Talk:Muhammad al-Mahdi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I apologize for my lack of knowledge editing wikipedia. If someone wishes to edit this to add it to the discussion please do, if it's relevant. There's a lot of talk of Muhammad being a pedophile on the internet. Obviously there's no mention of it on the wikipedia entry, so I'm forced to assume it's false info. So I'm curious where/why this has become an issue, and where it's origins came from. - my ip addy is 75.101.124.18. Again, sorry for my lack of editing ability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.124.18 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Article needs a lot of work![edit]

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 POV87.194.54.232 (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes to "Sunni view", explained here[edit]

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]


Well, there are a lot of sunni's who believed Al-Mahdi to be the son of Al-Hasan. the term "NO mainstream sunnis" is not reliable. Anybody can say that "NO mainstream sunnis" believed that he was NOT a son of Al-Hasan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.244.73 (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shia versus Twelver Shia[edit]

Shouldn't this say "Twelver Shia" instead of "Shia"? As I understand it Ismailis would not accept this statement.

He is the person believed by Shi'as to be the Mahdi;

--Saforrest 04:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By Shias, they mean most of them. I believe 95% of shias are twelvers so no change needed. 87.194.54.232 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

939 or 941 CE?[edit]

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]

global fascist dictatorship ??[edit]

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

Doubtful claim[edit]

"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]

The realistic history[edit]

"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]

This is a common myth.--79.69.111.105 (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Occultation[edit]

"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

2007[edit]

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"

--Mahdi 23:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Scholarly observations[edit]

This should be changed to Academic Observations, as Scholarly could confuse people to think these are the opinions of Muslim scholars. 79.183.238.8 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Mahdi with Muhammad al-Mahdi[edit]

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]

This article can't be called a claimant as the evidence to support them both is the same.--79.69.111.105 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As it is, there is even another man seen to be the Mahdi and Occulted Imam by other Shi'ites, that is At-Tayyib Abu'l-Qasim, whom Mustaali Isma'ilis accept as their Imam and Mahdi.

Baha'i View[edit]

The section on the Baha'i view is entirely incorrect. Baha'is do in fact believe in the authority of Muhammad al-Mahdi as the Twelfth Imam, and in the four Gates. However, we also believe that al-Bab was the promised return of the Mahdi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.201.140 (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a historical person?[edit]

Does mainstream, secular, historiography have any kind of consensus on whether Muhammad al-Mahdi is/was a real, historical person or not? If so, please add this info, although I fear it might cause edit wars. If there is no consensus, this should be stated too. -- 77.7.142.4 (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, this page is extremely confusing in that regard. Is the historicity of this person confirmed by secular sources? Is there disagreement? I guess part of the problem is the cited academic sources that I've read through don't really discuss the issue. 99.43.181.127 (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. UtherSRG (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hujjat al-Mahdi → Muhammad al-Mahdi – his name is muhammad al mahdi not hujjat al mahdi. al hujjah is one of his titles relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 89.148.7.213 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. This article was moved from the proposed title to the current title on 10 March. Jenks24 (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should the section on the Ahmadiyya view be deleted?[edit]

Various IP editors keep deleting this section. Perhaps we could have a discussion?--Toddy1 (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion would be good. So far, nor real reason for the deletion has been offered. Edward321 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see this thread. The last deletion explained the reason in the edit summary. The content is at Mahdi#Ahmadiyya Viewpoint, and as I understand it, Ahmadiyya believes Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the Mahdi, rather than Muhammad al-Mahdi. StAnselm (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good explanation, the content definitely belongs in that article, not this one. Edward321 (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new secular source[edit]

Islamic Messianism: The Idea of Mahdī in Twelver Shīʻism By Abdulaziz Abdulhussein Sachedina

