Обсуждение:Ад-Даджжаль

В исламской традиции злая фигура, которая приведет людей в заблуждение (qv) в последние дни и чье пришествие станет одним из признаков приближающегося «часа». Антихрист (аль-Даджал, аль-Масий аль-Даджал) Не упоминается в Коране, но он фигурирует во многих хадисах, которые цитируются классическими комментаторами. Хотя многие евреи ожидали эсхатологического конфликта между агентами Бога и силами зла (см. Эсхатологию), вера в то, что эти силы будут сосредоточены в конкретном индивидууме, называемом Антихристом, кажется, прежде всего возникла в христианских кругах незадолго до разрушения храма В 70 ce В этот период ходят слухи о том, что римский император Неро (р. 54-68 в.), Совершивший самоубийство в 68 г. Не был мертв, но убежал на восток и собирался вернуться, чтобы вернуть Римскую империю. Поскольку Нерон был известным жестоким человеком, который спровоцировал преследование христиан, вполне возможно, что этот слух породил специфическую христианскую веру в Антихриста (см. Вознесение Исаии 4: 2, Сивиллинские оракулы 4: 121, Rv 13: 3, 17: 8). Этимология Вполне вероятно, что мусульмане узнали о антихристе из сирийско-говорящих христиан, поскольку арабский даджал почти наверняка исходит из сирийского даггала, что означает «лжец» или «ложь» (см. ). Следовательно, аль-даджал буквально означает «лжец» и аль-маси аль-даджал «лживый Мессия». Однако средневековые лексикографы пытались вывести даджал из арабского корня (Lane, iii, 853). Одно причудливое предложение состоит в том, что он исходит из глагола даджала, «чтобы покрыть [хрупкого верблюда] дегтем», потому что даджал подобным образом покрывает землю своими приверженцами. Утверждение о том, что оно происходит от омонима одного и того же глагола, означающего «иметь один глаз и одну бровь», также неправдоподобно, поскольку, когда даджала используется в этом смысле, это явно деноминация и означает «походить на Антихриста». Третье предложение Что дайджал происходит от даджалы, означающего «позолотить», потому что Антихрист обманет человечество, прикрывая правду, которая имеет заслугу, дающую смысл, далекий от чувства первоначального сирийского термина. Еврейский фон Английское слово «антихрист» происходит от греческого антихриста, состоящего из двух элементов: предлога анти, «вместо» и существительного christos, «Мессии» или «помазанного». Однако, как и в других сложных словах Такого рода элемент предлога подразумевает, что заменитель является поддельным и что его отношения с реальным человеком являются антагонистическими. Таким образом, Антихрист - это не просто замещающий Мессия, он ложный Мессия, противник подлинного. Хотя иудеи искали приход Мессии, нет конкретного упоминания о Антимезии в еврейской Библии или об интерстициальных еврейских писаниях. Тем не менее, существует несколько типов Ветхого Завета, которые создают прецедент для веры в эту цифру: 1) Морское чудовище. Вместе с древними вавилонянами и хананеями евреи считали, что до создания мира Бог победил морского монстра (например, Иса 51: 9, Пс 74: 13f.). По мнению некоторых авторов, монстр все еще пребывает в бездействии (Амос 9: 3, Иов 7:12) и в конечном итоге будет убит в эсхатологической борьбе (Ис. 27: 1). 2) Ангельский противник. Вероятно, через контакт с персами, евреи стали верить в сатану (Шайан, освещенный противником), члена небесного суда, роль которого - обвинять людей (Jb 1: 6, Zech 3: 1). Как дьявол, сатана впоследствии был отождествлен с змеем, который принес смерть в мир (Висд Соломона 2:24, ср. Быт. 3: 1-15) и Белиал, который приобретает власть над всеми людьми (Jub 1 : 20). По мнению некоторых авторов, Белиал будет эсхатологическим врагом, который будет совершать знамения и чудеса и обманывать многих до того, как он окончательно разрушится (Сивиллинские оракулы 3: 63-74). 3) Злой человеческий правитель. С шестого века b.c.e. Когда Иерусалим был завоеван Навуходоносором из Вавилона (примерно 605-561 гг.), Евреев все больше угнетали иностранные правители. Вопросы подошли к голове в 168 году до н.э., когда эллинистический царь Сирии Антиох IV (175-164 гг.) Установил статую греческого бога Зевса в еврейском храме в Иерусалиме (1 Мак. 1:54). Книга Даниила относится к этому как «мерзость запустения» (Дан. 8:13) и придумывает фантастический рассказ об этом инциденте в будущем, чтобы он знаменует собой последнюю из семидесяти недель лет до восстановления Божьего народа (Дан. 9: 1-2, 20-7). 4) Лжепророк. Книга Второзакония противопоставляет «пророка, как Моисей», которому нужно подчиняться (Втор. 18: 15-9) с «лжепророком», который приведет людей в заблуждение, совершая знамения и чудеса (Втор 13: 2-6; 18:20). Первоначально оба описания были родовыми. Однако к моменту Нового Завета некоторые группы, включая кумранских сектантов, ожидали появления конкретного пророка-Моше (1 кв. 9:11). Следствием этого было убеждение, что один или несколько лжепророков будут активны в последние времена. Христианский фон Авторы Нового Завета предполагают, что Иисус (q.v.) является Мессией и часто ссылается на него как на Христа Иисуса или Иисуса Христа. Однако они различаются по характеру эсхатологического конфликта, в котором он и христиане будут вовлечены. Особенности всех четырех типов из Ветхого Завета объединены в Иоганнинском апокалипсисе, который призван стать откровением тех вещей, которые должны скоро произойти (Откр. 1: 1). Он включает в себя видение морского монстра (Откр. 13: 1-10), которое явно является аллегорическим описанием Римской империи и императоров, преследующих христиан. Существует также ссылка на сатану, который приведет весь мир в заблуждение и кто отождествляется с дьяволом и змеем старого (Откр. 12: 9). Наконец, есть три ссылки на «лжепророк» (Откр. 16:13, 19:20, 20:10). Евангелие Марка, изображающее эсхатологический конфликт как уже начатый во время служения Иисуса, изображает взрослую жизнь Иисуса как совпадающую с исполнением времени и приближением Царства Божьего (Марка 1:15). Из-за этого он изображает эсхатологический конфликт как уже начатый во время его служения. Таким образом, Маркан Иисус подавляет бурю на Галилейском море, обращаясь к нему так, как если бы это было морское чудовище (Марка 4:39), и излагает его исцеления и экзорцизмы как связывание сатаны (Марка 3: 23-7). Тем не менее, Марк считает, что в будущем будут другие события. Когда ученики видят «мерзость запустения, где он не должен быть», они узнают, что наступили дни скорби (Марка 13: 14-20). Учеников предупреждают, что в те дни будут «лжехристы» (псевдохристои) и «лжепророки», которые будут совершать знамения и чудеса и стремиться сбить людей (Марка 13: 21). Прежде чем Иисус окончательно вернется на облаках, Сын Человеческий (Марка 13:26). Хотя Марк не использует термин Антихрист, он, вероятно, имеет в виду Антихриста, когда он использует выражение Даниэля «мерзость запустения». В этом контексте этот термин можно понимать как ссылку на человеческое воплощение зла, которое сделает Его стенд в Иерусалимском храме как эсхатологический противник Бога. В том же духе автор 2-го Феса настаивает на том, что Иисус не вернется, пока не появится человек беззакония, сын погибели, который противостоит и возвышается над каждым так называемым богом или объектом поклонения, так что он берет его Место в Божьем храме, провозглашая себя Богом »(2 Фес. 2: 3). Далее он утверждает, что Иисус убьет его дыханием рта (2 Фес. 2: 8). Некоторые ученые все еще защищают авторство Полинства этого письма, но это, вероятно, псевдонимая работа, написанная как Марк в бурный период непосредственно перед разрушением храма в 70 г. до н.э. В то время, как упоминалось выше, ходят слухи о том, что Нерон собирался вернуться, и это, возможно, послужило катализатором христианской формулировки фигуры Антихриста. Единственный писатель Нового Завета, который использовал фактическое слово антихристос, является автором первых и вторых писем Иоанна, которые, вероятно, были написаны через тридцать лет после разрушения Храма: Дети - последний час. Вы слышали, что Антихрист должен прийти. Ну, теперь много антихристов пришли .... (1 Иоанна 2:18). Кто же тогда лжец? Никто, кроме человека, который отрицает, что Иисус есть Христос. Таков Антихрист .... (1 Иоанна 2:22). Каждый дух, который не исповедует Иисуса, не от Бога. Это скорее антихрист (1 Иоанна 4: 3). Ибо многие обманщики вышли в мир, те, кто не признается, что Христос пришел во плоти. Это обманщик и антихрист. (2 Иоанна 7). Эти отрывки поражают в той мере, в какой они демифологизуют понятие Антихриста. Получателей писем приводили к ожиданию его прихода как к отдельной эсхатологической фигуре, но автор призывает их вместо этого признать его в лжеучителях, которые порвали с общиной и которые не признают полного человечества Иисуса , С некоторым основанием отцы Церкви предположили, что марканская «мерзость запустения» и «человек без­за­ко­ния» Полины были альтернативными именами для антихриста. Следовательно, они предположили, что Антихрист придет в храм; Что он будет править три с половиной года (Ириней, Против ересей, 5: 1-3, ср. Дан. 7:25); И что Иисус по его возвращении отправит его (например, Кирилл Иерусал-ский, Катехист-ские лекции, 15:12). Ефрем Сирус (около 306-373 гг.) Добавил интересную деталь, что Антихрист придет из Хурасана (Sermo II de fine extremo). Некоторые из этих особенностей повторяются в исламской традиции. Более того, в Пешитте - стандартном сирийском переводе Нового Завета - греческие слова для «лжеца» и «антихриста» (в 1 Иоанна 2:22) представлены как даггала и машина даггала, соответственно, создавая прецедент для Два способа оказания «антихриста» на арабском языке. Антихрист в исламской традиции и экзистенция qur'ānic В собраниях Сунни Шадита содержатся многочисленные традиции о Антихристе. Когда они собраны вместе, получается следующее изображение. Он родился от родителей, которые тридцать лет ждали сына. Он толстый мужчина с румяным лицом и массами очень вьющихся волос. Он слепой в правом глазу, который плавает по своей орбите, как опухший виноград. У него также есть слово «неверующий» (kāfir), написанный на его лбу. В настоящее время он прикован цепями на острове на востоке, где утверждал, что видел его соратник Пророка под названием «Тамим аль-Дари». Сам Пророк мечтал, что видел, как он кружил Каабу, и ему снова показали его в ночь его вознесения. Антихрист будет освобожден после шести- или семилетней войны между арабами и византийцами, которые завершатся захватом Константинополя. Его пришествие станет одним из десяти знаков, которые будут предшествовать последнему часу. Признаки, обычно перечисленные, - это дым; Антихрист; зверь; Восход солнца с Запада; Спуск Иисуса; Гог и Магог; Оползень на востоке; Оползень на Западе; Оползень в Аравии; И огонь горел из Йемена. Однако некоторые сообщения заменяют сильный шторм для спуска Иисуса, а другие делают его спуск на десятый и последний знак. Антихрист придет с Востока через Хурасан. Он будет кататься на белом осле, за которым последуют семьдесят тысяч евреев с капюшоном из Исфахана. Он не сможет войти в Мекку или Медина. Он отправится напасть на последнего, но, когда он достиг горы Года за пределами Медины, ангелы повернут лицом к Сирии. У него будут два канала с ним, один с водой, а другой с огнем. Люди будут верить в него, потому что он будет творить чудеса и принесет богатый запас воды, хлеба и баранины. Он будет на свободе сорок дней или сорок лет. Иисус спустится в Дамаск и догонит его в порту Лидды в Палестине, где он убьет его копьем. Кроме того, есть, что Пророк сказал, что человек, который больше всего похож на Антихриста, был языческим арабами под названием «Абд аль-Узза б. Qaṭan. Сообщается также, что он подозревал, что иранский еврей по имени Ибн Шайад (или Ибн Шаид) является антихристом. Говорят, что Мухаммад любил племя Бану Тамима, потому что они оказали самое стойкое сопротивление Антихристу. Он также молился о прибежище от суда над Антихристом и призывал своих сподвижников сделать то же самое; И он пообещал, что повторение первого (или последнего) десяти стихов суры 18 предложит защиту против антихриста. Многие из этих подробностей также сообщаются в Шии Шадите, но вера Шии заключается в том, что Антихрист будет отправлен Махди, а не Иисусом. Фольклорный характер большей части этого материала предполагает, что он, возможно, произошел с мусульманскими рассказчиками задолго до появления ислама. Однако нет никаких сомнений в том, что Пророк и его сподвижники были обеспокоены Антихристом. Доказательство того, что это, должно быть, было их интересом, можно почерпнуть, в частности, из аутентичного кольца обширных традиций об Ибн Шайяде, еврее, который, по-видимому, потворствовал мистике Меркава. Более того, трудность согласования этих традиций с некоторыми другими сообщениями свидетельствует о том, что они были изобретены. Классические комментаторы ссылаются на Антихриста главным образом в следующих контекстах: 1) Традиционные рассказы о прообразе Антихриста упоминаются в комментариях к намекам на ночное путешествие Мухаммада в 17: 1. 2) Традиции, указывающие на то, что Иисус жив и вернется, чтобы убить Антихриста, приводятся в качестве доказательства того, что фраза «до его смерти» в п. 4: 159 означает до смерти Иисуса. 3) Они используют те же традиции в связи с q 3:55 как доказательство того, что этот стих относится к восторгу Иисуса, а не к его смерти. 4) Традиции, в которых перечисляются все знаки, которые будут предшествовать последнему часу, содержатся в их комментариях к ссылкам на Гога и Магога в q 18:94 и q 21:96, зверю в q 27:82 и курить в Q 44:10. 5) Они ссылаются на те же традиции в связи со ссылками на час в q 7: 187 и q 79:42. 6) Они ссылаются на те же традиции знаков, предшествующих заключительному часу, и те, которые связаны с тем, что Иисус убьет Антихриста в качестве доказательства того, что q 43:61 ссылается на окончательный спуск Ие-Суса. 7) В своем введении к суре 18 они цитируют традиции, как упоминалось выше, о достоинствах чтения первых (или последних) десяти стихов.

