|
A-CONSISTENCY OF THE
REPORTS
I believe that the ordinary reader does not need to suffer
the hardship of studying the knowledge of transmitting Hadith and its
texts in order to assess those ‘historical' reports transmitted on the
birth of ‘Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari’, or need to be a specialist
in history. For the authors who reported those traditions in their
works, have attempted to save themselves from the allegation of
depending on such weak reports. They said in the beginning: We will
prove the existence of the twelfth Imam based on accepttable
theoretical, philosophical and rational means. We do not need
historical reports we only mention them, so as to support and
strengthen them. They also took off their shoulders the burden of
intellectual discussions on those reports, ascertaining their chains
of narration and investigating their text.
I also believe that they cite (such traditions) similar to
the case of a drowning person, who tries to hold to anything (to save
himself), otherwise, they knew more than anyone, of the frailty and
weakness of such reports. If any other sect were to cite such kind of
reports on the existence of their Imams or other persons, they would
have knocked and scorned and looked down on their intellect and would
have accused then of being illogical and of being clearly irrational.
Just as the theologians of the Twelver- Imam sect have done in
refuting a group of Fathite Imamate Shiites who claimed the existence
of a son in secret for Imam Abdullah Aftah bin Ja’far Sadiq. They said
his name was Muhammad, and that he was the Awaited Mahdi. They also
claimed that he was born secretly and is hidden in Yemen. That is
based on the principle of the necessity of perpetuating the Imamate in
the children and grand children, and the non-permissibility of its
being transferred to two brothers after Hassan and Hussain. The
Twelver-Imam Shiites said of that sect (Fathite Shiites): ‘They have
fabricated the existence of an illusory son, who is non-existent, that
is the Mahdi, Imam Muhammad bin Abdullah Aftah as a result of their
reaching an impasse’.
Anyone who studies the vast Shiites intellectual heritage
in the fields of the science of Hadith (both on chains of narration
and text), will notice the concern of scholars-since the first
centuries-as regards reporters and the study of Hadith and its efforts
at sifting scrutinization and its distinguishing the sound from the
weak (Hadiths). He will also recognize the extent of importance which
the Shiites scholars have given to constructing legal opinions on
sound intellectual foundations, and their non-acceptance of
constructing matters of religion on illusions, conjectures, hearsays
and myths.
The neutral observer however, is mesmerized by the
scholars neglect, throughout the history of the study of historical
narrations regarding the establishment of the birth and existence of
the twelfth Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari, their dependence in that,
on a rule with no authority from Allah, which says: “The weak
traditions are strengthened by other (weak) traditions” and their
considering the issue of birth and existence, as has been finally
accepted by all, and is in no need of review and discussion. This is
what led them to repeat those reports without reflection and
intellection, exactly as the extremist reporters were doing.
It is well-known that the early reporters of Hadith used
to concoct reports without investigations or criticisms. They
developed later and started distinguishing between reports. The Usuli
movement came into inception then, and it classified Hadiths into
Sahih (sound), Hassan (good), Qawiy (strong) and Da’if (weak). Except
that this development did not cover the historical narrations on the
subject of the birth of the twelfth Imam, as we see Sheikh Tusi who
wrote ‘Al-Fihrist’ and ‘Al-Rijal’ in the science of reporters,
narrating such reports from people he considered weak in his books.
That was due to the need for such narrations in constructing a
particular theological theory.
A great scholar like Sayyid Murtada Askari spent long
years of his life, in order to establish, in two or three volumes,
that Abdullah bin Saba was an illusory myth fabricated by some
historians, so as to accuse the Shiites of taking the theory of
Wasiyyah (will) in the Imamate from the Israelites. Sayyid Askari
worked very hard exerting a lot of efforts and he studied tens of
historical books, in order to refute the story of the existence of
Abdullah bin Saba and his role in Shiite thought. He did not however,
put even one percent or even one in thousand of that effort in order
to investigate the truth of the existence of the twelfth Imam, or to
study such reports that discuss his birth. He did pause on that in any
of his books. He was the one who discovered the existence of one
hundred and fifty companions who fabricate traditions.
After all this, it is possible for me to say that there is
no issue which was so much neglected and abandoned in Shiite heritage
like the issue of the ‘existence of Imam Mahdi’ and his birth. There
is no issue beyond research and ijtihad, except that issue. When I
started studying it coincidentally, or rather by the will of Allah (Tawfiq),
and I presented the result of my research to the scholars, jurists and
thinkers for more than five years, I found that many of them were
using escape tactics, not to read my study, and are vexed by mere
investigation of it, as if it attempts to prevent him from engrossing
in a beautiful dream. I have confirmed the existence of a doctrinal
and psychological situation that prevents extending academic
researches and criticism to such historical reports.
Some of the elites from among the common populace take
interest in the attacks of the doctrines of other sects, as well as
looking down on its weak and fabricating men and their irrational
reports. But when the affair is related to an aspect of his sect, he
will close his eyes and will claim ignorance and lack of expertise,
and he would refuse employing little of his reason, and would prefer
to continue on what he has inherited, of superstitions and myths.
Before we discuss such historical reports in both the
chains of narration and the text, it is desirable to point that these
reports were not known in the period called ‘the minor occultation’,
as those writers who believe in the existence of the twelfth Imam did
not transmit them. They wrote on that in the second half of the third
century of Hijrah. Like Nubakhti in ‘Firaq al-Shiah’, Sa’ad bin
Abdullah Ash’ari al-Qummi in ‘Al-Maqalat wa al-Firaq’, Ali bin
Babawaih Saduq in ‘Al-Imamah wa al-Tabsirah min al-Hayrah’, Muhammad
bin Abi Zaynab Nu'mani in ‘Al-ghaybah’ and even Sheikh Kulayni, who
tried to collect any story or report on the subject. He mentioned the
story of the Indian man ‘Sa’id bin Abi Ghanim’ who traveled from
Kashmir in search of Imam Mahdi. But he did not mention most of the
stories that were recorded after him by Sheikh Muhammad bin Ali Saduq
in, ‘Ikmal al-Din’, or Sheikh Mufid in ‘Al-Irshad’ and ‘Al-Fusul’ or
Sheikh Tusi in ‘Al-Ghaybah’.
It is well known that Sheikh Saduq Junior came about one
hundred (100) years after the death of Imam Askari. Sheikh Tusi died
two centuries after that date. Despite that, both of them went on
recording whatever ‘mursal’ stories and hearsays they heard related to
the birth of ‘Muhammad bin Hassan Askari’, or transmitting from a
number of extremists, weak reporters, unknown persons and fabricators.
As we have seen, those ‘historical evidences are seriously
inconsistent within themselves, beginning with the identity of the
assumed mother of ‘Muhammad bin Hassan’, coming to the date of his
birth and finally the minute details. As there were differences
related to the name of his mother, whether she was the slave girl,
Narjis or Susan or Saqil or Khamt or Raihanah or Mahksh or she was a
free woman called Maryam daughter of Zayd Al-Alawiyyah. Or that she
was a slave girl who delivered in the house of one of the sisters of
Imam Hadi. Or that she was bought from the slave market in Baghdad.
Those reports also differed as regards specifying the date
of birth on the day, month and year. They differed in turn, on his age
at the time of the death of his father, between two and eight years.
They also differed on the manner of pregnancy, whether in
the womb or by the side, and as regards the delivery whether it was
through the vagina or the thigh!
The reports also differed on his complexion between being
white or brownish. The reports were inconsistent on the manner of his
growth, between the normal and well-known way, and the claim that at
the time of his father’s death he was a small child, and between the
abinormal ways. In this, some said the growth was fast, growing in a
day like the yearly growth; or that his growth in one day is like the
weekly growth and his growth in one weak is like the growth of one
month, and his growth in one month is like the growth during one year.
Based on this then he seems to be an adult of about seventy (70)
years, in such a way that his aunt Hakimah could not recognize him and
was surprised of the instruction of Imam Hassan to her to sit in front
of him.
The reports were also inconsistent regarding the
concealment of his affairs. A report said that Hakimah bade farewell
to Imam Hassan, after the birth of his son and went back to her house.
But when she desired to see him after three (3) days, she came back
and searched for him in his room, but did not find any trace of him,
nor heard any mention of him. She did not want to ask and went to Abu
Muhammad. He started by saying to her. “He is O aunty, in the canopy
of Allah, He preserves and conceals him, till the time He wishes. When
Allah takes me away and takes my soul, and you saw my supporters
scattered, you should tell the reliable among them (this). Let him be
a secret for you, but concealed to them, as Allah causes his loved one
to disappear away from His creations and veils him from His servants,
so that no one sees him till Jibril (peace be upon him) presents to
(the Mahdi) his horse.” The other report said that Hakimah was seeing
the son of Hassan every forty (40) days. She never ceased seeing him
till when he became an adult.