  • «For more than a millenium the idea of the future coming of the Mahdi has provided Shi'i piety with a unique aspiration in the redemption through the appearance of the twelfth Imam.», p. ix
  • «The belief in the appearance of Hidden Imam as the Mahdi helped Shi'ites to endure under unbearable situations and to hope for a just future pending the return of Mahdi. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that without such a belief in the role of the twelfth Imam the Imammite religion might not have been able to survive persecutions under different dynasties in the course of Islamic history before it becomes established as the official creed of the safavid empire at the beginning of the sixteenth century...Thus, the ghayba of the Imam has acted as a creative force in the lives of the Imamites in order not only to help them bear with patience the difficult times, but also to prepare them to fulfill their historical responsibility of establishing a true Islamic rule even before Imam assumes the leadership of the Imamiyya. », pp. 181-183
  • «The hope in future coming of the Imam thus became the moderating force among the Imamiya who postponed any political action pending the appearance of the Awaited Mahdi and al-Qaim... (Twelver Messianism:) the quietist movement which aimed at peaceful existence within the Muslim community at large while retaining its peculiarity regarding the Imamate especially the Imamate of the HIdden Hujja.» p. 60
  • «Al-Sharif al-murtada in his Treatise on the Occultation of the Twelfth Imamite Imam, has summarized the Imamite argument about the Imam being lutf even during the ghayba as follows:» p. 134

...because with their awareness of his existence among them and their being certain about the incumbency to obey him, they will inevitably fear him and respect him [so that they would not] commit an evil deed. They are are afraid of being chastised or reprimanded by him. In this manner the [performance of] vile deeds will decrease among them and the good deeds will increase or at least they will be closer to such a thing.


  • «Both Muhammad al-Baqir and Ja'far al-Sadq were at various times approached by their followers and assured of their support if they wanted to rise against the existing regime. The Imam had to appease the impatience of their Shi'a by saying that while it was true that all the Imams were Qa'im and thus capable of overthrowing unjust rule, the eschatalogical Qa'im would appear after concealment to wipe out injustice only when God would command him to do so» pp. 15-16
  • «The Alid Imams had realized the futility of any attempt to establish an Alid caliphate especially after what had befallen Ali al-Reda in 817. Consequently, they seem t have encouraged the idea of the future establishment of the legitimate caliphate, after the return of the Imam in concealment.» pp. 25-26
  • «Imam al-Hadi continued to live more freely during these years. It must have been during these years that he appointed Uthman al-Amri to his personal reppresentative and agent in Baghdad. Uthman was also subsequently confirmed in his office by al-Askari and the last Imam.» p. 28
  • «The period which gave rise to this confusion began with the caliphate of al-Mu'tamid and continued up to the time of al-Muqtadir. During this time, the agents of the dead Imam persisted in upholding the belief that there existed a son of al-Askari in occultation who would rise when God commands him to do so. The upholders of this belief were under attack from all sides and met with severe opposition. THe Abbasids were particularly concerned about the messianic successor of al-Askari in concealment. Al-Mutamid for this reason ordered the house of the Imam to be investigated, and all the rooms were locked after being searched. Efforts were made to find out if the Imam had left a son, and midwives were appointed in the harem of the Imam in order to detect any pregnancy. One of the slave girls was suspected to be pregnant and isolated in a room in a special house where she was kept under surveillance. On one occasion al-Askari's wife (Sayqal, mother of the infant Imam) was imprisoned on refusing to reveal the whereabout of her son. ... This situation continued until the caliphate was caught in the political disturbances caused by the Zanj and provincial leaders in Iran, Egypt and Syria. » p. 41
  • «The Abbasid had also supported Ja'far a brother of al-Askari and claimant to the office of the Imamate in order to createa dispute whithin the Imam's family. Our sources describe Ja'far as a worldly and pleasure-loving man who in order to become the Imam had used various repressive means in the presence of al-Mu'tamid and more than once has tried to slander those who upheld the Imamate of the infant son of al-Askari in concealment.» p.41
  • «Jabir, the well-know companion of the prophet is reported to have asked the prophet about the benefit of having Imam in ghayba, to which he replied that the Shiites would obtain light witht he help of light of Imam and would benefit by the means of his love (welaya) during his occultation, just as the people would benefit from the sun while it is covered by the clouds.» p. 105


Kazemita1 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a claim in the article[edit]

Currently, the article says: "The Twelver Shias were a minority shia group, amongst the various Shia groups until Ismail I made conversion mandatory to the Twelver Shias"

