Abstract:
Trying to deviate from the path of truth has a history, as old as a human creation. In a battle against prophets (pbu th) and divine angels, throughout history, the soldiers of Satan and the [ungoverned] desire have not given up and will not give up any effort to mislead people, and have control on human desires.
Mahdism has been one of the most fundamental issues of Islam and Shiism, which has always been abused by some claimants and their followers.
The Yamani sect is one of the deviant currents that has had the intention of deceiving its audience by measures such as: adhering to undocumented narrations, using non-scientific sources, twisting narrations, distorting their meaning and implications, and has led many Shiites astray. That is because, they are trying to break the unity of the Shia community and change the path of Mahdism.
In this context, the following issues will be discussed:
1/ A short biology of Aḥmad Ismail 2/ Some narrations and Aḥādīth that were abused by Aḥmad Basrī and his followers, and 3/Claiming that he is the offspring of the twelfth Imām (mGehr).
In this article, his [false] claims will be answered.
Keywords: Aḥmad Basrī, false, Aḥmad Ismail, claiming to be the son of Imām Zamān (mGehr), prophet hood, claimant, deviant sect
Introduction
Followers of Aḥmad Hamboushī claim that, according to authentic narrations from Ahl al-Bayt (pbu th), Imām Zamān (mgehr) had some children during his Major Occultation. One of whom is Aḥmad Ismail Hamboushī, whose one of the followers wrote, “I have proven in this research that, surly the narrations him are numerous, from the authentic documents, helpful for faiths”
Surely, I have proven in this research, that the narrations about the offspring are great in number, as well as having authentic document, which may be advantageous to the faith.
The doubts in regard of this sect are based on two main parts:
The first part contains evidences written by the late Mīrzā Nourī, the owner of Al-Najm al-thāqib, in proving the existence of Imām Zamān (mGehr)’s family;
The second part contains the evidence, that these people have provided in addition to what Mīrzā brought.
By investigating the evidence of these people, it can be seen that these doubts, will be based on one of the following, despite their abundance.
1. It was quoted by a non-Infallible Imām (pbuh), so it is not authentic anymore; like the prediction of Sotīḥ, or the prayer of Hārūn Tallaʿukbarī, etc.
2. They claim that Imām Zamān (mgehr) has a wife or family members; They refer to statements like ‘He [Imām Zamān (mgehr)] is away from his relatives’, etc. It’s obvious that, the term “relatives” includes offspring. Clearly, it’s wrong to interpret a specific meaning from a general statement. [It cannot be concluded from the term “relative” that Imām Zamān (mgehr) necessarily possesses offspring]
3. They insists on proving that, Imām Zamān (mgehr) has offspring, even after the Emergence!
4. Or, basically, these doubts have nothing to do with His Majesty for having offspring. Rather, they talk about something else; like the narration
‘Imāms after him’.[1]
5. Or, they are based on undocumented, rare, and extinct news; like al-Khaḍrāʾ island story.
However, none of these is what we purport and mean, and any reference to this news in order to prove that Aḥmad Basrī is a descendant of His Majesty Mahdī (mgehr) will end up invalid. It’s because, from the right standpoint, there are three definite statuses for any reasoning.
Status A, “Dāll” [Signifier]: This term refers to something that is supposed to manifest something else. In other words, it is something that by perceiving it, something else (signified) will be evoked in our minds. In this reasoning, the signifier is the very “Narrations of the Ahl al-Bayt”.
Status B, [Madlul] Signified: It refers to something that the signifier is trying to prove it. In this reasoning, the signified is “Proving that Aḥmad Basrī is a descendant of Imām Zamān (mGehr)”.
Status C, [Delālat] Signification: The connection that leads mind from the signifier to the signified is referred to as signification.
So, in this section, the claim and signified is that: “Aḥmad Ismail is the offspring of His Majesty Mahdī (mgehr)”. Hence, the signifier narrations must prove this signified. Otherwise, there is no connection between the signifier and the signified, and the signification is discrete and the reasoning is invalid.