Some reports said that: ‘Imam Hassan Askari announced the
birth of his son and sent to some of his companions for a ram to be
slaughtered (for the occasion); and that he presented (his son) to a
number of his companions; that he wrote to Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Qummi on
that …that he brought out his son and presented him to him, when he
visited him in ‘Surr Man Ra’a’; that a number of servants and
handmaids also saw him coincidentally or intentionally, sitting in his
room or walking in the house’.
The reports were inconsistent as they say that he fears
being arrested by the authorities; the reports also say that he was at
complete peace to the extent of praying on the dead body of his
father, and of receiving delegations, in his father’s house.
The reports also differed on the knowledge of the
companions and servants of the existence of the son of Imam Hassan
Askari. Some of them said that: The servants and the close companions
knew of his existence and had seen him. Some of them said that ‘they
were astounded when he came out to pray on his father’s body, and his
nonrecognition except by means of a number of signs.
The reports also differed on his intellectual maturity.
Some of them said: ‘He prostrated at the moment of his delivery and he
uttered the two testimonies and he also sought Allah’s blessing and
peace on his fore fathers, one by one, and he also recited some verses
from the great Quran. Some of them said that he was a small child
playing with golden permanganate and preventing his father from
writing what he wants to write.
THE
REPORT OF HAKIMAH
The narration of Saduq from Hakimah says that: Narjis had
no signs of pregnancy on her and she did not even know of it. She was
surprised when Hakimah told her that: She will deliver that same
night. She said, “ O my mistress, I do not see anything of that sort!
Hakimah herself was surprised when Imam Hassan told her of the birth
of the child for him in the fifteenth night of Sha'aban and she went
on asking herself: ‘Who will be his mother? And when he said to her
‘Narjis’ she said: ‘May I be your ransom, there is no any sign on her,
‘when it was close to dawn and no any sign appeared on her, doubt
started creeping into the heart of Hakimah.
The report says that Hakimah started reciting the Quran on
Narjis, and the embryo inside her responded, reciting what she was
reciting. He said Salam to her also, which frightened her. Despite
this the report says that it took Hakimah a long time before
witnessing the delivery. In another narration Narjis was taken away
from Hakimah and she did not see her, as if a veil was placed between
them. This astonished her and caused her to shout and resort to Abu
Muhammad.
The report of Saduq does not mention what Tusi said in one
of his narrations that Hakimah found written on the arm of the child
the verse: “Truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Surely,
falsehood is ever bound to vanish.” despite the fact that Saduq came
much before Tusi. Yet only Saduq mentioned the birds that were
circulating round the head of the baby, as well as the statement of
Hassan to one of the birds: ‘Take him and protect him, and return him
to us after every forty days.’
Saduq and Tusi did agree on the speech of the child and
his saying the two testimonies, and seeking blessing on the Prophet
and the previous Imams, as well as Salam on his mother and father.
They did agree also that the child disappeared and hid himself after
that, and that his aunt could not find any trace of him, nor hear any
mention of him.
All these things are strange and were not known from the
Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) or from any of earlier Imams
(peace be upon them). They are part of the statements of extremists
and their myths. It has no relation with Ja’farite or Imamate Shiites,
who believed in the text as a means of recognizing a new Imam. They
did not mention any of such extraordinary and strange matters.
Allah the Exalted has mentioned the story of the speech of
Prophet Isa (peace be upon him) in the cradle, in front of the people
in a miraculous manner, to dispel the allegation of fornication
against his mother, and to establish his miraculous birth. There is no
any need for a miracle and strange things accompanying the birth of
the ‘twelfth Imam’.
If the miracle was inevitable, it must take place before
the people, so as to know it and believe in its message. It is not
possible that it takes place in secret where no one can know of it.
What then is the benefit?
Essentially, doubt was expressed as regards the birth of a
son for Hassan Askari. If there was any need for a miracle or a
strange thing to happen, it would have happened in order to confirmed
the birth itself…or in protecting the child from any harm, for
example. This did not happen.
It should be noticed that all the reports that mentioned
his birth secretly and his disappearance on the wings of the birds
that were the angels, did not point to the fear from the authorities,
or that he was the Awaited Mahdi. If he were really born, it would
have been better that Imam Askari announce his birth, in a way that he
will be seen by the entire people and they will confirm his existence
and succession of his father. If the Abbasid authorities were to
attempt arresting him or killing him, he will hide by the power of
Allah and in a miraculous manner.
The report attributed to Hakimah says that ‘Imam Hassan
Askari was informed miraculously of the sex of the child, and that he
will be a male. As it says: He was aware miraculously of what his
sister Hakimah was thinking when she doubted his statement. He said to
her: “Don’t be in a haste, O my aunt.’ It also points to the knowledge
of Imam Hassan of the closeness of his death, and he said to his
sister: “Very soon you will not find me.” Likewise the knowledge of
Imam Mahdi of the unseen and his replying the questions of Hakimah
before she asks were also indicated in it. All these things contradict
the doctrine of Ja’farite and Imamate Shiites and conform to the
belief of the extremists and those who deviated from the Ahl al-Bayt
(peace be upon them), as there was a popular tradition with the
Shiites from their Imams—which instructs the discarding away of any
report that contradicts the Quran.
Therefore all these questions, ambiguities and
shortcomings weaken the narration attributed to Hakimah, and it
invalidates it from the status of evidence and of reliability, and it
brings it closer to being a myth reported by extremists and fanatics.
THE REPORT OF ABU AL-ADYAN
AL-BASRI
It is the report narrated exclusively by Saduq in ‘Ikma al
–Din’ from a known fabricator, an illusory man whose name he did not
mention, nor that of his father or his clan: ‘Abu al-Adyan al-Basri’.
He said he was one of the servants of the Imam and the deliverer of
his messages and his envoy to the cities and collector of funds for
him. Despite all that, no one knows him, and no any other historian
pointed to his existence.
Despite the high status given to him by Saduq, the
reporter ‘Abu al-Adyan’ admits that Imam Askari did not inform him of
the identity of the Imam after him. As he also admitted his ignorance
of the existence of a son for the Imam. He also says that most of the
Shiites including Aqid and Al-Samman (Uthman bin Sa’id) and Al-Basri
himself gave their condolence to Ja’far bin Ali and congratulated him,
while not knowing who was the Imam after Askari. They wanted to pray
behind Ja’far.
The report rests squarely on one element: Imam’s knowledge
of the Unseen, as the reporter says in the beginning that: ‘Imam
Hassan has said to him: Go to the cities, for you will be away for
fifteen (15) days, and you will enter ‘Surr Man Ra’a’ on the
fifteenth. Your will hear the wailer in my house and you will find me
at the birth place.” All this was from the knowledge of the Unseen,
which no one possesses except Allah, Who says in the Glorious Quran:
“No person knows what he will earn tomorrow, and no person knows in
what land he will die. “
The report says that: ‘The coming unknown Imam will seek
from Al-Basri, without any knowledge of him before, responses to the
letters of Imam Askari, as the report says that: He will mention what
is in Hamyan (a kind of bag). That a child came out after the
shrouding of Askari and pushed Ja’far (aside) and he then prayed on
his father: Then he said to al-Basri: “Bring the replies of the
letters with you”. He then submitted them to him. At that moment, a
delegation of Shiites of Qum and the mountains came and asked for Imam
Askari, and they were told of his death. They then said: “To whom do
we give our condolence?” The people pointed to Ja’far bin Ali. They
passed their Salam to him, gave their condolences and congratulated
him.’
Al-Basri did not explain why he did not guide them to the
new Imam? Why didn’t the leaders of the Shiites who prayed—through
illusion--behind a child, point to him, if that has really happened?
Anyway, the reporter ‘Abu al-Adyan al-Basri’ says that:
“The delegation from Qum did not oppose the appointment of Ja’far, as
the Imam after his brother. They did not argue on the necessity of
vertical inheritance. They only said that they have letters and money,
and they demanded from Ja’far to inform them, wherefrom the letters
and the money came. Ja’far stood up and dusted his clothes and was
saying: “Do you want us to know the knowledge of the Unseen?” The
servant went out? And he said: “You have the letter of so and so, so
and so, and there is in the Hamyan one thousand and ten dinars. They
gave him the letters and the momey and said: “The one who directed you
to take these, is the Imam. Saduq did not say in this narration that
the delegation from Qum knew the identity of the Imam, or that they
saw and met him. What he said however in another narration, was that:
‘the members of the delegation went inside with the servant to the
Imam, the Qaim who was sitting on a bed, as if he was a piece of moon.
He was wearing green clothes. The delegation said ‘Salam’ to him, and
he responded, then he said: “The sum total of money is so-and –so,
so-and-so carried by so-and-so, and so on. He continued to the extent
of descrIbng all of it. He then described the members of the
delegation, their clothes and the amimals with them.’