However, when I check the sources mentioned in the article, the claim is not supported:

  • Encyclopedia Iranica:

"The second major problem facing Esmāʿīl was how to convert a nominally Sunni population to Eṯnā-ʿašarī Shiʿism"

  • Shi'i Islam in Iranian Cinema, p. 23:

"Sunnis remained the majority in Persia and continued to dominate its major urban centres for several centuries, there was a gradual resurgence of Twelver Shi'ism which was allowed for the first time...Clearly, the significance of the Shi'a in Iran cannot be overlooked. Indeed as shown above their role and influence in these lands stretches back to the formative period of Islam, and not merely to the rise of the Safavids in the early sixteenth century as is conventional in most other historical accounts of the development o f Shi'ism in Iran."

  • Commissar and Mullah: Soviet-Muslim Policy, p. 153:

"Shiism only became popular in Iran in the 16th century. In the Middle Ages Iran was Sunni"

  • Islamic Architecture: Form, Function and Meaning By Robert Hillenbrand, p. 152:

"But the bulk of Iran was Sunni, and it is therefore not surprising that minarets from Sunni areas far outnumber those from Shi'ite ones."

In other words, all the above sources are saying Shiism was in minority and Sunnism was the majority before Safavid (Ismail I) came to power. They are not suggesting, the twelver sect of Shiism was a minority inside Shiism. As a matter of fact, sources suggest something completely different:

«by the third and fourth decades of the 10th century(i.e. the closing years of the Lesser Occultation), the majority of the Shiis were agreed about the line of the Twelve Imams.» An Introduction to Shi'ism, By Mojan Momen, Yale University Press --Kazemita1 (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Occultation revisited[edit]

I apologize in advance if this insults anyone's religious sensitivities. It is not my desire to inflict any emotional stress on anyone. As a WP editor, I have absolutely no interest in religion whatsoever. I understand that, for many people, the Mahdi did not die, but rather went through The Occultation; I understand the difference.

However, you must acknowledge that this is a religous belief, akin to the Christian-held belief that Christ did not die, but instead ascended directly into heaven. Neither of these are documented facts according to modern standards, and they are not allowed as direct claims of fact within the text of an article. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss the widely-held belief that he was 'occulted', rather than died, just as the article Jesus discusses the common belief in ascension. However, the lede may not simply state this as a fact. Unless, that is, you can find a WP:RS that proves this to be a fact.