In the Islamic tradition, an evil figure who will lead people astray (q.v.) in the last days and whose advent will be one of the signs of the approaching “hour.” The Antichrist (al-Dajjāl, al-Masīḥ al-Dajjāl) is not mentioned in the Qurʾān, but he figures in numerous ḥadīth that are cited by the classical commentators. Although many Jews expected an eschatological conflict between God's agents and the forces of evil (see eschatology ), the belief that those forces would be concentrated in a specific individual called the Antichrist seems first to have arisen in Christian circles shortly before the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e. During that period, there were rumors that the Roman emperor Nero (r. 54-68 c.e.) who had committed suicide in 68 c.e. was not dead but had escaped to the East and was about to return to recapture the Roman empire. As Nero was a notoriously cruel man who had instigated the persecution of Christians, it is possible that this rumor gave rise to the specifically Christian belief in the Antichrist (cf. Ascension of Isaiah 4:2; Sibylline oracles 4:121; Rv 13:3; 17:8). Etymology It is likely that the Muslims learned about the Antichrist from Syriac-speaking Christians as the Arabic dajjāl almost certainly comes from the Syriac daggāl which means “a liar” or “lying” (see foreign vocabulary ). Hence, al-dajjāl literally means “the liar” and al-masīḥ al-dajjāl “the lying Messiah.” However, medieval lexicographers attempted to derive dajjāl from an Arabic root (Lane, iii, 853). One fanciful suggestion is that it comes from the verb dajala, “to cover [a mangy camel] with tar,” because the dajjāl will in like manner cover the earth with his adherents. The claim that it comes from a homonym of the same verb meaning “to have one eye and one eyebrow” is equally implausible, for when dajala is used in this sense it is clearly denominal and means “to resemble the Antichrist.” A third suggestion is that dajjāl is derived from dajala meaning “to gild,” because the Antichrist will deceive humankind by covering up the truth, which has the merit of giving a sense not far removed from that of the original Syriac term. Jewish background The English word “Antichrist” comes from the Greek antichristos, which is composed of two elements: the preposition anti, “in place of,” and the noun christos, “Messiah” or “anointed one.” However, as in other compound words of this sort, the prepositional element implies that the substitute is a counterfeit and that his relationship with the real person is antagonistic. Thus the Antichrist is not simply a substitute Messiah, he is a false Messiah, the opponent of the genuine one. Although the Jews looked for the coming of a Messiah, there is no specific mention of an Antimessiah in the Hebrew Bible or intertestamental Jewish writings. Nevertheless, there are several Old Testament types which set a precedent for a belief in this figure: 1) Sea monster. Together with the ancient Babylonians and Canaanites, the Jews believed that before creating the world God had vanquished a sea monster (e.g. Isa 51:9; Ps 74:13f.). According to some authors, the monster still lies dormant (Amos 9:3; Job 7:12) and will eventually be slain in an eschatological struggle (Isa 27:1). 2) Angelic adversary. Probably through contact with the Persians, the Jews came to believe in Satan (Shayṭān, lit. the Adversary), a member of the heavenly court whose role is to accuse human beings (Jb 1:6; Zech 3:1). As the devil (q.v.), Satan was subsequently identified with the serpent who brought death into the world (Wisd of Solomon 2:24; cf. Gen 3:1-15) and Belial, who gains power over all human beings (Jub 1:20). According to some authors, Belial will be the eschatological enemy who will perform signs and wonders and deceive many before he is finally destroyed (Sibylline oracles 3:63-74). 3) Evil human ruler. From the sixth century b.c.e. onwards, when Jerusalem was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (r. ca. 605-561 b.c.e.), the Jews were increasingly oppressed by foreign rulers. Matters came to a head in 168 b.c.e., when the Hellenistic king of Syria, Antiochus IV (r. 175-164 b.c.e.), erected a statue of the Greek god Zeus in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem (1 Macc 1:54). The Book of Daniel refers to this as “the abomination of desolation” (Dan 8:13) and fictionally projects the incident into the future so that it marks the last of the seventy weeks of years before the restoration of God's people (Dan 9:1-2, 20-7). 4) False prophet. The Book of Deuteronomy contrasts “the prophet like Moses (q.v.)” who must be obeyed (Deut 18:15-9) with the “false prophet” who will lead people astray by performing signs and wonders (Deut 13:2-6; 18:20). Originally, both descriptions were generic. By the time of the New Testament, however, some groups, including the Qumran sectaries, expected the advent of a specific prophetlike-Moses (1 qs 9:11). A corollary to this was the belief that one or more false prophets would be active in the last times. Christian background The New Testament writers assume that Jesus (q.v.) is the Messiah and often refer to him as Christ Jesus or Jesus the Christ. However, they differ over the nature of the eschatological conflict in which he and the Christians will be involved. Features of all of the four types from the Old Testament are combined in the Johannine apocalypse, which purports to be a revelation of those things which must soon take place (Rev 1:1). It includes a vision of a sea monster (Rev 13:1-10) which is clearly an allegorical description of the Roman empire and the emperors who persecuted Christians. There is also a reference to Satan who will lead the whole world astray and who is identified with the devil and the serpent of old (Rev 12:9). Finally, there are three references to the “false prophet” (Rev 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). Mark's gospel, which portrays the eschatological conflict as having already begun during Jesus' ministry, depicts Jesus' adult life as coinciding with the fulfillment of time and the approach of God's kingdom (Mark 1:15). Because of this, it portrays the eschatological conflict as having already begun during his ministry. Thus, the Markan Jesus quells a storm on the Sea of Galilee, addressing it as if it were a sea monster (Mark 4:39), and presents his healings and exorcisms as the binding of Satan (Mark 3:23-7). Nevertheless, Mark holds that there will be other developments in the future. When the disciples see “the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be,” they will know that the days of tribulation have arrived (Mark 13:14-20). The disciples are warned that in those days there will be “false Christs” (pseudochristoi) and “false prophets” who will perform signs and wonders and seek to lead people astray (Mark 13:21f.) before Jesus finally returns on the clouds as the Son of Man (Mark 13:26). Although Mark does not use the term Antichrist, he probably has the Antichrist in mind when he employs the Danielic expression “the abomination of desolation.” In this context, the term can be understood as a reference to a human embodiment of evil who will make his stand in the Jerusalem temple as the eschatological adversary of God. In a similar vein, the author of 2 Thess insists that Jesus will not return until “the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in God's temple proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thess 2:3f.). He further states that Jesus will slay him by the breath of his mouth (2 Thess 2:8). Some scholars still defend the Pauline authorship of this letter, but it is probably a pseudonymous work written like Mark in the turbulent period immediately before the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e. At that time, as mentioned above, there were rumors that Nero was about to return and this may have catalyzed the Christian formulation of the figure of the Antichrist. The only New Testament writer to employ the actual word antichristos is the author of the first and second letters of John, which were probably written some thirty years after the destruction of the Temple: Children it is the last hour. You heard that the Antichrist is to come. Well now many Antichrists have come…. (1 John 2:18). Who then is the liar? None other than the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such is the Antichrist…. (1 John 2:22). Every spirit which does not profess Jesus is not from God. It is rather of the Antichrist (1 John 4:3). For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Christ has come in the flesh. This is the Deceiver and the Antichrist. (2 John 7). These passages are striking in the extent to which they demythologize the notion of the Antichrist. The recipients of the letters had been led to await his coming as that of a distinct eschatological figure, but the author urges them instead to recognize him in the false teachers who have broken with the community and who fail to acknowledge the full humanity of Jesus. With some justification, the Fathers of the Church assumed that the Markan “abomination of desolation” and the Pauline “man of lawlessness” were alternative names for the Antichrist. Hence, they inferred that the Antichrist would come to the temple; that he would rule for three and a half years (Irenaeus, Against the heresies, 5:1-3; cf. Dan 7:25); and that Jesus, upon his own return, would dispatch him (e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical lectures, 15:12). Ephraem Syrus (ca. 306-373 c.e.) added the interesting detail that the Antichrist will come from Khurāsān (Sermo II de fine extremo). Some of these features recur in the Islamic tradition. Moreover, in the Peshitta — the standard Syriac translation of the New Testament — the Greek words for “the liar” and “the Antichrist” (in 1 Jn 2:22) are rendered as daggālā and mashīḥā daggālā respectively, furnishing a precedent for the two ways of rendering “the Antichrist” in Arabic. The Antichrist in Islamic tradition and qurʾānic exegesis The Sunnī collections of ḥadīth contain numerous traditions about the Antichrist. When these are pieced together, the following picture is obtained. He was born to parents who waited thirty years to have a son. He is a thick-set man with a ruddy face and a mass of very curly hair. He is blind in his right eye, which swims in its orbit like a swollen grape. He also has the word “unbeliever” (kāfir) written on his forehead. He is currently chained up on an island in the East, where a Companion of the Prophet (see companions of the prophet ) called “ Tamīm al-Dārī” claimed to have seen him. The Prophet himself dreamed that he saw him circling the Kaʿba (q.v.) and he was shown him again on the night of his ascension (q.v.). The Antichrist will be released after a six- or seven-year war between the Arabs and the Byzantines (q.v.) which will culminate in the capture of Constantinople. His coming will be one of the ten signs (q.v.) which will precede the last hour. The signs usually listed are smoke; the Antichrist; the beast; the rising of the sun from the West; the descent of Jesus; Gog and Magog (q.v.); a landslide in the East; a landslide in the West; a landslide in Arabia; and fire burning forth from the Yemen. However, some reports substitute a violent gale for the descent of Jesus and others make his descent the tenth and final sign. The Antichrist will come from the East via Khurāsān. He will ride a white donkey and will be followed by seventy thousand hooded Jews from Isfahan. He will not be able to enter Mecca or Medina. He will set out to attack the latter but, when he reaches the mountain of Uḥud (q.v.) outside of Medina, the angels will turn his face towards Syria. He will have two canals with him, one flowing with water and the other with fire. The people will believe in him because he will work miracles and will bring an abundant supply of water, bread and mutton. He will be at large for forty days or forty years. Jesus will descend in Damascus and will catch up with him at the port of Lydda in Palestine, where he will kill him with a lance. In addition, there are ḥadīth that the Prophet said that the person who most resembled the Antichrist was a pagan Arab called ʿAbd al-ʿUzza b. Qaṭan. It is also reported that he suspected a Medinese Jew named Ibn Ṣayyād (or Ibn Ṣāʿid) of being the Antichrist. Muḥammad is said to have loved the tribe of Banū Tamīm because they would put up the staunchest resistance to the Antichrist. He also prayed for refuge from the trial of the Antichrist and urged his Companions to do the same; and he promised that reciting the first (or last) ten verses of sūra 18 would offer protection against the Antichrist. Many of these details are also reported in Shīʿī ḥadīth but the Shīʿī belief is that the Antichrist will be dispatched by the Mahdī and not by Jesus (see shīʿism and the qurʾān ). The folkloric character of much of this material suggests that it may have originated with Muslim story-tellers long after the rise of Islam. However, there is little doubt that the Prophet and his Companions were concerned about the Antichrist. Proof that this must have been an interest of theirs may be gleaned particularly from the authentic ring of the extensive traditions about Ibn Ṣayyād, a Jew who apparently indulged in merkavah mysticism. Moreover, the difficulty of reconciling these traditions with some of the other reports tells against their having been invented. The classical commentators make reference to the Antichrist principally in the following contexts: 1) Traditional accounts of the Prophet's description of the Antichrist are mentioned in their commentaries on the allusion to Muḥammad's night journey in q 17:1. 2) Traditions that indicate that Jesus is alive and will return to kill the Antichrist are cited as evidence that the phrase “before his death” in q 4:159 means before Jesus' death. 3) They use the same traditions in connection with q 3:55 as evidence that this verse refers to Jesus' rapture rather than his death. 4) Traditions which list all the signs that will precede the final hour are contained in their comments on the references to Gog and Magog in q 18:94 and q 21:96, to the beast in q 27:82, and to smoke in q 44:10. 5) They cite the same traditions in connection with the references to the hour in q 7:187 and q 79:42. 6) They cite these same traditions of the signs preceding the final hour together with those which relate that Jesus will kill the Antichrist as evidence that q 43:61 alludes to Jesus' final descent. 7) In their introduction to sūra 18, they cite traditions, as mentioned above, about the merits of reciting its first (or last) ten verses. See also apocalypse; resurrection.