The biography of Aḥmad Basrī
Aḥmad Ismail Ṣāliḥ al-Sulamī al-Basrī (born 1968)[2], known as Aḥmad Al-Ḥasan Yamānī[3], is one of the newly emerging movements in the path of Mahdism[4]. He introduced himself as an offspring from the fifth generation of the twelfth Imām [Imām Mahdī (mGehr)]. In addition, he has many claims such as being Yamānī or being representative, and successor of His Majesty Ḥujjat (mGehr).
In 1992, Aḥmad Basrī graduated from the University of Engineering in the field of urban planning. Aḥmad Ismail went to the university and the very learning is the reason for “the invalidity of his claims”; because the infallible one does not need to learn from others.
He excuses that case in this way, “I learned some of the sciences of this physical world, as the prophets before me learned. Jesus (pbuh) was a carpenter and he learned carpentry from Joseph the carpenter”[5]
Moreover, Abū Muḥammad Ansārī has written in this regard:
But there is no problem in the university education, and it is not a proof to question infallibility and knowledge taken by an Imām. As it is known, Jesus (Pbuh) learned carpentry from Ḥabīb the carpenter. “[6]
Answer:
All these words are pure lies and fabrications. There is no reliable historical source that Jesus (Pbuh) was taught carpentry by a person named Joseph the carpenter.
Interestingly, Ansārī confused between Joseph the carpenter and Ḥabīb the carpenter out of ignorance. Joseph the carpenter, one of the relatives of Her Majesty Mary (Pbuh), was the one who collected firewood and made a fire for her when she gave birth[7].
Ḥabīb the carpenter is the same “the Believer of Al Yasin (Mu’min Al Yasin)”, whose name was not mentioned in the Holy Qurʾān, but his name is mentioned as one of the truthful, (close ones to God), in many narrations[8].
In historical sources, the name of Joseph the carpenter is Yūsuf bin Yaʿqūb bin Matan or Mathan[9], and Ḥabīb the carpenter’s name was Ḥabīb bin Mūsā10.
There is no authentic information about Aḥmad Al-Ḥasan before 1999, and this period is considered as the information vacuum of his life.
In 1999, he went to Ashraf Najaf for a short time and attended the classes of Ayatullāh Muḥammad Ṣādiq al-Ṣadr. He spent some time studying in Ḥawza until 2000. At this time, by questioning the public representative of scholars, alleging financial corruption in al-Ḥawza al-ʿIlmīyyas, and the inefficiency of courses and with the help of Ḥaydar Mushattat, he established the first steps to create division in al-Ḥawza al-ʿIlmīyyas of Najaf[11].
While studying at the Sadr al-Ḥawza al-ʿIlmīyya in 2003, along with Ḥaydar Mushattat, Aḥmad Al-Ḥasan started a joint claim and called himself the son and messenger of His Majesty Ṣāḥib al- Zamān (mGehr). And he introduced Ḥaydar Mushattat with the title of “Yamānī of Al e- Muḥammad [Prophet Muḥammad’s descendant (pbuh&h)]”
Then, to spread their beliefs and strengthen their military force, they took a house named “School of Imām Aḥmad Al-Ḥasan and the promised Yamānī” in the Ṣarifeh neighborhood within the Sahle region and settled there[12].
At the end of 2000, in a statement, Aḥmad Al-Ḥasan declared Ḥaydar Moshattat as the Yamānī, and separated his path of succession and being representative from Yamānī. Based on this, Ḥaydar Moshattat started his first preaching journey to his hometown, Amarah (a city in southern Iraq (. Also, claiming to be the representative and son of the twelfth Imām (mGehr). He invited people to him.. After a while, he entered Iran with a person named ” ‘Isa al-Mazer’awī”.
