Although there are fundamental differences between Ahl al-Sunnah and Shī‘a on the issue of Mahdī, one of the controversial issues among Islamic sects, Shī‘a has attached much greater importance to the issue. In this study, after the information about Mahdiship in the primary sources of Islam is conveyed, the opinions of the Ahl al-Sunnah and Shī‘a will be given and an evaluation will be made about the evidence and opinions put forward by the two sects. The Shiites, who formed the (...) principles of belief based on the theory of imamate, explained the issue of Mahdism in the axis of imamate and gave it a religious dimension, but the Shi‘ī sects disagreed on the subject of Mahdī. Shi‘ī sources tried to show that the claim of Mahdiship is an important issue, which has preoccupied Muslims, by dating the claim of Mahdiship back to Ali ibn Abi Talib's son, Muhammad ibn Hanafiyah. In a very early period, it was claimed that Muhammad ibn Hanafiyya did not die but was still living on a mountain called Razva in Madinah, and he was the anticipated (muntaẓar) Mahdī. Most of the Zaydiyya did not consider the issue of Mahdiship an important fundamental basis of belief. Ismailiyya maintain that Muhammad ibn Ismail did not die and will come and amend the world one day. Imāmiyya believe that Hasan, whom they accept as the last imam, will reappear as the Mahdī in the latest days of the world, and in line with this belief, they have made great efforts to find proof from the Qur’ānic verses and hadiths and interpreted them. In this way, they attached more importance to the understanding of Mahdiship on the axis of imamate than the other Shi‘ī sects. According to Imāmiyya, since the world cannot be left without a prophet, an open, or a secret imam, Muhammad b. Hasan will remain hidden as long as he wants and appear as the Mahdī near the Doomsday. Based on the clear statement of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) that twelve caliphs would come after him, the Imāmiyya restricted the number of Imams from Ahl al-Bayt to twelve and claimed that the twelfth imam would come again as Mahdī. Although the Imāmiyya believe that the Mahdī will be from the Ahl al-Bayt, just like the other imams, they have not been able to provide valid evidence for the belief that the twelfth imam will be hidden and appear near Judgment Day. Although Imāmiya tried/have been trying to prove that it is possible for a person to live for centuries (more than a thousand years), which is called al-Ghaybat al-Kubrā by Imamiyya, it cannot be said that they have succeeded in doing so. (shrink)

There is a prevailing opinion that conjectural knowledge (zann) cannot be taken as a basis in determining the fundamental theological principles among the theologians. However, from which sources and how to obtain certainty (yaqīn) and which types of knowledge are definitive (qat‘ī) have been discussed extensively. Certain and conjectural knowledge meet at a common point in terms of relying on evidence. Conjectural knowledge obtained via reasoning and/or religious scripture that do not express certainty. While conjectural knowledge has been essentially related (...) to the concepts of estimation, doubt, belief and knowledge, by its in term of value, it is stands closer to the concepts of knowledge and belief. Conjectural knowledge contains different degrees of certainty. When it is chosen to be more certain, it is considered as a valid conjecture, when it is disregarded, it is considered as erroneous conjecture. If there is no choice for its certainty, then it is called doubt (shakk). If the information/judgment obtained through reasoning becomes fixed, unchangeable and in a coherence that does not allow it to be otherwise, then it is called definitive (qat‘ī) knowledge. To achieve that, theologians generally used methods of argumentations like syllogism, induction, exhaustive investigation and disjunction (al-sabr wa’l-taqsīm) to provide such knowledge about divinity and prophethood. Theologians have used conjectural knowledge, which are based on endoxic (mashhūrāt), already granted (musallamāt) and acceptance of authority (maqbūlāt), in their dialectics to persuade their discussants, rather than to justify the fundamental theological issues of religion. While theologians mostly use rational proofs in theological issues, they also gave significant place to the scriptural narrative that determines the creed. In this context, theologians accepted the narrated evidence as binding and decisive, as long as it is certain in terms of both authenticity and implication. Ultimately, the fundamental theological principles of religion are based on these narrative evidences. Although the theologians do not accept single reports (khabar al-wahid) for their questionable authenticity, they also made inferences regarding subjects of traditions (sam‘iyyāt). Acting from this perspective, theologians tried to justify with narrative evidence rather than rational arguments on these issues such as torment in grave, intercession (shafā‘ah) and sirât, which are mostly matters of eschatology and the unseen (ghayb). Finally, it has been concluded that the conjectural knowledge is still valid in some secondary theological issues and the assumption that the conjectural knowledge has no deduction value in theology is not absolute. (shrink)