Talk:Al-Masih ad-Dajjal

Pronunciation of the name is incorrect

The name is Arabic derived and it should be spelled as Al-Dajjal and not Ad-Dajjal. Ad-Dajjal is an absolute wrong pronunciation for the name. The name in Arabic is الدجال , first letters are A and L which compares to "The" in English. Then دجال which consist of D, G, A, L. Pronounced Dajjal. The first A and L would make it equivalent to "The Dajjal" , the Arabic equivalent of Al-Dajjal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.39.159 (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• There are different accepted ways to transliterate Arabic. The Arabic definite article or lam taʿrīf is assimilated before so-called 'solar consonants', that is dentals and alveolars. Hence

the pronunciation is actually ad-daǧǧāl. However, to more easily identify the morphology of the word, some transcribers prefer to always write the def. article as al-.--Simha (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

@99.224.39.159 sorry to interrupt but the deceiver is a slaughter, doesnt have passion saving other. they like to be boasting or proudfull but never take critism, back to hadith and yesaya .. also quran and sutra kali yuga QuaMbear (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Spelling

Should be unified throughout the article. Either dajjal or daǧǧāl, the latter is preferable. Especially the eschatology section is a mess. Mistakes include grammar "ḥadīth ... give". Ḥadīth is singular, so *gives* or use the plural, either anglicized as ḥadīths or Arabic aḥadīth. Length is sometimes indicated as in nūrī, sometimes not as in kafir read kāfir etc.--Simha (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

place where ad-dajjal will appear?

it is written in the article: between syria and iraq. the place is sometimes named as sebbiah (or equal). more information needed to add to article, please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.136.15 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

source: bouhari, fayzailu'l medina 9, muslim, feetan 123: Mohammad (S.A.W.) said: except mekka and madina there will be no land dajjal wont trample down. All gateways to mekka and madina will be each guarded by angels, who protect this places. (dajjal) will appear at the place named as-sabbeeha. then it will shake the community of madi...na with three quakes. on the verge of this, all unbelievers and hypocriticals (who stay in the city) will come (leave the city for dajjal).194.98.43.12 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The prophet (S.A.W),mentioned in a hadeeth that al-dajjal will appear from Esfahan,in Iran.Alhanuty (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

not true, some of his followers are Jews from Isfahan as mentioned in the hadith, please don't write before you have checked your sources and please give proof for your statement. --Şahrazade (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference

I have given the reference of Ahmadiyya beliefs. Admins. see the reference please don' the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokhaiz Kaunpal (talk • contribs) 12:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

shia

shias do not believe the dajjal will kill madhi, leave it blank i dont know what they believe but I am sure it is not that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambelland (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Signs

There is a big problem..after every 2 to 3 months, the signs of Dajjal are being changed by some people, there should be some reference to these signs other wise I suggest the senior users to remove them as after years these "fake" signs would become true.. HunterZone (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There is way more signs into it.Alhanuty (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Belief

I have taken down Ahmadiyya belief from this page, this page represents the Islamic View Of False Masih where as Ahamdi's are declared as non muslims in Pakistan this is the state from where ahamdiyya's originated see Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad and Ahmadiyya. Please refain from adding this section back. Best way to represent Ahamdi's point of view is to create a new page with Ahamdi belief. I removed ahamdis view as par WP:MOSISLAM. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgininfatuation (talk • contribs) 10:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the Government of Pakistan has declared that the Ahmadiyya are not Muslim has nothing to do with Wikipedia. We are not bound by their dictates. The Ahmadiyya say they are Muslim and Wikipedia reflects that. Also there is nothing in WP:MOSISLAM that suggests removing their views from any article. In fact Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Sunni, Shi'a, Sufi and Ahmadiyya Islam states the an Islamic sect. Also if you had read the guideline properly you would have seen that adding Peace Be Upon Him is incorrect. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahmadiyah are not Muslims,they have conflicting beliefs way different that other Muslims,as Sunnis or Shias,even different that Sufis,so my arguement,put it in another article,as the Christians belief in the anti-Christ.Alhanuty (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Warren Ellis' Supergod

