Talk:Day of Resurrection/Archive 1

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 19 and August 12.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Foo/Archive02. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. freestylefrappe 02:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

About the claim that the Quran implies that Jesus will deny godhood
I am the original author of this article. Someone edited the bit of text where i wrote that Jesus will deny Godhood, changing it to "the Quran and hadith IMPLY that Jesus will deny" Godhood. The fact is the Quran and hadith EXPLICITLY mention that Jesus will deny Godhood and renounce this as a lie. So I'm changing it back to what it was. This article is meant to convey a representative account of the Muslim beliefs on the Day of Judgment. The editor who added the "imply" clause is obviously unfamiliar with primary Islamic texts. Unsigned comment by 62.240.103.248

Using sections such as "before judgment" and "after judgment"
Hi, I'm the original author of this article again. A user edited the article, dividing it into subheadings that imply a certain temporal order. While this seems a good organizational device, I had originally wished not to force a given order of events, but merely suggest or hint at one. The use of such headings as "before", "during", "after", etc. is not the best option because we simply do not know for certain the ordering of the events mentioned in the article. Such an ordering is not explicitly given in the texts, and thus inferring it is error-prone. So I'm removing the subheadings.

An ordering is surely inferred in my text, but it's just that the subheadings lend it an air of certainty that is simply not present. Unsigned comment by 62.240.103.248

A fresh new post-copyvio start
In the interests of having some sort of content here, I've started a stubby new article at Qiyamah/Temp. Please feel free to contribute anything (NPOV and non-copyrighted) you like. --Skoosh 4 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
 * I removed the "Selected Verses" section and pasted all other content into the new subpage. If you look at the edit history of this page you will see I've been deleting content from selected verses (an obvious copyvio, though i could not find the source, thanks), putting a summary in the beginning, and citing the verses. freestylefrappe July 4, 2005 17:42 (UTC)
 * The website: www.al-qiyamah.org had no copyright to the information posted on that page...either way...its's moot because a week has passed and the Selected Verses section has been deleted. I'm pasting the entire section, one edit prior to the page being listed copyvio, here, so we can get at the root info provided without plagiarizing (freestylefrappe 00:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I take it back. I was unaware that a copyright need not be explicitly stated, but JesseW explained this to me. freestylefrappe 00:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The original intent and philosophy of this article
Original author of article here. The attitude i've striven to take in this article is to give the account of that day only as given explicitly in the primary texts of Islam, while refraining from any references that strain interpretation and refraining from any interpretations of the accounts.

First, I think I need to clarify something. This article has been wikified already! Every now and then I find a wikify tag stamped on the page, even though it has already been written and edited and re-edited according to wikipedia conventions and has been enhanced wikifiably-speaking by one or more editors other than this author.

Then comes the question of the content itself. Someone had added something about the moon eclipsing and the sun and moon merging then went on to state that the sun over the people's heads on the day of judgement is our "sun-moon". I've removed all of this. Newsflash. Whether the verse cited by that person says exactly that or not is really beyond the scope intended for the article. The emphasis on our state or conditions as humans on that day is complicated enough to deal with as a text without going into further complications on which sun or star is it over the people's heads on that day. Another newsflash, Our universe in its current state, has billions of suns, aka stars. God can produce stars at will and so this author doesn't know whether the star over people's heads when they are gathered will be our own sun, but takes it as a point at best secondary to the main event in the content, viz. our gathering and judgement as a species; a situation that even if one does not believe it, still is dramatic enough to ponder. So that insertion clearly deviated from my stated purpose of giving as sober and direct account as i could from what is readily readable from the Quran and the hadith - hence the lengthy section of direct quotations of some of the relevant hadiths - which means that i haven't even gotten to the quranic verses yet, i'm still scouring the hadiths from the sets of the sources of this article.

Someone else (maybe the same person) also wrote that those who participated in unbelief in their life would remain forever in hell. That also is not true. The line is drawn at those who have died as unbelievers. Islamic teachings clearly show that someone who engaged in unbelief but has repented in their lifetime would most likely be forgiven. This is exactly the kind of uneducated guesses on who gets saved and who doesn't that I sought to avoid in the original version of the article.

