Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. On balance, consensus is that there is not enough sourcing and material on this topic to justify an article separate from Muhammad al-Mahdi.  Sandstein  06:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran

[edit]
Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The very first line of this article reads "The name of Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran is not mentioned any time". then why do we have this article? The article is basically full on various "interpretations" of the Quran from Shi'ite scholars who may have explained a couple of verses of the Quran as mentioning the "appearance of Mahdi", and that too in a very ambiguous sense. There are thousands of interpretations of Quran with each verse being explained a thousand ways. If a person is not mentioned in the Quran by name, we should not mention him in a wikipedia article, because doing so will be cherry picking and OR FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There's no need to have a direct mention of his name when he is explicitly tacitly mentioned in Quranic verses as the scholars say. If there are reliable sources regarding this issue then the article deserves to be kept. We are not here to judge the materials, and we have to reflect the reliable ones. "Mahdi in Quran" had been the subject of some scholarly works so we may have it here as an stand alone article. Mhhossein (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Self published and/or non notable run of the mill "scholars". Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources used are self published or non notable reliable? Mhhossein (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Createspeace and Lulu.com are selfpublishing platforms providing everyone who has 100 dollars to publish a book. this appears to be in the grey area of notability to be frank and may not be removed if used with reliable sources but by itself it is nothing. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per your previous nominations I think you have lack of knowledge in Islamic fields that's why you can't judge the sources in a proper manner. ِDo you know Sayyid Abul Makarim Hashim bin sulayman al-Bahraani? Mhhossein (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hom much? And why do you ask this question? Do elaborate please. Btw do you know Al ding dong rocket bomb? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I thought, you did not consider how the author may add weight to reliability of a source. You could judge the sources better if you were familiar with the case and unfortunately you are not! Mhhossein (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And just as I thought you have resorted to ad hom attacks instead of coming up with any excuse to keep this article. Why don't you quote one single policy which can be used to keep this article. This is all I ask, the next time you reply, be brave enough to quote one single policy which will allow this atrocious mockery of an article to stay alive. Otherwise, you can try to let go of your POV and edit like a normal editor. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just provided the source which determines the subject passes WP:GNG while you don't know how notable the author is. Please be civil and don't accuse others for pushing POVs or being abnormal. Mhhossein (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein wikishia.net will become a source when big fat pink bacons are flying around in the sky and rosy red cherubs are riding them shooting golden arrows at lovers while semi nude ladies play the harp in clouds and Satan ice skates in hell. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny! You even failed to see that wikishia was linked to only let you now about the author and this is the source! Btw, being polite will help the discussion go toward consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein this has already been found out to be......how should I put it lightly without hurting my feelings......."a mockery of reliable sources". yes that should do it. The "thing" you claim is a "source" is nothing more than a typist sitting at a PC and typing whatever comes into his mind then uploading it to his website. Perhaps you can stop flogging this dead horse? It is more than dead to be frank, it is decomposed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to judge the scholarly works, unfortunately. Your comment on the source, like mine, is just a comment. You are not the one who determines whether it is notable or not. FYI, the book is the translation of an old work entitled "المحجة فیما نزل فی القائم الحجة" which is written by one of the Shia well known scholars called "سید هاشم بحرانی". Mhhossein (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you fail to leave this decomposed smelly carcass alone. even your WP:STICK is smelly now. How do we know that it is an accurate translation? As I said it is nothing but a "Dude in longjohns sitting behind a PC typing away at the keyboard, then uploading it to his website, just to make 15 bucks.". nothing more FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your language is really annoying and disruptive. I suggest you to be more careful selecting your words. The translator is "Sayyid Mohsen Al-Husaini Al-Milani" who has translated works by Tabari and Ibn Shadhan Al-Qummi. Mhhossein (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First off BRAVO! a Goodreads author, he MUST be important. Secondly how do I, OTHER FOLKS and THE general PUBLIC know for sure that this translation is authentic? Was it published by a reliable publication house? No it wasn't. For all we know it was john bin Trump al Obami who wrote the translation while sitting at his PC wearing a tutu and a tiara, then he uploaded it on his personal website and put a price of 15 bucks on it to fund his coke habit. See! as there is reliability in this publication, you cannot refute my argument. Had this been Oxford or Cambridge, you can say "No, these guys have Jack, and John, and Ali and those guys are well known guys, and the publishing house has its reputation to maintain, it will never employ a two bit guy". See the difference? Good publishing house = good and reliable staff/personnel = good and reliable book = Reliable source on wiki. Bad/unknown publisher = the tutu wearing John bin trump al Obami = bad/unreliable typing masquerading as a book = unreliable source. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We would understand each other if you watched your language! Others will also judge the source. Mhhossein (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please reset the indentation from time to time, thank you. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PROFRINGE says: "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." The argument by Mhhossein is that "There's no need to have a direct mention of his name when he is explicitly mentioned in Quranic verses"; he cannot have been explicitly mentioned if his name is not directly mentioned.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "tacitly". Mhhossein (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Seyyed(t-c) 06:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete. Toddy1 has a point with WP:PROFRINGE. Of all the sources currently used in the article, only one seems to be from a non-adherent: Dr. John Calvert (2008). Islamism: A Documentary and Reference Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 113–. ISBN 978-0-313-33856-4. Upon closer inspection however, that one statement is part of a quoted document written by "Ayatollah Baqir al-Sadr and Ayatollah Muratda Mutahhari" (the source at the end of the quoted document leads to this site. Unless someone comes up with non-Mahdiist sources that discuss the appearance of Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Qur'an, it's going to be a delete for me. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest HyperGaruda to take a look at this scholarly article by Dr. Leonardo N. Mercado. Mhhossein (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That "scholarly article" discusses the Last Day in the Qur'an, the Second Coming of Jesus in the Qur'an, and the Mahdi, but not the Mahdi in the Qur'an. I would have expected something in paragraph 2.2 THE RETURN OF IMAM MAHDI, but there's only 1 reference to the Qur'an and it only talks about entrusting "the followers to the prophets". Did I miss something and if so, could you quote what passage does discuss the appearance of the Mahdi in the Qur'an? - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, when we approach this subject, in fact we are talking about commentaries of Quran which is a field related to mulims. I want to say that, I have seen no non-mulsim interpreting Quran. So we should not expect a direct mention to quranic verse s from this non-mulsim scholar. This is while there are still some points to say; he writes for example "We shall treat about the signs of the end-time, such as cosmic signs, human unrest, the rise of false messiahs, death and resurrection of humankind. These are preparatory signs to the return of Imam Mahdi and Jesus Christ. and the author discusses these signs in details in next sections. The signs are supported by Quranic verses which itself can be a link between Mahdi and Quran. Could I say what I mean? Mhhossein (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just drawing your own conclusions. The signs are also supported by hadiths, so it might only be a link between the Mahdi and the hadiths. Do you see now to what speculation such original research leads to? Unless a reliable source (this "scholarly article" is not reliable; it mentions Wikipedia as a reference at the end) makes a clear connection between Muhammad al-Mahdi and the Qur'an, Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran is still a case of WP:PROFRINGE. By the way, it seems that the current Wiki-article is specifically referring to the Twelfth Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi, son of Hasan al-Askari. Sources that just mention an unspecified Mahdi (which non-Shias believe has yet to come) are not enough, unless the article title is changed to something like Mahdi in the Quran. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never said to act based on my conclusion, I was trying to say that A shia belief is best described by Shia (or at least muslim) scholars. I think WP:PROFRINGE does not apply here, because we are not talking about a fringe theory, rather a belief is being discussed here! Could I ask what mainstream view is in contradiction with the fact that "some (if not many) shia scholars believe that some verses of Quran are pointing to the twelfth Imam of shia"? This matter is related to commentaries on Quarn which consists a broad scientific field (you know what Quran commentary is? A sort of interpretation of Quranic verses). Btw, the author has used works by Madelung, Tabatabie, Marilyn Robinson and etc so you can't call it unreliable. Mhhossein (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of tafsir. More detailed descriptions of Shia beliefs may be supported by Shia sources in some cases, but for establishing basic notability (and the right of an article to exist) we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent [emphasis added] of the subject (WP:GNG). Since such coverage does not seem to exist, it appears that the mainstream view is that the 12th Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi does not appear in the Qur'an. You could try to search for Sunni or non-Twelver sources, either confirming or refuting, but I doubt that they exist at all. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HyperGaruda: Could you please say what the problem is with this source? Who is the mainstream? How do you expect a source by non-muslims discussing Muhammad al-Mahdi in Quran? Btw, do you think this view is rejected by the mainstream? Mhhossein (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Mhhossein It has three very basic problems and is therefore rejected. 