Talk:Mahdi Army
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have placed an NPOV disclaimer on this page, because it essentially repeats the same POV points that I am complaining about over on Talk:Muqtada_al-Sadr. It's very interesting to me to see how, in this case, our editing process has led us to a point where we blatantly contradict ourselves. In one section, we see that as a part of the June settlement agreement, the Mahdi Army was to be disbanded. And yet, in August, it is the United States which violated that settlement by attacking the very same people who we pretend al-Sadr honestly disbanded. Jimbo Wales 22:18, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I definitely agree. Although you could argue that the U.S was the one that started the August fighting, the way everything is phrased expresses a very strong bias. In addition, they don't give the U.S/Iraqi government side that Sadr's militia triggered the fighting by attacking a police station. The article should note that they're is a difference of opinion. User:Colinrorr 12:08, 7 Sept 2004 (UTC)
I also agree, there is definate bias when saying the US violated the truce with Muqtada Al Sadr. Many could say it was the Mahdi Army that violated the same truce by still attacking multinational forces after the truce, and not just the IP Station, there were many attacks after the so called "truce".
Contents |
[edit] Problems
In the last section discussing the concept of the Mahdi, there are a few problems:
1) The transliteration scheme is all wrong. I have no idea why an apostrophe has been placed after the "h" in Mahdi; the h in Mahdi is a round ha and does not have any accent. There is no elongation over the i in jaish. 'Isa ibn Miryam should be 'Isa ibn Maryam, and there is no elongation over the dipthong "yaum", nor is there any elongation for the i in "qiyamah." Somebody seems to have gotten hyperactive with the transliteration here, and clearly did not know what they were doing. Furthermore, this transliteration system is not used anywhere else in the article, and so there is an inconstitency insofar as Mahdi is spelled without an elongation in the beginning of the article, and spelled with one at the end.
2) Imam az-Zaman was incorrectly spelled as Imam az-Ziman. I have changed that. The translation is also wrong; Imam az-Zaman does *not* mean "the Imam of all ages", quite the opposite; it means the Imam of the Present Age. The reference there is neither linguistically or theologically correct. Nor is that a "loose" translation; "Imam of the Age" is exactly what it means.
3) Strictly speaking, to say that the "Ja'fari" school of Shi'ism believes in the existence of the Twelfth Imam is not entirely correct, as Ismaili Shi'ites who believe in a different line of Imamate also refer to themselves as "Ja'fari" quite often. I have therefore changed it to Twelver. Sayfadeen 02:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name
Shouldn't this article be called "Mahdi Army" or "Mehdi Army", which seem much more common terms than "Jaish-i-Mahdi"? For example, a Google search for these names returns 63800, 50000, and 312 results, respectively. Wmahan. 00:41, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
[edit] Curiosity
Perhaps some Islamic scholar can answer this. Is the Mahdi Army related at all to the Mahdi? If there is some connection through Islamic eschatology or some such, it should be noted here. Mashford 15:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Issue in intro
I just rolled back to the previous version of this page. A large part of the intro seemed snipped out mid-sentence.
[edit] Neutrality
I still have problems with the neutrality of this article. It seems to have a pro-insurgent slant.
-- Yeah, like the line about "dozens of Iraqis being killed" in a running battle with the Marines. Who were the dead Iraqis? If they were members of the Mahdi militia, the article needs to better explain this. If they were civilians, which side killed them? If I may permit myself some personal bias, I'd reckon they were killed in bombings by the mahdis, but the article makes it sound as though they were killed by the Coalition forces. RolandDeschain