‘Isa al-Mazer’awī started his preaching in Shadegan, a city in Khuzestan, and made some people pledge allegiance to Aḥmad. Meanwhile, Ḥaydar Moshattat came to the holy city of Qom and after meeting Ayatullāh Rouhani and Sheikh Alī Korānī, he couldn’t find a way forward. Well, after enduring 7 months in prison in Iran, he returned to Iraq.
In 2005, when a disagreement arose between Aḥmad Al-Ḥasan and Ḥaydar Moshattat, in a statement, Aḥmad Basrī simultaneously introduced himself as the successor of the Imām [Mahdī (mGehr)] and the promised Yamānī, with an obvious contradiction.
After the fall of Saddām Huṣayn, he utilized this opportunity to advance his claim. Thus, he ran a large-scale organization in the cities of Najaf, Karbalā, Nasiriyah, and Baṣrah.
By recruiting and organizing nearly 500 people, setting up some bases in Baṣrah, Nasiriyah provinces and other Iraqi provinces, Ismail Gāteiʿ trained the forces under his command and prepared them for the promised day.
Finally, on the day of Ashurā 2008, his supporters entered the mourning procession as “The Messenger Mahdī rose” with the flag of “Al-Bia’ah Allah” and the slogans “The Mahdī has Emerged”, and began a military conflict with the Baṣrah police.
This conflict continued for a week. Finally, it ended up with the death of nearly 100 people, and another 300 people [later], and the escape of Ismail Gāteiʿ. He has been in hiding ever since. But, he continued his invitation through the Internet and some of his close friends.
This dangerous current, which its predetermined plans and programs, has separated it from the previous thoughts and deviations. It has placed it in the ranks of currents such as the false sect of Baha’i and Sufism. Currents whose goals are to target the essential and certain issues of the Shia religion. Also, they excommunicate Shias who are opposing the invitation of Aḥmad Al-Ḥasan.
Claim to be the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr)
Aḥmad Basrī knows himself from the Holy Prophet’s Ahl al-Bayt (pbuh&h), and from His Majesty Sāhib al- Zamān’s descendants (mGehr). He refers to Ḥadīth ‘itra (=Ḥadīth al-thaqalayn) and claims the position and dignity of the Ahl al-Bayt for himself. Moreover, he makes reference to a hadith, calling it Ḥadīth al-Waṣiyya (Ḥadīth of succession), he claims that he is Imām Zamān’s successor (mGehr). He also introduced himself as an offspring from the fourth generation of the twelfth Imām [Imām Mahdī (mGehr)]
Aḥmad Basrī introduced his lineage as follows: “Aḥmad is the son of Ismail, the son of Sālih, the son of Ḥusayn, the son of Salmān, the son of Imām Mahdī (mGehr), the son of Imām Ḥasan Askarī (pbuh), the son of Imām Alī al-Hādī (pbuh), the son of Imām Muḥammad al-Jawād (pbuh), the son of Imām Alī Riḍā (pbuh), the son of Imām Mūsā al-Kāẓim (pbuh), the son Imām Ja’far al-Ṣādiq (pbuh), the son of Imām Muḥammad Baqīr (pbuh), the son Alī al-Sajjād (pbuh), the son of martyr Imām Ḥusayn (pbuh), the son of Amīr al-Mu’menin (pbuh)”13.
Criticism
In fact, the lineage of Aḥmad al- Ḥasan reaches Hamboush, who is the ancestor of Kuitaʿ. The name of Ahmad’s grandfather is Sālih, who is known as Kuitaʿ in the Medina area and the tribe of Abu Swilm. However his name is Sālih, but his famous name is Kuita. Their ancestry is related to Hamboush and Abu-Sowilam’s clan, which has no relation to the lineage of Prophet Muḥammad’s descendant (pbuh&h).[14]
Therefore, it had nothing to do with Imām Zamān (mGehr). After deviating from the al-Ḥawza and at the beginning of sedition, Aḥmad al- Kātaʿ made [a false] ancestry and attributed himself to Imām Zamān (mGehr)). On his official website, he introduced his lineage as follows:
Aḥmad bn. Al-Sayyid ʾIsmāʿīl, bn. Al-Sayyid Sālih, bn. Al-Sayyid Ḥusayn, ibn Al-Sayyid Salmān, ibn Imām ibn Imām Ḥasan Askarī (pbuh)!!