al-Mahdī

---

(a.), „the rightly guided one“ is the name of the restorer of religion and justice who, according to a widely held Muslim belief, will ¶ rule before the end of the world. The present article will trace the history of this belief and will deal with the political history of Mahdist movements only in so far as relevant (for the Sudanese movement, see al-mahdiyya).

Origin and early development during the Umayyad age. The term mahdī as such does not occur in the Ḳurʾān; but the name is clearly derived from the Arabic root h-d-y commonly used in it in the meaning of divine guidance. As an honorific epithet without messianic significance, the term was employed from the beginning of Islam (references gathered by Goldziher, Vorlesungen , 267). Ḥassān b. T̲h̲ābit thus applied it to the Prophet, and Ḏj̲arīr to Abraham. Sulaymān b. Ṣurad referred to al-Ḥusayn, after his martyrdom, as „Mahdī son of the Mahdī“, and al-Farazdaḳ called al-Walīd in a panegyric the sixth of six caliphs of ʿAbd S̲h̲ams from ʿUt̲h̲mān who were hudāt mahdiyyūn (Dīwān al-Farazdaḳ , ed. al-Ṣāwī, Cairo 1936, 88). During the Second Civil War, after the death of Muʿāwiya, the term came first to be used for an expected ruler who would restore Islam to its original perfection. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr claimed the caliphate as such a restorer. Though he does not seem to have been given the epithet al-Mahdī, his career substantially shaped the later image of the expected Mahdī. In Kūfa, al-Muk̲h̲tār proclaimed Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya as the Mahdī in this heightened sense. Among his opponents of the Kūfan nobility who fled from him to Baṣra was Mūsā, son of the Companion Ṭalḥa. He was viewed there as the expected Mahdī by many people who hoped that he would claim the caliphate, but he refused to engage himself in the fitna, pointing to the example of ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar in the First Civil War (Ibn Saʿd, v, 120 f.). Among the Umayyad caliphs, Sulaymān (96-9/715-17) seems to have been the first one to have encouraged the belief that he was the Mahdī who would restore justice after oppression had become widespread under his predecessors. He is often addressed as the Mahdī in this sense in the panegyrics of Ḏj̲arīr and al-Farazdaḳ. The latter affirmed specifically that the spine of the religion had been straightened after having become crooked and that all grievances (maẓālim) had been removed by the Mahdī, meaning Sulaymān (Dīwān , 638, 801). The apocalyptic aspect of al-Farazdaḳ’s concept of the Mahdī is revealed by his statement that so many priests (ḳass) and rabbis (ḥibr) had foretold the caliphate of the Mahdī (Dīwān, 327). Sulaymān’s successor, ʿUmar II, was also addressed as the Mahdī by Ḏj̲arīr and, because of his recognised piety, was widely regarded so in religious circles. Of the later Umayyad caliphs, His̲h̲ām was called the Mahdī by D̲j̲arīr. Less emphatically, al-Farazdaḳ speaks of Yazīd II as a rightly-guided one (mahdī) (Dīwān, 544) and of his son al-Walīd II as al-Mahdī (Dīwān, 7).

Among the religious scholars, discussions about the Mahdī and his identity can be traced back to the time after the Second Civil. War. These discussions developed in different directions in the different centres of learning and influenced the later beliefs about the Mahdī to varying degrees. They were in turn influenced by some related beliefs already accepted and supported by ḥadīt̲h̲ s attributed to the Prophet. Thus it had been accepted that ʿĪsā [q.v.] would descend from Heaven before the end of the world to rule and lead the Muslim community in prayer. A ḥadīt̲h̲ on the authority of D̲j̲ābir al-Anṣārī and Abū Saʿīd al-K̲h̲udrī, spread in Medina probably in early Marwānid times, quoted the Prophet as stating that „at the end of my community there ¶ will be a caliph who will pour out the money without counting it“. According to another early Medinan ḥadīt̲h̲, on the authority of Abū Hurayra, the Prophet had said „The Hour will not come until a man from Ḳaḥṭān will come forth leading the people with his staff“. Predictions concerning this Ḳaḥṭānī were evidently known before the rebellion of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-As̲h̲ʿat̲h̲ in 80/699, who according to al-Masʿūdī (Tanbīh , 314) and Ibn Ṭāhir al-Maḳdisī, called himself al-Ḳaḥṭānī and Nāṣir al-Muʾminīn.

