdi, rather than saying most sunnis don't believe in him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.169.24 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

-Majority of Sunni Muslims believe in Imam Mehdi and that Islam is the only true religion and one day after the second coming of Imam Mehdi all the world will embrace Islam. Those who dont are just a handfull. --ChJameel (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Kalki Avatar of Hindus

"Lord Vishnu took an Avatar as Krishna during the Dwapara Yuga as Krishna/Balram, and as Ram/lakshman in Satya Yuga, where the lord is to take an Avatr as Kalki in the Kali yuga"

The above is reproduce from

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewlite.php?t=2812 --ChJameel (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I searched for "kalki" in google and got many sites, some are reproduced here

http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Books/books16.htm

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewlite.php?t=2812

http://www.expressindia.com/news/messages.php?newsid=30394&from=40

--ChJameel (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote about Kalki Avatar of Hindus was removed by AA saying (was this meant for talk?)

Therfore I reinserted it with the comments below

This was not meant for the talk page. It shows traditions in even Non_Abrahamic religions about Imam Mehdi —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChJameel (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ChJameel, I would refer you to the policies on original research and Verifiability. Please read those and feel free to add the information back once you can cite a reliable source. → AA ^(talk) — 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChJameel (talk • contribs) 18:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a reliable source? --ChJameel (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source ("Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles."). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for an understanding of what can be classified as a reliable source. → AA ^(talk) — 22:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

features of al-Mahdi

I think it would be nice if someone knowledgable quote books of hadith for this and possibly references to hadith books online (or, is there wikisource Bukhari at least?) 18:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  There are certainly hadith books online, 
  even in english translation (see the USC 
  collection in hadith, but as we mentioned 
  in the article, the Mahdi doesn't appear in 
  Bukhari or Muslim, only in the later collections--jackbrown

Do you think the present Sunnis are the real Muslims ??? No they also belivers of non declared false Mahdis that’s why sunnies devided into many sects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.173.32.171 (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Mahdi Menstioned in Quran and Hadith

Mahdi is the Title "The Guided One" but his name is Mohammed, the name Mohammed is found in the Quran as well as Hadith, this opens new doors for thought, an article with regards to the Ark of the Covenant and the Imam Mahdi Prophecy by Al-Faarooq can be found on site.

Reference: United Muslim Nations International —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.104 (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So just like We find name Muhammad in Quran, we find the name of other Prophets aswell. Why don't we start believing in many other personalities with the name Jesus or Mosis?. Do you mean to say that Qura'n did'nt mean specific and clear? Is this the Kitaab e Mobeem in your view when you say Quran could have described Mahdi with the Name Muhammad??? People like you have distorted Quran's image by digging out whatevr you want from it... May Allah guide us all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.70.216 (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mehdi A.S. At QURAN

1. Group Verse:

33 / AL AHZÂB 40: Muhammed (PBUH) is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last (Seal) of the Nabis (Prophets); and Allah is All-Knower of all things.

Allah Almighty says that our Prophet (PBUH) is the last Prophet, but He does not say that he is the last Messenger.

3 / AL- `IMRAN 81: (Remember) It was when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "Verily I give you a Book and Divine Wisdom. When a Messenger comes to you, confirming what is with you (the Books that Allah sent you), you believe in him and render him help." Allah said: "Do you agree, and take this My Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses."

33 / AL AHZAP 7: And remember We took from the prophets their covenant, as (We did) from you: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant.Allah Almighty, by taking a covenant from the Prophets who are given Books, says: “When a Resul (Messenger) who follows the Books of Divine Law that Allah has given you, come, you will definitely have faith in him and help him. Have you acknowledged this and taken my solemn covenant on yourselves?”

Upon the answer “We acknowledged,” Allah says: “Then bear witness! I am one of the witnesses together with you.”

According to Surah Ahzab-7, our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the seal of the Prophets (the last of the Prophets) is also among the Prophets from whom the Covenant is taken.

So this Resul (Messenger) who will come after all of the Prophets cannot be Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

It becomes definite that this Resul (Messenger) is the Imam of the Age, Walee Resul Mahdi who will come after our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in an age close to Doomsday.

2. Group verse :

44 / AD-DUKHÂN 10: Then watch for the day that the sky will bring forth a kind of smoke (or mist) plainly visible.

44 / AD-DUKHÂN 11: It is such a smoke that it will surrender the people. This is a Grievous Chastisement.

44 / AD-DUKHÂN 12: They will say: ‘Our Lord, remove this torment from us for we are MUMIN."

44 / AD-DUKHÂN 13: They do not derive a lesson (reminder). Verily, there has come to them a Messenger evidently.

44 / AD-DUKHÂN 14: Then, they turned away, and said, "He is a trained insane person."

“Dukhan” is a mischief that surrounds the whole world today. Since more than 90% of all human beings do not wish to reach Allah, and they are divided into groups within the religion, they have fallen into shirk and do not live the one and only religion of Allah, which is “The Religion of Submission.”

Those who get divided into parties within religion are those who do not wish to reach Allah. They have forgotten ‘wishing to reach Allah.’ This smoke (Dukhan) is a torment surrounding the whole world. “Take this torment away from us,” they pray. “Because we are the MUMIN,” they say.But these people (of today) are not MUMIN because they do not wish to reach Allah. They think believing in Allah suffices to make them MUMIN.

3. group Verse :

25 / AL-FURQÂN 27: The day that the unjust (oppressor) will bite at his two hands, he will say, "Oh! Would that I had taken the path (leading to Allah) with that Messenger.

25 / AL-FURQÂN 28: "Ah! woe to me! Would that I had never taken so-and-so as a friend!

25 / AL-FURQÂN 29: "He indeed led me astray from the DHIKR (remembering and repeating the name of Allah), after the Quran had come to me! Ah! Satan is a deserter to man!"

25 / AL-FURQÂN 30: And the Messenger said: "O my Lord! My people (tribe) deserted this Qur'an.”

The Messenger says, “My nation has abandoned the Qur’an.” Which Messenger? It cannot be our Prophet (PBUH), because at that time the disciples of the Prophet (PBUH) had faith in the whole Qur’an.

3 / AL- `IMRAN 119: O you who are Amenu (who wish to reach Allah in this life)! You are such people that you love them although they do not love you, and you believe in the whole of the Book. When they meet you, they say, "We believe", but when they are alone, they bite off the very tips of their fingers at you in their rage. Say: "Perish in your rage; Allah knows well all the secrets of the heart."

This Messenger is the Messenger of today, who hundreds of times and by all means explained that the wrong teachings of the scholars in his nation are rooted in their abandonment of the Qur’an. This is because the curricula of our universities are not based on the Qur’an but on the Books written over the centuries.