Furthermore, I consciously avoided using any material from the so-called "islamic" websites on the Web. The only valid references for this article should be from the quran and the hadith - again to avoid using interpreted tripe and nonsense that deviates from the original accounts with all sort of phantasmagorial nonsense. The accounts in the primary text are heavy enough as it is and difficult to deal with, without adding yet further needless complications. In writing this article, the author even abstained as much as possible from citing the classical works of islamic theology, other than the two primary sources (the quran and the set of the hadith.) For this reasons the discussion that was here about any copyright violations from I don't know what website, is moot. For the article in its intermediate state, as left by its author did not cite any websites; only information confirmed from the hadiths.

As to the user(s) who repeatedly insinuate that the article is of inferior quality! i'm not sure what quality that person was talking about, presumably his presumption of a sort of "Wikipedia-class" quality. I would suggest he look around some of the 633,990 entries articles on wikipedia with an average of around 9000 edits per page, and then explain to us what or whose idea of quality he proposes all authors should adopt? Insofar as an english article, this article undergoes recurrent edits by this author for grammar, orthography, organization and bent. While that user complains about quality, this author himself has to return to this page periodically to repair the article from numerous false claims, personal interpretations, etc, added by other users that debases the information in it rather than enhance it.

I've also had the courtesy to make references to other theologies, particularly protestant theologies; and in addition i've had the courtesy to add links to other religions' versions of the day of judgement; something the writers of the other religious accounts don't often bother to do in their articles.

Perhaps accusing me of vandalism is a bit much..especially considering how much work ive put into fixing up this page. i will revert and more edits which take out facts. just because u dont like the sources doent mean u can just remove stuff. im trying to incorporate information from as many sources as possible to have a world-view. if u have a source that specifically dispells something in the article then present it, otherwise stop editing out info. freestylefrappe 22:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

HELLO i have been reading this discussion page and i feel that the origianl author is in fact correct that you should not mess with facts that people may not nesseceraly (please excuse my poor spelling)know is not correct or not quite correct. however i feel that the origianl author should try not to get so stressed about people making changes to the article because if you join things like this then you must understand that people will make changes to what they think or believe. i do not imply any nastiness here but i think the author should not worry about small things and just change back the hings that are of great incorretness. Also to the author i congratulate you on the trueness of this article and thankyou for the rivertin expressionism of your writing.. yours sincerly cool_girl_wants_info.

Academic viewpoint
Fred Donner, a contemporary historian of early Islam, made a glancing reference in one of his books to what he believed to be the "millenarianism" of the earliest Muslims. He said that there is a great deal of evidence that Muhammad, and the earliest Muslims, believed that the Judgement Day was imminent, possibly to happen during their lifetimes. Fred, much has been made of Umar's refusal to believe that Muhammad had died -- Shi'a believe that this was mere dissimulation, an attempt to gain time. But there's a note in Ibn Hisham to the effect that Umar said to someone, much later, that he didn't believe that Muhammad COULD have died because Judgement Day hadn't arrived.

Neither Sunni nor Shi'a take any notice of what Donner sees as millenarianism, because it would have been a MISTAKE -- the Judgement Day didn't arrive -- and Muhammad cannot have made a mistake. But I think Donner's view should be noted, in the context of beliefs re the TIME of Judgement Day.

I think it would be a good idea to retitle the article something like Islam and Judgement Day, stressing the tie to Christian notions, comparing and contrasting to Christian beliefs, and also link to Millenarianism and Eschatology. (Redirect Qiyamah to the new title, so that if someone runs across the Arabic term, it can be explained.) Also, perhaps some mention should be made of widespread belief in the coming of the Mahdi as heralding the last days. As it stands, the article is a useful, detailed account of Muslim beliefs, but it doesn't have much of a wider perspective. Zora 21:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * While I have no objection to adding 1. a wider viewpoint/perspective and 2. to the reference to Fred Donner, I must strongly oppose moving the article to a Christian-themed title. This is an Islamic concept not a Christian one. In regard to the Coming of the Mahdi, Ill try to incorporate the info from Mahdi and Dajjal under the Aftermath subsection (perhaps this could be renamed). I will also try to incoporate the root ideas expressed in the Quranic verses which were edited out (from the talkpage) by the vandal- 70.81.87.211 a.k.a. User:62.240.103.233 a.k.a. User:Cool girl wants info. thanks. freestylefrappe 22:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with FSF; while a wider perspective would be interesting, this has to be framed within its own context, not as a comparison to Christianity (and why just Christianity? Zoroastrianism is another obvious comparison.)  Also, I don't like "X and Y" as an article name when it can be avoided. That said, "Judgement Day" is a perfectly good translation of yawm ud-din (cf. al-Fatiha). - Mustafaa 22:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Zoroastrianism -- good point! In fact, that could be seen as the starting point of the whole concept, which was clearly widespread in the Middle East.