The comic book series Supergod includes a character named Dajjal, based on this idea. Perhaps this should be included? ComicVine Reference 198.255.175.17 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an evil-person that both Christians and Muslims believe will wreak havoc and trials on the entire planet,this article is not about a comic thing,this is about something very serious.Alhanuty (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(This article is about an evil-person that only Muslims believe...)* From the Christian perspective your Mahdi is identical to our antichrist. Your version of Jesus is identical to our false prophet, and most importantly Isa son of Mary comes holding on to the wings of two fallen angels, NOT RIDING A WHITE HORSE DESTROYING FILTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.213.70 (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Description of ad Dajjaal

he will be red im complexion,short,one eyed,with thick curly hair,pigeon toed,hunch backed,with a large forehead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.157.0.5 (talk • contribs)

Please cite a reliable source for new statements. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 00:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Masih ad-Dajjal → Imposter Messiah – The current title "al-Masih ad-Dajjal" is no more than a transliteration of the Arabic title "المسيح الدجال". Since the English Wikipedia is supposed to have the titles of its articles in the English language instead of having them transliterated from other languages, I think it will be better to rename it. Religions Explorer (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the nominator was blocked indefinitely for contentious, disruptive editing and block evasion. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - if it was into English it would be False messiah (Islam) with (Islam) since the same concept False messiah exists in Judaism and Christianity too. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: The Arabic word (الدجال) roughly translates to (Imposter). It doesn't translate to the word (false) under any circumstances. One more thing you need to notice is that the suggested new title is (Imposter Messiah "with capital M"). This is different from (imposter messiah "with small m"). The one with "M" capital letter is a name, not an adjective, and it refers to the specific figure in the books of hadiths.--Explorer999 (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think Religions Explorer/Explorer999 (apparently same user) has a valid point in saying that English titles are preferable. In ictu oculi also has a valid point; no matter if we say "false" or "imposter", it's not unique to Islam as such. I'd be okay with moving to Imposter Messiah (Islam) to make it clear for the reader. Jeppiz (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think the closest (not necessarily literal) translation is "Antichrist". What about Antichrist in Islam? False Messiah, Imposter Messiah has connotations outside the concept of Dajjal, i.e. people claiming to be the return of Isa (Jesus), and they are describes as false messiah by certain groups and individuals. The lede itself makes a comparison with Antichrist.--Peaceworld 10:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a very good point, I'd support Antichrist in Islam if it conforms to usage in Islam. Jeppiz (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. "Antichrist" is a Christian term. It refers to the figure opposed to their Christ. Muslims don't use these Christian terms. In Islam, we say (Messiah/Imposter Messiah), we don't say (Christ/Antichrist).--Explorer999 (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

According to Christ, "Christ" is synonymous to Jesus, and in fact is a translations of the word "Messiah". In fact Google translate, translates "المسيح الدجّال‎" (transliteration: al-Masih ad-Dajjal) as "Antichrist". "Christ" is as much 'Christian' as the word "Messiah".--Peaceworld 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the current title is incorrect, and the case has yet to be made that it is, then I agree that the rename could be to "False messiah (Islam)" or "Imposter messiah (Islam)". "False messiah" and "Imposter messiah" are generic terms that should continue to redirect to an article covering all religions so that the reader can get a general idea of the concept and then branch out in whichever direction they choose to go, not be sent in one direction which may not be what they want. Those generic names should not be usurped for an article that only covers one religion. Also, there is more to this than just the concept of the Dajjal and Antichrist. Many of the would-be messiahs, who failed to live up to their billing, were not intentional imposters. Many were just delusional people who believed their own hype. Redirecting "False Messiah" and "Imposter messiah" to an article which covers all these things seems the best way to give people the complete story. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. While on its own dajjal might mean "imposter", translating combinations of words requires a different approach. I agree with In ictu oculi that "False messiah" is a better vernacular and more recognisable translation of Masih ad-Dajjal. I wouldn't oppose a move to False messiah (Islam) or something similar. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No Koran section???

I feel like there should first be a section just sumerizing what The Koran says about him before getting into the Hadiths and stuff.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no Koran section because the Dajjal is not mentioned in the Koran.

--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

hadith maybe... after 4th trial QuaMbear (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Grammar

I hate to be a grammar nazi; but if the grammar is so warped that I can't figure out what is being said, then the passage has to be deleted. So I deleted this, from the lede: "He will be an anti-messiah figure, Muslims consider him to be the Antichrist, and to Armilus, in Christian and medieval Jewish eschatology, respectively." He will what to Armilus?