The fundamentals of the Qur’an that convey to mankind the happiness of Heaven and of this world, the 7 phases and 28 steps and 4 submissions of Islam (although proven by Verses in the Qur’an that it has been lived by the disciples of the Prophets (PBUH)) are not being taught anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.227.121.139 (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Please review the policy on original research. Citing verses from the Qur'an and saying it means "such and such" is not acceptable as it is a primary source. Interpretation of the verses has to come from a notable scholar/secondary source. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added to the article:

Javed ahmed ghamidi says in his book Almeezan: "Besides these, the advent of Mahdi and that of Jesus (sws) from the heavens are also regarded as signs for the Day of Judgement. I have not mentioned them. The reason is that the narratives of the advent of Mahdi do not conform to the standards of Hadith criticism set forth by the muhaddithun. Some of them are weak and some fabricated; no doubt, some narratives, which are acceptable with regard to their chain of narration, inform us of the coming of a generous caliph;[4](Muslim, No: 7318). however, if they are deeply deliberated upon, it becomes evident that the caliph they refer to is ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz who was the last caliph of the early history of the Muslims. This prediction of the Prophet (sws) has thus materialized in his personality word for word. One does not need to wait for any other Mahdi now". ( http://www.al-mawrid.org/pages/articles_english_detail.php?rid=455&cid=263&search=mahdi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.70.216 (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The subtle differences in the words Mahdi and Mehdi

It has come to my attention that the words Mahdi and Mehdi are confused with each other. However, I understand that "Mehdi" is a Persian word, which is in association with the word "Mehnaz". I may be wrong, but does the word "Mehdi" not mean "the One of the Moon", or something along these lines? If this is true, I think we need to find out if historical evidence states whether we await a "Mehdi" or a "Mahdi". Thanks! (96.48.245.146 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

They're the same thing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'd have to agree with 96.48.245.146. Through extensive research regarding this matter, I've come to an conclusion (in the light of A'hadith (Prophetic Traditions), the Qur'an & Persian Grammar), the words 'Mahdi' & 'Mehdi' are two different words, though addressed for one "Messianic" phenomenon.

'Mahdi' means 'The Guided One', however 'Mehdi' means 'The One of/? the Moon' (The Easiest Translation I could find), which I suppose the above user may have done. According to reputable scholars and believed saints of Islam, the word 'Mehdi' refers the image of the Mahdi that'd appear on the Moon at the time of his advent. i.e. Imam Ja'far As'adiq (a famous Imam from the lineage of the Prophet Mohammad [saw]) said, "The Image of the Mehdi shall shine on the Moon", which is added in the main article Mahdi. This is quoted from a famous book 'Al-Ghaybah - The Occultation', which includes many references and sayings of different Imams and scholars regarding the Advent of the Mahdi. The meaning of 'Mehdi' & 'Mahdi' is also quoted in a book written by a Pakistani Religious Leader, Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, 'Deen-e-Ilahi - The Religion of God'. --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  03:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Universal Muslim Views (On Imam Mahdi/Mehdi)

I've added this section to the article, to which I'll be adding sayings of Imams, scholars, saints of Islam, regarding the advent of Imam Mahdi/Mehdi (as). I've added two to the section as yet, which were already present in the article, of Imam Ja'afar As'adiq (ra).

The aim behind this is to propose prophecies by all those who may have prophesied, and are acceptable by more than one/or all sects of Islam. --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  03:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll just add them to the section above. --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  03:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Question About Islamic beliefs

According to this article, it says muslims believe Jesus is God's savior. I was under the immpresion this was the Christian doctrine and that Muslims beleve he is only a phrophet of God, and the messiah has not yet appeared. I'm not a religious scholar, though, so ill refrain from editing this.

---

There is only one Messiah in the Quran.

Quran 3:45 PICKTHAL: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

---

It should be noted that, in other sections here and, in Islam in general, there is a huge debate about the supposed inadequacies of the the Picthal translation. Many muslims I know seem to find it is too much like the translators are trying to unify the christian Bible with the Quran rather than give an accurate translation. All in all I'd say that Picthal is in dispute and you'll have to verify it with other translations.

Jesus (`Isa) is masih مسيح in Islamic terminology, but Islamic "masih" does not have all the same meanings as English "Messiah". AnonMoos 21:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Qur'ān 3:45: "Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah." - Yusuf Ali translation

I personally find the translation here annoying. Since Abdullah Yusuf Ali died in 1953 there was no reason for him to translate the Qur'an into English with the language of King James -- except to make it "sound" more scriptural. This was the same annoying nonsense employed by the Mormon founder Joseph Smith. Danwaggoner (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the word used for masih مسيح in the translation is 'Christ'. Ojii-san 11:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Non Arabic speaking Muslims are encouraged to read as many different translations of the Quran as possible, this is because it is accepted by every Muslim I ever spoke to that The Quran CANNOT be translated 100% correctly. This is confirmed by arabic and english speaking Muslims. I looked at three different translations of Qur'an 3:45 and there all the same. Although it must be said that the pickthall translation is considered one of the worst translations. The archaic language of the translations is not trying to sound scriptual it is a more accurate rendering of the arabic. Again this is confirmed by arabic/english speakers. also if you consider that that is the way people spoke back then, thee, thou, hither, thither, the archaic language make more sense to the modern mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.67.72 (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Messiah

I know the Mahdi will be the messiah in the general "redeemer" sense, but THE Messiah was Jesus according to the Qur'an. Christians think that Muslims think that he wasn't, and they're wrong. So avoid the confusion and don't use the word messiah in the opening line. Cunado19 00:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Isnt the current context specifiying "in the redeemer sense"? If we dont have it there we should have it later on in the article. freestylefrappe 01:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Which current context? I just changed the opening paragraph to take out the word "messiah". I tried to keep the messiah meaning but without using the word. I agree later in the article is fine. I was just making a big deal about the opening part cause a lot of people won't read past that. Cunado19 04:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

In Islamic terminology, Jesus is called masih مسيح , but Islamic "masih" does not have all the same meanings as English "Messiah", so the word "messiah" should probably be avoided in most contexts of discussing Islam... AnonMoos 21:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well the dictionary will have two meanings, one is THE Messiah of the Jews, and the other is...

• any expected deliverer
• a professed or accepted leader of some hope or cause
• One who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a savior or liberator.

