Why despite Thousands hadithes, Mahdi is not in Quran?

[firedragon]

No, I don't agree with him on that. But I agree with him, that the hadithes of Mahdi are Mutiwatir in meaning.

SO you dont agree with him when he claims he is that Mahdi but only this argument about "Mutawatir in meaning" from the same person who claims to be the mahdi because it suits your need?

Nice.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Thats your faith. Not a historical approach.

Sorry sis. I end this conversation with all due respect because you claimed and called for a historical approach, but it is you who is primarily contradicting your own call for action. You are making a faith claim that the Quranic verses have allusions about Mahdi. Thats a faith claim, not a historical analysis.

So thanks for engaging. I shall respectfully withdraw.

Peace.

But, if your argument is correct, then, the Jews had the right to not trust Messiah. The Jews could have said, we cannot trust about Messiah, because Torah, and other parts of Bible, were written some centuries after Moses, and therefore we cannot trust that indeed Moses talk about Messiah.
This is what you seem to say about Mahdi.

 

[firedragon]

No, I don't agree with him on that. But I agree with him, that the hadithes of Mahdi are Mutiwatir in meaning.

Why do you think, if he was a false mahdi, then everything he said is also false?

I am not quoting him as an authority. I am quoting that t site, because it points to many hadithes of Mahdi. The hadithes of Mahdi were not invented by him.

You have not understood what Mutawatir in meaning means. Please try to be a little humble and try to learn something before you make such statements. This is beneath you. You could have a much better dialogue of you try. One could disagree but could also practice a little bit of humility and understand something if they have not understood it yet.

 

[firedragon]

But, if your argument is correct, then, the Jews had the right to not trust Messiah. The Jews could have said, we cannot trust about Messiah, because Torah, and other parts of Bible, were written some centuries after Moses, and therefore we cannot trust that indeed Moses talk about Messiah.
This is what you seem to say about Mahdi.

Nope. I am not claiming anything about the Mahdi like that. Be a bit patient in your reading of others. Dont eternally be looking for hypocrisy. Its not good argument.

I seriously dont know what to say.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You have not understood what Mutawatir in meaning means. Please try to be a little humble and try to learn something before you make such statements. This is beneath you. You could have a much better dialogue of you try. One could disagree but could also practice a little bit of humility and understand something if they have not understood it yet.

Well, here is your chance to say, what is the Mutiwatir in meaning, and why hadithes of Mahdi are not mutiwatir in meaning. In another words, what should the hadithes of Mahdi say, so, to you, it would be considered mutiwatir in meaning?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Nope. I am not claiming anything about the Mahdi like that. Be a bit patient in your reading of others. Dont eternally be looking for hypocrisy. Its not good argument.

I seriously dont know what to say.

You wrote that the hadithes of Mahdi must be false, because the Mahdi is not in the Quran. This was your first post in this thread. I can find and quote it if you want.

 

[firedragon]

Well, here is your chance to say, what is the Mutiwatir in meaning, and why hadithes of Mahdi are not mutiwatir in meaning. In another words, what should the hadithes of Mahdi say, so, to you, it would be considered mutiwatir in meaning?

I thought you had finally asked a question rather than making statements you dont understand. But in this question you have inbuilt fallacious statements you still dont understand.

Mutawatir is not a concept in the early schools of thought. It is a much later adopted idea. A new thing. I am not a proponent of the concept of Mutawatir, but I will explain it to you so that you can try and understand.

The "meaning" you keep talking about is about "a hadith". Not a concept coming from many ahadith. What you cut and pasted about the idea of tawatur is "a hadith". You missed that. Multiple narrators narrate one hadith but the wording is different but the meaning is the same. For example, you say "I had two kids" and another narrator says "the two kids father was that guy", it basically means the same thing. This is Mutawatir in meaning but its the same story.

Thousand years or more later people started to bring in this idea that you are trying to propagate here but that's absolutely false. It is a valiant attempt to make a confirmation bias is not a valid concept and absolutely unscholarly.