It means, there are just four generations between him and Imām Zamān (mGehr)!! If we even consider that His Majesty was married during the Minor Occultation, it means that each generation has lived about 300 years!
Now, this question arises: Why aren’t there any praise or words about the 300-year-old children of Imām Zamān (mGehr), in the books “Rijāl” by Shaykh Tūsī and ‘Allama Khoeī, etc.?
Also, all the narrations mentioned by the Iraqi and non-Iraqi genealogists prove that Aḥmad bn. ʾIsmaʿīl Basrī is a descendant of Hambushi, by lineage and origin. His great ancestor is called Habmush. Yet, it is surprising that this person did not know, he was the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr), and he even did not know His Majesty! And, he simply learned about his lineage and offspring from Sāhib al- Zamān (mGehr) through a dream.
Besides, even if an individual who truly is the offspring of Amir al-Mu’minin (pbuh) and Her Majesty Fāṭima (pbuh), claims to be the Yamānī or to have other mentioned positions, can he be affirmed just because he is a true offspring of the infallible Imāms?
Ḥusayn ibn Mukhtār said, ‘[Once,]I asked Imām al-Ṣādiq (pbuh), ‘May I sacrifice my soul for you! What does that verse mean: “On the Day of Judgment you will see the faces of those who had invented falsehood against God blackened”? Then Imām (pbuh) stated, ‘[It refers to] whoever who claims to be Imām, while he is not’.
Then I asked, ‘Even if he is the offspring of Her Majesty Zahrā (pbuh) and Imām Alī (pbuh)?’
He returned, ‘[Yes,] Even if he is the offspring of Her Majesty Zahrā (pbuh) and Imām Alī (pbuh)’[15]
Despite all these, Shiites invited Aḥmad Basrī to Mubāhala. They refer to the noble hadith of Imām al-Hādī (pbuh) who stated, ‘The flesh of Fātimā al-Zahrā (pbuh)’s children, is forbidden for predators.’
The Shiites asked Aḥmad Basrī that, he must either go among the hungry predators with his hands tied, so that everyone could see whether God would save him from predators, because of his true connection to the lineage of His Majesty Sāhib al- Zamān (mGehr), and his piety and righteousness.
Or [if not], they would leave him among the sharp teeth of the beasts, so it teaches a lesson to those who try to mislead the believers by making a false lineage to the Ahl al-Bayt [pbu th]. Anyway, this invitation to Mubāhala would always be declined by Aḥmad Basrī!
This type of Mubāhala was invented by Imām al-Hādī (pbuh) to expose those who claimed to be the descendants of Ahl al-Bayt [pbu th]. The story is that, during the time of Imām al-Hādī (pbuh), a false claimant was found with the claim that she is “Zaynab al-Kubrā (pbuh)”, the daughter of His Majesty Amīr al-Mu’menin (pbuh). And, she has returned to this world. So, she should be honored and appreciated!!
The Public scholars and government prosecutors were unable to expose this false claimant. Thus, they asked the young Shiite Imām, His Majesty Alī ibn Muḥammad al-Hādī (pbuh), to reveal the truth. Then, His Majesty went to the woman and stated, ‘I have proof that exposes this woman and any other [false] claimant’
Al-Mutawwakil wondered, ‘Then, what is that?’ Imām stated, ‘The flesh of Fātimā al-Zahrā (pbuh)’s children, is forbidden for predators. So, throw this woman among the predators. If she is the descendant of Fātimā al-Zahrā (pbuh), she won’t be harmed’
When the false Zaynab heard that, she made a scene; claiming that Alī ibn al-Hādī (pbuh) had the intention to kill his aunt, Zaynab. She made an excuse that, if his claim is true, he must go through the predators first.