So in Islam, Jesus is regarded as THE Messiah of the Jews, Moses was a Messiah-figure of the Hebrews, Jesus is again the Messiah of the Christians (second coming), and at the same time the Mahdi is the Messiah of Islam, so it's not wrong to call him that. But it gives the impression that Jesus wasn't the Messiah of the Jews, because Christians have lost the other meaning of the word. Why are we arguing? The article is fine right now. It's also covered on the Messiah page. Cuñado - Talk 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

In Biblical Hebrew, mashiaH meant "annointed one" and referred to some kings and priests. In Christianity and post-Biblical Judaism, "messiah" has very highly specific meanings, which mean that the word shouldn't normally be used as in a vaguely generic way in the discussion of non-Jewish and non-Christian religions -- and especially not in the discussion of Islam, where there is likely to be confusion between the different meanings of Arabic masiiH and English "messiah". AnonMoos 04:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Cuñado - Talk

Anonmoos is completely wrong The messiah(annointed one) whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim refers to Jesus ( Isa in arabic )and never the Mahdi who will fight AL masih ad dajjal(false messiah) until Jesus/Isa comes to kill him an event yet to take place and preceded by certain signs which clearly invalidate all previous claims of people to be either jesus/isa or the mahdi(the rightly guided) One of those signs is the sea of Galilee will dry up so we have some time to go yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.67.72 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian belief?

I for one would like to remove the link which leads to Jerry Robinson's article on the Mahdi. He only speaks for right-wing, radicalist American Christians, and therefore his view cannot be defined as the sole Christian perception of Mahdi prophecy. Unless we can find any other Christian viewpoints from numerous other Christian demoninations (including Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy etc) I will delete the link myself, or at the very least have the page reported. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia after all, not somewhere for lunatic fringes to promote their ideologies. Iwan Berry 17:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The link should remain. It is not a lunatic fringe. If necessary add a description that it is a view of Christians who hold a futurist echatological view. ^rossnixon 22:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is hate speech designed specifically to inflame the passions of religious extremists. The interpretation has absolutely no basis in traditional Christian belief, but instead exemplifies very recent refiguring of scripture, which (as can be seen from the absurd Bible code exegesis hoax) can be twisted and misrepresented to apparently refer to anyone or anything the speaker would like to denigrate. Keep this POV nonsense in the relevant articles, please. — JEREMY 00:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Not hate speech. It reflects dispensationalism as taught by Darby and many evangelical groups since 1827. I do not agree with Bible Codes. ^rossnixon 10:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Reflects" sounds more than a little weasel-wordish to me. Identification of Revelation's characters with figures from Islamic eschatology is a recent phenomenon with little support and no traditional basis. You repeated insistence on linking to this ignorant, valueless material amounts to a political statement, equivalent to repetitively cross-linking George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler, and could be interpreted as deliberate vandalism. Wikipedia is designed to promote understanding, not hatemongering fanaticism. — JEREMY 11:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the identification is a recent phenomenon. But this is due to recent statements by shia leaders (eg the 7 years rule) that makes the match-up more convincing. I agree that this is a minority Christian view; and that we need a major Christian view added to balance it. But this does not mean we need to remove minor views entirely. Wikipedia is for all' relevant information; not just censored, sanitized, politically-correct ones. ^rossnixon 20:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"[M]ake the match-up more convincing" sounds like propaganda, not belief. There is no need for any Christian viewpoints in an article on an obscure mythological figure in Islam unless those viewpoints are held by other than a tiny minority, and a body of analysis exists within the Christian tradition (rather than merely the farcical conspiracy-theory eschatology of individuals with no academic or journalistic credibility whatsoever, and an openly biased agenda antithetic to the subject matter). There is no censorship or "political correctness" involved here: Wikipedia is indeed for all relevant information; it's just that the link you would like to add is entirely irrelevant. — JEREMY 03:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I will see if I can find a more scholarly link. Mahdi enthusiasts should be allowed to know how closely their expected leader matches the antichrist in a Christian view. This view was popularised by Hal Lindsay in about 1970; and I expect is the view of Southern Baptists, Pentecostalists, Brethren and many other groups. ^rossnixon 09:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion Mulla Umar leader of Taliban is the one eyed Dajjal(anti Christ) that cannot be killed by US army no matter how hard it trys because Allah has written in Loh-e-Mahfuz that Dajjal Mulla Umar can only be killed by Jesus Christ himself. --ChJameel (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

wow what a facinating debate. there is a meeting in the future of judaism, christianity and islam in the persons of jesus/isa, the mahdi, and the antichrist/dajjal. In islamic tradition the antichrist will rule the world from jerusalem and fight the mahdi until jesus comes and kills him( Sheik imran hosien) RE: jerusalem in the quran http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f18/free-e-book-jerusalem-quran-sheikh-imran-42139/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.67.72 (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible vandalism in portents section

I don't profess to be an editor, but that second list of portents is extremely dubious. Examples include "Music will emanate from the pockets in peoples clothing." and "People will hold devices on the glass surface of which they will be able to see and talk to people far away." I would just fix it myself, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Festus Mcracken 23:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC) And there isn't a single proper reference/citation in this entire section, or in some other parts of this article.Costesseyboy (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it a few days ago, but that was undone by an IP. So I'm leaving a message here before I attempt to remove it again tomorrow, once again in case I'm stepping on toes. I don't really have an interest in Islam or this article, but that stuff was pretty obvious as vandalism Festus Mcracken 03:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festus Mcracken (talk • contribs)

The book "Nawaib Dahoor Alaim Zuhoor" has no other reference on the WWW other than citations to Wikipedia. I call vandalism on all portents other than the natural ones and that the book “Nawaib Dahoor Alaim Zuhoor" is bogus. ::cybergrunt:: (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Haile Selassie - no!

I hope you can take the passage about Ethiopia's late emperor Haile Selassie away. Selassie never claimed to be Mahdi, and Selassie had no direct lineage to The Prophet. This is the one of the worst pious fraud I have seen or heard about. --Caspiax (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it. It's unsourced and, absent a source, it seems highly unlikely and perhaps even a hoax. He was an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian. The only point of discussion, in reliable sources, about "divine status" relates to whether he accepted he was the rastafarian messiah. See Haile Selassie I#Question of his divinity. But that's a long way from the Islamic Mahdi. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

what is meaning of "alaf lam mim"

what is meaning of "alaf lam mim" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.56.67 (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It is unknown--79.69.111.105 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Section of Twelver View in the wrong place

There was a section on the Twelver Shi'ite View of The Mahdi in an inappropriate section: "In Shia Islam, the Mahdi is believed to be the Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, whose return from occultation will be the return of the Mahdi.

