In Arabic, mahdî means ‘guided’, from the verbal root h-d-y ‘to guide’. The concept of a renewer of righteousness who would defeat the forces of evil as the End Times approacheth is found in the hadiths (sayings) of Prophet Muhammad. The concept is even included in the hadith collections used by Sunnis, for example the two most-cited collections of al-Bukhârî and Muslim.
Therefore the Sunnis also share the concept; it is not exclusively Shî‘ite. One difference is that the Shî‘ites make a bigger deal of it and have elaborated more doctrine around it. The other difference is that the Shî‘ites have made a positive identification of the Mahdî as the “occulted” Twelfth Imam of Shî‘ism. The Sunnis, AFAIK, do not pin the Mahdî’s identity on any known individual, but just think of him as someone who will be born in the future, probably from the Quraysh, the tribe to which the Prophet belonged. One tradition holds that the Mahdî will have the same name as the Prophet. Jomo sez: This is not a very big coincidence— since Muhammad is the most frequent name in the entire world.
There was a Mahdist political movement that began in the Sudan in 1881. A Sudanese Sufi gentleman named Muhammad Ahmad, who came from the province of Dongola, gathered a big fighting force and expelled the British from Khartoum. He died in 1885, but his movement persisted and remains a political party in Sudan to this day. In fact, his descendant Sâdiq al-Mahdî, the head of the party, has been the prime minister of Sudan a couple times already.
There have been so many religious/military/political leaders in the history of Islam, over more than the past 1,000 years, who have claimed to be “The” Mahdi, it would be too tedious to list them all here. There was a gentleman in Gujarat, India about 400 years ago, named Sayyid Muhammad of Jaunpur, who claimed to be the Mahdi in 1495 and founded a socialistic reformist movment. His followers, called the Mahdavi, are still a religious movement in India, but it is merely a religious movement and not a political one. Most Muslims have never heard of them. Ibn Tumart, the founder of the Almohad regime in North Africa in the 12th century, claimed to be the Mahdi, to take just one more example.
It can be confusing. The problem ( if you want to call it a problem ) is that there is no single interpretation of Muslim, let alone Sunni eschatology - there is a myriad of different views.
The relative “rank” of prophets is much debated. There are arguments that say there is no difference between any of the prophets in terms of importance, others interpret identical passages as saying all prophets belong to a common brotherhood, but some are indeed a little more important than others. Regardless of which view is held obviously Jesus in the Islamic tradition assumes the status of THE Messiah as in Christianity.
However as Captain Amazing pointed out, some hold that Jesus, though mortal, was hidden away by God and will one day be sent back to herald the coming judgement ( in which he won’t take part on the supervisory side, being a mere mortal - he’ll be subject to judgement like everyone else, though I imagine it is a foregone conclusion he’ll do okay ) and in some versions slay the Anti-Christ with the aid of the Mahdi.
As to why him and not Muhammed - Muhammed’s death is well documented and like all prophets he was a mortal man. He can’t come back. Whereas there is an element of the mysterious to Jesus’ death, at least in the views of some Muslims. In some eyes his return as a good Muslim and follower of Muhammed’s final revelations ( corrections ) will be instrumental in convincing the wayward ‘People of the Book’ that indeed Muhammed had it right all along - i.e. he will herald mass conversions to Islam amongst the Jews, Christians, Parsees, etc.
Now it should be added that all of this is controversial and by no means universally held. There is very little detail in the Qur’an about the end times and precious few mentions of Jesus. Instead it derives from certain hadith and it has been argued that these beliefs were early cultural accretions ( in the first century or three of Islam ) deriving from the influence of Christian theology.
Thre is a difference between traditions giving record of the birth = the historical existence of the person who is for the Twelver Shia the 12the Immam, and the acceptance of the stories the Twelver Shia believe about this persons life and how they see his mission.
Exactly the hadith who give record of the story of the birth of what the Shia see as the Mahdi (and I quoted one of them above) in the Sunna traditions is what the Shia come up with to underscore their claim that the Mahdi indeed exists.
Muhammed Ahmed was a member of a dervish Sufi order, the Sammaniyya tariqa . Only after he gained enough support he outlawed the sufi orders, probably because of fear of rivalry.
Thre is a difference between the Sunni traditions giving record of the birth = the historical existence of the person who is for the Twelver Shia the 12the Immam, and the acceptance of the stories the Twelver Shia believe about this persons life and how they see his mission.
Sunni and Shia have different hadith compilatuions and of course it is exactly the Sunni hadith who give record of the story of the birth of what the Shia see as the Mahdi (and I quoted one of them above) what the Shia come up with to underscore their claim that the Mahdi indeed exists. (They do this also to underscore their claim that 'Ali was named by Muhammed to be his successor and other things).