 * I don't care so much about the article name, but I do care about context. Zora 02:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please can we not make this into a copycat of eschatology. While I can understand adding comparisons to other religious eschatologies, and noting similar concepts which have arrived through the impact of Zoroastrian and Christian beliefs on Islamic ones, this page is not supposed to address other eschatologies. It is on Islam's view. freestylefrappe 03:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Aha, there IS an article on Islamic eschatology, which is linked to Eschatology. This article would then be an elaboration of the sources and various traditions of Islamic eschatology, and the academic context could be put in the main article. We would need to do a better job of linking the articles which, considered hierarchically, would be organized thus:


 * Eschatology
 * Islamic eschatology
 * Qiyamah

Does that work for folks here? Zora 08:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That hierarchy is already in place......freestylefrappe 18:54, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

About the hierarchy and about "wider" sources
Yes the above hierarchy makes sense (Eschatology -> Islamic Eschatology -> Qiyamah). This would relieve the article of qiyamah of edits and additions talking about the Mahdi or the latter days or the "signs of the hour." For the Qiyamah article, in my view, should focus solely on that event and not on the eschatological accounts concerning this world, nor on life in paradise and hell, which deserves an article of their own.

Regarding FSF's view that the Qiyamah article should incorporate as many sources as possible, I sought to restrict myself to explicit references in the Qoran and the Hadith because as this article partly aims to instruct the muslim and non-muslim on the elements of that day as "revelation" has detailed them, these are the primary and therefore the most trustworthy source we have in the Islamic canon of texts. Much more so than any accounts in later muslim writings or indeed modern and present-day writings. Just trying to keep it pure and true to the two primary texts as much as possible. Otherwise, with the addition of heterodox, interpretation-laden accounts, as well as Orientalist impressions, etc. the information content coming directly from islamic "revelatory" text will be diluted and the purpose of the article will suffer. I ask the contributors to please take this point into account when adding to the article. Thanks.


 * It helps if you sign your accounts. Second, keeping things "pure" and "true" and avoiding "heterodoxy" and "Orientalism" may be YOUR goals, but they aren't Wikipedia's goals. If we're going to have an article on Islamic accounts of Qiyamah, we have to pay attention to the views of all Muslims, not just fundamentalists, Salafis, whatever. Zora 02:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoa. Just restricting the sources of the qiyamah account to the Quran and the sahih hadith is "fundamentalist"? This is not an article about social reform. This is an article about an account that to the nonbeliever is entirely mythological. It is as an expose or survey of this "mythology", that this article is intended to be. I'd rather read the content of greek mytholody from the direct sources rather than a myriad interpretations from less than secondary sources. Reading interpretations and impressions of greek mythology is something else altogether, and would not be helpful without first a survey of the mythology itself as we have from Homer or later Virgil. I've even discarded hadiths that are not classified as sahih to stick to the most direct accounts in islamic "mythology." It's neither fundamentalism nor salafism to do that. And the insinuation it is not appreciated. Furthermore, Orientalist interpretations are hardly "islamic" accounts. Orientalism has been thoroughly deconstructed as hostile to its subject matter more often than not. In fact Orientalism is largely a non-muslim account of Islamic themes. There is a difference between the original account, and interpretations and impressions thereof. This article aims to present the original account. That's neither fundamentalist nor the other thing you said. In fact the term you used "salafism" is totally meaningless here since salafism has to do with the rejection of schools of jurisprudence in islam, which is (salafism that is) heterodox and goes against the consensus of ulema over the past millenium and a half. It has nothing whatever to do with this article - which again is meant to present the barebones account of the Qiyamah as given in the Quran and the next best thing, which is the hadiths classified as sahih.