I moved it to the Twelver Section, unfourtunately I believe can safely be removed as it seems to be redundant, not doing it because there is reference attached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.78.203 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

There are claims that Sathya Sai Baba is Mahdi. It is said that: - He will return with a rejuvenated body, and rule for 7 years. - His "death" in 2011 is only the beginning of a period of 2 or 3 years - the occultation. - Soon he will be back to resume and complete his mission. Detailed info at http://www.saikingdom.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.106.179.57 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Mahdi as an entity

There's been a lot going on with the Mahdi lately....I don't know. But as a Veteran, I'm formely adding Muqtada al-Sadr to the persona. Also erased two "citation needed", one in Portent as it was ambiguous and the other in a religious POV. This page is ready!208.87.232.180 (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign in....Wnicholas70 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You've been reverted by two of us now. Please resect WP:BRD. Firstly, there is no evidence that Muqtada al-Sadr (or his supporters) claim he is the Mahdi. If you have relible sources that say otherwise, please produce them. Otherwise your edits are a breach of WP:BLP. Mahdi army is not named for him. Secondly, "citation needed" can never be ambiguous or POV. Do not remove it until citations are provided. DeCausa (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Lawyers from London or Colorblind

Obviously y'all can handle this yourselves....I'm not good for citing...(thoughts of a Veteran)Wnicholas70 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WHAT NOW?

What now?Wnicholas70 (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondly

I'm already having problems with Brits being slow.SLOW. Anyway....http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/02/iraqi-cleric-sadr-announces-retirement-20142167325224542.html If your colorblind this may help, as well as looking into the Promise day Brigades Mr. Cottes

Your post doesn't make sense. I'll try to be as clear as I can. We have special rules about living people. They are set out here: WP:BLP. This says that we have to cite sources if we claim something about a living person. By putting Muqtadr al-Sadr's name in a list of people who claim to be Mahdi you need to cite a reliable source that says he claims to be Mahdi. The al Jazeeri link you posted above does not say that. Do you understand what I have written? DeCausa (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you people keep calling Mahdi, Imam Mahdi? I speak Arabic...

Don't mess with the local consensus as your 2 reverts ARE out-of-date....and yes I see that this makes 19 Mahdi's.

You are not making any sense again. What local consensus? DeCausa (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Mahdi in Sunni Islam

This section seems to have incoorect info. Shia muslims also believe that Isa (Jesus) will arrive to Mahdi and that Isa will pray behind him. THe difference between Shia and Sunni beliefs is only that the Shia believe he was been alive and hidden (in occultation) for 8 centuries (not 100) and that he is eleven generations down from the prophet - i.e, he is the twelfth Imam for the Twelver Shi'as. Not sure what other Shia branches believe (ismailis for example) but this is the belief of the twelvers. Also "According to Sunnis the Mahdi who the Shiites are waiting for, does not and did not exist. The Muslims on both sides have faced numerous hardships and calamities because of this belief that the Shiites carry and propagate regarding Mahdi." Doesn't sound very NPOV to me. I've edited the page.

--89.240.227.58 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is extremely misleading in presenting the Mahdi as a shared Sunni and Shia tradition. The topic of Mahdi does not factor significantly into traditional Sunni Islam. It isn't mentioned in the Qu'ran and to barely note that Ahle-Qu'ran denies the whole thing belies the fact this is, fundamentally, a Shia belief. Of course, this page needs more work than just in this area, but this is the most misleading to the lay observer. Elijahmeeks 07:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest dividing the Mahdi topic as there are profound differences in the view of Mahdi between Shia and Sunni doctrines. At the moment the Mahdi entry is a total mess. There should be a Mahdi entry with Sunni view and a Mahdi entry with Shia view. Anyways, this split is urgently needed imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.105.192 (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a narration to the section of 'Mhadi in sunni Islam" but it was reverted by Edward321. Why was it reverted? this is the authenticated hadith:

Even if the entire duration of the world’s existence has already been exhausted and only one day is left before Doomsday, Allah will expand that day to such length of time as to accommodate the kingdom of a person from my Ahlul-Bayt who will be called by my name. He will fill out the earth with peace and justice as it will have been full of injustice and tyranny (by then).

Mhhossein (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Section on Mahdi Doctrine unique to Shia view....

This particular section seems to have many issues.

• "Imam Mahdi is better than the word of Allah and spirit of Allah Jesus Christ the Messiah (1)"

This line seems to imply that according to Shia beliefs the Mahdi's words are better than the word of Allah. The dubious citation subsequently given below (even if we assume if it is true) does not imply any such thing. The only claim the citation makes is that Jesus will pray behind the Mahdi as. (again assuming this citation is actually verifiable)

• "Imam Mahdi will come and dig up the grave area of Muhammad and give life to Abu Bakr (1st and 2nd Khlifa respectively) and torture crucify and kill them (2)"

The citation for this statement is given from a book with the assumption that the book is a Shia book. This book is not referred to by any other well known Shia sources and thus its authenticity as a reliable source on Shia beliefs is very much in question. The statement quoted here is an extremely strong statement and without proper citations and sources should not be part of this article.

• "Imam Mahdi will bring with him the true version of quran (5)"

Again an extremely strong statement with a very dubious citation. In fact this statement is contradictory to Wikipedia's own article of the Shia view of Quran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_view_of_the_Qur%27an.

• The fundamental problem with this section is that it claims to list beliefs of the Shia around the Mahdi that are unique to them but surprisingly enough none of the statements or claims can be found in reliable Shia sources. You would think if these beliefs were common Shia beliefs they would be found very easily in Shia sources. AlIslam.org (http://www.al-islam.org/) a popular online Shia source has a large set of articles and books on the Mahdi none of which support any of the claims made in this section.

• I feel this section falls below the standards that Wikipedia has set and should be removed until the contents of this section are verifiable. Otherwise it is just hearsay.

My proposal is to remove this section from the article until such time as the author of this section can cite reliable and verifiable sources for the claims made.

Yousuf.haider (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Add to this the following paragraph in the Sunni section which actually describes a Shiah POV:

The Kaysāniya extended two other notions that became thoroughly related with the belief in the Mahdi. The first was the notion of return of the dead, particularly of the Imams. The second was the indication of occultation. “When Moḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiya died in 700, the Kaysāniya maintained that he was in occultation in the Raẓwā mountains west of Medina, and would one day return as the Mahdi and the Qāʾem.”[6] The appearance of the Prophet was also proposed unto the Mahdi. “An enormously influential tradition attributed to ʿAbd-Allāh b. Masʿud has Moḥammad predicting the coming of a Mahdi coined in his own image: ‘His name will be my name, and his father’s name my father’s name’” [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.110.25 (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay

People keep vandalizing god for some reason...does anyone know what The Time of Imam Mahdi is? Maybe that should be moved to Book of Fatima?Wnicholas70 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

---

who told that imam mahdi's world will become better than allah(god)'s word?

this sentence wrong.god will viwe to the people's world bye mahdi , the best state that world can be in.and all mind will jump in new level.now u can reach this but some barriers make friction.he wil remove them and he will kill devil(the king of angel which driven from god).

u know that he told in years ago to some one that my shia(means follower in arabic) don't want me even like drinking water.(i dont know u can get it it's term i our language) that's means he is aidless he have just god.