MrDemeanour (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Root of Dajjal

Hi the root of Dajjal is دجل (d-j-l) not da-j-l as written. Arabic roots most commonly are three radicals or sometimes four, but for sure not in this case. Just x-out the a please, the article is blocked unfortunately --Şahrazade (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Proof: Hans Wehr I, p. 272 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şahrazade (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What happened to the first paragraph??

Just read the second sentence:

He has only one eye kafir is written on his head Dictionary of World Religions, Al-Dajjāl, p. 43.</ref>

First of all, that's two unfinished, completely different sentences put together; and second of all, the reference is not an actual reference with a little number you can click on, it's just the name of the source, the page number, and "</ref>". I looked through the revision history, and nobody vandalized it or accidentally deleted a part of it, that's exactly how it was written in the first place! I'm no good at doing references on Wikipedia so I can't fix it myself, but hopefully someone can.

--Annoyedhumanoid (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Dajjal & Isa Al masih

Dear Colleague,

Title Revision Needed, the meaning of dajjal and anti christ is the same deceiveful and liar, also the false phrophet in the end of times, they will come out with some sign like red blood moons, for false phrophet deceive some people in Matthew 7:15“Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves the false phrophet use their miracle created from 3 evil frog spirit

Then 1 I saw three unclean spirits 2 that looked like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

i hope this will clear the main title for the god sake, ^^ i believe the word should be false messiah Dajjal or Anti Christ Dajjal i wanted to help you with the content about al masih, dajjal is not al masih he is false messiah. i suppose the one think for sure is false messiah the al masih title is only for one and only for "isa" al masih or Jesus Christ.

i hope you can change the al masih title from "al masih ad dajjal" thats not the correct meaning kinda miss leading. and thanks for change the picture regard's Daniel 8 about the anti christ, daniel got the vision mentioning about the anti christ.

False Prophet The deceiver false prophet.

Dajjal doesnt mention in quran but i believe he / she and the follower doesnt believe about the holy bible gave from god messenger torah, zabur, gospel and quran he also a disbelieve in allah الله ( adonai ) and all the prohet, in this time today god has send us plague as in the bible Psalms 91:6 Luke 21:11 and quran Al kahfi ( adonai send his messenger and trial to all mankind ) to warn the mankind neglect and reject the 7 sin "lust, Conscious ( mind "suudzon" ) not gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride" also the 8 sin "our word as the 8 deadliest sin Matthew 15:11 our word is the fatal one like 2 headed sword. also dajjal cant read and understand holy bible also koran and he doesnt believe end of time and judgement day,

also dajjal want to be worship also famous and wanna be equal as adonai ( الله )

https://alkitab.sabda.org/verse.php?book=42&chapter=21&verse=11 https://alkitab.sabda.org/verse.php?book=42&chapter=21&verse=8 He 1 said, “Watch out that you are not misled. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ 3 and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them! "because they will got trial from god himself and prophet adonai ( الله ) so in the time like this we must watch out for the false prophet. and keep guidance from the holy book

God Bless — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuaMbear (talk • contribs) 17:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Matthew 24 False prophet and end time — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuaMbear (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

if you need more about the chapter in bible i'll add much more if it necessary --QuaMbear (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)QuaMbear talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuaMbear (talk • contribs) 06:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Shalom — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuaMbear (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ahamdiya Section

This section is controversial. Ahmadiya beliefs are fundamentally opposed by both Sunnis and Shia scholars as the belief in Islam is the belief that God is One and Mohammed is the messenger. It's classed as seperate religion, just like Bahai's who also believe in a prophet after Muhammad PBUH. The Ahmadiya founders claim to being a Prophet & Messiah both go against Islamic foundations. I'd suggest a seperate page for it so as not to mix up the beliefs. Alif2020 (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the page about the general topic of Al-Masih ad-Dajjal, regardless of who writes about it. If a Hindu decides to start a new sect that is otherwise Hinduism but incorporates the idea of Al-Masih ad-Dajjal into their cosmology, and it becomes noteworthy, it would be included here.

The only reason to split this into separate topics would be if a particular sect's specific beliefs about Al-Masih ad-Dajjal were notable on their own.

