Why MAHDI & MESSIAH R THE SAME PERSON -METAPHORS, CONNOTATIONS IN THE QURAN

[sydneyAhmed]

The Messiah and the Mahdi
One and the Same Person

It is again my intention to show that the God of Mankind is not limited to our narrow understanding of things. His are limitless attributes. We are liminted in every imaginable way. Naturally that causes us to put limitation to the many word of God and many traditions of the Most perfect of all men the Mohammad (saw). In many instances the Quran uses metaphor and os did the Wisest of all men that ever lived. His (Mohammad [saw]) life was Quran as you know. No one understood Quran as he (saw) did. Then know this that common sense dictates that we think with at least some rationality when it comes to traditions that has a lot of connotations. Then it will open your eyes. ONe more thing any Hadiths that contradicts the Quran or more stronger traditions of the Prophet we should disregard them. I will explain the reason for that later. Now read the following and tell me what you think.

From the Traditions of the Holy Prophet it is evident that the Promised Messiah was to be a follower of the Holy Prophet. One Tradition tells us that

'the Mahdi is no other than the Messiah' [Ibn-e-Maja]
Another Tradition says:

'How would it be with you when the son of Mary will descend among you and you will have a leader raised from among you?" [bukhari, kitabul-anbiya, chapter nuzul isa bin maryam]
These two Traditions leave no doubt that the Messiah himself will be the Mahdi. He would lead followers of the Holy Prophet and would be one from among them, not an outsider. To think that the Messiah and the Mahdi are two different persons is wrong. It is against the clear indication in the Tradition: 'The Mahdi is no other than the Messiah.' It behoves good believers to ponder carefully over the utterances of the Holy Prophet. If the utterances seem contradictory, it is for us to try and resolve the contradictions. If the Holy Prophet said, on the one hand, that the Mahdi will appear before the Messiah, and the Messiah will then join the Mahdi and his followers in worship; and, on the other, that the Messiah himself is the Mahdi, what are we going to do? Accept one utterance and reject the other? Is it not rather our duty to consider the two utterances carefully and try to reconcile one to the other? The two utterances can be reconciled at once if we use one of them to interpret the other. It seems that the promise of the advent of the Messiah was couched in words which suggested that the Messiah and the Mahdi were two different persons. This suggestion is corrected by the Tradition which says 'No Mahdi but the Messiah' This Tradition makes it plain that the other Tradition is metaphorical. It means that a follower of the Holy Prophet will arise for the purpose of revivifying the world, but would not have that rank of a prophet. Then the promise relating to the second coming of Jesus will be fulfilled in his person and he will announce himself the Promised Messiah. The Tradition, therefore, tells us that the Promised One will start his career as a Muslim reformer who will become invested with the office of Messiah. Divine prophecies have to employ metaphors. They would convey very little otherwise.

If our interpretaion of these Traditions is not correct, then there are only two alternatives left for a seeker-after truth, both of them absurd and dangerous. Either, we admit that the Tradition, which describes the Messiah and the Mahdi as one and the same person, is not a true Tradition, or, we admit that the Messiah and the Mahdi are two different persons and that the intention of the Tradition is to point to a difference of spiritual significance in the two. It may mean that the true Mahdi would be the Messiah. The other, Mahdi would be insignificant compared with the Messiah. It would be like saying, "Nobody knows but so and so." When we say such a thing, we do not mean literally that nobody else knows. What we mean is that the given person knows very much more. However, both interpretations are dangerous. One requires us to treat, without good reasons, as spurious a Tradition which is a well authenticated one, true on all sound criteria. The other implies that the Mahdi, in comparison with the Messiah, will be as nothing. Such a thought would be contrary to the Traditions which teach that the Mahdi will be the Imam and the Messiah a follower who stands behind the Imam in a congregation. Both alternatives, therefore, are absurd. The only worthwhile interpretation we can put upon the Tradition is that they foretell the coming of a Messenger from among the followers of the Holy Prophet. This Messenger will first present himself as a reformer and later announce himself the Messiah of the prophecy. The same person will be the Mahdi as well as the Messiah. Except for this interpretation, there can be no plausible interpretation of the Traditions on the subject.

[Hasan_Ali_Imam]

Assalamu Alaikum,

As far as I know, there are no indications of the return of Jesus (AS) and the Mahdi (R) in the Quran. We hav eto look at the traditions and they indicate that Jesus (AS) and the Mahdi (R) are two different people. This is the conventional Sunni belief based on hadiths accepted buy Sunnis. There is a book I refer you to entitled 'The Signs Before the Day of Judegement' by Ibn Kathir. It cites the hadiths pertaining to the Mahdi (R), who would be from the Household of the Prophet (S) and the second coming of Jesus (AS).

The only people who consider the Mahdi (R) and Jesus (AS) to be the same person are the Ahmadiyya sect. For them, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the Mahdi and the promised Messiah. The last part of your posts states that a Messenger is expected from among the followers of the Holy Prophet. This again coincides with the Ahmadiayya belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet albeit a non-Law bearing prophet.

Wassalam
Hasan

[hac]

Originally posted by sydneyAhmed
The only worthwhile interpretation we can put upon the Tradition is that they foretell the coming of a Messenger from among the followers of the Holy Prophet. This Messenger will first present himself as a reformer and later announce himself the Messiah of the prophecy. The same person will be the Mahdi as well as the Messiah. Except for this interpretation, there can be no plausible interpretation of the Traditions on the subject.

Salam and welcome.

What is the significance of your finding? - I am intrigued.

Was'salam.

[desi-soul]

The reality is, today you are leaving in a Kafirdom, wakeup and smell coffee.
The sooner you leave day-dreaming, about rebuilding khalifah the better.

As for the big fault in the prophecy, is rebirth of jesus. To begin with there is no HISTORICAL proof showing jesus christ ever existed. It is accepted, that so called 'Jesus christ' is a over sized Myth.
How come Allah didn't know about it???

[Edited by desi-soul on 25th February 2004 at 17:40]

[3Abdullah]

Desi Soul!

You said: To begin with there is no HISTORICAL proof showing jesus christ ever existed...

My Question: By HISTORICAL proof, did u mean HISTOLOGICAL proof? I mean did u make some spelling mistake? Or you are not familiar with the meanings of the word HISTOLOGICAL?

Your Reply: I m waiting for.

Regards

[sydneyAhmed]

Salam,

Whetehr a proof exist of some one existing say 4000 or 2000 years ago should never be the reason for denial of say Jesus (as). It can be said within reason that word of mouth for last 2000 years that have been passed along is good enough proof for the existence of Jesus (as). Now whether our arrogance or stubbornness prevents us from seeing what has been validated for these many centuries is another matter altogether.

It makes no difference say if you or I don't believe in his existence. Just the fact that he has been still talked about by over a billion people is good enough for me as the proof for his existence.

It is true you only see what you wanna see and understand only that which you are capable of even if your faculties are much more superior than any other being. It seems to me that some of you are always in the pre-supposition mode, and are detremined for ego or whatever reason not to be swayed even if it made sense in the back of your head.

Now would some one please disprove to me the non existence of Jesus (as). Actually some past material could be had if it would matter - alas even then that will be viewed as an attempt in futility.

Peace, Love for all Hatred for none.

[sydneyAhmed]

salam,

hac, the new post should help you get your answer. if not let me know.

Khilari, hope you understand that i do not like to trivialize the matter of faith. If it makes sense and is the source sounds acceptable then it becomes the decision of the hearer or seer as to how he should interprete what he/she has heard.

if that did not suffice, please let me know.

peace. Love for all Hatred for none