So there, I've justified my edit, and I will now re-make my reverted edit. User:Kazemita1, I ask you specifically: please do not "edit-war" with me on this issue. If you continue to disagree with me, please discuss this fact, and your reasons for it, on this talk page. Thanks in advance for your good-faith editing. Eaglizard (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • NB: I have not re-inserted the disputed verb 'died'; following the method used in Jesus, I instead simply listed the years during which the Imam is known to have existed on this Earth. I hope this compromise is acceptable. The article completely discusses the topic of Occultation, beginning with it's second sentence. Eaglizard (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome keeping the article in a secular fashion. That being said I encourage you User:Eaglizard to find sources that back your edit. I will be doing the same. As a side note, the difference between this case and that of Jesus is that Mahdi is believed to be in Occultation ever since he was born. In other words, the majority of Shia never saw him as a child to begin with. That is why, I do not recommend talking about birth/death in a factual manner; rather I suggest to keep it in the belief statement format. For example, saying: "According to Shia orthodoxy, he was born in year xxx and has been in minor Occultation ever since, until year yyy after which he is believed to be in major Occultation." Feel free to propose your own text. Kazemita1 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is excellent, and I appreciate your openness. I am only concerned with the so called "dates", ie, what would commonly be called birth and death years and which are required to appear in the first sentence of a biographical article. Since the normal format used in many other article does not use the words 'born' or 'died' in the opening sentence, we don't need to use those specific words here, either. If you are a believer, then you can consider these years as the years the Imam was known to be in physical incarnation. If you are not a believer, you will interpret these dates as normal. The article already has a nice long section discussing the Occultation; I absolutely think it should be discussed thoroughly, as long as it is referred to as the belief or opinion of a group and not stated as a simple fact. To say that this one man, (alone of all men?), did not die is what we refer to as an 'extraordinary claim', and in this case, is so extraordinary that I don't believe there is any available source reliable enough to convince most WP editors that he did not die as all other men have. I do not dispute this belief; there are many things in this world I do not know. But, I don't want to state it AS A FACT that he did, or did not die, unless someone has photographs or other indisputable proof (I'm joking, I realize this isn't possible). However, there is also no reason for the article to directly DENY the Occultation by stating he died in 874; again, most articles just use Birth Year (dash) Death Year, without using the words 'born' or 'died'. Does the current opener satisfy you on this point?
Also, I don't think the article fully discusses what you stated above, about how most Shia never saw him as a child. Perhaps you can expand on that in the article, if its not in there already? (I didn not read the entire article with care, it may be in there already.) Eaglizard (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the article does not elaborate on that yet. I will try to make it more clear. The thing is in that case we will probably will have to change the lead as well to reflect this issue.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should do so, if you have knowledge (and refs, of course) about this. I have none; I have never studied this subject. I just edited it as I was reading to learn about Muhammad al-Mahdi, and I have a particular concern with article ledes. I'm sure whatever you come up with will be helpful, but feel free to add a link to my username if you want me to look over your changes, I'm always glad to help out with what I'm best at, which is editing the writing of others more knowledgable than me. I am very good at achieving the 'encyclopedic tone' of writing. One further note I would like to add: it has been a pleasant surprise that you were so easy to work with, I feared (unfairly) that this would devolve into religious edit warring, and I am glad it remained entirely civil. :) Assuming you are a Muslim, I'm again baffled why Westerners persist in the prejudice that Muslims are fanatical and hard to compromise with; the truth is that I have had MUCH, much harder battles with Christians and Jews over things far more trivial than this! It has been a pleasure editing with you, Kazemita1. Thank you! Eaglizard (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did my best User:Eaglizard. Just one note; in Shia countries (that people actually believe in Mahdi's present existence in Occultation) he is known as Hujjat ibn al-Hassan not the name that appears currently as the title of this article. I therefore took the liberty to use that name in rewriting the lead and I am thinking of changing the article name to that as well. Sources such as Britanica choose somewhere in the middle for the title. Let me know what you think.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A New Strucure[edit]

@BiObserver and Kazemita1:I made a new strucure, but I think the name of the sections and the strucure of the article needs to be worked on more.Salman mahdi (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your suggestion?
  1. Birth and Early Life
    1. Names, Kunyas and Titles
    2. His Ancestors
    3. His Attributes
    4. Quran and Mahdi
    5. Mahdi and Hadith
  2. Different Seasons of His Life
    1. Hidden Life
    2. The Occultation
      1. Minor Occultation
      2. Major Occultation
      3. Benefits of the Imam in the Occultation
      4. Reasons and Consequences of the Occultation
      5. Longevity
        1. Argument by Quran
        2. Argument by Hadith
        3. Argument by Reason
      6. Tawqiat
    3. Reappearance
  3. Condition Before the Occultation
    1. Preparing the Shia for the Occultation
    2. Deputies
  4. Significance of the Twelfth Imam
  5. Historicity of Muhammad al-Mahdi
  6. Scholarly observations
  7. Sunni view
I prefer the following structure:
  1. Historiography
  2. Birth of Muhammad al-Mahdi
    1. Twelvers Shia view regarding his
    2. Historical view
  3. Era of Sufara (Minor occultation)
    1. Sifarat/Wikalat institution
    2. First safir
    3. Second Safir
    4. Third Safir
    5. Fourth Safir
  4. Post Sufara era
  5. Shia view about Muhammad al-Mahdi
    1. in Shia Hadiths
      1. prior his birth
      2. during Era of Sufara
      3. after Era of Sufara
    2. in Theology and philosophy
    3. in culture and society
    4. Emergence, uprising and establishment of the Islamic state
  6. non-Shia views--Seyyed(t-c) 10:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Combine[edit]