Just because you don't like Ahmadiya isn't a reason to do anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not about me not liking Ahmadiyaa. Their views are entirely different e.g. they claim Mirza was a messiah, that doesn't align with Islam since the messiahs coming was meant to bring peace etc to the world. They don't beleive in Dajjal as we do. Their views differ to the extent that it would make sense to have a separate page.Alif2020 (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This page is on Al-Masih ad-Dajjal in general, not specifically the Sunni or Shia view. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Addition of massive amounts of info with the only reference being www.alislam.org

I'm a newbie and I think that this issue requires some attention which is why I have raised it in this talk page. A certain user named User:Blessedby14 has been making massive additions to various parts of the article with the only reference being different pages of the site Al Islam - The Official Website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. While the spirit of wanting to improve the article is appreciable, I don't think this is reflected in the reliability of the information. For example, the user has made an addition to the Eschatology section by adding the beliefs of the Shia but not from any Shi'i sources but rather from Al Islam - The Official Website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community which may at best be a good source from the Ahmadiyya side of things. What should the course of action be? -- Southeastasian.little.abdullah (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Hadith sources

Why was the whole article referring to Hadith was removed? Without mentioning Hadiths, how would you suffice that the following topic exists in Islam? Also this whole page is build on the basis of Islamic perspective. Prince khan official (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Because of this: Sorry, when I mislinked it in my edit summary. WP:OR Please also read the other following guidlines and why Wikipedia does not favor any religion and for the sake of neutrality, religious sources can not be used for verification: MOS:ISLAM WP:ISLAM. Remember what Wikipedia is Neutral, this means, we do not have special rules for each project and do not promote specific religious ideas. The existence of a Quranic verse or a hadith, does neither prove that Muslims believe, nor does it say anything about historicity. Further, the primary language here is English. Other languages should only be used if the source is not available in English. Remember, we do not do our own research about a certain topic, we just bring together what reseachers, academics scientists found out. We are not the researches ourselves, though many Wikipedians might also be academics. But this is coincidence, when. I saw you readded your content. Please make sure, it is in accordance with the guidlines I sent to your, otherwise, it might be objected and removed again.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Title miss leading, al masih is a title for saviour.

Al masih or mesias is title for messiah, for this title i will say about not reliable dajjal and false mesiah not al masih, please change the title because its miss leading..

what if under age kid who doesn't understand about holy book and find miss leading text, it should be change. because it can be missleading and hurt for the believer. god bless

19:17 فَٱتَّخَذَتْ مِن دُونِهِمْ حِجَابًا فَأَرْسَلْنَآ إِلَيْهَا رُوحَنَا فَتَمَثَّلَ لَهَا بَشَرًا سَوِيًّا And she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel [i.e., Gabriel], and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man. — Saheeh International

if you gave the wrong intepretion for al masih and equal as ad dajjal, the message is clear false messiah is not al masih ( jesus ) son of mary, please dont use the title equal to dajjal

regards QuaMbear

Hello there, dear QuaMbear. I think you will find it interesting to note that the title is not al-Masih but rather al-Masih ad-Dajjal in order to convey the meaning as described in the article - which does not mean the Messiah but rather the fake, deceiver Messiah which is Dajjal. The two are clearly differentiated between in the ahadis and are not being made equal to each other. In order to address your concern regarding possible confusions, which I am sympathetic to as well, there is a system of adding a warning notice at the top of the article which tells people that the article is not to be confused with al-Masih (the Messiah). Perhaps someone more experienced will take note of this and implement such a warning. - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A warning has been added in order to address this issue. - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, i just wondering why still using the title "al masih" because its not appropriate, if you wanna describe about dajjal, keep it simple. its hurting me as religious person, best regards. the context is about false hood and imposter, the deceiver. not messiah / al masih. also dajjal wanna be god or allah thats why he got the the name dajjal thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuaMbear (talk • contribs) 13:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear @QuaMbear: I think that you are misunderstanding this matter. ABC is not the same as ABD. As I have attempted to explain before, the term Dajjal implies a meaning similar to 'a great deceiver'. In arabi, it can be used for charlatan and deceiving people as well and not just al-Masih ad-Dajjal. The title al-Masih ad-Dajjal is not about al-Masih 'Isa ibn Maryam 'alaihis-salam but it is used to denote that this being will be a deceiver messiah who will claim to be the actual messiah first and then later on, he will claim to be God. Al-Masih is not a proper noun only to be used for 'Isa 'alaihis-salam. There is nothing to be worried about. Kindly read through the first parts of the article for a better explanation. Best regards - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Good day, does the title from allah ? or from god and goddeses from pit hole ? the title in what description ? please it hurts me as human kind QuaMbear (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding a recent reversion of edits made to the article

Dear User:VenusFeuerFalle, I have introduced this new section in order to discuss the recent reversion of an an edit of mine by yourself.