 * But ... but ... different branches of Islam regard different hadiths as trustworthy. What the Sunni accept as sahih the Shi'a regard as untrustworthy.


 * If you don't regard yourself as a fundamentalist or a Salafi, fine ... but your goals are not inclusive. We should exclude only POVs held by an insignificant number of people; any views held by large groups, whether they're Twelvers, Ahmadis, liberals, whatever, should not be excluded. Zora 02:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The twelvers are just a subsect of the Shi`a, who make up about 1/12 of the entire muslim population (that's the shi`a);


 * Nonetheless, the Shi'a should not be left out. Zora 03:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * as to the Ahmadis, as I pointed out elsewhere, at about 100,000 or 200,000 they constitute about 0.01% of the 1.2 billion muslims.


 * Morever, you seem to be vested in imposing Ahmadis as muslims on the Muslims. The consensus of Muslims, sunni or shi`a is that Ahmadis like Baha'is are not muslims. Their tenets go in contradiction with tenets in both the Qoran and sahih hadith. Not even the catholic church recognizes them as muslim, nor does the World Islamic Conference, nor does the UN. Advocating for their rights not to be persecuted does not entail lumping them with Muslims, especially when it comes to surveys of orthodox text and thought.


 * OK, I'll admit that the Ahmadi are a border case. They say that they're Muslims, but other Muslims don't accept them as such. Nonetheless, I'd say that their views, whatever they are, rate a sentence, with a proviso that they're not accepted by other Muslims. Zora 03:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by the liberals.


 * I'd have to do research, but it's not clear to me that modernizing or liberal Muslims are going to accept all the hadith, or interpret the Quranic passages re the last judgement in the same way. Zora 03:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * We might as well define muslims racially, and lump atheists or ex-Muslims as Muslims also, which doesn't make any sense.


 * It sounds like you have views on who's Muslim and "orthodox" and who's not. While your POV has a perfect right to be heard, there are other POVs.


 * Please please take a username and start signing your comments, Mr. or Ms. Anon Editor. We need to start making sense of who you are as a person. Zora 03:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me like you Zora are one of those zionist-motivated police state enforcers of the ilk of Steve Emerson and David Horowitz.

Amazing! Today I've been called an Islamo-fascist bitch AND a Zionist-motivated police state enforcer! I must be doing something right! Zora 04:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would like my home address to "make sense of who I am as a person." Newsflash. It's none of your business. As to who's muslim and who's not, another newsflash. Yes there are very clear lines that delineate who is muslim and who is not, or who is catholic and who is not, or anglican or episcopal as defined explicitly in those religions' texts and catechisms.

Again, that seems to be YOUR opinion. When I look at the real world, I see a lot of Muslims disagreeing with each other over who's Muslim and who's not. You arrive, won't take a username, and declare to us that you are the final authority on who is Muslim and who's not. You can claim all you want, but that doesn't mean that anyone is going to listen to you. Zora 04:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This dilution of religion you seek to enforce on everyone is actually out of ahostility to religionists and religion. As to "wikipedia's" aims, I do not believe you can understand or appreciate the meaning and goals of a wiki environment. It does not mean a complete negation of authorship and ownership of a given article. Anyway, this discussion is moot since you yourself have you are hardly proficient with muslim terminology to waste my time discussing this. Sayonara.

On the reference to surat alqiyamah
In the Overview section of this article, there was this line: "The Moon will undergo a lunar eclipse and will merge with the Sun (Qur'an 75.6-10)."

This is a mistranslation of the verses concerned, actually the two verses LIIV:8 and LIIV:9.

LIIV:8 "و خسف القمر" is interpreted by the four classical commentaries accepted by consensus, as the light of the moon is gone without return, unlike worldly eclipse, which ends in a restoration of that light. In Yusuf Ali's translation, the verse is translated as "and the moon is buried in darkness". There is no sign of "buried" in the arabic verse, but Yusuf Ali did not translate it as an eclipse. Nor would the darkening of the moon on the last day be caused by the regular causes of a regular eclipse. So citing an eclipse here is not correct.