---

Mohammadsdtmnd (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:Smhhalataei

This user is adding honorifics (AS) contrary to MOS:ISLAM as well as adding interpretation based on a primary source (hadith) in contravention of WP:PRIMARY. Please respect WP:BRD and agree your edits here before reverting again. Continue to revert and you are likely to be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits by User:Illuminator123

Please don't edit war andcexplain your edits here instead. You seem to have an objection to a source because the author is Bahai. The religion of the author isn't of itself grounds for saying it is not relable. Please read WP:RS. DeCausa (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

To DeCausa (talk)

Four changes were made: 1-"Shi'ism" was changed to "Shia Islam" to bring it in conformance with "Sunni Islam" in the title section and the fact that the subsection clearly starts with "In Shia Islam" not "In Shi'ism".

2-The section about "Mahdi" not being mentioned by the Prophet Muhammad was amended by a scriptural source that shows at least 140 hadith's have been uttered by Prophet Muhammad about the Mahdi.

3-The false statement from a Baha'i source in the "Shia section" that "After the Mahdi has ruled Earth for a number of years, Isa will return" was removed because IT WAS FALSE and Shia scripture explicitly state that the Mahdi and Jesus will appear at nearly the same time and will fight the final war alongside each other. This has nothing to do with religion of the author of the source being Baha'i.

4-The false statement attributed to Shia Islam from the Baha'i book was added to the "Baha'i section" because that is where it belongs. If that Baha'i author has an opinion about the Mahdi that goes against the Shia belief, then they should stick it in the Baha'i section not the Shia. They must also provide a scriptural Shia source instead of a reference to Baha'i research book.

That is why I made the changes. Illuminator123 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Edit of "Necessity of Existence of Mahdi" section

The section "Necessity of Existence of Mahdi" is written in a train of thought speculative form that is inappropriate within a reference text such as Wikipedia. The inclusion of external references sources does not preclude the POV which is clearly evident.

For example

In answer it must be said that the protest is based only on the unlikelihood of such an occurrence, not its impossibility. Of course such a long lifetime or a life of a longer period is unlikely. But those who study the hadiths of Prophet Muhammad and the Imams will see that they refer to this life as one possessing miraculous qualities.

And in addition:

Miracles are certainly not impossible nor can they be negated through scientific arguments. It can never be proved that the causes and agents that are functioning in the world are solely those that we see and know and that other causes which we do not know or whose effects and actions we have not seen nor understood do not exist. It is in this way possible that in one or several members of mankind there can be operating certain causes and agents which bestow upon them a very long life of a thousand or several thousand years. Medicine has not even lost hope of discovering a way to achieve very long life spans. In any case such protests from "peoples of the Book" such as Jews, Christians and Muslims are most strange for they accept the miracles of the prophets of God according to their own sacred scriptures

Again these paragraphs presents highly disputable POV without even the possibility of determination.

The two paragraphs listed above are presented as statements of fact without clarification or reference to the their ontological and speculative POV nature.

At the very least I would suggest these two paragraphs are heavily edited or removed. Thoughts?? Slainz (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed them and a lot if additions made by the same user whose aim seems to be to turn the article into a devotional piece. DeCausa (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Amir Arjomand POVs

There are a lot of citations in the text from Said Amir Arjomand books. As a sociologist he has written his own religious POVs in his books about Islam. In the field of religious studies in the East and West, you can't find any reference to his books in any paper. Over the past few months, I have tried to replace Amir Arjomand's POVs with texts from authentic sources particularly those of Mohammad Hossein Tabatabai, who is considered as one of the most prominent scholar of Islam in the 20th century. Surprisingly enough, I hear here and in the view history that Tabatabai's book which servers as a classic textbook in the field is a POV!!!

Please explain it to me why Amir Arjomand's books are not POV and Tabatabai ones are? Should a text sound atheistic to be considered NPOV or should it refer to reliable sources to be considered scientific and authentic ?

What I see in Amir Arjomand books is sole speculation mixed with weak narratives. I consider all of his writings reflected here as POV which are inappropriate for Wikipedia and should be removed.--Smhhalataei (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The source you are using (Tabatabai) is a religious one. It is fine for saying what the religious point of view is but is not a suitable source for the part of the text that deals with the historical development of the concept. DeCausa (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but I would disagree. It's not Bible or Quran, nor is a collection of hadiths. The book I used is a research-based study suited for academia and used in academia. I can't see how you label it as a "religious book" !!!

On the other hand, as I emphasized above, Amir Arjomand's books are not academic at all. The author writes some popular books about Islam but his books, on Islam, are never credited as academic or authentic. It's suitable for people who like to have a reason to dislike the religion and its beliefs. Let's consider his first sentence used in the section of Historical Development:

"There is a lack of evidence for a saviour figure, such as the Mahdi, being part of the teachings of Islam during the life of Muhammad"

It's laughable. Take it to the department of religion in the university of the town you live in, and ask a professor specialized in Islamic studies about it. You'll understand why I say it's funny. There isn't any lack of evidence rather there is a large number of hadiths and narratives from Muhammad where he talks about savior and Mahdi. Some of them are common among all sects of Islam and verified by historians as well. In the book I cited you find several references to historians as well as Sunni and Shia authentic books verifying the same fact.

Let me conclude that Amir Arjomand book is not a historical book suitable for Hisorical Development section rather a POV of a sociologist which is inappropriate here. One the other hand Tabatabai's one is not a religious book, but a well respected, reputable, scientific source suitable for the subject matter here. I hope everyone who wants to reply take some time to study about the books and the authors first to see the points mentioned here without personal biases.Thank you--Smhhalataei (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

All you did in your edit was to remove a historical explanation of the origin of the Mahdi myth and replace it with a summary of hadith i.e. the Shia Muslim view of the Mahdi. You turned the section into a religiously inspired devotional piece. The rest of the article summarizes the hadith - and that's fine, but it is inappropriate in this section. DeCausa (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but this isn't true at all. If Amir Arjomand book, used in the Historical Development section, was a history book written by a historian, I wouldn't replace the text extracted from the book by other text opposing its point of view. But, unfortunately, he is not a historian and his pop-books are not considered historically authentic. Do you understand this simple point ??

If you you have such strong religious (or irreligious) belief that Mahdi is a myth, as you clearly stated it above, then you have to come up with authentic historical sources that back your belief. You can't enforce your belief here to us by reverting our edits that you don't like, just because you don't like them. Think scientifically. Wikipedia is not a place for personal biases. Find an authentic history book that supports your idea and cite it in the text. If you can't find such a thing, then respect the work of others and let them show their evidence.