Marge with the general Mahdi page?--88.111.129.157 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not merge, because Mahdi is the name of a savior which is an idea, but Mohammad al-Mahdi is a real person that is the twelfth Imam of Shia.--Salman mahdi (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could we perhaps put (Twelver Shia) or something along those lines in the title such as Muhammed ibn Hasan to prevent the confusion?--88.111.125.56 (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"well-known statement"[edit]

Kazemita1 has reinserted[1] a passage about a "well-known statement" which was previously removed[2] by Edward321. The source is a book authored by an Iranian, Muslim theologian, and self-published on a vanity press. In addition, the passage is very weasely, vaguely referencing "Sunnite transmitters" without naming them or their works. In the absence of any other, reliable sources to back it up, the passage should probably be removed again.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Edward321 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I inquired about the source in the reliable source noticeboard here. The consensus confirms the book is reliable and the publisher is not a vanity press. They also were able to point me to a different reliable source which more or less confirms the same claim. I will rephrase the material to address tone and neutrality concerns.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recant the claim of self-publication (I got the wrong Darwin Press), but I still find it suspicious that supposed Sunni source is not named. "Ibn Ani Zaynab al-Nu'mani" seems to be a Shia source.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The new reference that I added does mention the Sunni sources albeit in the footnote:

The hadith appears in both Bukhari (as amirs Bab al-istakhlaf, 7062) and Muslim (as "caliphs", Bab al-nas taba l-Quraysh, 4667)

I will add them to the article; thanks for pointing that out.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The full passage from Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam[edit]

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

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

Blanked copy-pasted material from an unfree source due to copyright violation - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Marziyeh.k has twice added "However, living a long life is not something new or impossible. The longevity of Noah is directly mentioned in Quran : “And We certainly sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand years minus fifty years, and the flood seized them while they were wrongdoers” [a]" to the article. [3] [4] This is clearly original research on their part. Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an original research. In this phrase example of Prophet Noah from Holy Quran has been referred in support. A Number of books contained material about the topic of Longevity citing reference of Prophets Esa, Younus, Shoaib, Khizr etc. The flag of OR does not merit to be applied here. Nannadeem (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is original research, because it is only sourced to the Qur'an. According to WP:ISLAMOR, we should not interpret the Qur'an ourselves, but let secondary sources do that for us. --HyperGaruda (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:ISLAMOR, "Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge" .So the statement can be applied to the verse in which the longevity of Noah is mentioned, because it is discussing his age which is a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts. Marziyeh.k (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that "Noah lived for a thousand minus fifty years" would be a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts. To conclude from it, that "living a long life is not something new or impossible" IS original research. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Aubrey de Grey a British scientist has already claimed that the secret to preventing ageing may be solved in the near future and that some people born already may live for up to a 1,000 years [5]. Thus I have liberty to claim that "living a long life is not something new or impossible" is not the original research in this article. Nannadeem (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note the words "may be" and "future" in "may be solved in the near future". In other words, living a long life has not happened yet, so claiming that it "is not new or impossible" is currently still original research. Also, it would be WP:SYNTHESIS, because that newspaper article does not speak at all about Muhammad al-Mahdi. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Application of "may be" is equal to possibility. Where there is possibility insisting on impossibility is contrary to common sense. If one considers the long live is impossible then example of any Prophet with ref to his long life cannot be treated as an OR. Muslims has absolute faith in the verdict "Qullu Nafsin Za Iqatul Maut! Everything that lives shall taste Death!" Muslims further believe that Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam is still alive. Shatan (Iblees) is inferior to Human, he is still living! Nannadeem (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

‎Baha'i View[edit]

@Chadchumley: Added a section on a section on ‎Baha'i View, that appears to have been for the article Mahdi. Could you please clarify that the sources state Báb is a literal reincarnation of the son of Hasan al-Askari, or if it just means that the he is the promised Mahdi? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyed 'Ali Muhammad Sharzai is viewed as both the literal and metaphorical incarnation of the son of Hasan al-Askari. [[[User:Chadchumley|Chadchumley]] (talk)] —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chadchumley: Could you please provide a citation where it explicitly says this, as I am not able to find this mentioned in the given references. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Simply go to Bab on en.wikipedia.org. Chadchumley (talk)
Siyyid 'Ali Muhammad i-Shirazi al-Bab Chadchumley (talk)
@Chadchumley: Please highlight which sources, or cite it in this page too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Emir Sayyed 'Ali Muhammad Shirazi is already linked to this section. Chadchumley (talk)] —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chadchumley: I am not asking you to link the article, but highlight the source in that article which supports your claim. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emir of Wikipedia Thank you for your concern. From the direct source, Sayyed 'Ali Muhammad Sharazi al-Bab claimed to be a special representative of Muhammad al-Mahdi and I've linked this and changed it accordingly. Many blessings to you Emir. Chadchumley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attributes[edit]