Imām al-Hādī (pbuh) stated, ‘I will do it, God willing.’ So, he gently went toward the case of the predators, where six lions were kept. He opened its door, stepped inside, and took a seat. The lions came to him, sat in front of Imām al-Hādī (pbuh). Then, the lions extended their hand to Imām al-Hādī (pbuh), while they had their heads in his arms and he was caressing their heads.
Finally, that wise leader [Imām] came out of the lion’s cage and stated, ‘Whoever claims that s/he is the descendant of Fātimā al-Zahrā (pbuh), they should sit in this cage’.
There, Al-Mutawwakil ordered the woman, ‘Step inside’
The false Zaynab wondered, ‘By God, I made a false claim. I am someone else’s daughter!’
Criticism And Analysis Of The Evidences Considered By Aḥmad Hambushi’s Followers in Proving, “Imām Zamān (Mgehr)’s decendance”
The First Reason: The Testimony Of The Witnesses
The first is, the followers of Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl refer to the testimony of several individuals to prove that his lineage is truly connected to the descendant of Imām Zamān (mGehr). That is, since several knowledgeable people have testified that “Aḥmad was an offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr)”, then he is indeed one of the twelfth Imām (mGehr)’s decendants.
The names of the witnesses are: Ḥasan Ḥamāmī (One of the leaders of Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl sect), Muḥsin Ṣāliḥ (Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl’s uncle), Shiya’ ʾIsmaʿīl (One of the commanders of the sect), ʾEydān Khazāvī (One of Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl’s followers)
Criticism
First of all, the claim of “testifying that Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl is the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr)” is provided that witnesses have visited Imām Zamān (mGehr), and have testified the preconditions where led to the birth of His Majesty’s offspring. That means, these witnesses must primarily have visited His Majesty Mahdī (mGehr), and have been in contact with him. So, they assure that he is verily Mahdī (mGehr), the twelfth Imām of Shiites.
Second, they must be witnesses or aware of His Majesty’s marriage. Next, they must make sure that Salmān (the third ancestor), was born of this marriage. Likewise, they must testify to the birth of rest of people in this lineage. Therefore, the basis of this baseless claim is in opposition to the reason and narration.
It is both in opposition to the belief of “Imām Zamān’s (mGehr) Occultation”, and the realization that the above-mentioned cycle is beyond the consensus of the entire Shiite religion and beyond the scope of reason.
Secondly, the testimony of these people is either a feeling or a guess.
If the testimony is based on feeling, then the witnesses should have visited Imām Zamān (mGehr) (fourth ancestor), Salmān (third ancestor), and Ḥusayn (second ancestor), and made sure that they are from the lineage of Imām Zamān (mGehr). Also, they must make sure that Ḥusayn has a son named Ṣāliḥ. On the other hand, Aḥmad Hembushi must be Ṣāliḥ’s grandson from the same lineage.
This is certainly not possible; Unless the witnesses have aged as long as Noah (Pbuh). Therefore, their testimony was not based on feelings, and they did not make such a claim. Whereas, one of these witnesses is Muḥsin Ṣāliḥ, Aḥmad’s uncle. It means that, he is in this genealogy. So, to prove his ancestry, he must have been alive before his birth and was a witness to the birth of his fathers, which is a complete contradiction!
But if they have given such a testimony out of a guess, the basis of this testimony is false; because, a guess has no validity in genealogy and many other sciences. A guess literally means a lack of intuition and certainty; That is, they testify to something that they did not witness!
It’s more suspicious, when all witnesses are of the followers of Aḥmad Hamboushī and the commanders of Anṣār al- Mahdī’s sect!They made such a testimony after they turned to this sect.