The text I used cites history books, Sunni sources and Shia sources. As I said it's not a collection of hadith. It's a state of the art research on the subject. Please stop fighting and reverting authentic texts. --Smhhalataei (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A better historical explanation can be found in "Al-Mahdi" in EI2 (1986, vol. 5, pp. 1230-8), including references to early Sunni Hadiths (contrary to what this article claims), which influenced the development of the Mahdi concept in the Umayyad period. It is written by Wilferd Madelung, so expect a through treatment of the Shia view as well. A summary of that article would provide a more balanced take than what we currently have. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 07:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wiqi! So it is better to remove the misleading content for now until one comes up with the summary of Madelung book or other authentic history books on the subject. Smhhalataei (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not the conclusion. If there are additions/amendments that can be made to the current text fromna reliable source, then certainly they could be made - as yet no one has made them. It is not an excuse to delete the whole section because a non-religious analysis diesn't fit your religious POV. I reverted you. DeCausa (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I amended the text several times with a reliable source and you reverted it every single time! What is wrong with you? We can't comply with your dogmatism any more. Who are you to command here ? You have a serious religious belief, without any knowledge, that Mahdi is a myth and keep reverting anything that disagrees with it. With this much of limited knowledge about Islamic believes you are better to leave this group. We can't stand this much of annoyance and ignorance. I amend it for the last time and if you revert it I will report it to a higher level. Smhhalataei (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Smhhalataei:, the Madelung article (and all of Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edition) is available online. It's in volume 5 page 1230 on this link. I added a summary of the first few paragraphs concerning the historical development in early Islam and the Umayyad period, which is more balanced compared to the previous focus on external factors. However, Madelung's is a long article, and I most likely won't be improving the Abbasid and Shia paragraphs (in the next few months at least). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 10:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiqi, good improvements. (Don't expect a response from Smhhalataei - indeffed for socking together with other accounts on this page) DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone

who is Amir Arjomand!? his PPOV can simply destroy by great old evidence. The honest old writer that was near to beginning of Islam inform us about Muhammad viewpoint. The nearest persons to Islam's Prophet (Muhammad) inform people that "what Muhammad said about Mahdi" from Shia and Sunni. some of these information mentioned by Smhhalataei. It is very simple: 1- Mr. Arjomand analyses something and give his idea. but there are many valid information that disaffirm his conclusion. 2- according this law and Jimbo Wales speech, you cant insert an extremely smart minority viewpoint in this article. you can insert this viewpoint in a specific page for this kind of extremely smart minority viewpoint. thnx in advance700ali (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Socks blocked.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The full passage from Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam

I am mentioning here the full passage.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation: " al-Mahdī." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online , 2012. Reference.

"Countering Sunnī criticism, Imāmī apologetics endeavoured to prove that the description of the Mahdī contained in Sunnī ḥadīt̲h̲s applied to the Twelfth Imām and that the longevity of the Mahdī implied in the doctrine of theg̲h̲ayba was not unreasonable in view of revealed data about K̲h̲iḍr, Jesus, and the Dad̲j̲d̲j̲āl, and secular reports about long-lived men (muʿammarūn). Such apologetics gained considerable momentum in the middle of the 7th/13th century when several Sunnī scholars supported the Imāmī belief that the Twelfth Imām was the ExpectedMahdī. In 648/1250-1 the Syrian S̲h̲āfiʿī traditionist Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Gand̲j̲ī al-Ḳuras̲h̲ī, later (658/1260) murdered in Damascus for co-operation with the Mongol conquerors, composed a K. al-Bayān fī ak̲h̲bār ṣāḥib al-zamān in which he proved the Mahdīship of the Twelfth Imām relying solely on Sunnī traditions. In 650/1252 Kamālal-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ṭalḥa al-ʿAdawī al-Niṣībīnī, a S̲h̲āfiʿī scholar and former vizier of the Arṭuḳid al-Malik al-Saʿīd of Mārdīn, completed in Aleppo his Maṭālib al-suʾūl fī manāḳib āl al-rasūl in which he supported the imāmate of the Twelve Imāms and answered Sunnī objections to the belief that the Twelfth Imām was the Mahdī. The Sibṭ Ibn al-D̲j̲awzī, shortly before his death in 654/1256 in Damascus, wrote his Tad̲h̲kirat k̲h̲awāṣṣ al-umma bi-d̲h̲ikr k̲h̲aṣāʾiṣ al-aʾimma assembling reports from Sunnī sources about the virtues of ʿAlī and his descendants, especially the Twelve Imāms, and at the end affirmed that the Twelfth Imām was the Lord of the Time, the Expected Ḳāʾim and Mahdī. In support, he quoted the following ḥadīt̲h̲, terming it well-known (mas̲h̲hūr), “The Messenger of God said, ‘At the end of time, a man of my descendants will come forth whose name is like my name and whose kunya is like my kunya. He will fill the earth with justice as it was filled with injustice. That is the Mahdī’ ”. He thus avoided one of the major Sunnī objections ¶ to the Mahdīship of the Twelfth Imām, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, viz. that the ḥadīt̲h̲ of ʿĀṣim in its expanded form stipulated the identity of the father’s name of the Mahdī with that of the Prophet’s father.Al-Gand̲j̲ī, on the other hand, quoted the testimony of al-Āburī that this stipulation had been added to the ḥadīt̲h̲by the Kūfan transmitter Zāʾida (d. 160-1/777-8). A problem arose also about the Sunnī ḥadīt̲h̲, related by Ibn Ḥanbal and others, “The Prophet said, ‘A community will not peris̲h̲ among whom I am the first, Jesus is the last, and theMahdī is in the middle (fī wasaṭih)’ ”. This implied that Jesus would remain after the Mahdī and there would be noImām before the end of the world, as against a cardinal Imāmī dogma. Al-Gand̲j̲ī therefore interpreted the ḥadīt̲h̲as meaning that Jesus should be the last caller (dāʿī) inviting mankind to accept Islam but would not survive the Mahdī.

