DD

I have been reading about the tradition about appearence of Mahdi and what i have noticed is a pattern, that is no mention of Mahdi in earliest Hadith books, follwed by mention of a ruler without attributing the title "Mahdi" in Muslim and Bukhari who will appear at end of times and fill the earth with justice.

Ths is followed by later Hadith books which mention the name "Mahdi" and give more explanations about his appearence and describe him meeting Jesus a.s.

Muwatta Imam Malik the first of famous Hadith books mentions nothing about Mahdi. Imam Malik's born in 93 hijri and died in 179 hijry, i don't know when he authored Muwatta, probably around 150 hijry.

Bukhari and Muslim if i am correct written around 300 hijry and do not mention anyone with name "Mahdi". Then come later Hadith books like Tirmidhi and Abi Dawood which mention "Mahdi" and more details of his appearence such as he will be in Makkah and when people pay allegiance to him.

It gives an impression that concept of "Mahdi" evolved with passage of time.

Also notable is that Ibn Khaldoun a respected historian and social scientist doubted appearence of Mahdi and has written a critique of Ahadith about Mahdi and so did Allama Iqbal.

hareem01

What are you actually reading?

DD

I have been reading the traditions about Mahdi on various websites. Such as

Imaam Mahdi and the Signs that will precede him.

Q & A: Is Imam Mahdi Coming?

and similarly many others. I will try to put them in order of authorship of time of books.

jaanaan

religions will die out soon if there were no myths to support them. So everyone comes out with myths. the Myth of Mehdi is nothing new. almost a similar character is found in every religion, inlcuding christianity and Hinduism. so it is not surprising that muslims had to come up with something similar.

hareem01

Ibn Khaldoun and Allama Iqbal both weren't traditional scholars and their doubts have been refuted by different scholars.

Iconoclast

I too take concept of Mahdi with a pinch of salt. Its true that Ibn Khaldoun was not a traditional scholar but he is a well respected historian and his views on history has gone long way in shaping sunni beleifs. Even the scholars who beleive that traditions about appearence of Mahdi are true like Hanafis, also state that beleif in him being Mahdi is not required for Eman.

Mr.Popat

that doesnt make any sense. Let me put in a very simply way.

Hazrat Muhammad PBUH gave us the good news about Imam Mahdi AS's appearance.

In Quran it is said to obey Allah and His Messenger, whoever disobeys His messenger, is disobeying Allah.

You not accepting Imam Mahdi's appearance is disobeying Prophet Muhammad PBUH, which is disobeying Allah.

hareem01

Yes it is not part of Aqeedah to believe in Imam Mahdi but after looking at the mutawatir ahadith in tirmidhi and abi daud i don't see any reason to reject him.

teggy

I believe Al-Mahdi to be a reality (waiting to happen).

submitmj

The Quran states very, very clearly not to uphold any other source of religious guidance besides the Quran. That means any and all other sources. The 'Medhi' is a hadith fabrication. There is no mention of any 'Mehdi' in the Quran, but there is mention of a messenger that will come after all scriptures have revealed for the purpose of confirming the Quran is, in fact, from GOD.

[Quran 3:81] When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that whichye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter) ? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you.

There is a major misunderstanding that this verse applies to Muhammad. Muhammad was prophet and was given scripture. This verse specifically addresses the Prophets who were given scriptures. Thus, Muhammad was one of the prophets who took this covenant. As well, this verse says 'afterward' a messenger will come to confirm that which ye possess. When you read this verse, you are reading the Quran. Thus, what is in your possession is the Quran. Thus, it is the Quran that is being 'confirmed'.

Another reason for the misunderstanding is because of the mistranslating of Sura 33:40. Many believe it says Muhammad is the last messenger and last prophet, but the Quran is clearly saying otherwise. For example, Yusuf Ali translates it as follows:

[33:40 Yusuf Ali] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things.

The arabic is very clear, 'rasoolallah wa Khaatimun Nabiyeen' (Messenger and final Prophet).

Rasool = Messenger
Allah = GOD
wa= and
Khaatimum = final
Nabiyeen = Prophet

As you can see very clearly that Muhammad IS the last Prophet, but NOT the last messenger as there is a messenger coming after the Quran has been revealed for the purpose of 'confirming' it (Quran 3:81). Thus, prophets bring scripture, messengers confirm scripture. Remember, the Quran tells us every community gets a messenger, some we know about, some we do not. If messengers and prophets were the same thing there would be thousands of scriptures circulating the world......but there are not.

Peace

hareem01

^I don't understand how is this related to the topic of this thread?

Iconoclast

If you had read the thread from beginning, the whole discussion is about, if Rasoolullah pbuh did actually say anything about Mahdi or not.

DD

I am not a scholar, but what is the definition of Tawatur?