In Medina, conservative religious opinion generally accepted ʿUmar II as the Mahdī. This acceptance was facilitated by the fact that ʿUmar II was descended through his mother from ʿUmar I who, together with his son ʿAbd Allāh, enjoyed the highest religious authority among conservative Medinan scholars. Statements attributed to ʿUmar I and ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar were circulated to the effect that the former had predicted the advent of a descendant of his who would fill the earth with justice. These statements reflect an earlier expectation that a descendant of ʿUmar I through male lineage would become the restorer of justice, but they were now applied to the Umayyad (Ibn Saʿd, v, 243). Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib (d. 93 or 94/712-13) was alleged to have identified ʿUmar II as the Mahdī while the latter was still in Medina long before his reign. A particular effort was made to counter Kūfan claims that the Mahdī would be an ʿAlid. Thus Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya was reported in Medina to have said that if there was to be a Mahdī he would belong to the ʿAbd S̲h̲ams. Muḥammad al-Bāḳir, the Imām of the Imāmī S̲h̲īʿa, was quoted as stating during the caliphate of ʿUmar II: „The Prophet belongs to us, and the Mahdī belongs to the Banū ʿAbd S̲h̲ams. We do not know him to be anyone but ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz“ (Ibn Saʿd, v, 245).

In Mecca, on the other hand, Ṭāwūs b. Kaysān (d. 106/724-5), a respected mawlā traditionist residing in the Yemen, was quoted expressing himself more reservedly that ʿUmar II was rightly guided but not the Mahdī (kāna mahdiyyan wa-laysa bih); for in the time of the Mahdī, the benefactor would be outdone by the rewards for his good acts and the evildoer would be called to repent. Abū Maʿbad Nāfid̲h̲ (d. 104/722-3), a mawlā of ʿAbd Allāh b. al-ʿAbbās, quoted his master as asserting that the Mahdī would be a young man (s̲h̲ābb) of the Ahl al-Bayt . The report was transmitted by the highly respected Meccan traditionist ʿAmr b. Dīnār (d. 126/744).

In Ḥims, Syrian loyalty to the Umayyad caliphate was expressed in a tradition attributed to Kaʿb al-Aḥbār neutralising the ḥadīt̲h̲ of the Ḳaḥṭānī: „The Mahdī will be only of Ḳurays̲h̲ and the caliphate will be among them only. He will, however, have a root and a pedigree in the Yemen (g̲h̲ayra anna lahū aṣlan wa-nasaban fi ’l-Yaman)“. The tradition, related by S̲h̲urayḥ b. ʿAbīda al-Ḥimṣī (d. after 108/726-7), may go back to the time of the revolt of Ibn al-As̲h̲ʿat̲h̲.

In Baṣra, Abū Ḳilāba (d. ca. 107/725-6), a prominent traditionist with ties to Syria, supported the view that ʿUmar II was truly the Mahdī. He was indirectly contradicted by Abū Naḍra (d. 109/727-8) and Abu ’l-ʿAlāʾ al-ʿĀmirī (d. 108/726-7) who, reporting the ḥadīt̲h̲ of the generous caliph in Baṣra, stated that they did not think ʿUmar II was meant. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110/728) opposed the belief in a Muslim Messiah, maintaining that ʿĪsā was the Mahdī. He is also quoted as stating that he did not believe in a Mahdī, but if there was one it was ʿUmar ¶ II. His contemporary and rival in the religious leadership in Baṣra, Muḥammad b. Sīrīn (d. 110/728) maintained that there would be a Mahdī of the Muslim community (umma) and that ʿĪsā, after descending from heaven, would pray behind him. He further affirmed that the Mahdī would be more excellent than Abū Bakr and ʿUmar and would equal a prophet in rank. According to another report, he held that the Ḳaḥṭānī was identical with the Mahdī. Ḳatāda (d. 117 or 118/735-6), prominent disciple of al-Ḥasan, spread the following ḥadīt̲h̲ of the Prophet: „There will arise a difference after the death of a caliph, and a man of the people of Medina will go forth fleeing to Mecca. Then some of the people of Mecca will come to him and make him rise in revolt against his will, and they will pledge allegiance to him between the rukn and the maḳām . An expedition will be sent against him from Syria but will be swallowed up (yuk̲h̲safu bihim) in the desert between Mecca and Medina. When the people see this, the righteous (abdāl) of Syria and the groups of horsemen [ ʿaṣāʾib) of ʿIrāḳ will come to him and swear allegiance to him. Thereafter a man of Ḳurays̲h̲ will arise whose maternal uncles are of Kalb. He will send an expedition against them but they will defeat them. This will be the expedition of Kalb, and disappointment will be for those who will not witness the booty of Kalb. He will then divide the wealth and act among them according to the sunna of their Prophet. Islam will become firmly established (yulḳī bi-d̲j̲irānih). He will remain seven (var. nine) years and then die, and the Muslims will pray over him“. This ḥadīt̲h̲, whose first part is patterned upon the revolt of ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr, may conceivably go back to ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ḥarit̲h̲ b. Nawfal b. al-Ḥārit̲h̲ b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, who appears in its isnād and claimed to have heard it from Umm Salama, widow of the Prophet. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ḥārit̲h̲, called „Babba“, was chosen by the people of Baṣra as their governor in 64/684 after the death of the caliph Yazīd and the flight of his governor ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād. But he held aloof from all the violent events in Baṣra at this time (cf. Ch. Pellat, Le milieu baṣrien et la formation de Ǧāḥiẓ , Paris 1953, 268-9); hence it is in fact unlikely that he was responsible for this ḥadīt̲h̲, which aimed at stirring up support for the cause of Ibn al-Zubayr. The latter part of it, including the rise of an Umayyad whose „maternal uncles were of Kalb“ and who would send an army of Kalbīs against Ibn al-Zubayr, reflects the expectations at the time which were not fulfilled by history. The element of the swallowing up of a Syrian army, based on Ḳurʾānic warnings of a k̲h̲asf, was incorporated from slightly earlier ḥadīt̲h̲s spread by ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr himself and by two prominent supporters of his, ʿAbd Allāh b. Ṣafwān and al-Ḥarīt̲h̲ b. Abī Rabīʿa al-Mak̲h̲zūmī, as war propaganda during the campaign of Yazīd’s army against Medina and Mecca (see Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ , K. al-fitan, bāb al-k̲h̲asf). Though it does not mention the Mahdī, the ḥadīt̲h̲ of Ḳatāda was later generally taken to refer to him, while his Syrian rival became the prototype of the Sufyānī [q.v.], the traditional opponent of the Mahdī. Much of later tradition about the career of the Mahdī and the Sufyānī is an elaboration of the various elements of this ḥadīt̲h̲.

In the late Umayyad age, Maṭar b. Ṭahmān al-Warrāḳ (d. 125/743?), a K̲h̲urāsānian resident in Baṣra and senior disciple of Ḳatāda, rejected the view that ʿUmar II was the Mahdī, stating that the Mahdī would do something ʿUmar II had not done: ¶ he would refuse to accept money returned to the treasury by someone who, after requesting it, found that he had no need of it. Maṭar also transmitted traditions attributed to Kaʿb al-Aḥbār to the effect that the Mahdī was named so because he would be guided (yuhdā) to find copies of the original text of the Torah and the Gospel concealed in Antioch. The same Kaʿb tradition seems to have been known also in Kūfa at this time, where ʿAbd Allāh b. Bis̲h̲r al-K̲h̲at̲h̲ʿamī is reported to have transmitted it in the following form: „The Mahdī will send (an army) to fight the Rūm, will be given the knowledge (fiḳh) of ten, and will bring forth the Ark of the Divine Presence (tābūt al-sakīna) from a cave in Antioch in which are the Torah which God sent down to Moses and the Gospel which he sent down to Jesus, and he will rule among the People of the Torah according to their Torah and among the People of the Gospel according to their Gospel“. The following ḥadīt̲h̲ was circulated in late Umayyad Baṣra on the authority of Abū Saʿīd al-K̲h̲udri: „The Prophet said: There will be in my community the Mahdī, if for a short time, seven (years), otherwise nine. My community will then enjoy prosperity as they have never enjoyed. The earth will bring forth its fruit for them and will not hoard anything away from them. Money will at that time be in heaps, and whenever a man will get up and say ‘O Mahdī, give me’, he will say ‘Take’.“ This ḥadīt̲h̲, which identifies the Mahdī with the generous ruler predicted earlier, was spread, with variants, by Zayd al-ʿAmmī but may in substance go back to his authority, the Baṣran Abu ’l-Ṣiddīḳ al-Nād̲j̲ī (d. 108/726-7). Another variant of it was transmitted by Sulaymān b. ʿAbīd al-Sulamī, a Baṣran contemporary of Zayd al-ʿAmmī. Of late Umayyad Baṣran origin is also the topos that the Mahdī would have an aquiline nose and a bald forehead (aḳnā ad̲j̲lā).

Kūfan tradition insisted that the Mahdī would be one of the Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet or a descendant of ʿAlī. ʿĀṣim b. Bahdala (d. 127 or 128/744-6), the famous Kūfan Ḳurʾān reader, disseminated the following ḥadīt̲h̲ with a Kūfan isnād going back to ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd: „The Prophet said: The world will not pass until a man of my family (ahl baytī) will rule the Arabs whose name will coincide with my name (yuwāṭiʾ ismuh ismī)“. The claim that the name of the Mahdī would agree with that of the Prophet was no doubt made in the time of al-Muk̲h̲tār’s rebellion in favour of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, who is reported, when addressed as the Mahdī, to have referred to his privilege of bearing the name and kunya of the Prophet (Ibn Saʿd, v, 68). The ḥadīt̲h̲ of ʿĀṣim thus probably goes back to ʿĀṣim’s authority, Zirr b. Ḥubaysh, who was known for his pro-ʿĀlid sentiment. By the time of the revolt of Zayd b. ʿAlī in Kūfa in 120/738, the thesis of the identity of names was evidently already well-established there, since his supporters did not try to identify him with the Mahdī but with the Manṣūr (al-Ṭabarī, ii, 1676), a messianic figure originating in Yemenite beliefs. In Kūfa was also spread the following ḥadīt̲h̲ related by Ibrāhīm, son of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, on the authority of his father on the authority of ʿAlī: „The Prophet said, ‘The Mahdī will be from us, the Ahl al-Bayt. God will give him success in a single night (yuṣliḥuhū fī layla)’.“ The descent of the Mahdī from the Prophet was also affirmed in the ḥadīt̲h̲: „The Messenger of God said, ‘Even if only a single day of the earth were left, God would send a man from us who will fill it with justice as it had been filled with oppression’.“ Though the ḥadīt̲h̲ was widely spread ¶ among the traditionists only by the Kūfan Fiṭr b. K̲h̲alīfa (d. 153/770), it may well go back to the Companion Abu ’l-Ṭufayl ʿĀmir b. Wāt̲h̲ila (d. ca. 100/718-19), known for his support of ʿAlī and his S̲h̲īʿī sympathies, who claimed to have heard it from ʿAlī. The theme of the generous ruler was taken up in Kūfa by ʿAṭiyya b. Saʿd b. D̲j̲unāda al-Ḳaysī (d. 111/729-30 or 127/744-5), considered a S̲h̲īʿi, who related the following ḥadīt̲h̲ on the authority of Abū Saʿīd al-K̲h̲udrī: „The Prophet said, ‘A man will come forth from my family after an interval of time (ʿinda ’nḳiṭāʿin min al-zaman) and the appearance of civil wars (fitan) whose liberality will be in throwing about (ḥat̲h̲yan) [money]. He will be called al-Saffāḥ (= the generous)’.“