Regarding LIIV:9 "و جمع الشمس و القمر", three of the four classical commentaries (Al-Jalalayn, Al-Tabari and Al-Qortobi) explain this verse as meaning that the sun and moon are joined in being darkened, rather than merged together. They also cite other interpretations that see the verse as meaning a joining of the two which then end up as part of the hellfire. As the two lights of the sky their darkening is in my opinion the significant meaning in these verses.


 * The moon is to block the sun's light, meaning a lunar eclipse. The fact that it has never been correctly called that is irrelevent. While you are welcome to add other views you have thus far only deleted info without proper rationale. freestylefrappe 18:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * When the sky is being folded and the moon sinks into the sun, this cannot physically be a lunar eclipse, which occurs when the the earth comes BETWEEN the moon and the sun. This is obviously not the case given in the verse in question. I hope that clarifies the rationale. Regards.
 * No you have the order of these events mixed up. The moon merges with the sun after the lunar eclipse. freestylefrappe 02:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * What order of events? The verses say none of this nonsense. None of the Muslim interpreters define the use of Khasafa in the verse as an eclipse. Nor is there any temporal order explicitly discernable from the text. This is also such a minor detail it is completely irrelevant to the event where humans supposedly are resurrected and gathered for a judgement by their God. Are we off our rockers here to be bickering over this petty stuff? Regards.

Yusuf Abdullah's translation it says:

6. He questions: "When is the Day of Resurrection?" 7. At length, when the sight is dazed, 8. And the moon is buried in darkness. 9. And the sun and moon are joined together,-

So the moon being buried is prior to the merger. From a religious point of view one could argue any number of interpretations, but the only historical/scientific/logical conclusion would could derive from verse 8 is that a Lunar eclipse is taking place. If you really want to state the specific verse, go ahead and quote it and Ill add a note stating that it can be interpreted in different ways. Thatll probably be good for the article as a whole seeing as there are many conflicting beliefs concerning this event. freestylefrappe 03:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're the one making a "conflict" out of such a minor point, it reinforces my earlier opinion that you're here only to vandalize the article, or amuse yourself at the expense of wasting others' time with nonsensical bickering. A myriad things would be happening to the universe and the solar system that can account for a "darkening" of the moon. Things going out of orbit, or colliding or imploding or whatever would be happening. That's not the concern of this article. It's not a "scientific/logical" account of the physical aspects of the "Big Crunch." The only relevant concern is as an event marking the end of human history, or the end of life on earth, or the end of the universe itself - from a strictly human perspective. Who cares whether the moon sinks into the sun or hits you on the head? This is completely irrelevant to the significance of this event to believers, or the significance of the Muslim narrative, even as a mythology, to nonbelievers. Before replying, step back a bit, ponder this for a few minutes, look at the article and its principal thrust, and see if you get the point here.

I have tried to remain civil while dealing with your POV info deleting and your personal attacks towards other users. If you continue to vandalize u will be blocked. freestylefrappe 20:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is rich! You'll block me from an article I started. The only vandal here is you, arguing stuff you neither belong to nor understand. You are neither muslim nor do you speak arabic. I don't see muslims pestering christians or jews about their religion-related articles. You're the one who should be blocked.
 * ''See further explanation for the lunar eclipse

''. Starting an article does not give you final say on who can edit it, or what content can be posted. Wikipedia is open to all viewpoints, but no POV can be championed over others. Neutrality is emphasized. These are official Wikipedia policies. If you dont like them, dont edit. freestylefrappe 18:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey that's a link to an Ahmadi page. That's not Muslim. This page is about the Muslim account of the judgement day. I guess that settles the discussion for all.
 * I never claimed a say on who can edit. But if you can't add correct information. Don't edit. This is an article on the Muslim not the Ahmadist view of the Qiyamah. If you wanna start an article on the Ahmadist narrative of the Qiyamah, that's up to you. But don't vandalize the article because it limits itself to the Muslim not the Ahmadist view. It is also official wikipedia policy that edit wars are determined by the correctness of the information involved. And those who insert incorrect information are violators and will be blocked from future editing.