Have a good day.

 

[firedragon]

You wrote that the hadithes of Mahdi must be false, because the Mahdi is not in the Quran. This was your first post in this thread. I can find and quote it if you want.

I simply said "the mahdi is not in the Qur'an". And you were talking about a historical approach. But now of course you have abandoned all your standards so vehemently.

Anyway sis. I still hold that the Mahdi is not in the Qur'an. You can infer with some effort and relate the Quranic verses to a much later emerging tradition. But you cannot find Mahdi in the Quran. If you wish to approach the Quran historically, then find the name in the Quran. This is just a book with text in it. In a historical approach you dont presuppose divinity to anything.

Faith is a separate matter. You can have faith that the Quran speaks about you personally. I know one person in this same forum who believes that the Quran names him and he is the promised Mahdi. I mean right here in this forum. He even cites Quran verses that says his name. Of course I am not gonna quote him. So that's how faith works.

Is that your approach? If it is so, that's fine. But dont claim to follow a historical approach in this same thread.

Peace.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I thought you had finally asked a question rather than making statements you dont understand. But in this question you have inbuilt fallacious statements you still dont understand.

Mutawatir is not a concept in the early schools of thought. It is a much later adopted idea. A new thing. I am not a proponent of the concept of Mutawatir, but I will explain it to you so that you can try and understand.

The "meaning" you keep talking about is about "a hadith". Not a concept coming from many ahadith. What you cut and pasted about the idea of tawatur is "a hadith". You missed that. Multiple narrators narrate one hadith but the wording is different but the meaning is the same. For example, you say "I had two kids" and another narrator says "the two kids father was that guy", it basically means the same thing. This is Mutawatir in meaning but its the same story.

Thousand years or more later people started to bring in this idea that you are trying to propagate here but that's absolutely false. It is a valiant attempt to make a confirmation bias is not a valid concept and absolutely unscholarly.

Have a good day.

The idea of Mutiwatir has logic to it.
The idea is, if there are independent witnesses, confirming same thing, then the account is true.
The idea of using a witness to validate, is actually in the Quran. You can see many instances in Quran, talking about witnesses as evidence that must be accepted.
So, in case of Mahdi, we have many narrators who claimed have seen prophet speaking about Mahdi as a future Figure who brings justice, and teaches true religion. It does not matter if you dont like to call this Mutiwatir. We are discussing logically here. Don't be too attached to names, mutiwatir or not.
It seems to me, you are trying to scape from this, by trying to say, it is not Mutiwatir. Then you go farther and say, even you don't believe in Mutiwatir as a true method for accepting hadithes.
Even in today's court, witnesses are used as a valid evidence.
If you are saying that, the narrators are not witnesses. I have to say they are. They claimed to have heard Muhammad speaking of Mahdi.
If you say, they have fabricated, then you owe to bring evidences, to show how, and why so many narrators came up with hadithes about Mahdi, even though they were independent narrators and chains.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I still hold that the Mahdi is not in the Qur'an. You can infer with some effort and relate the Quranic verses to a much later emerging tradition. But you cannot find Mahdi in the Quran. If you wish to approach the Quran historically, then find the name in the Quran. This is just a book with text in it. In a historical approach you dont presuppose divinity to anything.

.

Historical approach does not mean automatically you have to see the name Mahdi, in the Quran, or otherwise he is not in the Quran.

Notice that Muhammad is the author of Islam and Quran according to history.
It was upto Him how to mention Mahdi in the Quran. Muhammad chose to mention Mahdi in the Quran, using verses which implies Mahdi. He chose to make allusions to Mahdi in the Quran, using symbols.
We cannot protest against Muhammad why you did not mention Mahdi explicitly, or it is not acceptable to us. Muhammad is the one who created religion of Islam. He authored Quran. Thus, it is upto Him, how to mention Mahdi.
There are many many verses, that according to recorded tradition of the Prophet and Imams, they imply Mahdi.