I've removed this section as it was essentially prophecy in Wikipedia's voice. If someone wants to re-add it, it needs to be in encyclopaedic language and properly sourced. GoldenRing (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Contemporary influence[edit]

@Diannaa: You permanently removed all the content I had added from 18:09, 13 May 2017 to 05:56, 14 May 2017 to Muhammad al-Mahdi claiming that they were copy-right violation from Eurasia Review while the two sources I had cited was rather the Hudson Institute which is the original publisher. So was your charge about the text or the source? 185.119.241.94 (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter which was the original source; the material is copyright, and it's not okay to copy-paste copyright material into our articles. Please see our copyright policy for more information on copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: I see! So it means I didn't adequately rephrased the text. But can you provide me the copy of the text so that I can rephrase it and add it back to the page? It is boring to read the two long articles all over again. 185.119.241.94 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: I don't know if my last message effectively notified you. Please note my request. Thanks! 185.119.241.94 (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The overlapping content is visible in this report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlapping content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! I restored the texts after rephrasing them. I added segments that were difficult to paraphrase inside quotations marks to avoid copy-right violations.185.119.241.94 (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing section titles[edit]

@Emir of Wikipedia:, Can you explain why you insist on this change? The change of titles doesn't make sense. This section must have a title that meaningfully represents the subsections (Contemporary influence and Controversies). Changing it from "Historical social impact" to "Attributes" doesn't do that! And this section properly explains the attributes of Mahdi, not all of which are prophecies. So I don't see why you insist on changing the title from "Attributes" to "Prophecies". --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change "Historical social impact" to "Attributes". If something is not a prophecy then remove it and put it in the appropriate section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
‌But I still don't see why that section should change to "Prophecies". First there are several other prophecies mentioned in the entire body of the article that are related to other titles and can't be moved to this section. Second, the character traits of Mahdi in Shia Islam pertain to an actual alive person. Hence they are not so much prophecies than news. As for Sachedina's descriptions of his promised uprising, since those points are broadly mentioned elsewhere in the article, I'd rather use his description as an opening for the section on Historical impact instead of Attributes or Prophecies.--Expectant of Light (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Emir of Wikipedia: --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Muhammad al-Mahdi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Muhammad al-Mahdi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad al-Mahdi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

LissanX Can I ask why you changed the name of the article from Muhammad al-Mahdi to Hujjat-Allah al-Mahdi, saying "Changed to correct name according to Shia sources", when non-Twelver Shi'ites don't accept this guy to be real, the Occulted Imam, or the Mahdi? Leo1pard (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC); edited 17:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name of Mahdi was changed from Muhammad al Mahdi to Hujjatullah al Mahdi, mentioning that it has been changed according to Shia sources. Please provide references for the same.Blessedby14 (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some mistakes[edit]

Actually there are many Shia traditions. Lplp1213 (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit[edit]

Controversial content requires credible and verifiable sources. Added resources are not valid enough.M.Nadian (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear writing -- still alive?[edit]

A lot of this article is in present tense as though this person is still alive. Is that what is believed? The article should make this clearer. --Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New edits[edit]

The new edits address the following issues (in addition to other improvements, hopefully). As a general criticism, the article was light on historical details and heavy on beliefs and numerous back and forths between various editors with opposing views.