Even though the matter is not very difficult, as it is
possible for any person to sit before the delegation and knew of their
situation, or that he agrees with the leader of the delegation, and he
tells the remaining members the details…The report of Abu al-Adyan al-Basri
considers that to be of the knowledge of the Unseen, and that it
constitutes an evidence on the Imamate of the man (or the child),
sitting on the bed, without telling us how the delegation came to know
the identity of the man. Has he told them that he is the son of Imam
Askari or not?
As is clear, this report mentions nothing as regards fear
or surrounding insecurity for the Shiites and the new Imam. It only
said that the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mu’tamid stood by the side of the
delegation in their dispute with Jafar. He did send guards to protect
them. It (the report) also forgets another report that says that the
Abbasid authorities took over the house of Imam Askari, and searched
it, in order to find whether he has a son.
If the Imam was really frightened and was trying to hide
himself, why should he go out and pray on his father? Why did he sit
in his house, receiving delegations within the range of Abbasids
spies?
What is known and established historically was that Abu
‘Isa al-Mutawakkil was the one who prayed on the body of Imam Askari
and the people of the capital of the Caliphate, ‘Surr Man Ra’a’
performed his funeral, as the gates of the city were entirely closed.
There was a lot of wailings and cries.
It seems that this report started in Qum in a later stage,
so as to establish the existence of a successor for Imam Askari.That
was before it developed and became the foundation of the Mahdism
theory of that successor. This is because the issue of establishing a
successor is different from and prior to the issue of establishing the
attributes of Mahdism on him. The people were initially concerned with
the establishment of the first issue. The second issue (of Mahdism)
did not evolve except in a late date after many years. Based on the
situation of the occultation and the non-existence of the Imam, some
of them considered that as one of the signs of the Mahdi. Therefore
they said he is the Awaited Mahdi.
From here, the fabricators of the story did not take into
account the fear of the authorities and the police search for him,
that was why they mentioned the coming out of the child to pray on his
father, and his receiving delegations in his house.
We have mentioned besides that report, two other
narrations, namely, that of Isma’il bin Ali Nubakhti who says that:
‘He visited Imam Askari moments before his death. The Imam demanded
from his servant (Aqid) to bring his son. When he brought him to him,
he said to him: “Have glad tidings my son you are the ‘Sahib al-Zaman’
(the Mahdi).” The other narration of a group of companions who said
that Imam Askari showed them his son and said to them: “This is your
Imam after me and my successor on you…except that you will not see him
after this day.”
The first report contradicts the report of Abu al-Adyan
al-Basri, in which he says that: ‘Aqid was ignorant of the existence
of a son for Imam Askari and due to this he requested his brother
Ja’far to pray on him, while the first report says that Aqid brought
the child to his father in front of Isma’il bin Ali Nubakhti.
It is worth noting that Nubakhti himself did not point to
this story. He says that: He knew of the existence of a son for Hassan
through rational argument, as Saduq narrated from him in his book (‘Ikmal
al-Din p. 92) from the book of Nubakhti-‘Al-Tanbih’.
The second report also contradicts the report of Abu al-Adyan
al-Basri, which denies the great companion’s knowledge of the
existence of a son for Hassan Askari, including Al-Samman (Uthman bin
Sa’id al-Umari) and ‘Hajiz al-Wisha’, who asked Jafar: “Who was the
child, so that we can establish the evidence on him?’ He said: “By
Allah I have never seen him and I do not know him!”
It is well known that Al-Samman al-Umari and Hajiz al-Wisha’
did claim to be special deputies of the Hujjah, son of Hassan after
that. So when did they see him? When did he appoint them as his
deputies?
There is yet another point: That is the second narration
says that: ‘Imam Askari said to his companions after he has showed
them his son: “You will not see him again after this day.” Then how
did he appear again after that to pray on the body of his father and
to receive delegations?
All these reports contradict the first narration, which
was reported from Hakimah in which Imam Askari said that: ‘She will
not see him after the day of his birth,’ in such a way that every
report contradicts the previous one.
This shows that the group which invented the idea of the
existence of a son for Imam Askari contrary to the reality, and based
on weak philosophical statements, like the non possibility of shifting
the Imamate to two brothers after Hassan and Hussain, and the
necessity of continuation of the Imamate in the children and grand
children of (the Imam), this group went on fabricating stories,
reports and myths on the birth of a son for Imam Hassan and the
meeting with him (withnessing him) during the lifetime of his father
and his being seen, at the time of his father’s death.
As the reports were inconsistent and do not express the
truth and were fabricated by different people, they appeared
contradictory and different in the details, in such a way that each
one backs the personal ideas of its fabricators. Likewise these
reports included miracles and strange things, under the pretext that
the Imams know the Unseen. This claim clearly contradicts the Glorious
Quran, which declares: “(He Alone is) the All Knower of the ‘Unseen’,
and He reveals to none His Unseen. Except to a Messenger whom He has
chosen.” These reports also attempted to interprete the perplexing
occultation, which contradicts the theory of divine Imamate and divine
benevolence.
The apparent historical narration says that: Imam Hassan
Askari has never pointed to the existence of a son for him. And when
he felt the approach of death, he called Qadi Ibn Abi al-Shawarib, and
he passed his will on his wealth and other belongings to his mother (Hadith),
infront of the Qadi. His housemaid called Narjis did claimed that she
was pregnant from him, in the hope of her being set free, as she would
be ‘Umm Walad’ and she will be freed from the share of her son… It may
be that her monthly period delayed somewhat, and she thought that she
was pregnant. The witness (Qadi) did delay the distribution of the
inheritance, and took great care of the maid, shifting her to the
wives of the Caliph Mu’tamid and instructed them to observe her i.e
confirming her claim of being pregnant. But then nothing appeared from
her.
Some of the Imamate Shiites who did not believe in the
Imamate of Ja’far bin Ali were faced with a crisis of ideas and
confusion. Some of them therefore held onto the ‘Chaff’ of Narjis and
said that: ‘She delivered after that’. Some of them said that: ‘She
did not give birth, and no one saw that. …But she will deliver when
Allah wills and permits, and that the embryo remained miraculously for
a long time in her womb’…Some of them said that: ‘She claimed being
pregnant to conceal her son, which she delivered before that’…others
claimed other similar things.
Those who claimed the existence of the son before went on
spreading hearsays and myths secretly, to mislead the simpleminded and
to benefit financially from that. The earlier scholars did not believe
such hearsays.
Sheikh Saduq then came after one hundred years, and Sheikh
Tusi after two hundred years, to record such stories and myths without
ascertaining their sources and chains of narration, and without
relying on them very much. They were aware of their weakness and said
in the beginning that: We depend on the rational philosophical
evidence in order to establish the existence of the son of Hassan.We
bring those stories in order to strengthen (the rational evidence)
only.... Some historians of narrations came after them, and they
transmitted such mythical stories, as indebatable historical facts.
Even though Allah, the Exalted demands from us to accept
the clear narration denying the existence of a son for Imam Hassan
Askari, and that He will not take us to account, nor ask us to accept
the secret esoteric report which is contradictory and covered by
superstitions and myths …we are not, after this and after the
discovery of what it entails of serious weakness, we are not in need
of studying the chains of narration, or the reporters who transmitted
such reports. Therefore we, despite the above, would focus on their
chains of narration in order to see from where those historians got
them, so as to increase our knowledge and certitude on the weakness of
these reports, which have played a great role in the construction of
Shiite political thought throughout history.
B: EVALUATING THE CHAINS
OF TRANSMISSION
OF THE HISTORICAL REPORTS.
Before we go into the study of the chains (of narration)
of such historical narrations, it is necessary to point that, some
scholars who wrote on Imam Mahdi, have neglected such reports, and did
not depend on them, as Shahid Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Sadr did in his
‘Bahth Haula al-Mahdi’, but he rather relied on the claims of the four
deputies, who claimed special deputation and representation from ‘Imam
Mahdi’. He ruled out that those people would tell lie in their claims
of meeting the Imam. He constructed on the basis of that, the validity
of the existence and birth of Imam Mahdi. He went on after that,
interpreting the philosophy of the occultation, and establishing the
possibility of a long life!
There are those who relied on the great scholars who
reported those narrations like Sheikh Kulayni, Saduq, Tusi and Mufid,
and then ruled out the possibility of their lying or their depending
on weak reporters and reports.
Despite the existence of cases of fraud and manifulations
in both the ancient and the modern works, I could not find anyone who
studies those books and confirms their soundness and correctness.
I generally believe that: It is necessary to confirm the
following in any academic research:
Firstly- The authenticity of the attribution of
the famous historical books like ‘Al-Ghaybah’, ‘Ikmal al-Din’, ‘Al-Irshad’,’and
‘Al-Fusul’ to their real authors, and also that no addition, deletion
or interpolation has happened to the books. This is really very
difficult and impossible as there are no authentic books, those
attributed to their real authors-in the whole of Shiite heritage,
except four books of Hadith-‘Al-Kafi’, ‘Manla Yahduruhu al-Faqih’,
‘Al-Tahdhib’ and ‘Al-Istibsar’, which were narrated by scholars one
from the other.