As i have mentioned previously, there was no mention of Mahdi in Muwatta, followed by mentioned of a ruler with no name in Bukhari and only later Ahadith mention the title Al-Mahdi. There does not appear to be a tawatur but an evolution.

hareem01

Tawatur means an unbroken chain of narrations. if it's not mentioned in Bukhari and Muslim with the title of "Mahdi" doesn't mean it's not true rather simply indicates that those ahadith were collected later by other Scholars.
Point is as long as the ahadith are authentic and their chain is unbroken it doesn't matter if they were written long after bukhari and muslim.


Below is some useful information, please read.




Translated from al-Kattani's Nazm al-Mutanathir fi al-Hadith al-Mutawatir by GF Haddad

The coming out of al-Mahdi is narrated from the following Companions :

1. Ibn Mas`ud by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah;
2. Umm Salama by Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, and al-Hakim;
3. `Ali ibn Abi Talib by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and Ibn Majah;
4. Abu Sa`id al-Khudri by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Abu Ya`la, and al-Hakim;
5. Thawban by AHmad, Ibn Majah, and al-Hakim;
6. Qurra ibn Iyas al-Muzani by al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir and al-Awsat;
7. `Abd Allah ibn al-Harith ibn Jaz' by Ibn Majah and al-Tabarani in al-Awsat;
8. Abu Hurayra by Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, Abu Ya`la, al-Bazzar, al-Tabarani in al-Awsat, and others;
9. Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman by al-Ruwyani;
10. Ibn `Abbas by Abu Nu`aym in Akhbar al-Mahdi;
11. Jabir ibn `Abd Allah by Ahmad and Muslim, the latter not mentioning al-Mahdi by name;
12. `Uthman by al-Daraqutni in al-Afrad;
13. Abu Umama by al-Tabarani in al-Kabir;
14. `Ammar ibn Yasir by al-Daraqutni in al-Afrad, al-Khatib, and Ibn `Asakir;
15. Jabir ibn Majid al-Sadafi by al-Tabarani in al-Kabir;
16. Ibn `Umar by al-Tabarani in al-Awsat;
17. Talha ibn `Ubayd Allah by al-Tabarani in al-Awsat;
18. Anas ibn Malik by Ibn Majah;
19. `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf by Abu Nu`aym;
20. `Imran ibn Husayn by Abu `Amr al-Dani in his Sunan and others.

Tawatur was reported on the subject by al-Sakhawi in Fath al-Mughith from Abu al-Husayn al-Abirri al-Sijistani's (d. 363) Sharh al-Risala, Manaqib al-Shafi`i, and Maghani al-Wafa bi Ma`ani al-Iktifa; also Abu al-`Ala' Idris ibn Muhammad ibn Idris al-Husayni al-`Iraqi in his epistle on the topic; also al-Saffarayini in his Sharh `Aqidat al-Imam Ahmad; Ibn Khaldun said of the narrations that he was able to gather according to his competence, that the hadiths to that effect contain weaknesses, but it was replied to him that the narrations are too numerous not to reach the level of tawatur and they are in Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, etc.... and cannot be denied; al-Shawkani in his epistle al-Tawdih fi Tawatur ma Ja'a fi al-Mahdi wa al-Dajjal wa al-Masih; Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in al-Sawwaiq al-Muhriqa and al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi `Alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar...

Al-Kattani also says: "I have seen in our time many people expressing doubt about al-Mahdi, saying: 'Are the hadiths pertaining to him really decisive as evidence or not' and many of them choose to stand with Ibn Khaldun and rely on him, although he is not one of the experts in this field. And truth demands that we go back, in every discipline, to those that master it, and ironclad knowledge belongs to Allah Most High and Exalted."

GF Haddad

DD

^Isn't it very strange that these traditions were collected more than 300 years after Prophet pbuh. And isn't it stranger that most of narrators happen to be shiites as critiqued by Ibn Khaldoun.

submitmj

So, what you are saying is that they DID not come from the Prophet but are falsely attributed to him some 300 years later. So, basically, they are 'hearsay'. In fact, all hadiths were written some 200 years after Muhammad died. Thus, they are all 'hearsay', yet are used as another source besides Quran.

FrozenFire

if the appearance of Mahdi is mentioned in sahih ahadith, it is therefore necessary to accept him, there should be no reason why not.

DD

Plz don't jump over the bandwagon, i am not implying that Hadith are heresay, just that they should be analysed logically.

FrozenFire

what will you analyze? if you reject the coming of Imam Mahdi AS, then you also have to discard the belief of Hazrat Jesus (A.S) second coming? are you willing to do so? because if you wanna analyze logically, then coming of Jesus AS bodily make no sense.

a-town boy

is there any hadith about Mahdi narrated by ahl-e-bait???