The early ʿAbbāsid age until the time of the canonical collections of ḥadīt̲h̲. The ʿAbbāsid revolutionary movement aroused and was supported by messianic expectations and the hope for a restorer of religion and just rule from among the Ahl al-Bayt . The first ʿAbbāsid caliph gave himself the Kūfan messianic name al-Saffāḥ in his inaugural sermon in the mosque of Kūfa in 132/749. He was addressed as the Mahdī of the Hās̲h̲imīs by the poet Sudayf (Ag̲h̲ānī1 , iv, 93). The second ʿAbbāsid caliph, Abū Ḏj̲aʿfar. was also called the Mahdī by his court poet, Abū Dulāma. During his reign, the ʿAbbāsid claim to the Mahdīship faced a severe challenge in the rising of the Ḥasanid Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh in 145/762, who, having long been announced by the propaganda of his supporters as the expected Mahdī, appeared in Medina in accordance with the ḥadīt̲h̲ predictions. After the suppression of his revolt, the caliph adopted the messianic name al-Manṣūr and gave his son and crown prince Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh the surname al-Mahdī, presenting him to the public as the promised restorer. The latter after his accession sought to live up to the expectations concerning the Mahdī by releasing political prisoners and handing out liberal gifts, especially in the holy cities.

Traditions about the Mahdī going back to this time reflect these developments. In support of the ʿAbbāsid revolutionary movement in K̲h̲urāsān, the S̲h̲īʿī Yazīd b. Abī Ziyād (d. 136/753-4) spread the following ḥadīt̲h̲ in Kūfa with an isnād going back to ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd: „While we were with the Messenger of God, there came some youths of the Banū Hās̲h̲im. When he saw them his eyes flowed with tears and his colour changed. We said, ‘O Messenger of God, we have for some time seen in your face something we dislike’. He said, ‘God has chosen for us, the People of the House, the hereafter over this world. The People of My House shall meet misfortune, banishment, and persecution until people will come from the east with black flags. They will ask for charity but will not be given it. Then they will fight and be victorious. Now they will be given what they had asked for, yet they will not accept it but will finally hand it (sc. the earth) over to a man of My Family. He will fill it with justice as they had filled it with injustice. Whoever of you will live to witness that, let him go there even though it be by creeping on snow (ḥabwan ʿala ’l-t̲h̲ald̲j̲)’.“ Even though this tradition, known as the ḥadīt̲h̲ of the flags, was recognised by ḥadīt̲h̲ experts to have been fabricated by Ibn Abī Ziyād, it greatly influenced the later expectations about the career of the Mahdī and was accepted by Ibn Mād̲j̲a in his K. al-Sunan . A parallel version with a Baṣran isnād was disseminated in Baṣra by K̲h̲ālid al-Had̲h̲d̲h̲āʾ (d. 141-2/758-60): „The Messenger of God said, ‘Three men, each one ¶ the son of a caliph, will fight at your treasure (ʿinda kanzikum). None of them will obtain it. Then black flags will arise from the east. Two of them will kill you [brutally] as no people has even been killed’. Then he mentioned something I do not remember. He added, ‘When you see him, pledge allegiance to him, even though it be by creeping on snow. For he is the vicegerent of God, the Mahdī’.“

The ʿAbbāsid claim to the Mahdīship found some marginal support among mostly Kūfan traditionists. The following statement ascribed to ʿAbd Allāh b. al-ʿAbbās was spread by ʿAbd al-Malik b. Abī G̲h̲aniyya al-K̲h̲uzāʿī. a Kūfan originating from Iṣfahān, presumably towards the end of the caliphate of al-Manṣūr or the beginning of the reign of al-Mahdī: „By God, after that (namely after the twelve caliphs predicted in a ḥadīt̲h̲ of the Prophet) there will be from us the Saffāḥ, the Manṣūr, and the Mahdī who will hand it (sc. the caliphate) over to ʿĪsā b. Maryam“. Probably also a Kūfan was Ibn D̲j̲ābir al-Aʿmas̲h̲, who about the same time transmitted a ḥadīt̲h̲ ascribed to Abū Saʿīd al-K̲h̲udrī: „I heard the Messenger of God say, ‘The Ḳāʾim is from us, from us is the Manṣūr, from us the Saffāḥ, and from us the Mahdī. As for the Ḳāʾim, the caliphate will come to him without his spilling a cupping glass [of blood]. As for the Manṣūr, no flag of his will be turned back. As for the Saffāḥ, he will pour out money and blood in abundance; and the Mahdī will fill it (the earth) with justice as it had been filled with oppression’.“ Ibn D̲j̲ābir added that he thought the Manṣūr was Abū D̲j̲aʿfar (al-Manṣūr) and the Saffāḥ the caliph al-Mahdī. The tradition was probably, however, not originally coined for the ʿAbbāsids and may well be late Umayyad Kūfan, going back to Ibn D̲j̲ābir’s authority, the Kūfan Abu ’l-Waddāk al-Hamdānī. A prediction that the Mahdī would be of the descendants of al-ʿAbbās was in the early ʿAbbāsid age attributed to Kaʿb al-Aḥbār by an otherwise unknown Yazīd b. al-Walīd al-K̲h̲uzāʿī and transmitted by Muḥammad b. al-Walīd al-Bag̲h̲dādī, a mawlā of the Banū Hās̲h̲im.

The predominant mood among the traditionists, however, turned quickly against the ʿAbbāsid pretensions to the Mahdīship in favour of ʿAlid hopes. Traditions supporting the view that the Mahdī would be a descendant of Muḥammad and his daughter Fāṭima spread in the early ʿAbbāsid age outside Kūfa also. In Baṣra, ʿImrān al-Ḳaṭṭān, a supporter of the revolt of Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh and of his brother Ibrāhīm, circulated the following ḥadīt̲h̲ on the authority of Ḳatāda: „The Messenger of God said, ‘The Mahdī will be from me, with a bald forehead and an aquiline nose. He will fill the earth with equity and justice as it was filled with injustice and oppression and will rule seven years’.“ Similar ḥadīt̲h̲s were spread, on the authority of Abu ’l-Ṣiddīḳ al-Nād̲j̲ī, by the pro-S̲h̲īʿī Ḳadarī ʿAwf al-Aʿrābī (d. 146/763-4) and other Baṣrans. In al-Raḳḳa, Ziyād b. Bayān about this time disseminated the ḥadīt̲h̲ of the Prophet, „The Mahdī will be of my family from the descendants of Fāṭima“.

Support for the Ḥasanid Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh is reflected in the addition of „and his (the Mahdī’s) father’s name will agree with my father’s name“ to the ḥadīt̲h̲ of ʿĀṣim by some Kūfan transmitters. Most likely in his favour the following tradition was circulated by S̲h̲uʿayb b. K̲h̲ālid, a Kūfan residing in Rayy: „ʿAlī said while looking at his son al-Ḥasan, ‘Verily, this son of mine is a lord as the Prophet called him, and from his spine ¶ will come forth a man who will be called by the name of your Prophet. He will resemble him in character but will not resemble him in shape. He will fill the earth with justice as it was filled with injustice“’.

The Mahdī was, however, identified as a descendant of al-Ḥusayn in a tradition attributed to ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ and spread at this time by ʿAbd Allāh b. Lahīʿa (d. 155/772) in Egypt: „A man of the offspring of al-Ḥusayn will come forth from the east. Even if towering mountains were to confront him, he would raze them and take paths in them“. This tradition already reflects the expectation of a second rising, after the ʿAbbāsid revolt, in the east. This expectation was now expressed in predictions about an army in white clothes with small black flags led by a man, or a client, of Tamīm named S̲h̲uʿayb b. Ṣāliḥ, coming from K̲h̲urāsān or Rayy to prepare the way for the Mahdī. The earliest prophecies of this type seem to have originated in ʿIrāḳ but the bulk of them, often greatly elaborated, came from Egyptian and Syrian sources. In Egypt, ʿAbd Allāh b. Lahīʿa fabricated numerous such traditions providing them with various fictitious isnād s. In Syria, similar traditions were related on the authority of Arṭāt b. al-Mund̲h̲ir of Ḥimṣ (d. 162 or 163/778-80), sometimes with an isnād going back to Kaʿb al-Aḥbār. Others were spread by the Damascene Abū Bakr b. Abī Maryam (d. 156/773). Further traditions of this type, known apparently in both Syria and Egypt, came from a transmission of D̲j̲ābir (al-D̲j̲uʿfī) from Abū Ḏj̲aʿfar (Muḥammad al-Bāḳir), perhaps in book form. Since D̲j̲ābir died in 132/750 at the latest, it is evident that this attribution is spurious. Some of these traditions describe in considerable detail the rise and career of the Sufyānī, his conquest and sacking of Kūfa, his defeats at the hands of S̲h̲uʿayb, and the joining of the black flags from the Mas̲h̲riḳ with the yellow flags from the Mag̲h̲rib at the navel (surra) of Syria, i.e. Damascus. The death of Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh is reflected in predictions, contained in the accounts ascribed to D̲j̲ābir and Arṭāt, that the Pure Soul (al-Nafs al-Zakiyya), a descendant of the Prophet, would be killed in the strife about Medina on the Aḥd̲j̲ār al-Zayt. The Mahdī will appear in Mecca, receive the allegiance of S̲h̲uʿayb, and after further fighting will defeat the Kalbī army and kill the Sufyānī. According to some Syrian prophecies, he will reside in Jerusalem. His reign will last 24, 30, 39, or 40 years and he will be succeeded by caliphs of his family or by the Ḳaḥṭānī. The Mahdī thus is not closely associated in these traditions with the end of the world, but some of them predict a second Mahdī who would conquer Constantinople and surrender the rule to Jesus upon his descent from heaven.