Muhammed Ahmed was in his youth a member of a dervish Sufi order, the Sammaniyya tariqa . Only after he gained enough support for his myth (he declared himself to be the Mahdi in 1881, if I recall this correctly) he outlawed the sufi orders, probably because of fear of rivalry.
So to declare him to be a Sunni Muslim who then miraculously became the Mahdi who is a part of the Twelver Shia Islam is a bit over the top.
Of course popular beliefs mixing up stories and traditions and even sets of belief from both Sunni and Shia Islam can exist. Especially at locations where both main streams of Islam live together can provide a ground for this.
It is not a common belief, it is something described in AQ
an-nisaa’ (4), 157( shall try to translate this)
"They haven’t killed him and they haven’t crucified him, it only appeared to them to be so (it was suggested to them). And those who disagree about this are in doubt about it; except from trusting on suspicions, they have no knowledge of it. They surely did not kill him ".
There is no person named.
Salaam. A
As all prophets of God are seen as Muslims = the followers of the relgion of One God, Jesus is also seen as Muslim.
There is no hierarchy among the prophets. Jesus came before Muhammed. Muhammed is said to have been the last (I do not underscribe this view as I do not agree with many issues that were part of the development of Islamic doctrine. But that is my personal view and certainly not representing mainstream Islam).
Jesus is mentioned very much in AQ, yet stories about his return are only mentioned in the traditions.
Among others the Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim mention that Jesus shall return as a just judge, shall destroy the cross and kill the swine, shall end the war
The symbols of cross and swine (symbols of transgressing pure monotheism for both Jews and Muslims) are seen as reference to the fact that Jesus himself shall bring Christianity to an end.
Some traditions also mention Mary who shall lead the prayers of all true Muslims and Jesus defeats a figure that lookes like the figure of the Christian Antichrist.
I support the suggestion - made by many - that in particular these traditions show a Christian influence/presence at the time.
How do you manage to explain something like this in your own weird mind?
Jesus’ supposed sojourn on Earth predated Muhammed’s supposed sojourn by many hundreds of years, yet you appear to have been brainwashed to believe that Jesus was a Muslim?
How do you manage this incredible feat of mental gymnastics?
Tell me more about the symbols of cross and swine. To me, it seems you are just spouting absolute nonsense. However, I do recognise that this is your standard operating procdure.
I speak to you, in friendship, as a fellow student of Islam.
In Islam, a Muslim is anyone who submits of God, and Islam realizes that Muhmmed wasn’t the first one to do this. So those men and women who worshiped God and served Him even before Muhammed was given the Koran are as much Muslims as those who worship God and serve him after Muhammed was given the Koran.
These discussions of Islamic religious traditions are very fascinating and informative – but what does all this signify now, in Iraq? Al-Sadr chose to name his militia “the army of the Mahdi.” Does this choice mean that al-Sadr and his followers are even more dangerous and unpredictable than they might be if they had chosen a different name? Or is it all just fluff and posturing?
Believe in what glurge? I’m not a Muslim myself, if that’s what you’re asking. I’m not even a theist. However, Islam has always considered itself to be related to Christianity and Judaism, and has considered Christianity and Judaism to be valid religions (in the sense that they worship God)
This is a bit incorrect in the sense that it could give a wrong impression…
What you call relationship between Islam and the other two is limited to the fact that Islam
Always claimed to follow the Message of God as it was given to the other prophets.
Claims that this Message by the followers of Judaism and Christianity was distorted.
Hence Islam claims that Muhammed was chosen to bring once again that same Message to the whole of mankind.
Jews and Christians are named “the people of the Book” because they received the revelation previously. These religions are indeed seen as valid as long as there is no transgression of the command that there is only One God (as God is described in sura 112.), which in practice can not be the case for Christianity because they not only believe in a triune God but also believe in a human-God Jesus.
Yet there are many references in AQ towards respect and tolerance of the other religions, as there is also implied that God created many ways, and that only God knows what is in people’s heart.
As for AOB showing up here with his Great Knowledge of Islam… I am not surprized
More propaganda than anything else. Evoking religious sentiment or imagery is not uncommon practice in the politics of the Islamic world, even when the goals are largely secular. Moqtada al-Sadr played a waiting game when it suited his purposes, then ratcheted up the violence when it looked like he really was going to get shut out of the “political process” ( pretty loosely defined ). He has carefully maneouvered against the leaders of SCIRI ( and is one of several leading suspects in the recent assassination of one of its top leaders ), despite holding a very similar religious perspective as them ( both support the minority Khomeinist view of velayet-e faqih, but the al-Hakim and al-Sadr familes have never gotten along ). However much of a genuinely pious zealot he may be, there is a real suggestion of cold political calculation in many of his actions.
I’m not sure that makes him all that much safer, however.
) and in some versions slay the Anti-Christ with the aid of the Mahdi.