Testimony in support of the Mahdīship of the Twelfth Imām by these Sunnī authors, as also of later ones like the Mālikī scholar Ibn al-Ṣabbāg̲h̲ al-Isfāḳusī al-Makkī (d. 855/1451), a Mag̲h̲ribī resident in Mecca, and, more recently, the Ḥanafī Naḳs̲h̲bandī S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Sulaymān b. Ibrāhīm al-Ḳundūzī al-Balk̲h̲ī (d. 1294/1877 in Istanbul), was regularly noted by Imāmī apologists. The works of al-Gand̲j̲i and Kamāl al-Dīn Ibn Ṭalḥa were extensively quoted already by ʿAlī b. ʿĪsā al-Irbilī (d. 692/1293) in his Kas̲h̲f al-g̲h̲umma fī maʿrifat al-aʾimma, which in turn won positive comment from Sunnī authors because of its extensive reliance on Sunnī sources. Further support for the Mahdīship of the Twelfth Imām came from Ṣūfī circles. Already Abū Bakr al-Bayhaḳī (d. 458/1066) had noted that some Ṣūfī gnostics (d̲j̲amāʿa min ahl al-kas̲h̲f) agreed with the Imāmī doctrine about the identity of the Mahdī and his g̲h̲ayba. The Persian Ṣūfī Ṣadr al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-Ḥammūyī (late 7th/13th century) supported Imāmī doctrine on the Mahdī in his Farāʾid al-simṭayn. The Egyptian Ṣūfī al-S̲h̲aʿrānī, while generally showing no sympathy for S̲h̲īʿism. affirmed in his al-Yawāḳīt wa ’l-d̲j̲awāhir (written in 958/1551) that the Mahdīwas a son of Imām al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī born in the year 255/869 and would remain alive until his meeting with Jesus. His advent could be expected after the year 1030/1621. He based his assertion on the testimony of the Ṣūfī S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥasan al-ʿIrāḳī, who claimed to have met the Mahdī, and on a spurious quotation from Ibn al-ʿArabī’sal-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya identifying the Expected Mahdī with the Twelfth Imām. This quotation of Ibn al-ʿArabī was noted and accepted by both Imāmī and Sunnī scholars. The Egyptian S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-Ṣabbān (d. 1206/1792), in his Isʿāf al-rāg̲h̲ibīn fī sīrat al-Muṣṭafā wa-faḍāʾil ahl baytih al-ṭāhirīn, censured Ibn al-ʿArabī for supporting such a view against the clear evidence of the traditions accepted by Sunnī scholars. Al-Ṣabbān was in turn taken to task for criticising Ibn al-ʿArabī by Ḥasan al-ʿIdwī al-Ḥamzāwī [q.v. in Suppl.], who in his Mas̲h̲āriḳ al- anwār (first published in 1275/1858-9) maintained that the Ṣūfī gnostics were the most truthful interpreters of the prophetic tradition. In order to blunt the S̲h̲īʿī implications of al-S̲h̲aʿrānī’s statement, al-ʿIdwī quoted it, adding a thousand years to the birthdate of the Mahdī and suppressing both the date for his advent and S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥasan al-ʿIrāḳī’s claim to have met him. The Mahdī thus was born in 1255/1839 and was merely a descendant of the eleventh Imām, not the Twelfth Imām of the S̲h̲īʿa. Al-ʿIdwī’s false quotation of al-S̲h̲aʿrānī was copied by the Egyptian S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-S̲h̲abland̲j̲ī in his ¶ Nūr al- abṣār fī manāḳib al- nabī al- muk̲h̲tār composed in 1290/1873."

False messiah

Apparently there have been many. IE: the Us constantly trying to do a census (declare the time/authority of Caesar). A census is not done by human effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.27.197 (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of honorifics?

It seems like there are some attempts to insert a "peace and blessings be upon him" honorific next to every mention of Prophet Muhammad in this article. Not only is this unencyclopedic and negatively impacts readability of the article, but also not even the main Prophet Muhammad article has the same practice.

The latest such edit was done by an unregistered user with a string of unconstructive edit warnings in their talk page, but I am happy to discuss this issue without any more back-and-forth edits. Thanks! Xasf (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Shi'ite section mostly reflecting the Twelver POV

I desire to keep much of the information in the section on Shi'ite views, which mostly reflects the Twelver POV, to the article on the Twelver Mahdi, that is Muhammad al-Mahdi. The Isma'ili POV is quite small in there. Leo1pard (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

As said by Md iet, the Dawoodi Bohrah (one of the Isma'ili groups) consider At-Tayyib Abu'l-Qasim to be the Mahdi, so work must be done to balance the Isma'ili and Twelver POVs in the section on Shi'ite views. Leo1pard (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC); edited 15:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

As it is, some of the information here is duplicated in Muhammad al-Mahdi. Leo1pard (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Shia slant

Some of the text and claims around Sunni beliefs on Mahdi are not Sunni beliefs and lack citations.

I’ll be addressing these weaknesses in the article in coming edits. Bkerensa (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggest improvement for clarity - years of rule

"appear and rule for five, seven, nine, or nineteen years (according to differing interpretations)[1][2] before the Day of Judgment" Will his rule be for that many years, or will his rule be that many years before the Day of Judgment starts? suggest improvement for clarity SA (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of edits from the article of Mahdi

​ Regarding the section of 'Mahdi in the Quran', which was completely deleted by u; the content of the post was not a complete copy-paste as u have mentioned. The paragraphs were rephrased and mentioned with relevant sources Blessedby14 (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverting the deletes

A significant portion on the page of Mahdi which was edited by me has been deleted on 16th November by VenusFeuerFalle, citing Wikipedia policies. However, no specific Wikipedia policy was cited. Since there is some element of truth in what he said, I am reformatting the whole content in a way that it looks more like an article. if there are any other comments or suggestions to be done, plz mention them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blessedby14 (talk • [Special:Contributions/Blessedby14|contribs]]) 16:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Have readded the content with specific changes. If there are any changes to be made plz let me know.Blessedby14 (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverting deletion of ahadith in sunni section

@Blessedby14: please don't revert my change, the ahadith section of the sunni section was extremely problematic. Not only is it very badly written, it often cited shia sources, shia claims or doesn't properly cite anything at all despite being under the sunni section. This violates both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The paragraph that exists under the sunni section is sufficient and does not benefit from unnecessary and low quality additions. FAISSALOO_(talk) 17:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your change. You seemed to have wiped out an entire section that was well referenced without citing which portion of the text had errors. All the references you removed except one, were sunni references. Unless you have sufficient evidence to back up what you did, your edits will be nothing except vandalism. Abbas Gadhia (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I wiped out the entire section because it is not simply a portion of the text that is problematic, the entire section is badly sourced and severly misinformative. It needs a complete rewrite from scratch. You have citations in there from 'Al-Islam', a site with a decidedly shia bias, you have a citation that simply reads 'Tabarani' and you have numerous hadith that have no citations whatsoever. Furthermore it is not the job of an encyclopedia to enumerate every hadith mentioning the madhi regardless of either their acceptance as sunni cannon or prominence in Muslim discourse and it is not vandalism to remove work that is so clearly below the standards of this site. At the very least the section needs to be cut down significantly. FAISSALOO_(talk) 21:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No hadith should be directly taken from the primary hadith books. If a modern academic work cites some hadiths, they can be used here. Plenty can be found in the RS on Mahdi/Islamic eschatology. A representative sample would suffice, instead of cataloging every single Mahdi hadith as if Wikipedia itself were some sort of Sahih Jimmy Wales. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The coming of Sufyani: a sign on which both Sunni and Shia agree or not?