You said: We can not use a Q&A webpage as a source, since every Muslim scholar can interpretate a hadith differently. ALso, it seems not, that Dajjal and Isa are easily confused, just because the term "Masih" appears within the title.

Even though I did attach a note to the re-reversion, I would like to elaborate on my points here. It is simply not any Q and A page but rather one by a scholar of Islam and scholarly opinions in Islam is not subject to such a degree of whim that it can be interpreted differently by every scholar. It is limited by the evidence, the actions of the first three generations on the evidence, the principles of scholarly assessment, the rules of linguistics, the chains of transmission and the license to transmit. I see that answer to be a wholistic assessment that builds on the past in the sense that it takes the opinions of many scholars of the past and produces a condensed clear-cut summary. One can argue about the subjectivity in the interpretation for any literary text in the world but that alone cannot change academic establishments. Also, regarding the second part of the matter, we must remember that wikipedia has users of various age ranges incl. kids who could confuse The Messiah or al-Masih with al-Masih ad-Dajjal. I hope that you will sympathize with at least this last part that we must consider the variety of users and their age range.

Regards, Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

" It is simply not any Q and A page but rather one by a scholar of Islam and scholarly opinions in Islam is not subject to such a degree of whim that it can be interpreted differently by every scholar. It is limited by the evidence, the actions of the first three generations on the evidence, the principles of scholarly assessment, the rules of linguistics, the chains of transmission and the license to trasmit." It is methodically impossible to equal a 1400 years old tradition and every researcher on Islamic studies will probably agree with that. The idea of "following the first generations of Muslims" is ideologically motivated and refererred to as (in socialogically studies) Salafism. Similarities among such decrees provided by various Shaikhs around the internet are not due to a unequivocally and reliable method, but because of their ideological motivation. This is proven by the fact, whose scholars often contradict much of the exegetical nature, methods and results of earlier scholars. Such deviate views are especially prevailent among the supernatural and spiritual, the Dajjal included. I am not even saying this scholar is wrong, he might even be correct and have been more carefully in his exegesis than most of the other scholars on the internet, but this is our own subjective opinnion. We can not let such subjective judgments rule out, which scholars we trust and which not. Sources for religious ideas, should never be supported by a religious scholar themselves. An Evangelical preacher for example, should not be cited in exegetical matters for the Old Testament (the results will be arbitary). I sincery hope, you find someone who has done research about this interpretation, and can cite him. If your sources is authentic and imbedded within Muslim Tradition as much as you said, there will probably an author who has written about Muslim Eschatology, who mentions this. WIth best regards,--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear, VenusFeuerFalle. I appreciate your response and the explanation and I will try my best to provide more reliable citations in order to support this, in shaa ALLAH . There seems to be a misunderstanding here on various matters but specifically of Salafism and Islam itself and about myself. It should be noted before continuing that I'm a Maturidi Hanafi, am aware of Salafism and am not a Salafi or an Athari Hanbali influenced by the Salafiyyah or the Najdi Dawah.

It is established in Sunni Islamic Discourse (especifically in Fiqh) for an extremely long time, much before Salafiyyah and the Najdi dawah, that the Hujjah (Evidence) is the Qur'an, the Sunnah (not the Hadith alone), the Ijma'a of the Sahabah (there is disagreement over whether the Ijma'a of the Tabi'i is acceptable) and Qiyas (over which there are disagreements as well) - most of which is recorded in Arabi (and thus, the principles of scholarly assessment and the rules of linguistics will undoubtedly become relevant). So, no, it is not as subjective or arbitrary as it may seem from the outside. Whom we trust is limited by the chains of transmission, the license to transmit and endorsements from other scholars. Evangelical preachers are 'not' equivalent to Christian theologians, the latter being qualified to comment on a matter, and lay Muslims are not the equivalent of Sunni Islami scholars.