There must be, secondly, a study of the authors, including
the extent of their scrupulousness and accuracy. This is possible and
not difficult.
Then it is also imperative to study the chains of
narrators from whom they transmit, and to be certain of their
existence, truthfulness and accuracy. For some narrators are
non-existing i.e they were illusory fabricators, while some of them
were fabricating and lying extremists. That was in accordance with the
scholars of Twelver-Imam Shiites like Tusi, Najashi, Kashi, Ibn al-Ghada’iri
and so on.
There were other reporters accepted by all the scholars of
Hadith among the Twelver-Imam Shiites on the basis of their
reliability, truthfulness and reporting from then…but the remaining
Imamate Shiites and other Islamic sects do not accept (Hadith) from
them and they doubt their truthfulness like the four special deputies
and others who claimed to have seen ‘Imam Mahdi’ and to have met him
and to have been appointed as deputies by him.
Any study on the chains of these historical reports, which
establish the birth and existence of ‘Imam Mahdi’ is supposed to study
the objective circumstances surrounding these ‘deputies’, and to
review its stand on their reliability and truthfulness…. As the
Shiites reviewed their stand on many of the companions of Imam Kadhim
(peace be upon him) , those who stopped and ended (the Imamate) on him
claiming that he went into occultation and that he was ‘the Mahdi’,
despite their reliability and truthfulness. They stopped at least,
short of accepting their reports in which they discussed the
continuation of the life of Imam Kadhim…especially after they have
been accused of benefiting financially from the claim of Imam Kadhim’s
Mahdism, occultation and meeting him.
Historians and other writers on ‘Imam Mahdi used to take
for granted the reliability of the ‘four deputies’ and to believe and
accept their reports on seeing Imam Mahdi and receiving signatures
from him…. This is a kind of predetermined connivance or inclination,
blind acceptance and simplemindedness as regards men accused of
fabricating the story from the beginning, and of exploiting it in
order to achieve personal material gains.
They were doubted in their lives and integrity, because
the Shiites doubted the truth of their claim of ‘repressentation’ and
were also asking about the fate of the wealth, which they collect in
the name of ‘Imam Mahdi’, and some of claimants to representation
accused the others of lying. Each group accused the other of mischief
and deception.
There is nothing to confirm the truth of the ‘four
deputies’ claim, out of more than twenty persons who claimed ‘special
representation’ in those days, except a number of hearsays that the
deputies/representatives (of the ‘Mahdi’) have performed some miracles
and have knowledge of the Unseen. Historians, like ‘Kulayni’, ‘Saduq’,
‘Tusi’ and ‘Mufid’ in their works, mentioned these things and they
believed it has happened to some of the ‘deputies’, but rejected it
for the others.
If we rejected the stories of miracles and the knowledge
of the unseen which were claimed by the ‘four deputies’ or which were
spread by their supporters, there will be nothing to present as
evidence on their truth and which distinguish them from the other
false claimants, because all have been accused of benefiting
personally.
Due to this we will study the claims of narrators of these
historical stories which mention the birth, existence and the sight of
‘Imam Mahdi Muhammad bin Hassan Askari objectively, and we will solely
rely on the judgment of weakness (or soundness) from the Hadith
scholars of the Twelver-Imam Shiites. If we have any personal opinion
on any particular man, we will present particular evidences on him.
THE
REPORT OF HAKIMAH
(WISDOM)
Saduq reports in ‘Ikmal al-Din’ p. 424, the story of the
birth of ‘Sahib al-Zaman’ from Muhammad bin Hassan bin Walid. He said:
‘Muhammad bin Yahya al-Attar has told us that he heard from Abu
Abdullah Hussain bin Rizqullah, who said that Musa bin Muhammad Qasim
told him that Hakimah told him that…
Hussain bin Rizqullah is an unknown person or a
fabricator, with no mention of him in the works of biographies of
hadith reporters, while Musa bin Muhammad is not taken seriously.
In some copies we find ‘Hussain bin Ubaidullah’ instead of
‘Abu Abdullah Hussain’. Najashi accused Hussain of extremism.
In another narration, Saduq transmits the story from
Hussain bin Ahmad bin Idris, who said, my father told me that Muhammad
bin Isma’il told him that Muhammad Ibrahim al-Kufi said that Muhammad
bin Abdullah al-Tahwi reported from Hakimah…
The copies of ‘Ikmal al-Din’ differ in the name of al-Tahwi.
In some of them he is al-Zahri, and yet another one as al-Zuhri. In
yet another copy his name is al-Mutahhari and also elsewhere as al-Tuhri.
There is no mention of this man in the books on narrators, which makes
it likely that some narrators invented him. Anyway he is unknown.
As for Sheikh Tusi, he reported the story in ‘al-Ghaybah’
(1) from the aunt of Imam Askari. He calls her Khadijah instead of
Hakimah.
He transmits the story again through Ibn Abi Jayyid from
Muhammad bin Hassan bin Walid from Saffar Muhammad bin Hassan al-Qummi
from Abu Abdullah al-Mutahhari from Hakimah, who mentioned that the
name of the mother of the son of Hassan was ‘Susan’ and not ‘Narjis’
as was in the report of Saduq.
He narrates the story in a third report from Ibn Jayyid
from Muhammad bin Hassan bin Walid from Muhammad bin Yahya al-Attar
from Muhammad bin Hamuwaih al-Razi from Hussain bin Rizqullah from
Musa bin Muhammad….
In a fourth report transmitted by Tusi from Ahmad bin Ali
al-Razi from Muhammad bin Ali from Ali bin Sami’ bin Banan from
Muhammad bin Ali bin Abi al-Dari from Ahmad bin Muhammad from Ahmad
bin Abdullah from Ahmad Ruh al-Ahwazi from Muhammad bin Ibrahim from
Hakimah, similar to the first Hadith, except that he said here: ‘She
said Abu Muhammad (Askari) sent to me in the fifteenth night of
Ramadan, and not Sha’aban.
In a fifth report transmitted by Tusi from Ahmad bin Ali
al-Razi from Muhammad bin Ali from Hanzalah bin Zakariyya’ who said
that a reliable source told me from Muhammad bin Bilal from Hakimah….
In a sixth narration, transmitted by Tusi from a group of
scholars from Hakimah….
In this last report Tusi did not mention the name of any
person from the scholars who reported (indirectly) from Hakimah,
without the mention of any chain of narration. This invalidates it as
evidence to be considered.
In the report just before the last, Hanzalah bin Zakariya
(considered as weak by Najashi) did not say who the reliable source
that told him was? As for Muhammad bin Ali bin Bilal, he was one of
the claimants to being deputy (of the Mahdi), he has differed with
Muhammad bin Uthman al-Umari. As far as Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi is
concerned, Tusi himself put him among the weak reporters. Najashi also
considered him weak, likewise Ibn al-Ghada’iri. They also accused of
being an extremist.
From this, the condition of the fourth narration
transmitted by Tusi from Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi (the weak extremist),
who narrates it from an unknown person, i.e ‘Ahmad al-Ahwazi,becomes
clear.’
As for the third report, we find in it the name of
‘Muhammad bin Hamuwaih al-Razi’ who is also unknown, in addition to
‘Hussain bin Rizqullah’, equally an unknown person.
In the second report, the name of ‘Muhammad bin Abdullah
al-Tahwi’ ws substituted with the name of Abu Abdullah al-Mutahhari…an
unknown person in both cases.
As for the first report, the aunt of the Imam says in it
that she did not witness the birth of the son of Hassan, she only
heard about it as a news written by Abu Muhammad to his mother in
Madinah.
Therefore, later extremists reported the report of Hakimah
on the birth of the son of Hassan, from weak reporters from unknown
persons from fabricators…. It is not possible to depend on it at all.
A MAN FROM THE PEOPLE OF
PERSIA
Kulayni transmits in ‘Al-Kafi’ (2) , so also saduq in
‘Ikamlal-Din’(3), Tusi in ‘al-ghaybah’(4) and al-Sadr in
‘Al-ghaybah’(5) story of ‘a man from the people of Persia who went to
‘Surr Man Ra’a and stayed in the house of Abu Muhammad hassan Askari
working with the servants.. One day he saw a white child, and the Imam
Hassan said to him, “This is your companion (Imam)”.
This is a very weak report. There is no need to pause on
it, as it did not mention the name of the reporter. It only says he is
a man from the people of persis! This can never be accepted in Hadith.
YA’QUB BIN MANQUSH
As for the report of Yaqub bin Manqush, in which he
says that he asked Imam Askari, one day: “Who is the owner of of this
affair?” He said to him, “Raise the curtain from the door of the
house”. A child of five years came out of it. He then said, “This is
your companion”. The report transmitted by Saduq from Abu Talib al-Muzaffar
bin Ja’far bin al-Muzaffar al-Alawi al-Samarqandi, from Ja’far bin
Muhammad bin Masud from his father, Muhammad bin Mas’ud al-Iyashi from
Adam al-Balkhi from Ali bin Hassan bin Harun al-Daqqaq from Ja’far bin
Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Qasim from Ya’qub bin Manqush.This report is
very weak.
Firstly: Due to the non-existence of a person
called Al-Muzaffar al-Samarqandi in the biographies of reporters.
Secondly: Because Al-Iyashi used to report from a
lot of weak reporters as Najashi says. He believes in the
interpolation of the Quran clearly in his Tafsir.
Thirdly: Due to the belief of Adam al-Balkhi in
‘Tafwid (the belief that Allah gave to Muhammad creation of the
world). He was one of the extremists who believed that Allah created
Muhammad, and gave him the power of the creation of the world. He is
the creator in it. He (Muhammad) then gave that power (of creation) to
Ali (see Biography of Najashi).
Fourthly: Due also to the neglect of Al-Daqqaq and
the difference in the name of his father, whether Hassan and Hussain
Fifthly: Due to Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Abdullah
being an unknown person.
Sixthly: Due to Ya’qub bin Manqush being an
unreliable person and the problem of his father’s name between Manqush,
Manfush and Manfus.
UTHMAN BIN SA’ID AL-UMARI
As for the report transmitted by Saduq in ‘Ikmal
al-Dn’ (6), and Tusi in ‘Al-Ghaybah’ (7 from a group including Uthman
bin Sa’id al-Umari, Muawiyah bin Hakim and Muhammad bin Ayyub, and the
statement of the Imam to them: “This is your Imam after me…”.Both
Saduq and Tusi reported it from Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Malik al-Fazari,
a well-known liar, and fabricator of Hadiths. Ibn Al-Ghada’iri says of
him: “ A liar whose Hadith is abandoned altogether, from weak and
unknown reporters. All the defects of the weak are found in him. He
reported many strange things as regards the birth of the Qa’im.
Najashi says of him. “He was a weak reporter of Hadith Ahmad bin
Hussain said that, he used to seriously fabricate Hadith, reporting
from unknown persons. I heard one who said that: ‘He was misguided in
his views and his report of Hadith’. I did not know how our noble
reliable Sheikh Abu Ali bin Hammam and our reliable great Sheikh Abu
Ghalib al-Razi reported from him.”
On the report of ‘Nasim’ and ‘Tarif Abu Nasr’ the two
servants of Imam Askari, their two reports were transmitted by Saduq
from Al-Muzaffar al-Samarqandi (the abandoned) from ‘Iyashi (the weak)
from Adam al-Balkhi (the extremist who believed in ‘tafwid’) (see
above).
As for the report of Isma’il Nubakhti fromTusi from Ahmad
bin Ali al-Razi, it is very weak, because Tusi himself did not
consider al-Razi as a reliable person, and accused him of weakness and
extremism, in addition to Ibn al-Ghada’iri and Najashi’s accusation of
him on that.
Tusi reports another narration from Jafar bin Muhammad bin
Malik al-Fazari, and from Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi from Kamil bin Ibrahim
al-Madani who says that: ‘He went to Imam Askari, and when the wind
blew it waved the curtain spread on the door (to the side), he saw a
youth behind (the door). The child recognized him and called him by
his name. Then the curtain spread back to its position, and he could
not remove it. This report as is clear, is very weak especially due to
its being reported by Al-Fazari, Al-Razi, two weak extremists.
ABU AL-ADYAN AL-BASRI
As for the report of ‘Abu Al-Adyan al-Basri’ which
only Saduq has reported, and he mentioned it without the proper chain
of narration, when he says, Abu Al-Adyan that. Despite the fact that
there is a period of about one hundred years between the two, no one
knows any person of that name, which further emphasized his
fabrication from some of the extremists.
On the completion of the story—that is, the arrival
of the delegations from Qum and the Mountains to ‘Surr Man Raa’—which
was transmitted by Saduq…, we find in its chain of narration was
‘Ahmad bin Hussain Al-Abi al-Arudi and (Abu) Hussain (Ibn) Zayd bin
Abdullah al-Baghdadi from Sinan al-Mawsili from his father.All of them
were unknown persons, with no mention in the biography books (of
reporters) in addition to the discrepancy in the name of al-Baghdadi.
SA’AD BIN ABDULLAH AL-QUMMI
As regards the report of Sa’ad bin Abdullah al-Qummi
in which he says that he went to Imam Askari together with Ahmad bin
Ishaq. He saw on the lap of the Imam a child who was playing with a
golden pomegranate. This report was transmitted by Saduq from Al-Nawfali
al-Karmani from Ahmad bin ‘Isa al-Washsha’ al–Baghdadi from Ahmad bin
Tahir al-Qummi… There is in the chain of this report four abandoned
and unknown persons. As for the fifth reporter Al-Shaibani’, he was
one of the weak and the extremists who believe in tafwid (believing
that the affairs of the world were given to Muhammad then to Ali), as
mentioned by Kashi, Ibn al-Ghada’iri, Tusi and Najashi.
Allama al-Hilli in ‘Al-Khulasah’ withdrew
confidence from Sa’ad bin Abdullah al-Qummi after this report. Shahid
al-Thani said: “The signs of fabrication in this (report) are evident,
that was due to what was contained in the report, that the Mahdi was
playing with a golden pomegranate!”
Therefore, the great weakness in the chain of each
report invalidates them all from being evidence or being relied on….
when we put the weakness in the chain of narration together with the
weakness in the text…. and the contradiction in the reports
themselves… and their contradicting the Zahirite report … Then, it
will be mere illusion and hearsays and myths… which cannot establish
the birth of an ordinary person….
Then how can we depend on them in establishing the
birth of one of the Imams and the construction of a religious creed on
the basis of that?
On the story of an attempt to arrest the Mahdi as
reported by Tusi, Majlisi and Sadr, it was an unconnected (Mursal)
report to ‘Rashiq’ the unknown policeman, whose integrity is doubted.
It is weak due to its not mentioning the identity of the man who was
praying on a mat, and that the reports contain strange things like:
‘Mahdi’s stay in the house of his father and in Samirra’i throughout
the period of the occultation. This is far from the truth. It was
possible for him to move around in the land and to hide in other
places. Of these (strange things) was that the report comprises of
strange miracles for which there was no need, and it conforms to the
report of extremists and their myths.
Al-Mutadid the Abbasid caliph, was known for
inclining towards Shiism, and he insisted on cursing Mu’awiyah on
pulpits, and ordered the writing of a book to be read for the people
in this regard, ad pointed out by Ibn Al-Athir in his ‘Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh’
(8). This makes the report far from being sound, as it claims that he
tried to arrest Imam Mahdi. It is more likely that it was fabricated
due to the story of Mahdi hiding in the canopy.
C: ASSESSING THE
TESTIMONY OF THE FOUR DEPUTIES
The clear historical reporting of the Hadith after
the death of Imam Hassan Askari says that: ‘The Imam did not leave
behind any offspring whether a male or a female, and that he gave his
wealth in a will, to his mother: (Hadith), due to this his brother
Ja’far claimed the Imamate and a group of Shiites followed him (on
that)’. As for the report of the deputies it says that: ‘there was a
hidden son for Imam Askari and they claimed to be his deputies and
representatives. Believing them will lead to believing in the
existence of ‘Hujjah bin Hassan ‘ (Mahdi), but doubting their claims
will not establish anything in the secret report on the existence of a
son for Imam Askari. Were they really truthful? Have the Shiites
agreed on their reliability? How did they believe them? What is the
evidence on the validity of their statements? Is there anything that
can make us doubt and be skeptical, of their claims of being deputies
of Imam Mahdi and doubt his existence?
Before we assess those reports that came praising
them and claiming their reliability, we must point out that this
phemomenon of claiming to be a deputy of Imam Mahdi was not the first
phemomenon in Shiite history, as many phemomena, appeared before it.
And before the four deputies, many people have claimed to be
representatives and deputies of the earlier Imams, those who claimed
for them Mahdism (i.e being the Mahdi), like Imam Musa Kadhim (peace
be upon him) whose life was believed to have continued after his
death, as they believed in his occultation also. Among them were
Muhammad bin Bashir who claimed being his deputy. He later bequeathed
it to his sons and grandsons.
More than twenty persons have claimed being the
deputies of ‘Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari’ among them were: Al-Shari’i,
Al-Namiri, Al-Ibrata’i al-Hallaj, and so on. That was because the
claim of being a deputy brings with it many material benefits, as well
as a socio-political status for the claimants. Moreso that the
claimant used to work underground and in secret, and investigating his
claim is not allowed. He exploited his previous relationship with the
Imam, and so he claimed his continued life or his existence, and his
being his deputy…. His claim used to be accepted by the simpleminded,
and rejected by the enlightened wise people. The Imamate Shiites have
rejected the claims of more than twenty claimants of being deputies of
‘Imam Mahdi bin Hassan Askari’. They accused them of lying and deceit,
as they doubted the validity of the claims of those four deputies.
They differed on their affairs. There was not single strong
intellectual evidence in the reports narrated by the historians on
their truthfulness and the validity of their claims. This is what
makes these people a part of false claimants who traded with the issue
of Imam Mahdi!
Sheikh Tusi did depend in the reliability of Uthman
bin Sa’id al-Umari on a number of reports. Some of them were like the
report of Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Qummi, who stated the reliance and trust
of Imams Hadi and Askari in him during life and after death. And that
he was the deputy and the trusted and reliable person on Allah’s
wealth. There is nothing in it that establishes Al-Umari’s deputyship
of Imam Mahdi. But some reports were stating clearly that Imam Askari
declared the deputyship of al-Umari to Imam Mahdi, except that the
chain of this narration is very weak, as it includes Ja’far bin
Muhammad bin Malik al-Fazari, concerning whom Najashi and Ibn Al-Ghada’iri
have stated: “He was a liar whose Hadith is rejected, and he was
extremist in some of his views. He reports from weak and unknown
reporters. All the faults of weak reporters were found in him. He has
reported on the birth of Qa’im strange things. He used to clearly
fabricate Hadith. He has deviated from the path and his reports were
not sound”.
As for the previous report which mentions the
reliability of al-Umari and his honesty, and his being the deputy (of
Imam), that is unknown. There is in its chain an extremist ‘Al-Khusaibi’.
It comprises of the claim on Imam Askari’s knowledge of the Unseen,
and his knowledge of the delegation from Yemen before he saw it. (9)
This claim is part of the concepts of the extremists. The first report
says that Askari has mentioned the uprightness of al-Umari in future
after his death. Only Allah knows this, it being part of the knowledge
of the Unseen also.
From here and after the invalidity of these reports
due to their weakness in terms of both their texts and their chains of
narration, we seem to reach one conclusion, that is, Al-Umari who was
the deputy of the two Imams Hadi and Askari in collecting funds,
wanted to continue enjoying that post and claimed the existence of a
son for Imam Askari,so as to claim being his deputy also without
producing a confirmed and clear evidence on what he was saying. Due
to this the historians were certain, and do not confirm his deputyship
of the Mahdi. Al-Tabrisi, who was so eager to record whatever comes to
him, did not state in his book: ‘Al-Ihtijaj’ more than (these words):
“Al-Umari performed the affairs of the ‘Sahib al-Zaman’ his signatures
and responses to issues were all coming through him.” (10)
The Shiite historians did not mention any miracle
that confirms his claim of being deputy, despite the statement of
Sayyid Abdullah Shibr in ‘Haq al-Yaqin’ that; the Shiites would not
accept the statements of the deputies until after the appearance of
any miracle on each of the deputies from the Sahib al-Zaman, which
would show the truth of their statements and the validity of their
intentions.
As for the second deputy; Muhammad bin Uthnan
bin Sa’id al-Umari, the Shiite historians did not mention any text
regarding him from the Mahdi, appointing him as his deputy. Tusi said:
“He took the place of his father through a text from Abu Muhammad
‘Hassan Askari’, and the text from his father Uthman by the order of
the Qa’im.” (12)
Tusi has mentioned a report from Abdullah bin
Ja’far al-Himyari al-Qummi who said that: ‘The Mahdi sent to Al-Umari
a note passing his condolence to him on the death of his father,
Uthman bin Sa’id. He praised Allah who has placed him in the place of
his father and prayed for his success. The leters came to us in the
same handwiting as was being communicated to us by placing Abu Ja’far
in the position of his father. Tusi also reported another tradition
from Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Mahziyar al-Ahwazi, and another one from
Ishaq bin Yaqub from Imam Mahdi, who testified on his reliability and
his acceptance of him. All these reports were transmitted through Al-Umari
himself, which made them weak.
There is no any way of confirming the claim that
Uthman bin Sa’id Al-Umari has stated that his son Muhammad will be
deputy, through the instructions of the Qa’im. It seems it was simply
a guess from Tusi. As there is no any evidence to establish the text
from the father to the son, except through inheritance and claims.
The greatest problem is found in the difficulty of
confirming the validity of the signatures which were brought by al-Umari
and which he attributed to Imam Mahdi, especially the signature
reported by Al-Himyari al-Qummi, as he did not mention his chain of
transmission to the occult Imam, which makes it more likely that it
was Al-Umari who wrote it with his hand, and attributed it to the
Mahdi. Moreso that he was praising himself so much, which becloud it
with ambiguity even if the Imam is present talkless of when he is
absent? There is no any reporter for the issue of signatures except
Al-Umari himself. Al-Himyari did not say how he quickly believed the
signatures while there was a controversy at that time among the
Shiites on the truth of Al-Umari in his claim of being deputy? There
is the possibility that Al-Himyari al-Qummi might have fabricated the
signature himself and he attributed it the Mahdi.
On the report of Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Mahziyar
al-Ahwazi, it is weak, because he confessed that in the beginning he
doubted the existence of the Mahdi, and he claimed being a deputy
after that, and after his meeting with Al-Umari in Baghdad, due to
this he was a doubtful person in his affairs. He did not say how the
signature reached him directly or through al-Umari? If he claims that
it reached him directly but how? Has he seen the Mahdi himself? He did
not claim that! Or it came to him through Al-Umari? This will also
raise doubts.
As for the third report (report of Ishaq bin Ya’qub),
it clearly declares that it was from Al-Umari. It is weak due to
doubts that Al-Umari might have fabricated it. So also due to unknown
reporters; and the weakness (unreliability) of Ishaq bin Ya’qub, and
his not declaring how he knew the handwriting of the Mahdi, knowing
that Tusi was saying that: ‘The handwriting in the notes (signatures)
was the same as such that was written in the days of Askari.’ (13)
Lastly, the story of Muhammad bin Uthman Al-Umari
in sighting the Mahdi during the Hajj, was more of a claim devoid of
evidence. He did not state how he knew the Mahdi whom he has never
seen before? It may be that someone resembles him.
Due to this, Ahmad bin Hilal al-Ibrata’i (the
leader of Shiites in Baghdad) from whom Al-Fazari reported that he
claimed to have witnessed the occasion when Askari presented the Mahdi,
and Al-Umari was appointed as his successor (Khalifah)- Al-Ibrata’i
doubted the validity of Al-Umari’s claim that his son is a special
deputy of the Mahdi. He denied having heard Imam Askari stating that
he was his representative. He rejected and refused to admit that he
was the representative of ‘Sahib al-Zaman’. (14)
Al-Ibrata’i had played a great role in supporting
the claim of Uthman bin Sa’id al-Umari, of being representative. He
was hoping that he would receive the will (of being chosen for that)
after him. When he gave the will to his son Muhammad, he rejected that
and claimed to be the deputy himself. This shows that there was
connivance and interests in the various claims of being special
deputies.
As a result of the absence of authentic and
confirmed traditions on the deputyship of Muhammad bin Uthman Al-Umari,
the shiites doubted his claim. Al-Majlisi reported in ‘Bihar al-Anwar’
that: “The shiites were in a state of confusion, and were not relying
on the many claims of being ‘deputies’”. He said that Abu al-Abbas
Ahmad Al-Siraj al-Dainuri did ask al-Umari on the evidence which
confirms the validity of his claim, and that he will not believe in
him, unless if another person tells him that from (knowledge) of the
unseen, and present him a miracle’. (15)
The tradition of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them)
which states that ‘Our servants and our keepers are the worst of
Allah’s creations’ was very popular in those days among the Shiites,
which made them doubt the validity of claims of ‘representation’.
Sheikh Tusi has affirmed the validity of that tradition, but he said:
“It is not generally so, but they only said that, because among them
were those who changed and distorted and were treacherous.” (16)
Some Shiites did show their regret on giving wealth
to Al-Umari, as they doubted the existence of Mahdi and the signatures
(notes) brought by al-Umari and which were attributed to him. There
was among these people a section of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).
This was what made Al-Umari to issue a letter as originating from the
Mahdi, condemning the doubters and the deniers of the existence of the
Mahdi.