Skepticism [religious doubt]
What Aḥmad Basrī’s followers have propounded as an answer in this regard, is that “Khuzayma Dhū al-Shahādatayn” testified to something that he was not a witness to! That is, according to the narrations, Khuzayma Dhū al-Shahādatayn testified in favor of the Prophet (pbuh&h) in a matter of which he was not a witness to. After this, the Prophet (pbuh&h) praised him for this reason. So, His Majesty not only did not reject Khuzayma’s testimony as it was a guess, but also he titled him as “Khuzayma Dhū al-Shahādatayn”, so that Khuzayma’s testimony in legitimate [lawful] affairs was equivalent to two people’s testimony.
There, they misinterpreted the story. The story is that, Once Last prophet “Muḥammad” (pbuh&h), argued with someone over dealing a horse. He claimed that the Prophet (pbuh&h) owned him money. The Prophet (pbuh&h) stated, ‘I have paid your debt’
Meanwhile, Khuzayma arrived and testified for the Prophet’s (pbuh&h) truthfulness. His majesty stated, ‘Khuzayma! How do you testify, while you were not with us?’ Then, Khuzayma answered, ‘O, the Messenger of God (pbuh&h)! We affirmed you regarding heavenly stories. Now, shouldn’t we affirm you for an earthly story?![17]
Yes, Khuzayma testified to the Prophet’s truth (pbuh&h) in the argument with that Arab, not because of a guess. But it was because he believed in His Majesty’s Prophetic mission, and his infallibility from any mistake and lie. Therefore, his testimony was not just a guess. Rather, it was a “general [authentic] assumption” which its assumption is based on “Knowledge and certainty about the truth of the last prophet (pbuh&h), and his infallibility includes being free from mistakes and forgetfulness and lies”. So, as a result, the testimony of Khuzayma about what he did not see, has the nature of knowledge. Therefore, it is not an assumption. It is the knowledge.
But the followers of Aḥmad Hambushī have testified to something that the base of his claims depends on. That is, “Aḥmad’s claim to be the offspring of His Majesty Sāhib al- Zamān (mGehr)”! He has based all his next claims on it, including: succession, Mahdism, infallibility, being the 13th Imām and Qā’im, etc. Therefore, the following defaults made by witnesses claims end up to the hereunder conclusion:
a. Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl is the successor of Mahdī (mGehr), and he is infallible.
b. This infallible one never lies [No one except the 14th Infallible Majesties are infallible].
c. Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl claims that, he is the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr)
“Since Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl is the successor and infallible, he is truthful in his claim of being “the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr)”, and he does not lie.”
Thus, this results in a vicious circle. It is in this manner:
a. The testimony of witnesses to prove Aḥmad is the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr) is true. It is because, he is the successor and infallible, and his name was mentioned in Ḥādīth al-Waṣiyya (Hadith of succession). So he does not lie.
b. Aḥmad Basrī is the successor, infallible, and his name was mentioned in Ḥādīth al-Waṣiyya (Hadith of succession); since, witnesses have testified he is the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr).
Conclusion: Aḥmad Basrī is the offspring and the successor of Imām Zamān (mGehr). It is because, Aḥmad Basrī is the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr) and his successor! These statements are false and complete contradiction!
So, the testimony of this sect is nothing but an absurd idea, and this idea never leads to the righteous.
“إِنَّ الظَّنَّ لَا يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا”
Assuredly conjecture can by no means take the place of truth …”[18]…”
Also, their seeking help from the issue of Khuzayma ibn Thābit, is also ineffective.
Skepticism [religious doubt]
A group of the commanders of this sect claim that, since the lineage of Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl is broken and its connection to Dāwūd bin Hambūsh is not certain, so it can be said that Ahmad’s ancestry traced to Imām Zamān (mGehr); Especially when narrations and Aḥādīth confirm the existence of an offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr). Therefore, they say that it is the Shia who should provide evidence to deny Aḥmad al-Ḥasan is the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr), not us.