Among them is the verse 47:38. And also verse 17:71. And in fact about 1/3 of Quran is about Mahdi according to recorded taditions.
If you really understand Quran and think about verse 47:38, you can surely see, what it means changing Arabs with another people. How would Allah change Arabs with another people?
If we go by what the recorded tradition says, it will happen when Allah sends Mahdi to Persians, and chooses them over Arabs. Just read the Quran, and see how Allah changed one people over another people. It is not faith based. It is logical discussion. You need to analyze the text of Quran.

 

[firedragon]

The idea of Mutiwatir has logic to it.
The idea is, if there are independent witnesses, confirming same thing, then the account is true.
The idea of using a witness to validate, is actually in the Quran. You can see many instances in Quran, talking about witnesses as evidence that must be accepted.
So, in case of Mahdi, we have many narrators who claimed have seen prophet speaking about Mahdi as a future Figure who brings justice, and teaches true religion. It does not matter if you dont like to call this Mutiwatir. We are discussing logically here. Don't be too attached to names, mutiwatir or not.
It seems to me, you are trying to scape from this, by trying to say, it is not Mutiwatir. Then you go farther and say, even you don't believe in Mutiwatir as a true method for accepting hadithes.
Even in today's court, witnesses are used as a valid evidence.
If you are saying that, the narrators are not witnesses. I have to say they are. They claimed to have heard Muhammad speaking of Mahdi.
If you say, they have fabricated, then you owe to bring evidences, to show how, and why so many narrators came up with hadithes about Mahdi, even though they were independent narrators and chains.

See, there is nothing to escape from. One has to just stop typing, unless you think people dont have jobs or a life but typing is everything.

You have created a new concept. Yours to keep.

Peace.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

See, there is nothing to escape from. One has to just stop typing, unless you think people dont have jobs or a life but typing is everything.

You have created a new concept. Yours to keep.

Peace.

Ok, but one does not have to answer right away. Anytime one has enough time, then can provide a good and complete post.
It is better to make one complete post, than 10 incomplete post.

 

[firedragon]

Ok, but one does not have to answer right away. Anytime one has enough time, then can provide a good and complete post.
It is better to make one complete post, than 10 incomplete post.

Well, there is no necessity "to escape". Thats bottomline.

Historical approach does not mean automatically you have to see the name Mahdi, in the Quran, or otherwise he is not in the Quran.

Notice that Muhammad is the author of Islam and Quran according to history.
It was upto Him how to mention Mahdi in the Quran. Muhammad chose to mention Mahdi in the Quran, using verses which implies Mahdi. He chose to make allusions to Mahdi in the Quran, using symbols.
We cannot protest against Muhammad why you did not mention Mahdi explicitly, or it is not acceptable to us. Muhammad is the one who created religion of Islam. He authored Quran. Thus, it is upto Him, how to mention Mahdi.
There are many many verses, that according to recorded tradition of the Prophet and Imams, they imply Mahdi.

Among them is the verse 47:38. And also verse 17:71. And in fact about 1/3 of Quran is about Mahdi according to recorded taditions.
If you really understand Quran and think about verse 47:38, you can surely see, what it means changing Arabs with another people. How would Allah change Arabs with another people?
If we go by what the recorded tradition says, it will happen when Allah sends Mahdi to Persians, and chooses them over Arabs. Just read the Quran, and see how Allah changed one people over another people. It is not faith based. It is logical discussion. You need to analyze the text of Quran.

1. A historical approach to the Qur'an should take it as just text. So please do provide evidence from the Quran for the Mahdi.
2. Which verses do you say imply the Mahdi?

 

[paarsurrey]

I did. But the verse still doesnt say "Mahdi". What you have given is an inference. Not direct text. So again, those verses dont say Mahdi and calls no old prophet by that name either.

Hope you understand.