Despite the rapid spread of traditions about the coming of the Mahdī, opposition to the belief in him as expressed earlier by al-Haṣan al-Baṣrī did not entirely disappear among the ḥadīt̲h̲ scholars. The Yemenite Muḥammad b. K̲h̲ālid al-D̲j̲anadī clad this opposition into a ḥadīt̲h̲ of the Prophet, providing it with an isnād through al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī to the Companion Anas, „Matters will only grow in hardship, the world will only increase in backward movement, and the people in greed. The Hour will rise only on the worst of people. There will be no Mahdī but ʿĪsā b. Maryam“. The ḥadīt̲h̲ was given added prestige by the fact that al-S̲h̲āfiʿī (d. 204/820) transmitted it from al-D̲j̲anadī. Included by Ibn Mād̲j̲a in his Sunan, it was later interpreted by supporters of the belief in the Mahdī as meaning ¶ that no-one spoke in the cradle (mahd) except Jesus or that the Mahdī would rule only in accordance with the instructions of Jesus since only the latter, as a prophet, was infallible (maʿṣūm). Many ḥadīt̲h̲ experts, among them al-Nasāʾī, and Ibn Ḳayyim al-D̲j̲awziyya, rejected it as inauthentic. Lingering doubts concerning the Mahdī may partly account for the absence of any traditions about him in the Ṣaḥīḥ s of al-Buk̲h̲ārī and Muslim. The Mahdī traditions contained in the canonical Sunnī ḥadīt̲h̲ collections of Abū Dāwūd, al-Tirmid̲h̲ī, Ibn Mād̲j̲a, and al-Nasāʾī as well as the Musnad of Ibn Ḥanbal were, however, numerous enough to provide a solid basis for the popular belief in the Mahdī.

Later developments. Traditions about the Mahdī were gathered also in the post-classical collections of ḥadīt̲h̲ like those of al-Ṭabarānī, al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, and al-Bayhaḳī. The eschatological rôle of the Mahdī became generally more pronounced. The view that the Mahdī would rule the Muslim community at the time of the descent of Jesus was commonly accepted doctrine now that he was identified with the leader of the prayer of the Muslims mentioned anonymously in earlier traditions who would offer to surrender his leadership to Jesus. Abu ’l-Ḥasan al-Āburī (d. 363/959) in his book on the merits (manāḳib) of al-S̲h̲āfiʿī could claim a broad, successive transmission (tawātur) of Mahdī traditions giving certainty that he would be of the Muslim community and that Jesus would pray behind him. Some of the acts which, according to earlier traditions, Jesus was to perform after his descent were now ascribed to the Mahdī, who would also aid him in the killing of the Dad̲j̲d̲j̲āl [q.v.]. The Mahdī was more and more associated, too, with the great Muslim conquests predicted in malāḥim traditions for the final time of the world, especially those of Constantinople and Rome (Rūmiyya), and was described as the ruler of the whole world. These tendencies are apparent in the traditions quoted by Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī (d. 458/1066), who composed at least three different collections of ḥadīt̲h̲s on the Mahdī.

A new dimension in the career of the Mahdī appeared in the K. al-Tad̲h̲kira of Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḳurṭubī (d. 671/1272) who quoted some traditions according to which he would first appear in Māssa in the Sūs in the Extreme Mag̲h̲rib and only later would receive a second oath of allegiance in Mecca. He would, moreover, gather an army of Berber tribes and cross the straits to al-Andalus, whose earlier plight and spoliation at the hands of the infidels is graphically described. The Mahdī would then preach in the mosque of Seville, receive the allegiance of all the Muslims and conquer seventy towns of the Rūm. Finally, he would sack the Church of Gold (kanīsat al-d̲h̲ahab), but as his followers would quarrel over the division of the staff of Moses found there, the Rūm would gain the upper hand and pursue the Muslims as far as al-Fayyūm in Egypt before the final victory of the Mahdī. These traditions, according to one of which the Mahdī was to appear in 599/1202-3, are of late origin. They probably reflect the appearance of the Mahdī Ibn Tūmart (d. 524/1130 [q.v.]) but express the hope for another Mahdī to reconquer al-Andalus. Ibn Tūmart does not mention or allude to them in his description of the Mahdī. Ibn K̲h̲aldūn. however, describes some similar beliefs propagated by western Ṣūfīs, Ibn Ḳasī (d. 536/1141), Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 638/1240), Ibn Sabʿīn (d. 623-4/1226-7) and his disciple Ibn Abī Wāṭīl, quoting a work of the latter. These Ṣūfīs, ¶ according to Ibn K̲h̲aldūn, predicted that the Mahdī would appear in the Mag̲h̲rib. He further reports that many people until his own time expected the advent of Mahdī at the fortress (ribāṭ) of Māssa and travelled there in the hope of meeting him and pledging allegiance to him. At the beginning of the 8th/14th century, a man pretending to be the Mahdī had gained some support there, but had soon been killed by the chiefs of the Maṣmūda. Belief that the Mahdī would arise in Morocco remained widespread there until modern times.

Eastern and Egyptian tradition largely ignored this development. Treatises dealing specifically with the Mahdī, assembling large numbers of traditions from the earlier collections, were produced by late traditionists like Yūsuf b. Yaḥyā al-Maḳdisī al-Sulamī al-Dimas̲h̲ḳī, author of a ʿIkd al-durar fī ak̲h̲bār al-muntaẓar composed in 658/1260; al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), who in his al-ʿArf al-wardī fī ak̲h̲bār al-Mahdī used Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī’s „Forty ḥadīt̲h̲s on the Mahdī“ as a base, adding to it extensively from other sources; and Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar al-Haytamī (d. 973/1565) who, besides writing two treatises on the Mahdī, of which al-Ḳawl al-muk̲h̲taṣar fī ʿalāmāt al-Mahdī al-muntaẓar is extant, included a discussion of the subject in his anti-S̲h̲īʿī polemic al-Ṣawāʿiḳ al-muḥriḳa . The general tendency of these treatises was to harmonise the divergent traditions. A few questions still aroused controversy. While Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī had clearly favoured belief that the Mahdī would be a descendant of al-Ḥusayn, Ibn Ḳayyim al-Ḏj̲awziyya. followed by Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar al-Haytamī, held the traditions affirming that the Mahdī would be a Ḥasanid to be better authenticated and argued that God preferred the descendants of al-Ḥasan in this respect since the latter had voluntarily renounced the caliphate out of compassion for the Muslim community while al-Ḥusayn had waged a war coveting it. This argument was refuted by ʿAlī al-Harawī al-Ḳārī (d. 1014/1606) in his al-Mas̲h̲rab al-wardī fī mad̲h̲hab al-Mahdī , and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Aydarūsī (d. 1192/1778), himself a descendant of al-Ḥusayn, supported the view that a Ḥusaynid would become the Mahdī. A theological problem arose about the prediction that Jesus would pray behind the Mahdī. Al-Taftazānī (d. 792/1390) argued in his commentary on the creed of al-Nasafī that, according to the sounder view, the Mahdī would follow Jesus in prayer since the latter, as a prophet, excelled him in religious rank. This view was rejected by Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar al-Haytamī and others with the argument that the initial prayer of Jesus behind the Mahdī was meant to signify his subjection to the s̲h̲arīʿa of Islam, not the superiority of the Mahdī. The latter might therefore, as some traditions indicated, later pray behind Jesus. On the other hand, al-Suyūṭī, followed by al-Haytamī, objected to the traditions raising the Mahdī in rank above Abū Bakr and ʿUmar as in conflict with the consensus that the two caliphs were the most excellent of mankind after the prophets. The objection was rejected by ʿAlī al-Ḳārī and Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Rasūl al-Barazand̲j̲ī in his al-Is̲h̲āʿa fī as̲h̲rāṭ al-sāʿa (finished in 1076/1665-6) with the argument that the consensus in this matter did not extend to the future. Influenced by Ṣūfī ideas, they maintained that the Mahdī, being infallible (maʿṣūm) in his judgement, would excel the two caliphs.

A Ṣūfī doctrine on the Mahdī had been expounded by Ibn al-ʿArabī in chapter 366 of his al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya . He described the expected Mahdī, a ¶ descendant of al-Ḥasan, as the Seal of the Saints (k̲h̲atm al-awṣiyāʾ), just as Muḥammad had been the Seal of the Prophets. The Mahdī would impose the law of Islam with the sword and Jesus would be one of his wazīrs . He would be infallible in his id̲j̲tihād without relying on legal analogy (ḳiyās), and the fuḳahāʾ of the schools would be his opponents while the Ṣūfī saints would be his natural supporters. These views were further elaborated in the Ṣūfī circles dependent on Ibn al-ʿArabī’s thought. A different Ṣūfī doctrine, refuted at length by ʿAlī al-Ḳārī, was that of the Indian S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd Allāh al-Hindī Mak̲h̲dūm al-Mulk [see ʿabd allāh sulṭānpūrī in Suppl.], who taught that both the Mahdī and Jesus would apply the legal doctrine of Abū Ḥanīfa. This view was still propagated by a Ḥanafī s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ in Medina in the time of al-Barazand̲j̲ī, who succeeded in discrediting him. ʿAlī al-Ḳārī also censured the doctrine of the Mahdiyya who believed that their former s̲h̲ayk̲h̲, who had died in K̲h̲urāsān, had been the Mahdī and considered all Muslims denying this claim as infidels [see mahdawiyya ].

In spite of the support of the belief in the Mahdī by some prominent traditionists and Ṣūfīs, it never became an essential part of Sumnī religious doctrine. Sunnī creeds mention it but rarely. Many famous scholars like al-G̲h̲azālī avoided discussing the subject. This attitude was often probably less motivated by doubts concerning the truth of the belief than by fear of encouraging politically disruptive movements in the Muslim community. Open criticism of the belief like that of Ibn K̲h̲aldūn who, in his Muḳaddima, undertook to refute the authenticity of all ḥadīt̲h̲s concerning the Mahdī, was exceptional.

