Talk:Muhammad al-Mahdi - Wikipedia
3 people in discussion
i hear that Muhammad al-Mahdi will apear after a FITNA and is it posible that that fitna is tsunami or sept. 11
This article seems to be written entirely from a Twelver Shia POV. Can anyone who knows more revise it? john k 00:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I would like to see a definition of "occultation," which seems like a distinguishing feature of this imam, but which I can't seem to find any information about, excpet for this brief note on the (unreleated) occultation page: "In Islam the occultation is the name given to the disappearance of the Twelfth Imam." thither 21:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Actually, Imam Hasan Al-Askari is the 11th Shi'ite Imam, the father of Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi. The two are obviously not the same person. YAM 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
As someone has pointed before me, this article is written almost entirely from a Shia (twelver) point of view. To improve the quality of the article AND avoid an edit war, here's what I suggest.
- Seperate article for Imam Mahdi (article can be called "Imam Hasan Al-Askari") which can hold the twelver's point of view.
- Seperate article for Imam Mahdi from the traditional mainstream sunni view
This is because while the Twelvers hold that the two are the same (i.e. Imam Al-Askari would return as Imam Al-Mahdi), many Sunnis dispute that Imam Al-Askari even existed.
I think division into two articles would be the best solution. I will try to do my part. Let me know what you think.
- It is generally not the wikipedia way to split a single person into two articles. If Sunnis do not believe that he existed, that should be discussed in the main article. john k 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Just got a Wikipedia account ;)
To John Kenney: Lemme clarify -- we are indeed talking about two different historical personalities. And they already have two pages, one under Mahdi and one is this one we're talking about.
But there is overlap between the two articles; what's confusing is that while Sunnis view the two as seperate personalities, the Shias view them as more or less one, with significant details differing between the two accounts.
I want your feedback on this, since you've been on Wikipedia far longer than me. I think the current articles spill over too much into each other, and the naming is confusing. Some pages link to Imam Mahdi while others link to Mahdi. What's to be done?
I think splitting the article will be correct and will avoid the confusion. After all "Moses" and "Musa" (both refering to the same person) are split into two articles, one with the Jewish-Christian view and one with the Islamic view; same appies to Isa (Jesus). I think the same should apply to Mahdi.
Lemme know what you think so I can go ahead with the edit.
- There is already a page up for Mahdi, and there really is only a Shi'i POV on Muhammad b. Hasan 'Askari. I'd keep them seperate and replace the name of this article to Muhammad b. Hasan 'Askari (as a 'historical' figure even though there is a great deal of mythology about his existence) and keep Mahdi as is.
Sufisticated 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
- By the way - someone said shias believe imam askeri would return as imam mehdi - thats not true. Imam Mehdi (AS) is the son of Imam Askeri (AS) in shia POV
My apologies to whoever had written that section, but it wasn't corroborated with evidence so I had to remove a few statements. As far as I could find, there are NO mainstream sunnis who believe that Mohammad Al-Mahdi is the same as the Mahdi, since that is in direct opposition to several hadith's. For the same reason there are NO mainstream sunnis who do not believe in the mahdi. To dispute the mahdi is to dispute the hadith, held by sunnis to be the words and deeds of the Prophet. Sorry if that would offend anyone, I'm here if anyone wants to discuss this. --IBaghdadi 13:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Article states: "year of death unknown" Shouldn't this be rephrased to admit possibility that he is still alive? Let's not get any fatwas issued against Wikipedia....
- What, you mean other than for Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy? — JEREMY 12:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Shouldn't this say "Twelver Shia" instead of "Shia"? As I understand it Ismailis would not accept this statement.
This article says the Grand Occultation began in 939 CE but other web sites say 941. In fact, on a Google search for <"grand occulation" 939>, I get zero hits. For <"grand occulation" 941>, I get 544 hits. It seems that although there is agreement that the Grand Occultation took place on 10 Sawwal, there is a dispute among Muslims on whether the this was in 327 A.H. (939 CE) or 329 A.H. (941 CE). The article should either mention this disagreement or else only have the better-attested date of 329 AH (941 CE).
Giving the dates in a mix of A.H. and Gregorian is quite confusing. Why say "10 Sawwal 939" instead of "10 Sawwal 327 AH (30 July 939 C.E)" or "10 Shawwal 329 AH (8 July 941 C.E.)". Or, given that Wikipedia favors CE dates "30 July 939 C.E (10 Sawwal 327 AH) " or "8 July 941 C.E. (10 Shawwal 329 AH)". Interlingua talk email 19:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
- It happened at 329 AH when the last deputies,Abul Hasan Ali ibn Muhammad al-Samarri , died. This year is very famus because in this year some of the other famus Shiite scholars like Koleini deid too. If ther is anybody who thinks 327 is correct, he/she should show the reliable reference.--Sa.vakilian 03:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I was reading through this document in an attempt to learn more about Islam and it's role in the development of western philosophy and theology and came across the term "global fascist dictatorship" in the first paragraph.