As another section of them doubted the validity of
Nubakhti being a deputy, and kept on asking him on the fate of the
wealth which he used to receive in the name of Imam Mahdi, he said
that: ‘This wealth goes to where it should not (not spent in the legal
way)’. Saduq and Tusi said that, ‘Nubakhti was able to convince them
by means of miracles and the knowledge of the Unseen, like specifying
the time of the death of some people before the appointed time, and
his picking some dirhams from a man’s bag, from a distance. (17)
In fact, the Shiite historians used to mention a
number of stories on peoples’ doubts regarding the claimants to the
post of ‘deputy’, with some of them, accusing the others of telling
lie. The general masses of the Twelver- Imam Shiites distinguished
those ‘four deputies’ from the other accused claimants, on the basis
of their power of producing miracles and the possession of the
knowledge of the Unseen.
Kulayni, Mufid and Tusi have mentioned tens of
stories showing that the ‘four deputies’ have performed many strange
things of miraculous nature and informed of things to come. Tusi has
narrated from ‘Hibatullah’ the grandson of al-Umari who said: “ The
miracles of the Imam appeared on him and he used to tell of the
Unseen”. (18)
Tusi has also mentioned a story from Ali bin Ahmad
al-Dallal, who said that: ‘Al-Umari told him the time of his death,
the day, the month and the year. And he died on the day, the month and
the year as he foretold, that was in the end of Jumada al-Ula, 305
A.H.’ (19)
But this statement contradicts the principles of
Shiism and the traditions of members of Prophet’s family (peace be
upon them), who used to deny any knowledge of the Unseen (al-Ghayb),
or employing the miraculous unseen means to establish their Imamate.
Sheikh Saduq said in ‘Ikmal al-Din’: “ The Imam does not know the
Unseen, he is only a pious servant teaching the Quran and the Sunnah.
Anyone who ascribes the knowledge of the Unseen to the Imams has
committed disbelief (Kufr) in Allah, and has gone out of the fold of
Islam in our view. The unseen is known only to Allah, noone claims it
for a human except one who associates something to Allah and is an
unbeliever.” (20)
Imam Sadiq said: “What a surprise for some people
claiming that we know the unseen (al-ghayb)! By Allah I had wanted to
beat my housemaid, so and so, but she fled away from me. I do not know
in which house she is (now)” (21)
Abu Bashir one day came to Imam Sadiq and said to
him: “They are saying that you know the (number) of drops in the rain
water and the number of stars, and the number of leaves of trees, and
the weight of what is in the sea and the number of particles of the
earth. He said; Glory be to Allah! Glory be to Allah! No, by Allah
noone knows that except Allah.” (22)
Yahya bin Abdullah asked Imam Musa Kadhim (peace be
upon him) saying: “May I be made your ransom, they are claiming that
you know the Unseen?” He replied: “Glory be to Allah! Put your hand on
my head by Allah there is no hair on it and on my body except that it
has been aroused. No by Allah it is nothing other than the inheritance
from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)”. (23)
In another narration transmitted by Al-Hurr al-Amili,
the Imam says in it: ‘The ignorant and the unwise Shiites have done
harm to us, and those whose religion weighs less than the wing of a
mosquito….I am free from those who say that we know the Unseen, before
Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him).” (24)
Therefore we cannot believe the claim of those
‘deputies’ regarding their being Imam Mahdi’s deputies, and we
(cannot) consider their statements evidence on the existence of the
Imam, depending on the claim of miracles and the knowledge of the
Unseen. We cannot distinguish their claims from those of false
claimants to deputyship, whose number was more than twenty four.
If we accuse these false claimants of attempting to
benefit (from those claims), and of the love of wealth and of having
relations with the Abbasid authorities of those days, the same
accusations will have to be directed to the ‘four deputies’, who were
not aloof from them.
Muhammad bin Ali al-Shalnaghani, who was the
representative of Hussain bin Ruh al-Nubakhti in the Banu Bistam, he
then dissociated himself from them and claimed being deputy himself
said: “We did not enter with Abu Qasim Hussain bin Ruh in this affair
except that we know why we entered it. We were scrambling on this
affair as the dogs were scrambling over the carrion. “ (25)
If we could not establish the claims of the ‘four
deputies’ and we doubted the validity of their statements, how can we
establish the existence of ‘Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari, based on
their testimonies of meeting him and being his deputies?
In addition to this doubt there is another evidence
on the falsehood of the claimants to being deputies, that was their
not playing any cultural or intellectual or political role in the
service of the Shiites and the Muslims except collection of funds and
the claims of giving it to Imam Mahdi.
It was supposed that the ‘deputies’ who claimed the
existence of a special, relationship between them and ‘Imam Mahdi’,
‘would solve all the problems of the sect, and would have transmitted
the instructions and guidance of the Imam to the Ummah. Rather we see
the ‘third deputy’, Hussain bin Ruh Nubakhti for example, resorting to
the scholars of Qum, so as to solve for him the problem of Shalmaghani
who had revolted against him. He sent Shalmaghani’s work ‘Al-Ta’dib’
to Qum seeking from the city’s scholars to distinguish the sound and
the weak in the book, as was reported by Tusi in ‘Al-Ghaybah’. (26)
There is in this an indication of lack of any
contact between him and the Mahdi. Otherwise he would have put the
book before him and ask him about its soundness.
What further strenghens the doubts on the
non-existence of the Mahdi Muhammad bin Hassan Askari, was the
inability of those who claimed to be deputies to fill the fiqhi
vacuum, and to expose many ambiguous matters that need to be cleared
in that period of time. It is well known that Kulayni wrote the book
of ‘Al-Kafi’ during the days of Nubakhti, and that he has filled it
with weak and fabricated traditions, which discuss the interpolation
of the Quran and other invalid things. But neither Nubakhti nor Al-Samri
commented on the fabricated traditions, and nor did they correct any
thing from the book which caused the harming of Shiites throughout the
ages, and put them in a fix of not identifying the sound traditions
from the fabricated ones.
Sayyid Murtadah did invent the theory of ‘Lutf’
(Compassion and clemency) in which he says: ‘Imam Mahdi must interfere
to correct the ‘Ijtihad’of Fuqaha, during the occultation, so as to
stop their agreeing on something invalid and wrong. Based on this, the
right, better and simpler thing was for ‘Imam Mahdi’ to correct the
book of Kulayni, if he ever existed, or that he leaves behind him an
all-sufficing work, in the period of major occultation, as a reference
for the Shiites. This did not happen. The claimants to ‘Niyaba’
(representation) did not produce anything in this regard. This is what
would make us doubt their truth and their claim of the existence of an
‘occult Imam’ upon whom they depended.
Sheikh Hassan al-Farid (a colleague of Imam
Khomeini) in his book ‘Risalah fi al-Khums’ was surprised and
astonished and also perplexed when he asked the secret behind why
Kulayni did not ask the ‘Sahib al-Zaman’ (Mahdi) through his deputy
Nubakhti on the issue of Khums (one-fifth) in the ‘occultation
period’. (27)
D: ASSESSING THE LETTERS OF
‘MAHDI’
The supporters of the theory on the existence of
Imam Mahdi possess some letters, which they believed the Imam has sent
to a number of people, and they took that as additional evidence on
the validity of their theory on the existence of ‘Imam Muhammad bin
Hassan Askari’. After our study of these reports and scrutinizing the
chains of narration however, their weakness became very clear. It was
nothing other than hearsay that was spread by those who claimed to be
‘deputies’.
The first report by Tusi came from a group of
people, whom he did not identify from Abu Muhammad al-Tal’akbari from
Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi, about whom the Shiite scholars of narrators (Rijal)
say that, he was a weak and extremist (reporter). In addition to that,
Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Qummi did not mention the means of correspondence
with ‘Sahib al-Zaman’, or indicate the one who takes the issues
(Letters) to him. It is therefore likely that he fabricated the
letters himself.
As for the second letter, Tusi also reported it
through Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi (the weak extremist) from a number of
unknown persons. In addition, it contains something irrational, i.e.
seeking judgement from an unknown person, whose existence is a
controversy, to establish his very existence! It is possible that, one
of the deputies would write the response. Knowing fully that doubting
the existence of the son of Hassan requires doubting the truth of the
‘deputies’, how can we then return to one of them relying on him,
before confirming his truthfullness, or believing in what papers he
present, claiming them coming from the Mahdi?
As for the report from Saduq known as ‘Al-Tawqi’ it
was weak due to the status of Ishaq bin Ya’qub as a weak reporter, and
his being unknown; so also its not being mentioned by earlier scholars
like Kulayni; and due to the report containing a number of incorrect
issues like: Firstly, the praise of the transmitter of the letter
namely ‘the second deputy, Muhammad bin Uthman al-Umari’ on himself
and his father. This supports the likelihood of its being his own
fabrication. Secondly, the legality of Khums (one-fifth) during the
period of the occultation till the appearance (of the Mahdi), this
contradicts the continuation of Islamic injunctions in all times. The
Shiite scholars have of recent refrained from believing in this
legality, due to its contradiction with (other) Islamic principles.
Thirdly, the demand of refraining from asking the cause of the
occultation, despite that the philosophy of occultation is one of the
necessary religious matters that must be known in the way of belief in
the Mahdi. Hence that report- the letter, is very weak and cannot be
certified.