Let us face it, given the evidence is as has been established before, people from outside the academia are undoubtedly not better qualified or equipped to comment on it. Trying to attack this natural hierarchy of knowledge and experience in the guise of progressivism often ends up being similar to what the anti-vaxxers do to actual researchers and scientists. Furthermore, even if it was indeed that subjective, how is the assessment of scholars not of this field any less arbitrary given that they don't even have the proper education in this field? We should remember that scholars outside of a field are not much better off than the layman in terms of their understanding even if they do have the tools of education.

Thus, responding to "It is limited by the evidence, the actions of the first three generations on the evidence, the principles of scholarly assessment, the rules of linguistics, the chains of transmission and the license to transmit." with "is ideologically motivated and refererred to as (in socialogically studies) Salafism." seems to be a case of gross misidentification. Hadithanswers.com is not Islamqa.info. The former is run by traditional Sunni scholars whilst the latter is run by Salafi scholars and the former does not have a Salafist ideological motivation behind it. I do agree that Salafi scholars often contradict the established codes in Sunni Islami Academia, esp. in matters of jurisprudential theory. Best regards, Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

the main is in hadith and quran also bible.. in some ways cant be main truth because its sealed by the prophet... because the deceitfull cant understand the meaning... read hadith in end of time era... god bless QuaMbear (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Debatable whether Isa ibn Maryam and Jesus of Nazareth are the same figure or not?

@Sultan.abdullah.hindi: do I understand it correctly that in this edit summary you are saying that it's debatable whether Isa ibn Maryam is the same figure as Jesus of Nazareth? If so, then you would be very wrong. At least among scholars, there is absolutely no debate about that at all. See, for example, Robinson, Neal (2005). "Jesus". In McAuliffe, Jane Dammen (ed.). Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān. Brill. doi:10.1163/1875-3922_q3_EQCOM_00099. Do you have any reliable source for the debate you are speaking of? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Dajjal

How do i describe dajjal to my friend that just converted to muslim 82.4.110.66 (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A comically dumb rip off of the antiChrist 128.22.62.223 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

taxes

"According to the Sunni ḥadīth, the Dajjal will then be chased to the gate of Lod where he will be captured and killed by ʿĪsā. ʿĪsā will then break the Christian cross, kill all the pigs, abolish the jizya tax, and establish peace among all nations." yes as you can see e commerce every where main of the sugro already happen, also in main 2000 2005 mecca also have a big main clock in macca already written in hadith, keep pray and keep strong, deceiver is between us. QuaMbear (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Emerges from the West/East

Beginning of the article mentions Al Dajjal "will emerge from the West" but further down it mentions "emerges from the East". I think East is the correct one. This needs to be corrected 176.202.55.121 (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks for pointing it out, I wonna check the sources. maybe there was an edit-conflict happening. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hebrew

The Arabic word Dajjal might be related to the Hebrew word "Shollal" meaning "astray" or "deception".

שׁוֹלָל

From the book of Job (12:19):

He leads priests away stripped and overthrows officials long established.

ספר איוב פרק יב, פסוק יט:

מוֹלִיךְ כֹּהֲנִים שׁוֹלָל, וְאֵתָנִים יְסַלֵּף

A linguist may want to opine on that.

Thanks. 2A10:8012:1:D427:405B:58A2:D671:34B3 (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

What is prist?

in the beginning there's an image of "Sasa matic" written prist what is that? Bebo12321 (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Gate of Lod

I find no gate of Lod among the Gates of the Old City of Jerusalem. Is the gate a known gate or is it opento interpretation? -- Error (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

1 major and 1 minor sigh of qiyamah

sighs of qiyamah 105.184.194.9 (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Islamic honorifics

@BeLikeDead:, you recently reverted my edit removing ﷺs following references to Muhammad and other Islamic figures (excluding one in a block quote). The reason that I removed these is that Islamic honorifics are not permitted in Wikipedia articles per MOS:PBUH. Using honorifics in the text of the article itself (as opposed to quoted text) is tantamount to writing the article from the perspective of a particular religion, rather than from a neutral perspective. I am now going to revert your reversion. Please do not revert it again. Nicknimh (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nicknimh fine, I'm sorry. BeLikeDead (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)