According to Homo sapiens History, "Sufyani is a Shia belief: Reports about Sufyani are available in both Sunni and Shia Hadith, however, the Hadith about Sufyani is weak, unreliable, da'if." [6] That may well be, but reasoning on the basis of a primary source like a hadith being regarded as da'if is original research, which is not what we base our articles on here. Rather, we follow secondary sources, in this case Momen, Moojan (1985). An introduction to Shiʻi Islam : the history and doctrines of Twelver Shiʻism. G. Ronald. pp. 75, 166–168. ISBN 9780853982005. Does that source support the claim that Sunnis and Shiites agree on this point or not? What do other sources say? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2021

it states erroneously that the Mahdi is not mention anywhere in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari, this is not true. There ane numerous mention in the two books as well as in other Sunni Sihah Books as well as in numerous Shia books 78692110hk (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

78692110hk to be clear: we need a reliable (i.e., scholarly) secondary source that talks about the mentions of the Mahdi in Muslim and Bukhari and/or other hadith collections. Academic books about the Mahdi would be the most likely place to find these. I'm pointing this out because citations from Muslim and Bukhari would not suffice, so it would be a waste of your time to go look directly in the hadith collections. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory lines in Mahdi Page

• What I think should be changed: In the second paragraph of the page on Mahdi, there are contradictory sentences that follow one another. "Several canonical compilations of Hadith do include traditions concerning the Mahdi, although such traditions are notably absent from the two most-revered Sunni compilations, those of Bukhari and Muslim. Many orthodox Sunni theologians accordingly question Mahdist beliefs, but such beliefs form a necessary part of Muslim doctrine.[4] Although the concept of a Mahdi is not an essential doctrine in Islam, it is popular among Muslims.[5]"

• Why it should be changed: If there is no consensus on whether the Mahdi is essential/necessary to Islam(as the previous lines indicate), then the page should neither affirm nor deny the necessity of Mahdi to Islam. As it stands, Mahdi is said to be a "necessary part of Muslim doctrine" and "not an essential doctrine in Islam." This is contradictory and confusing.

I suggest instead changing this to: "Several canonical compilations of Hadith do include traditions concerning the Mahdi, although such traditions are notably absent from the two most-revered Sunni compilations, those of Bukhari and Muslim. Many orthodox Sunni theologians accordingly question Mahdist beliefs, but such beliefs are popular among muslims."

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Plebobserver (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Plebobserver (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Edits to the Twelvers subsection

In general, this is a well-written section. The following edits were intended to slightly improve the writing and the accuracy of the claims in this section. A few new bits were added from reliable sources and the following changes were made:

• This 'sub-subsection' was very long and it was divided into multiple smaller 'subsub-subsections' for readability. But then it seemed natural to move everything up by one level, i.e., Twelver Shia is now a subsection with several smaller sub-subsections. Likewise, Isma'ilism and Zaydism have their own subsections.
• The date of birth of Muhammad al-Mahdi is given differently in sources, e.g., see (Momen 1985, p. 161). So it seemed reasonable to replace "in" with "around" in the sentence "the Mahdi was born in Samarra in 868."
• The sentence "He lived under his father's care until 874 when the latter was killed by the Abbasids" might not be accurate. Hussain writes that the infant Mahdi might have been placed under the care of al-Askari's mother in Medina.(Hussain 1986, p. 75) It is also not certain if the Abbasids were behind the death of al-Askari, though there are good reasons to think that way.
• "for his life was in danger" was replaced with the more specific "for his life was in danger from the Abbasids," as stated in most sources, e.g., in (Momen 1985, p. 161).
• Saying that the deputies "were able to communicate with him" seems more accurate than "were able to meet with him."
• About the first deputy, "after his death, the date of which is unknown, his son Muhammad ibn Uthman al-Amri held the office..." might be inaccurate. (Klemm 2007) writes that the first deputy died in 880, while (Sachedina 1981, p. 89) and (Daftary 2013, p. 64) have that he didn't survive al-Askari by much. None of these sources, however, say that the first deputy held the office until his death. This was replaced with the new sentence "He was later succeeded by his son..."
• It might be better to write in the passive voice the following sentence: "The religious guidance of the faithful he left to the scholars of the community." This sentence was replaced with the similar one: "The leadership vacuum in the Twelver community was gradually filled by jurists."
• A sentence about visitations from reliable sources was added to replace a similar sentence that was removed earlier by an editor.
• Replaced the rather long quote from Sadr with a similar (but more polished) sentence from Tabatabai.
• Removed "and godlessness will rule" for aesthetic reasons and without any loss of information.
• Raj'a of Muhammad isn't mentioned in (Sachedina 1981, pp. 161–6) as part of the Twelver beliefs. The source of confusion might be the following: it seems that other Shia sects often use raj'a to refer to the return of their concealed imam whereas this is referred to as zuhur in Twelver Shia and raj'a is reserved for the 'specific resurrection'; see (Kohlberg 2022).
• Raj'a of all imams appears in some but not all reports (Kohlberg 2022). In that sense, it seems reasonable to mention only Husayn, whose raj'a is apparently common to all Twelver reports; see the same source.
• The sentence "The Mahdi will convert other Muslims to Shi'ism, kill those who refuse to convert or banish them to villages after imposing the jizya (poll tax) on them" does not match the source (Madelung 1986), which says that the Mahdi will offer the faith to every opponent (of Ali). If he doesn't accept it, he'd be killed or forced to pay jazya as the non-Muslims. In particular, not every non-Twelver Muslim holds enmity towards Ali. This sentence was rewritten. Albertatiran (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• Momen, Moojan (1985). An Introduction to Shi'i Islam. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300034998.
• Hussain, Jassim M. (1986). Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background. Routledge Kegan & Paul. ISBN 9780710301581.
• Sachedina, Abdulaziz Abdulhussein (1981). Islamic Messianism: The Idea of Mahdī in Twelver Shīʻism. Suny press. ISBN 978-0873954426.
• Daftary, Farhad (2013). A History of Shi'i Islam. I.B. Tauris. ISBN 9780755608669.
• Klemm, Verena (2007). "ISLAM IN IRAN ix. THE DEPUTIES OF MAHDI". Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. XIV/2. pp. 143–6.
• Kohlberg, E. (2022). "Rad̲j̲ʿa". In Bearman, P. (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second ed.). Brill Reference Online.
• Madelung, Wilferd (1986). "Al–Mahdi". In Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E.; Lewis, B. & Pellat, Ch. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Volume V: Khe–Mahi. Leiden: E. J. Brill. pp. 1230–1238. ISBN 978-90-04-07819-2.