S̲h̲īʿī doctrine. Among the S̲h̲īʿa, especially the more radical groups, longing for a restorer of justice and religion has usually been most intense. Belief in the coming of the Mahdī of the Family of the Prophet became a central aspect of the faith in radical S̲h̲īʿism in contrast to Sunnism. Distinctively S̲h̲īʿī was also the common belief in a temporary absence or occultation (g̲h̲ayba) of the Mahdī and his eventual return in glory. As various members of the Ahl al-Bayt were identified as the Mahdī but failed to fulfill the expectations about him in their lifetime, their followers transferred their hopes to a second coming. The pattern was already set in regard to Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, whose death was denied by the Kaysāniyya [q.v.]. They believed that he was hidden in the mountains of Raḍwā and would return to rule the world. Similar beliefs arose around Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya’s son Abū Hās̲h̲im (d. 98/716), the D̲j̲aʿfarid ʿAbd Allāh b. Muʿāwiya (d. ca. 130/748), Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Nafs al-Zakiyya (d. 145/762), D̲j̲aʿfar al-Ṣādiḳ (d. 148/765) and numerous other ʿAlids during the next centuries. The S̲h̲īʿī Mahdī was commonly given the epithet al-Ḳāʾim, the first one perhaps Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya in his occultation. It has been suggested that the term may be connected with the epithet ḳāʾem found in Aramaic Samaritan texts and translated into Greek as ἑστῶς (see G. Widengren, Muhammad the Apostle of God and his ascension, Uppsala 1955, 79; P. Crone and M. Cook, Hagarism , Cambridge 1977, 165). In Samaritan and gnostic usage, the term appears to have the meaning of „the living one“. Whatever the origin of the Arabic term, it is clear that in S̲h̲īʿī usage it came to be understood as the one who will rise and rule [see ḳāʾim āl muḥammad ]. It was in common use before the end of the Umayyad age and largely replaced the term Mahdī in Imāmī tradition.¶

Doctrine on the g̲h̲ayba of the Mahdī was greatly developed after the death of the seventh Imām Mūsā al-Kāẓim (183/799) among the Wāḳifa [q.v.], who considered him the last Imām and expected his return as the Mahdī. While most of them believed that he had not died and was alive hiding, others held that he had died and would rise from death. They relied on statements attributed to Imām D̲j̲aʿfar to the effect that the Mahdī was called the Ḳāʾim because he would rise (yaḳūm) after having died. A book on the g̲h̲ayba was written by one of the founders of the Wāḳifa in Kūfa, al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ḥamza al-Baṭāʾinī. Other books on the g̲h̲ayba are known to have been written by the Kūfan Wāḳifīs ʿAbd Allāh b. D̲j̲abala (d. 210/834), ʿAlī b. ʿUmar al-Aʿrad̲j̲, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan al-Tātarī (d. 263/876-7), and al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. Samāʿa (d. 263/876-7). A Wāḳifī was perhaps also Ibrāhīm b. Ṣāliḥ al-Anmāṭī (Kūfan, first half of the 3rd/9th century), author of a K. al-G̲h̲ayba . Books on the g̲h̲ayba were, however, in the same period also composed by some Imāmī scholars who believed in the continuation of the imāmate after Mūsā, like al-ʿAbbās al-Nās̲h̲irī (d. 219 or 220/834-5) and the Kūfan Fatḥī ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan b. Faḍḍāl.

The doctrine of the g̲h̲ayba was thus well-documented by traditions of the Imāms before the occultation of the Twelfth Imām whom the majority of the Imāmiyya came to consider as the Mahdī after the death of the eleventh, al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī al-ʿAskarī, in 260/874. Such earlier traditions could now be used and adapted to support the doctrine of the Mahdīship of the Twelfth Imām. Of Wāḳifī origin was, for instance, the tradition attributed to Imām Muḥammad al-Bāḳir and transmitted by al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ḥamza and now applied to the Twelfth Imām: „In the Lord of this Order (sāḥib hād̲h̲ā al-amr) there will be a precedent (sunna) from Moses, a precedent from Jesus, a precedent from Joseph, and a precedent from Muḥammad. As for the precedent from Moses, he will be afraid and watchful (k̲h̲āʾif yataraḳḳab); as for Jesus, it will be said about him what was said about Jesus; as for Joseph, imprisonment and concealment (al-sid̲j̲n wa ’l-g̲h̲ayba); as for Muḥammad, his rising with the sword, following his conduct and explaining his traditions. . .“ The tradition clearly refers to the imprisonment of Mūsā al-Kāẓim and to the false claim that he had been killed by his enemies. Also of Wāḳifī origin were traditions attributed to Imām Ḏj̲aʿfar about the two occultations (g̲h̲aybatān) of the Mahdī like the following: „The Master of this Order will have two occultations. One will be longer so that it will even be said, ‘He has died’; and some will say, ‘He has been killed’. No one but a few of his followers will remain loyal to him. None of his sons nor anyone else will have knowledge of his place except the client in charge of his affairs“. The two absences referred to the two arrests of Imām Mūsā who had been briefly imprisoned under the caliph al-Mahdī before his final imprisonment by Hārūn al-Ras̲h̲īd from which he did not return. Such traditions were now interpreted as referring to the Lesser and the Greater g̲h̲ayba [q.v.] of the Twelfth Imām. Twelver S̲h̲īʿī doctrine on the Ḳāʾim-Mahdī and on his Occultation, based on traditions attributed to the Imāms, was authoritatively elaborated by Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Nuʿmānī (middle of the 4th/10th century) in his K. al-G̲h̲ayba, by Ibn Bābūya (d. 381/991) in his Ikmāl al-dīn, and by S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1068) in his K. al-G̲h̲ayba.

Imāmī traditions about the career of the Mahdī ¶ after his advent largely reflect Sunnī traditions. He will be the lord of the sword and rule the world. Jesus will pray behind him after his descent from heaven. This did not raise a theological problem as in Sunnism, since the Mahdī, like all other Imāms, according to prevalent Imāmī doctrine, excels all prophets except Muḥammad in religious rank. Specifically S̲h̲īʿī is the expectation that the Mahdī will force all Muslims to accept the S̲h̲īʿī belief. Imām D̲j̲aʿfar is quoted as stating: ‘When the Ḳāʾim of us rises, he will offer the faith to every opponent (i.e. of ʿAlī, nāṣib). Either he will enter in it truly, or he will cut his neck or force him to pay the d̲j̲izya as the non-Muslims (ahl al-d̲h̲imma) pay it now. He will gird himself with a travel bag and expel them from the towns to the countryside (sawād)». The Kāʾim will also enforce the law as laid down by the Imāms, and accordingly prevent Muslims from repudiating their wives except by the ṭalāḳ , al-sunna. The Mahdī thus was expected to restore the s̲h̲arīʿa of Islam integrally, and this has always been orthodox Imāmī doctrine. More radical doctrine was propagated by the Ḳarāmiṭa [see ḳarmaṭī ], who held that the Mahdī would abrogate the s̲h̲arīʿa and bring a new message. According to al-Nawbak̲h̲tī (Firaḳ al-s̲h̲īʿa ed. H. Ritter, Istanbul 1931, 62), they interpreted a statement ascribed to Imām D̲j̲aʿfar, «If our Ḳāʾim were to rise you would learn the Ḳurʾān anew», in that sense. Similar ideas appear to be expressed in another statement ascribed to Imām D̲j̲aʿfar, «When our Ḳāʾim rises, he will bring a different order than what was before (d̲j̲āʾa bi-amrin g̲h̲ayri ’l-lad̲h̲ī kāna)».

Countering Sunnī criticism, Imāmī apologetics endeavoured to prove that the description of the Mahdī contained in Sunnī ḥadīt̲h̲ s applied to the Twelfth Imām and that the longevity of the Mahdī implied in the doctrine of the g̲h̲ayba was not unreasonable in view of revealed data about K̲h̲iḍr, Jesus, and the Dad̲j̲d̲j̲āl, and secular reports about long-lived men (muʿammarūn). Such apologetics gained considerable momentum in the middle of the 7th/13th century when several Sunnī scholars supported the Imāmī belief that the Twelfth Imām was the Expected Mahdī. In 648/1250-1 the Syrian S̲h̲āfiʿī traditionist Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Gand̲j̲ī al-Ḳuras̲h̲ī, later (658/1260) murdered in Damascus for co-operation with the Mongol conquerors, composed a K. al-Bayān fī ak̲h̲bār ṣāḥib al-zamān in which he proved the Mahdīship of the Twelfth Imām relying solely on Sunnī traditions. In 650/1252 Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Ṭalḥa al-ʿAdawī al-Niṣībīnī, a S̲h̲āfiʿī scholar and former vizier of the Arṭuḳid al-Malik al-Saʿīd of Mārdīn, completed in Aleppo his Maṭālib al-suʾūl fī manāḳib āl al-rasūl in which he supported the imāmate of the Twelve Imāms and answered Sunnī objections to the belief that the Twelfth Imām was the Mahdī. The Sibṭ Ibn al-D̲j̲awzī, shortly before his death in 654/1256 in Damascus, wrote his Tad̲h̲kirat k̲h̲awāṣṣ al-umma bi-d̲h̲ikr k̲h̲aṣāʾiṣ al-aʾimma assembling reports from Sunnī sources about the virtues of ʿAlī and his descendants, especially the Twelve Imāms, and at the end affirmed that the Twelfth Imām was the Lord of the Time, the Expected Ḳāʾim and Mahdī. In support, he quoted the following ḥadīt̲h̲, terming it well-known (mas̲h̲hūr), "The Messenger of God said, ‘At the end of time, a man of my descendants will come forth whose name is like my name and whose kunya is like my kunya. He will fill the earth with justice as it was filled with injustice. That is the Mahdī’ ". He thus avoided one of the major Sunnī objections ¶ to the Mahdīship of the Twelfth Imām , Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, viz. that the ḥadīt̲h̲ of ʿĀṣim in its expanded form stipulated the identity of the father’s name of the Mahdī with that of the Prophet’s father. Al-Gand̲j̲ī, on the other hand, quoted the testimony of al-Āburī that this stipulation had been added to the ḥadīt̲h̲ by the Kūfan transmitter Zāʾida (d. 160-1/777-8). A problem arose also about the Sunnī ḥadīt̲h̲, related by Ibn Ḥanbal and others, "The Prophet said, ‘A community will not peris̲h̲ among whom I am the first, Jesus is the last, and the Mahdī is in the middle (fī wasaṭih)’ ". This implied that Jesus would remain after the Mahdī and there would be no Imām before the end of the world, as against a cardinal Imāmī dogma. Al-Gand̲j̲ī therefore interpreted the ḥadīt̲h̲ as meaning that Jesus should be the last caller (dāʿī) inviting mankind to accept Islam but would not survive the Mahdī.