Doesn't one hold that Mahdi is a Successor/Caliph of Muhammad as per the following verses?:
[24:56] وَعَدَ اللّٰہُ الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا مِنۡکُمۡ وَ عَمِلُوا الصّٰلِحٰتِ لَیَسۡتَخۡلِفَنَّہُمۡ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ کَمَا اسۡتَخۡلَفَ الَّذِیۡنَ مِنۡ قَبۡلِہِمۡ ۪ وَ لَیُمَکِّنَنَّ لَہُمۡ دِیۡنَہُمُ الَّذِی ارۡتَضٰی لَہُمۡ وَ لَیُبَدِّلَنَّہُمۡ مِّنۡۢ بَعۡدِ خَوۡفِہِمۡ اَمۡنًا ؕ یَعۡبُدُوۡنَنِیۡ لَا یُشۡرِکُوۡنَ بِیۡ شَیۡئًا ؕ وَ مَنۡ کَفَرَ بَعۡدَ ذٰلِکَ فَاُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمُ الۡفٰسِقُوۡنَ ﴿۵۶﴾
Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely make them Successors in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely give them in exchange security and peace after their fear: They will worship Me, and they will not associate anything with Me. Then whoso is ungrateful after that, they will be the rebellious.
[24:57] وَ اَقِیۡمُوا الصَّلٰوۃَ وَ اٰتُوا الزَّکٰوۃَ وَ اَطِیۡعُوا الرَّسُوۡلَ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تُرۡحَمُوۡنَ ﴿۵۷﴾
And observe Prayer and give the Zakat and obey the Messenger, that you may be shown mercy.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 24: An-Nur

Regards

 

[firedragon]

Doesn't one hold that Mahdi is a Successor/Caliph of Muhammad as per the following verses?:
[24:56] وَعَدَ اللّٰہُ الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا مِنۡکُمۡ وَ عَمِلُوا الصّٰلِحٰتِ لَیَسۡتَخۡلِفَنَّہُمۡ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ کَمَا اسۡتَخۡلَفَ الَّذِیۡنَ مِنۡ قَبۡلِہِمۡ ۪ وَ لَیُمَکِّنَنَّ لَہُمۡ دِیۡنَہُمُ الَّذِی ارۡتَضٰی لَہُمۡ وَ لَیُبَدِّلَنَّہُمۡ مِّنۡۢ بَعۡدِ خَوۡفِہِمۡ اَمۡنًا ؕ یَعۡبُدُوۡنَنِیۡ لَا یُشۡرِکُوۡنَ بِیۡ شَیۡئًا ؕ وَ مَنۡ کَفَرَ بَعۡدَ ذٰلِکَ فَاُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمُ الۡفٰسِقُوۡنَ ﴿۵۶﴾
Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely make them Successors in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely give them in exchange security and peace after their fear: They will worship Me, and they will not associate anything with Me. Then whoso is ungrateful after that, they will be the rebellious.
[24:57] وَ اَقِیۡمُوا الصَّلٰوۃَ وَ اٰتُوا الزَّکٰوۃَ وَ اَطِیۡعُوا الرَّسُوۡلَ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تُرۡحَمُوۡنَ ﴿۵۷﴾
And observe Prayer and give the Zakat and obey the Messenger, that you may be shown mercy.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 24: An-Nur

Regards

"Those who do good works among you" are all "mahdi's" in your opinion?

Anyway, if one wishes one could infer anything to any text.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Those who do good works among you" are all "mahdi's" in your opinion?

Anyway, if one wishes one could infer anything to any text.

There are other things also in the verse. One thing is clear that the rightful Successor of Muhammad is from his followers, believing as he believed and following his Sunnah. Imam Mahdi is no exception. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

"Those who do good works among you" are all "mahdi's" in your opinion?

Anyway, if one wishes one could infer anything to any text.

All reasonable person who do deeds as mentioned in the verses qualify to accept Imam Mahdi, I understand. Imam Mahdi is appointed by Allah directly by Word of Revelation as promised in the Verses. Right, please?

Regards

 

[firedragon]

All reasonable person who do deeds as mentioned in the verses qualify to accept Imam Mahdi, I understand. Imam Mahdi is appointed by Allah directly by Word of Revelation as promised in the Verses. Right, please?

Regards

The verse doesnt say "good people accept Mahdi". You have directly misrepresented the verse mate. Completely twisted it.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

1. A historical approach to the Qur'an should take it as just text. So please do provide evidence from the Quran for the Mahdi.
2. Which verses do you say imply the Mahdi?

1. A historical approach to the Quran should first focus on the text, but I think it can and should also consider the recorded traditions to help with interpretations.
Many of the verses of Quran are just brief allusions to someone or some events.
The recorded traditions could provide additional info about such allusions. Otherwise without using recorded traditions, one has to only guess what these verses are really talking about.

I understand that it is always the question of trustworthiness of Hadithes. This is fair. But we cannot completely set aside Hadithed, on the basis that we are not sure about their authenticity.
In some cases it mabe likened to the best theory approach in the field of science.

Moreover, just as one could doubt the truth of a Hadith, one can also doubt that perhaps that hadith is true. So, a critical fair mind, would consider both side. Not just, setting them aside completely. But rather in each case, consider if a hadith logically can be true, and if it is acceptable in the light of Quran.


2. I have already mentioned at least two verses. I mentioned the verse numbers and how they are about Mahdi, and what their interpretations is based on recorded traditions, in the light of other Verses of the Quran.
I am not here to prove anything to anyone. Not just interested in that approach.
But if you are interested in this topic, Feel free to quote the verses and we can discuss farther.

 

[firedragon]

I have already mentioned at least two verses. I mentioned the verse numbers and how they are about Mahdi, and what their interpretations is based on recorded traditions, in the ligh of other
Verses of the Quran.
I am not here to prove anything to anyone. Not just interested in that approach.
But if you are interested in this topic, Feel free to quote them and we can discuss farther.

Honestly sis, the problem is you tend to get touchy on this subject and then you will eternally keep trying to make me a hypocrite by hook or crook, or/and say seriously nonsensical things like "escape".

1. You have said above that the verse 47:38 says "changing Arabs with another people". I dont know who told you that this verse says "Arabs" but it does not. You have not understood the Quran. Its "faala madhaaria majzoomun". It says "you". You have assumed that "You" means "Arabs".

Honestly since you are sometimes speaking so offensively and disrespectfully when you get a little agitated let me tell you directly that your scholarship on the Qur'an is beyond nothing. Please try to practice a tad bit of humility.

The Quran says "Zalikal Kithaaba la raiba fee hi hudhallil muttaqeen" which is "this/that book, with no doubt is for the righteous", does not say "Arabs".

2. You keep saying "tradition records" that this verse 47:38 is about the Mahdi. Thats just a vague statement. What is the tradition? Why do you believe it? What is the sanad and the mathn in this tradition you keep talking about?

3. You quoted the verse 17:71.

"The day We call every people by their record. Then, whoever are given their book by their right, they will read their book, and they will not be wronged in the least.

How in the world is that about the Mahdi? Explain clearly. Dont just keep saying "tradition says this". If you quote the tradition, you have to justify why you love that tradition so much. If not, its just confirmation bias. Cherry picking. And what is this tradition? Is it tafsir, ahadith, or what? When ever the word imam comes up you assume its Mahdi? Thats good for laymen who have no clue about the Quran but only are driven by agenda, and since you address me rather crudely, I will tell you directly. This is absolutely bad scholarship. Its so bad, its nonsensical. Its just like a Christian who is so in love with the idea of the trinity that they become KJV worshipers no matter what scholarship has taught them. They believe that the KJV is the absolute word of God purely because that's the only book that really helped their theology. Thats the height of confirmation bias. Alright sis, since you wish to discuss this matter, lets discuss. Go ahead and please bring your evidence.

Tell me. Do you know what Imam means?