1)It quotes three verses which are used to talk about the "Final and complete victory of the righteous and the faithful". Not the Mahdi, the victory of faithful. The author clearly says that the Mahdi is supposed to come and then the faithful will be victorious, and how will they be victorious? Well it is written in this , this and that verse that they will be victorius. So zero mention of Mahdi, just the mention of victory. 2) Secondly this is the view of a narrow minority as the source is Ayatollah Baqir something, and ayatollah someone else. So basically it falls under fringe. 3) The third problem is that this may not be talking about Muhammad Al-Mahdi at all, as there are three kinds of Mahdi's in Islam. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HyperGaruda: Still waiting for your response and I'd like to ask you and Seyyed to evaluate these two sources. Mhhossein (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Mhhossein once again, zero discussion of any Quranic verse mentioning the Mahdi. None whatsoever. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: Problem 1a: The book by John Calvert is only talks about a general Mahdi, not the 12th Shia Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi. Problem 1b: John Calvert's book is composed of original documents, each time followed by an analysis (starts at page 114 for this chapter). The page that is cited (113) is part of such an original document, in this case written by Ayatollah Baqir al-Sadr and Ayatollah Muratda Mutahhari (a copy of the document can be found here, with the cited section over here). In other words, we're citing an adherent's source now. If the cited section would have been part of "Context and analysis", everything would be ok, since that part is written by the book's non-adherent/neutral author.
Secondly, your other two sources do not seem to discuss if and where the Mahdi is (implicitly) mentioned in the Qur'an.
Finally, if an idea were mainstream, it would have certainly been discussed somewhere in third-party sources. There are plenty of non-Muslim sources that describe Shia beliefs, so if there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources about Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Qur'an, then it does not appear to be a much-discussed mainstream idea. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you HyperGaruda for your comprehensive and civil response. Please note that this source (one of those two previous sources I presented) is discussing related Quranic verse on page 218, and see how the author this source discusses the Quran tafsir of verses related to Jesus and Mahdi on pages 135 and 141. Mhhossein (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein page 218 of your first source has again, ZERO mention of Mahdi in Quran, rather it is about muslims who fight the Jihad. It has been interpreted to say that jihad will continue for ever. page 135 of the second source does not even mention the Quran, it mentions the hadith, you would know the difference between the two I presume. page 141 mentions Jesus in Quran, not Mahdi. To be frank this is getting lame. The horse carcass is more than decomposed now. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but You have little (if not ZERO) knowledge of the field that's why I did NOT pinged you and you are unwanted in this dialogue. Please, let us continue the discussion. Tnx. Mhhossein (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh to being unwanted, you posted a "source". I told you it does not mention Mahdi in Quran, did I hurt your feelings? I think so. Did I act according to policy? Absolutley. So If you want a private conversation use a chat service or email. This Afd is open for everyone. And once again, my advice will be to "just let it go dude!" FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a matter of policy! It was a matter of social issues. I clearly don't want a private conversation. My advice will be to "don't be the unwanted editor". You can of course leave your comments in a separate para (this is not a policy but a matter of politeness and social issues). Mhhossein (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, if your feelings are hurt by my comments on your conversation with Hyper. Use the email service for a private conversation. Ty. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just asking you not to interrupt our dialogue and not to be the unwanted editor. Mhhossein (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein if you want a private dialogue, go find a room. Clearly you have WP:STICK issues. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Jesus in Islam] has already been created, with far better sources than this. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source, "A related shi‘ah interpretation, also held by some sunnis under shi‘ah influence is that the verse refers to the coming of al-Mahdi". We are not talking about Jesus. Mhhossein (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Muhammad al-Mahdi was a real-life (non-fantasy) person who was born in July 869 AD and died in 941 AD. The Quran is a book whose compilation was completed during 644-656 AD when Uthman was caliph. i.e. The Quran was completed more than 200 years before Muhammad al-Mahdi was born. This should tell you everything you need to know on the subject of Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are talking about another Muhammad al-Mahdi! Accrording to shia and sunni he is still alive. Just discuss the notability. Mhhossein (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shias believe that, but I doubt that Sunnis do too. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable and academic sources which have referred to the issue such as: "Islamic Messianism: The Idea of Mahdi in Twelver Shi'ism"[1] pages 109 and 172. "The Divine Guide in Early Shi'ism" [2] in several cases including pp.218 and 219 "Medieval Islamic Civilization: L-Z, index" [3] page 500. Of course, these sources have not restricted the issue to Shia viewpoint, therefor, I prefer to move the article to al-Mahdi in the Quran. . There are some Sunnis who refers to al-Mahdi in Quran like Adnan Oktar [4]--Seyyed(t-c) 12:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again I don't find any discussion about "Mahdi In Quran", just about signs of "end of days" and other mentions.