Regardless of the shia/sunni interpretation on this subject I doubt that anybody would seriously include this term, I therefore suspect that this was a malicious, or at best capricious edit.
I dont feel qualified to make any edit on a subject such as this however may I suggest that someone with more knowlege on this subject revise this and make the neccesary changes
Regards JM
"Whatever the case, both groups believe that he will bring absolute peace and justice throughout the world by establishing Islam as the only permissible religion resulting in oppression and death for unbelievers."
I removed it. It is controvercial and need reliable reference.--Sa.vakilian 18:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
"This Imam was created by Ashas-ebne-oof one of the followers of Imam Askari. After Imam Askari's death (because he had not any children) Ashas decided to create a child for him to integrate Shias and don't let them to spread. He said to Shias that Imam had a child but for security options Imam Askari did not say to anyone about him and he is safely gaurded by us in the cellar. Jafar (Imam Askari's brother) said it's a lie because if there exists any children for him I must know about it. but Ashas said to people that he is a lier and called him Jafar-e-Kazzab (Jafar the lier). The people believed him but after sometimes they had doubt about new Imam and they wanted to see him. Ashas said that we prayed behind him last night and he said I must go and I'll be back when the world become ready to accept me. He disappeared after that."
I removed this part from the article. This part isn't verifiable. You should refer to reliable sources if you want to add it in the article. Also the title "The realistic history" seems POV.--Sa.vakilian 05:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
"Occult" means "hidden," so I would assume the Occultation is the period during which the Imam is hidden from worldly view. Claire McD 12547
You might take the time to read the site Imam Al-mahdi then read the book of danel in the old testomate then read more in the quran and hadifs about what happens after he appears IE; The trees and rocks will speak to the belivers in Islam and say:" look behind me ther isa jew hiding look behind me says the rock there is a jew hiding behind me " very interesting this "al mahdi " fist the role of adolph hitler and the anti christ combined . reality: THIS IS the anti CHIRST , If you need more evidence go read the book of Danel and also read the site http://www.al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/index.htm
and study old testomate prophecy and new testomate prophecy , This man fist the discription of the ANTI CHRIST. before you delet this blog go reseach it
Over at 2007#Unknown dates, it says "The Hidden Imam will appear this year, according to Iranian President Ahmadinejad." Seems this should be listed here. . Anybody have quotes, cites for this prediction? — coelacan talk — 04:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
A few months ago, On Jack Van Impe Presents, I heard that the Mahdi would come this spring.--168.13.191.66 17:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have removed the following phrase from para 1 above since it seemed like a snide remark against President Ahmedinejad. "since Ahmadinejad and his eschatological beliefs are pretty important"
The Mahdi article is a mess of poor sourcing, misleading claims and otherwise poor scholarship and I think it would be far better for the lay observer if what information it had was included in this. Elijahmeeks 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
- No - not a good idea. The majority of Muslims do not regard this individual as the Mahdi. --Henrygb 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
- The majority of Muslims, as I understand it, regard a claim of the coming of a prophet-like individual other than Isa to be haram. Having a seperate "Mahdi" article implies to the casual observer that this is something other than a primarily Shia belief.Elijahmeeks 00:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I agree with Henrygb; the Mahdi is seen differently by Sunnis and Shi'as and only in the Shi'a version is he the Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi. So Mahdi which includes both Sunni and Shia beliefs of the Mahdi cannot be put into this article, because Sunnis don't believe the Muhammad al-Mahdi has anything to do with the Mahdi. A better way to organize the articles is to keep the Mahdi article with both Sunni and Shia beliefs, and this article can serve both as a daughter article of Mahdi in summary style, and as it's own article about the Shi'a personage. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I think the articles should be merged. I wrote the article in Hebrew Wikipedia, and it wasn't a problem. Many things are similar between the 12th Imam and the Sunni Mahdi. The differenced should be pointed out in the article. For example, only Shia Hadith (Sahih Al-Bukhri, mainly) say the Mahdi will be the decendent of the Shia Imams, but both Sunni and Shia Hadith say the Mahdi will come from Fatima bint Muhammad. It's a much more interesting article if the differences are shown between the sects, rather than dividing it into two articles.Lizrael 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Strongly Oppose- Only Shia muslims believe that Muhammad al-Mahdi was actually the revered Mahdi. Sunni Muslims strongly oppose this notion & merging the Main article Mahdi into this article will be considered offending to Sunni beliefs. -- Đõc §aмέέЯ 20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would oppose to the merger between the two articles. From a Sunni point of view, yes it will be see as offensive to the Sunnis to qualify the Shia imam Muhammad Al Mahdi as the promised Mesiah (the Mahdi) since the Sunnis do not believe in him.
From a third person view I believe we should not merge the two articles as the article on Muhammad Al Mahdi is about a real person while the article on Mahdi is about a belief in the Promised Mesiah...they are two different concepts if not two different identities.
Saturday, 18/08/2007
Mahdi 15:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Horrible idea. Strongly oppose. This article is about one of many claimants. No one of them owns a franchise to the title. It's preposterous. Jeff 02:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply