Talk:Abd Allah al-Mahdi Billah

message: This article is only the half truth of al-Mahdi. There are great parts of his bio missing. Check out "The Empire of the mahdi" by Heinz Halm for further reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorroz (talk • contribs) 
The rise of the Fatimids is also an authentic source but the best primary sources for a biography on the Fatimids are their own works, literary and historical.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahashoeb (talk • contribs) 13:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abdullah al-Mahdi Billah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210110054/http://archive.mumineen.org:80/awliya/aimmat/e_imammehdi_11.html to http://archive.mumineen.org/awliya/aimmat/e_imammehdi_11.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Do we need a disambiguation page for "Al Mahdi"? Ileanadu (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images 

message: , why did you revert the changes to the caliphs' articles? The Imam status of the Fatimid caliphs can be mentioned in the body and lead, it does not belong in the infobox as Template:Infobox royalty is reserved for monarchs, which Imamism is not. If it must be added, then it should not be in the succession parameter along with "caliph". Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: because that is the title given to them in the modern bibliography; because the imamate was the basis of their claim to the caliphate, and by far the more important title in their own eyes and the eyes of their Isma'ili followers; because in the conception of the Fatimids, the imam of the time was a monarchical title, his realm being the entire world. Constantine   ✍  17:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to the 8th century 'imam' was used synonymously with 'caliph', and the word only started to acquire different meanings in some specific (mainly quietist Shi'i) contexts from the 9th century onward. In the context of the Fatimids, however, the term 'imam' did remain synonymous with 'caliph', and because of this duplicity –and the religio-political connotations this carried in an age where the functions of 'caliph' and 'imam' had de facto (and in the budding Twelver Shi'ism of the age also de iure) been split– modern historians tend to refer to the Fatimid caliphs as 'Imam-Caliphs'. Ultimately, it is the fact that this a common designation among historians that justifies our use of it in the infoboxes. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for articulating it so well, . The Abbasids also claimed the title of 'imam', but as a means of also claiming pre-eminence in religious and judicial affairs against the ulama and faqihs. This was never really accepted, and the demise of the Mu'tazili experiment put an end to these pretensions. OTOH, the Fatimids were already acknowledged as divinely guided imams by their followers, and their entire legitimacy rested on the imamate. For the Fatimids, the two titles are really inseparable: the Fatimid caliphs are effectively those Isma'ili imams who headed not only a religious movement (da'wa) but also a state (dawla). Constantine   ✍  08:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Imam-Caliph"