  • What's the point of "Most Sunni Muslims reject that he was..." in the lead? The article already starts by clarifying that this is a Twelver belief. The Sunni view is discussed in detail later in the article.
  • There are lots of primary sources in the article and most of their claims are already covered by better secondary sources.
  • The section "Condition after Al-Askari's death" was replaced with "Historical background" with more relevant content.
  • The section "Non-Twelver views" about mahdism is not relevant in this article about Muhammad ibn Hasan. See Mahdi for mahdism. A large part of this section consists of poorly sourced material about "Hazrat Ishaan". More relevant material was added under "Connections with the Islamic figure of Mahdi."
  • Some of the material is sourced from websites.
  • The subsection "Consequences" was merged with "Historical and social impact." The latter was also renamed, see below.
  • The section "Scohlarly observations" is mainly a battleground for Sunni and Shia editors to attack each other. There is hardly any justification for a section like this in an article about Shia history.
  • The very long quote from Khorasani was summarized in the text.
  • The section "Attributes" can be easily merged with the later sections. It doesn't seem to contain any new information.
  • The last paragraph of "Historicity" is obviously irrelevant here (and discussed earlier). It could be argued that a historicity section is a bad idea as it's not clear the historicity of what (among all the information on this page) is being examined. If it's the existence of al-Mahdi that's in question, it's much better to discuss it in "Birth and early life." Everything in "Historicity" seems to be covered in "Birth and early life," except Corbin's philosophical comment and the last paragraph (which is covered later). This is perhaps a strong case for removing this section.
  • "It also acted as a moderating force among them by postponing political activities until the future coming of the Awaited Mahdi" is not in the source (Sachedina, 181-183). Similarly, "strive to build their own provisional Islamic government in anticipation of Mahdi's promised rule" is not in the source (Sachedina, 182-183) Precise page numbers for some other claims were added.
  • Subsection "Secular democracy during Occultation" is far from neutral and solely promotes the view that the current Iranian system of governance is illegitimate. Without taking a side in this argument, it's clear that Wikipedia is not the place for such one-sided political arguments. This subsection was summarized and, in particular, the very long quote was removed.
  • A summary of the paragraph "The Shia millennial vision of history continues to be expressed...," taken from Sachedina, already appears earlier.
  • The caption "Akhund Khurasani is known to be the greatest theorist of Usuli Shi'ism in modern times" clearly has to be removed.
  • The title "Historical social impact" was replaced with the seemingly more appropriate "Sociopolitical impact."
  • There is no mention of Akhund Khurasani in the given source for the sentence "During the first democratic revolution of Asia, ..."
  • "Hence, he refuted the idea of absolute guardianship of jurist" seems to be redundant and was removed because the said concept is not yet introduced in the article and this opposition to the said concept also becomes evident from the next paragraph (which starts with "On the other hand...")
  • "that apparently exemplifies this influence in form of" is not implied in the source.
  • "under the influence of the Lebanese resistance organization Hezbollah" might be misinterpreting the source, which actually doesn't hold Hezbollah responsible for the recent changes (while that may very well be the case in reality).
  • Cleaned up the links and removed the dead ones. Albertatiran (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imam Al Mehdi according to sunnism[edit]

There is little mention of this. Sunnis believe he is from the descent of Hassan(RA) not Hussain(RA) we do not believe he is alive in this world now but will be born like a ordinary human being just before dajjal comes. His name will be the same as the prophet's(SAW), Muhammad the son of Abdullah. We do not believe that Hassan Al-Askari had any son and this belief also exists in some shi'i texts. This is the belief of Most if not All sunnis and this is the belief according to all the 4 imams, imam Malik, imam Ahmad, imam Abu Hanifa and imam Shafi'i. 82.23.9.54 (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is about Muhammad al-Mahdi ibn al-Askari in Shia belief. What you're looking for is Mahdi, which covers the eschatological beliefs of the various sects, including Sunni Islam. That is to say that the Sunni Mahdi is out of the scope of Muhammad al-Mahdi ibn al-Askari. Albertatiran (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi my dear friend. I'm Twelver shia and I think someone deceive you about that. our twelve imam is alive and don't borne from other and he was born in 232 A.H ,
He has just 1189 years old until now but he's like a middle_adge man 2A01:5EC0:B005:1806:E521:87F6:1AC9:C6D1 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_al-Mahdi&oldid=1216894753"