  1. Page 500 of "Medieval Islamic Civilization: L-Z, index" [5] gives zero mention to any Quranic verses about Mahdi. Literally zero mention
  2. page 109 of "Islamic Messianism: The Idea of Mahdi in Twelver Shi'ism" is totally dedicated to showing that Shi'ites had to distort the Quran in order to show that imamate can exist with zero mention of Imam-Al Mohammad Al Mahdi everywhere. The author says that when the Shi'ites were confronted with their imam disappearing they had to create new interpretations of Quran to show that imamate can even exist.
  3. page 172 takes about Jesus being mentioned in Quran and quite clearly avoids 'any mention of Mahdi in Quran.
  4. "The Divine Guide in Early Shi'ism" mentions a Quranic verse which mentions the "IDEA of Mahdi's return and victory" not mahdi himself. Furthermore it does not mention if the said person is the "muhammad al mahdi" or the normal "Mahdi" or the "mahdi who is supposed to pray with jesus". Without this distinction we cannot do diddly squat.
  5. Adnan Oktar's book [6] gives a total of 5 pages, widely spaced to the topic of MAhdi in Quran and in those pages there is Not a single verse referring to mahdi. I repeat, not a single verse about mahdi at all. the entire discussion is about the Islamic eschatology. which is already an article here on wiki. The other 90% of book does not even deal with the Quran so I did not even bother to peruse that.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment@Mhhossein, HyperGaruda, Toddy1, and FreeatlastChitchat: Please focus on the AFD instead of polemical debate! We are not here to discuss about our faiths. We just want to improve the articles. Thanks.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We did not go through the details. Just some general points were exchanged between me and HyperGaruda. He was civil. Mhhossein (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And just how does this pass GNG? this is exactly the kind of off handed argument to avoid in deletion discussion. You created the article but it does not mean that you give this sort of non-argument at the AFD. Perhaps you can show us ONE SINGLE RELIABLE SOURCE that discusses this indepth. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If your information was enough, you can find and see the reliable sources. Read above text again.Saff V. (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I call your reply "imbecilic" without hurting your feelings? because it appears as such to me. You are saying If your information was enough, you can find and see the reliable sources. Read above text again, while the ONLY TEXT you have written is Keep Based on WP:GNG, there are enough sources about Muhammad al-Mahdi in the Quran. Just where in your text does this so called "information" rear its ugly head? I mean seriously, come ON! FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you angry? I said read above text and not said my comment. Read again this page from the beginning to the end. There are many information for you.Saff V. (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That "Mahdi is not in the Quran" is not a policy based reason! Mhhossein (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article says "Mahdi is in Quran". voter says we should delete it because "Mahdi is not in the Quran". Seems to be the most concise and precise argument in the whole page. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Jobs is not mentioned in the Quran. Therefore the argument Steve Jobs is not in the Quran is a valid, policy-based argument for the deletion of an article Steve Jobs in the Quran.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Toddy1, many other believe he, Mahdi, is mentioned in Quran. So, the argument is not valid. If you think he is not mentioned, this is just your belief (and the belief of many others). Mhhossein (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mhhossein many believe that Ayatollah Trump bin Bazoomba al-Obami Al-Irani is mentioned in the constitution of Iran. I am one of those. should we make an article with that heading? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, guys. I agree, and it is pretty clear that Mahdi isn't mentioned in the Quran, so this article is completely pointless. --92slim (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though I completely disagree with the case being made above - which implies that Shia Islam is a 'fringe theory'. There is not enough content to justify an article separate from the main Muhammad al-Mahdi page, which already covers the topic sufficiently. There is nothing to merge as this page is just Qura'anic verses. Curro2 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muhammad_al-Mahdi_in_the_Quran&oldid=1084328791"