You have repeatedly outlined guidlines as to who may edit this page. All info I have added has factually correct even if it differs from your view of Qiyamah. The Ahmadist view is an Islamic one. The fact that you dont consider them an Islamic sect is moot; they do. This gets into the argument of whether a self-professed adherent is truly an adherent (See Christian terrorism). Thank you for enlightening me concerning Wikipedia policy in banning vandals.

You have repeatedly stated, on this page, on your talk page, etc., that the difference between a lunar eclipse and "the moon being engulfed in darkness" is minimal in importance. Somehow I doubt the Ahmadist interpretation of this one verse differs from other sects. freestylefrappe 01:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem?
From what I can tell, it is the wording of a Qur'an verse. Could somebody explain what's wrong with the current revision of "The Moon will be darkened and will be joined with the Sun (Qur'an 74.32-34, 75.6-10)." Thanks! Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;T&#08596;C 07:29, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong whatsoever :). Only the verse cited is 75.8-9 not 75.6-10. Thanks for your contrib. I haven't checked the other surat (74). Best. --Universaliss 17:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am assuming it is settled then. Regards and happy editing! Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;T&#08596;C 01:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Alamin does not mean humankind jinn etc
Alamin is a plural of the arabic word for "world" or `âlam, عالم. Nor does it make sense to cite a transliterated arabic word, when one can write "all creation" or "all creatures" or "humankind, jinn, and all other creatures.", etc.

The section on the barzakh does not belong in this article
The barzakh, or life in the grave precedes the day of judgement and is not part of it. For this reason, it is off-topic for this article. The article is NOT about the afterlife. The afterlife includes several parts: life in the grave, the day of judgement and then life in paradise or hell. This article is only a survey of the Muslim narrative of the Day of Judgement, not an article about the afterlife in general. --Universaliss 14:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The Mahdi and ad-Dajjal section is off topic for this article
This section deals with events that precede the day of judgement and are outside the scope of the article, which is only a survey of the Muslim narrative of the Day of Judgement. --Universaliss 14:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

non-NPOV + inaccurate information
Regarding the piece of text "Since most of those hadith are on the authority of Abu Huraira, most Shia dismiss them as a sad examples of what happens when all Sahaba are counted as trustworthy: A clear breach in Tawhid, the belief that God is above its creation."

Reasons for removal:


 * Abu Huraira is one of the most prolific muhaddithin and a source of many of the sahih hadith.


 * The phrase "most shia" does not cite any authority or text and could therefore be completely fabricated. Not to mention that there are over a dozen subsects among the shi`a.


 * "sad examples of what happens" <- that's a non-NPOV (non-Neutral Point Of View)


 * See God as one sees the full moon or the sun in the sky. Or seeing part of God on the day of judgement is not a contradiction that God is above His (not "its") creatures in every respect. --Universaliss 14:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding sections 9 and 10, I have no problem with reducing them in size, but they should be noted as they still have a connection to Qiyamah, even if they precede it. Section 11 is part of Qiyamah, a major part. As to Abu Huraira... take that up with Striver, he added it, and I feel no particular affinity for it. freestylefrappe 18:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I take it back. Go ahead and vandalize this page as much you want. Ill no longer revert any of it. Its not like anyone is going to stop u anyway. freestylefrappe 22:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mark of the Beast ?
Is the Beast (as understood from the Bible) understood to be the same as the Dajjal? If so, this should be made clear. If not, then the section on the Mark of the Beast doesn't belong here. Do the Signs of Qiyamah mention 'the Beast'?
 * See http://www.islam.tc/prophecies/

Dajjal section
The section on the dajjal does not belong in this article, but rather at the islamic eschatology article.

There is no reference in any accounts we have of the day of judgement to the dajjal.

Again this is a topic clearly for the eschatology article and not this article which is concerned only with the day of judgement.

I would like to propose a vote to remove this section. Removing this section (or moving it to the eschatology page) is the proper thing in order to maintain the scope and respect the coherence of the qiyamah article. Any ideas how best to do this? --Universaliss 08:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)