Testimony in support of the Mahdīship of the Twelfth Imām by these Sunnī authors, as also of later ones like the Mālikī scholar Ibn al-Ṣabbāg̲h̲ al-Isfāḳusī al-Makkī (d. 855/1451), a Mag̲h̲ribī resident in Mecca, and, more recently, the Ḥanafī Naḳs̲h̲bandī S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Sulaymān b. Ibrāhīm al-Ḳundūzī al-Balk̲h̲ī (d. 1294/1877 in Istanbul), was regularly noted by Imāmī apologists. The works of al-Gand̲j̲i and Kamāl al-Dīn Ibn Ṭalḥa were extensively quoted already by ʿAlī b. ʿĪsā al-Irbilī (d. 692/1293) in his Kas̲h̲f al-g̲h̲umma fī maʿrifat al-aʾimma, which in turn won positive comment from Sunnī authors because of its extensive reliance on Sunnī sources. Further support for the Mahdīship of the Twelfth Imām came from Ṣūfī circles. Already Abū Bakr al-Bayhaḳī (d. 458/1066) had noted that some Ṣūfī gnostics (d̲j̲amāʿa min ahl al-kas̲h̲f) agreed with the Imāmī doctrine about the identity of the Mahdī and his g̲h̲ayba . The Persian Ṣūfī Ṣadr al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-Ḥammūyī (late 7th/13th century) supported Imāmī doctrine on the Mahdī in his Farāʾid al-simṭayn . The Egyptian Ṣūfī al-S̲h̲aʿrānī, while generally showing no sympathy for S̲h̲īʿism. affirmed in his al-Yawāḳīt wa ’l-d̲j̲awāhir (written in 958/1551) that the Mahdī was a son of Imām al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī born in the year 255/869 and would remain alive until his meeting with Jesus. His advent could be expected after the year 1030/1621. He based his assertion on the testimony of the Ṣūfī S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥasan al-ʿIrāḳī, who claimed to have met the Mahdī, and on a spurious quotation from Ibn al-ʿArabī’s al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya identifying the Expected Mahdī with the Twelfth Imām. This quotation of Ibn al-ʿArabī was noted and accepted by both Imāmī and Sunnī scholars. The Egyptian S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-Ṣabbān (d. 1206/1792), in his Isʿāf al-rāg̲h̲ibīn fī sīrat al-Muṣṭafā wa-faḍāʾil ahl baytih al-ṭāhirīn, censured Ibn al-ʿArabī for supporting such a view against the clear evidence of the traditions accepted by Sunnī scholars. Al-Ṣabbān was in turn taken to task for criticising Ibn al-ʿArabī by Ḥasan al-ʿIdwī al-Ḥamzāwī [q.v. in Suppl.], who in his Mas̲h̲āriḳ al- anwār (first published in 1275/1858-9) maintained that the Ṣūfī gnostics were the most truthful interpreters of the prophetic tradition. In order to blunt the S̲h̲īʿī implications of al-S̲h̲aʿrānī’s statement, al-ʿIdwī quoted it, adding a thousand years to the birthdate of the Mahdī and suppressing both the date for his advent and S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥasan al-ʿIrāḳī’s claim to have met him. The Mahdī thus was born in 1255/1839 and was merely a descendant of the eleventh Imām, not the Twelfth Imām of the S̲h̲īʿa. Al-ʿIdwī’s false quotation of al-S̲h̲aʿrānī was copied by the Egyptian S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-S̲h̲abland̲j̲ī in his ¶ Nūr al- abṣār fī manāḳib al- nabī al- muk̲h̲tār composed in 1290/1873.

In pre-Fāṭimid Ismāʿīlism, the terms Mahdī and Ḳāʾim were both used, as in Imāmī S̲h̲īʿism, for the expected messianic Imām. After the rise of the Fāṭimids, some of the predictions concerning the Mahdī were held to have been realised by the Fāṭimid caliph al-Mahdī, the founder of the dynasty, while others would be fulfilled by his successors. This theory was elaborated by the Ḳāḍī al-Nuʿmān (d. 363/974) in his K. S̲h̲arḥ al- ak̲h̲bār where he quoted numerous traditions about the Mahdī from Sunnī, Imāmī, and Zaydī sources and applied them to al-Mahdī and his successors, partially by interpreting them figuratively (see W. Ivanov, Ismaili tradition concerning the rise of the Fatimids , London 1942, 97-122, Ar. texts, 1-31). The name al-Mahdī was henceforth reserved to the first Fāṭimid caliph, while the eschatological Imām and Seventh Apostle still expected for the future was only called the Ḳāʾim.

Among the Zaydīs, whose doctrine did not raise the nature of the Imāms to a superhuman level, Mahdī expectations have generally been weak or marginal. The heresiographer Abū ʿĪsā al-Warrāḳ reported that some Zaydī groups (Ḏj̲ārūdiyya) expected the return of Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Nafs al-Zakiyya, Muḥammad b. al-Ḳāsim Ṣāḥib al-Ṭāliḳān (d. 219/834), or Yaḥyā b. ʿUmar, who led a popular revolt in Kūfa in 250/864. Their views have, however, left no trace in Zaydī tradition. A more serious Mahdistic movement arose in the Yaman around the Zaydī Imām al-Ḥusayn b. al-Ḳāsim al-ʿIyānī (401-4/1010-13), who claimed to be the Expected Mahdī. His death was denied by his family and followers, known as the Ḥusayniyya, and his successors did not claim the title of Imām in expectation of his return. The sect of the Ḥusayniyya, opposed by the majority of the Zaydīs, survived until the 8th/14th century. It is characteristic for the insignificance of Mahdī expectations among the Zaydīs that the Sayyid Ḥamīdān (7th/13th century), representing Zaydī orthodoxy, could recognise al-Ḥusayn b. al-Ḳāsim as the Mahdī, who had appeared at the time predicted by the Prophet, while censuring those of his supporters who raised his rank above that of the Zaydī Imāms before him and refused to recognise those after him (see W. Madelung, Der Imām al- Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm , Berlin 1965, 198—201).

The richest early collection of ḥadīt̲h̲s on the Mahdī is contained in Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād (d. 227/842), K. al-Fitan, ms. Brit. Libr. Or. 9449, from which much material for the present article has been derived. References to traditions in the canonical collections are given by Wensinck, Handbook, s.v. Mahdī. Classical Sunnī primary sources: ʿAbd al-Razzāḳ b. Ḥammād, al-Muṣannaf, ed. Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī, Beirut 1970-2, xi, 371-3

• Ibn Ṭāhir al-Maḳdisī, al-Badʾ wa’l-taʾrīk̲h̲, ed. Cl. Huart, Le Livre de la création et de l’histoire, Paris 1899—1919, ii, 180-4
• Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya, Cairo 1293/1876, iii, 429 ff.
• al-Gand̲j̲ī, al-Bayān fī ak̲h̲bār ṣāḥib al-zamān, ed. Muḥammad Hādī al-Amīnī, Nad̲j̲af 1970
• Ibn Ṭalḥa al-ʿAdawī, Maṭālib al-suʾūl, Tehran 1287/1870
• Sibṭ Ibn al-D̲j̲awzī, Tad̲h̲kirat al-k̲h̲awāṣṣ, Nad̲j̲af 1964
• al-Sulamī, ʿIḳd al-durar, ms. Berlin We. 113
• al-Ḳurṭubī, K. al-Tad̲h̲kira, ms. Brit. Libr. Add. 9507 (abridged by al-S̲h̲aʿrānī, Muk̲h̲taṣar tad̲h̲kirat al-Ḳurṭubī, Cairo 1302/1885, 138-43)
• Ibn K̲h̲aldūn, Muḳaddima, ii, 142-76
• Ibn K̲h̲aldūn-Rosenthal, ¶ ii, 156—200
• al-Suyūṭī, al-ʿArf al-wardī, ms. Berlin or. oct. 3965
• al-S̲h̲aʿrānī, al-Yawāḳīt wa ’l-d̲j̲awāhir, Cairo 1932, ii, 142 f.
• Ibn Ḥad̲j̲ar al-Haytamī, al-Ṣawāʿiḳ, al-muḥriḳa, ed. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, Cairo 1375/1956, 160-7, 235
• idem, al-Ḳawl al-muk̲h̲taṣar fī ʿalāmāt al-Mahdī al-muntaẓar, ms. Berlin Pm. 242
• al-Ḳārī al-Harawī, al-Mas̲h̲rab al-wardī fī mad̲h̲hab al-Mahdī, ms. Berlin Lbg. 295
• al-Barazand̲j̲ī, al-Is̲h̲āʿa fī as̲h̲rāṭ al-sāʿa, Cairo 1325/1907
• al-Ṣabbān, Isʿāf al-rāg̲h̲ibīn, on the margin of al-S̲h̲abland̲j̲ī (see below), 134-47
• al-ʿIdwī al-Ḥamzāwī, Mas̲h̲āriḳ al-anwār, Cairo 1280/1863-4, 185-93
• al-S̲h̲abland̲j̲ī, Nūr al-abṣār, Cairo 1312/1894-5, 154-6
• Ḳundūzī, Yanābīʿ al-mawadda, Nad̲j̲af 1384/1965, esp. 536-97. For Imāmī works, see the bibliography for ḳāʾim āl muḥammad
• al-Irbilī, Kas̲h̲f al-g̲h̲umma, Ḳumm 1381/1961, iii, 227—343. Modern Imāmī works: Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ṣadr, al-Mahdī, Tehran 1353/1974
• Nad̲j̲m al-Dīn D̲j̲aʿfar b. Muḥammad al-ʿAskarī, al-Mahdī al-mawʿūd al-muntaẓar ʿinda ʿulamāʾ ahl al-sunna wa ’l-Imāmiyya, Beirut 1977. Studies: J. Darmsteter, Le Mahdi depuis les origines de l’Islam jusqu’à nos jours, Paris 1885
• Snouck Hurgronje, Der Mahdi, in Verspr. Geschr., i, 145-81
• G. van Vloten, Recherches sur la domination des Arabes, le Chiitisme et les croyances messianiques sous le Khalifat des Omayades, Amsterdam 1894, 54-81
• idem, Zur Abbasidengeschichte, in ZDMG, lii (1898), 218-26
• Goldziher, Vorlesungen, 230-3
• D. S. Margoliouth, On Mahdis and Mahdiism, in Proceedings of the British Academy, vii [1915]
• D. S. Attema, De Mohammedaansche opvattingen omirent het tijdstip van den Jongsten Dag en zijn Voorteekenen, Amsterdam 1942, esp. 99-104, 169-77
• A. A. Sachedina, Islamic messianism, the idea of the Mahdi in Twelver Shi’ism, Albany 1981
• W. Madelung, ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr and the Mahdī, in JNES, xl (1981), 291—305.

Madelung, W., «al-Mahdī», in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 28 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0618>