Likewise is the case of the second report of Saduq
from Al-Umari, which he transmitted from Abu Abdullah Ja’far, who says
that he has found it confirmed from Sa’ad bin Abdullah, i.e. he did
not report it directly, he only found it in a book. It is well known
in the science of narration that finding a report in a book (and
reporting it) is the weakest form of narration. In addition to that,
Sa’ad did not mention how he came about the letter? Or who informed
him of it? He did not report it from the two al-Umaris, who did not
mention it clearly. He only reports that it is from another person,
without specifying his name, but he supposed he was the Mahdi. If the
report from the two al-Umaris is sound, it can be of their own
writing, in support of their theory based on the existence of Mahdi,
and as support to their claim of being his ‘deputies’, Hence it cannot
constitute an evidence.
Regarding the letters of Sheihk Mufid, which were
mentioned by Tabrisi and Ibn Shahra’ashub in their works, Mufid
himself did not mention them in any of his books. Even if its
ascription to him is confirmed, it does not constitute any evidence.
That was because Mufid says that, he received it from a village-Arab
man unknown to him, and the handwriting in it was not that of the
Mahdi, but of another person, to whom the Mahdi dictated its contents.
Mufid had refused to present those letters from the village-Arab man
to any of his companions. He claimed that was due to the instruction
of the Mahdi. He did not present to the people except letters written
in his own handwriting. He said the Mahdi had requested him to do
that.
If this is valid…We are in fact witnessing letters
in Sheikh Mufid’s handwriting himself saying that they were copies of
the letters which the village-Arab man handed over to him having
received them from another unknown man, and being the writer of the
letters. That unknown man was saying that Imam Mahdi has dictated them
to him. In other words we are before a tradition reported by a single
reporter, reported by Mufid from an unknown man from an unknown man
also from Mahdi.
This raises number possibilities: Like, its
likelihood of coming from Mufid, moreso that it entails a lot of
excessive praise and commendation on him. In some of it, Mahdi
mentioned the name of Mufid before his very name. Of these
possibilities is its coming from the village-Arab Man, or from the
third man who lied to the writer, and claimed to be the Mahdi. In the
same way, the report in the feld of science of Hadith, does not
deserves even the least of attention or even a short or long pause.
THE PROBLEM OF
RECOGNIZING THE HAND WRITING
I would like to draw the attention of the reader to
an important point, i.e. the issue of Imam Mahdi’s handwriting in
those letters and the many notes attributed to him. The man who
believes in the Mahdi especially today will long for seeing his
handwriting, if he was not lucky enough to see him in person. He would
hope that history have preserved even if only one copy of those
letters and notes. He would also hope that the Shiites in those days
have recognized that importance and have preserved the letters of Imam
in their historical treasures. For such kinds of documents constitute
the most important material for the study of that period, and for
confirming the truth on ‘Imam Mahdi’, and the circumistances that led
to the occultation.
Based on this I have attempted to examine all the
signs of ‘Imam Mahdi’s’ handwriting in his letters, and to search for
any copy of those letters, and to follow his notes (Tawaqi). I thought
in the beginning, or I supposed that the Shiites of those times
especially the four deputies or the Fuqaha (Jurists) or scholars of
Hadith, might have given a lot of importance to the preservation of
those letters. I did not find any trace of that. I found instead
doubting ambiguity surrounding this issue. I also found in the note
‘al–Tawqi’ reported by Tabrisi in ‘al-‘Ihtijaj’ from Ishaq bin Ya’qub
formal-Umari, a text saying: “… Don’t show our handwriting, written by
us to anyone.” This shows the contrary of what was expected, in terms
of concern and importance in recognizing the handwriting and in
preserving the letters of Mahdi, so also the non-existence of one
particular handwriting known to be that of the Mahdi, which can always
be refered to for comparing the remaining letters with it, to confirm
its genuineness. I also discovered that Sheikh Tusi was discussing the
‘Handwriting of Mahdi’ skeptically, when he said: ‘Abu Nasr Hibatullah
has said: “I found in the handwriting of Abu Ghalib al-Razi: ‘Al –Umari
was responsible for this matter --representation), for about fifty
years. People bring to him their wealth and he will obtain for them
‘Notes’ in the same handwriting as the time of Hassan (peace be upon
him), explaining some worldly and religious affairs, and what they
used to ask him, he responded in a strange manner.” (28)
He did not relate why Al-Umari was doing that? And
why was he not producing the notes in the handwriting of the Mahdi? It
is well known that recognizing the handwriting of Imam Hassan himself
was a problem during his life. As some of those who claimed to be his
deputies among the extremists, resorted to forging his handwiriting.
The Shiites due to that faced the problem of recognizing and
confirming the handwriting of Imam Askari, during his life. How can
the handwriting of ‘Imam Mahdi’ who was not seen by anyone be
recognized? The handwriting that was never seen, nor was its existence
ever confirmed. The common people do not possess any means of
confirming it?
With the existence of this major problem, al-Umari
was not handing over any handwriting or notes to anyone. He was
rather, showing it to them only or copy it in his own handwriting.
Sheikh Mufid has resorted to---according to the so-called report--
similar manner also. He presented copies in his handwiriting, and said
that they were qouted from ‘Letters from Mahdi’, which were not at all
written in his handwriting, but were dictation from him to an unknown
writer.
If we had obtained copies from the handwriting of
‘Imam Mahdi’, it would be within our ability to compare them and
confirm its attribution to him, or distinguish the genuine from the
forged ones among them. Nothing of that had happened.
Due to this, it is possible for us to regard the
secrecy surrounding the handwriting and its concealment’ was an
additional evidence on the non-existence of ‘Muhammad bin Hassan
Askari’, who, if he had really existed and was hiding and in
occultation for security reasons would have resorted to, without
doubt, establishing his existence and his person among the Shiite
populace, and would have led them through the letters signed by him,
in a manner that would have not left any doubt or controversy. It
would have been possible to recognize and distinginsh them by
recognizing his handwriting and by comparing them,as one of the
several means by which he establishes himself.
REFERENCES
-
The Source, pp. 138-146
-
ibid., Vol. 1, p. 329
-
ibid., p. 435
-
ibid. p. 140
-
ibid.,p. 285
-
ibid. p. 435
-
ibid. p. 217
-
ibid. vol.6 p. 85
-
Tusi: Al-Ghaybah. Pp, 215-216
-
Majlisi: Bihar al-Anwar. Vol. 51, p. 362
-
ibid. p. 229
-
Al-Ghaybah. Pp. 218
-
ibid. p. 216
-
Al-Khu’i: Mu’jam al-Rijal vol. 2.p. 521, Tabrisi:
Khatimah Mustadrak Wasail al-Shi’ah p. 556, Al-Najashi: Al-Rijal.
-
ibid. vol. 51
-
Al-Ghaybah p. 244
-
Tusi: Al-Ghaybah. P. 192. Saduq: Ikmal al- Din,
PP. 516-517
-
Al- Ghaybah. P. 236
-
ibid. p. 221
-
ibid. p. 106, 109 and 116
-
Al-Hurr al-Amili: Li thabat al-Huda vol. 3 p. 748
-
ibid. p. 772
-
ibid. p. 767, Mufid: ‘Al-Amali’ p. 23
-
ibid. p. 764
-
Al- Ghaybah. P. 241
-
ibid. p. 240
-
ibhid. P. 87
-
Tusi: Al-Ghaybah. P. 223
-
The Source, pp. 138-146
-
ibid., Vol. 1, p. 329
-
ibid., p. 435
-
ibid. p. 140
-
ibid.,p. 285
-
ibid. p. 435
-
ibid. p. 217
-
ibid. vol.6 p. 85
-
Tusi: Al-Ghaybah. Pp, 215-216
-
Majlisi: Bihar al-Anwar. Vol. 51, p. 362
-
ibid. p. 229
-
Al-Ghaybah. Pp. 218
-
ibid. p. 216
-
Al-Khu’i: Mu’jam al-Rijal vol. 2.p. 521, Tabrisi:
Khatimah Mustadrak Wasail al-Shi’ah p. 556, Al-Najashi: Al-Rijal.
-
ibid. vol. 51
-
Al-Ghaybah p. 244
-
Tusi: Al-Ghaybah. P. 192. Saduq: Ikmal al- Din,
PP. 516-517
-
Al- Ghaybah. P. 236
-
ibid. p. 221
-
ibid. p. 106, 109 and 116
-
Al-Hurr al-Amili: Li thabat al-Huda vol. 3 p. 748
-
ibid. p. 772
-
ibid. p. 767, Mufid: ‘Al-Amali’ p. 23
-
ibid. p. 764
-
Al- Ghaybah. P. 241
-
ibid. p. 240
-
ibhid. P. 87
-
Tusi: Al-Ghaybah. P. 223
|