Answer
If it be that everyone with a broken lineage connects their ancestry to an infallible Imām (pbuh), then there would remain no bastard, fatherless, and unknown father, unless they claim to be a Sayyid and attribute themselves to the Ahl al-Bayt (Pbu th)!
But the claim of Aḥmad, that “he is offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr), and every individual who disagrees should bring evidence”, is more unsubstantial than the previous claim.
We just said before, but we repeat that, Aḥmad Ḥasan has not to prove his connection to Imām Mahdī (mGehr). That’s because it doesn’t have anything to do with him; rather, his opponents have to prove any contradiction![19]
Anyone who is aware of the first rules of scientific reasoning knows that “A claimant must provide evidence”; that is, a claimant must provide evidence, to prove his clim. This evidence is either of the two things: it is either a “proof”, or it is an “argument. It means, it should lead those who agree and disagree with to full convection; or, at least it should be expressed by citing the evidence of the opponents (here refers to Shia) and arguing with them.
Now, that group claims that, “Those who disagree with this claim that, Aḥmad is the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr), must provide definitive proof!”
However, the most decisive proof to refute the claim that “Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl is the offspring [of Imām Zamān (mGehr)]” is the refutation of what Ahmad and his followers has called the “proof”.
That is, when Aḥmad’s evidence that “he is the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr)”, is found invalid and it is rejected, then the principle of his claim will also be invalid. That’s because, there is no effect unless it has a cause. The effect we are discussing is “Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl’s claim to be the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr)”. So, when all the causes of this effect are nullified, the principle of existence of this effect is necessarily invalid.
Skepticism [religious doubt]
First introduction: It has been narrated that the origin of Qā’im (mGehr) is unknown. By unknown origin, it means that his lineage is broken[20].
On the other hand, this unknown lineage Qā’im (mGehr), is the commander of the “Black Flags”.
Second introduction: It has been narrated from Ahl-Al Beyt (Pbu th) that, before Mahdī (mGhegr), an individual of his descendant would rise from the East and fight for eight months.
Imām Alī (pbuh) stated, ‘Before Mahdī (mGehr), a man of his lineage, will rise from the East and carry a sword on his shoulder for eight months.’
Conclusion: So the “Unknown Origin” is the same “An individual of the lineage of Mahdī (mGehr)”. Yet, Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl’s connection to the Abuswilm tribe is doubtful. Also, he claims that he is the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr), and he is the claimant to rise for his Emergence. So, that “Unknown Origin” and “an individual from the lineage of Mahdī (mGehr)” is exactly Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl.
First Introduction “Corruption”:
First of all, there is no proof in the narration of “Unknown origin”, so we can refer to it and assert that the narration is about Qā’im (mGehr). Rather, the narration specifies that “his companions are the companions of the black flags” and this means that it is one of the signs of Qā’im (mGehr), not Qā’im (mGehr) himself.
Second, He and his companions, the companions of the black flags, will rise from Khorāsān, not Baṣrah. As Shaykh Ṭūsī narrated from Imām Baqīr (pbuh), ‘The black flags which rise from Khorāsān will move toward Kūfah.’ So, when Mahdī (mGehr) Emerge, they will rise toward him to tie an allegiance.21
Thirdly, what this narration implies is “Khorāsānī”, and has nothing to do with “Yemenī”; Unless Aḥmad Basrī claims that he is at the same time Khorāsānī and Yemenī! However, according to the narrations of the Ahl al-Bayt (pbu th), they titled the one who rises from Khorāsān and moves towards Kūfah to fight against Sufyān, as “Khorāsānī”. Again, referring to the narrations of Ahl al-Bayt (pbu th), it has no similarity or correspondence to the Yemenī which has been mentioned in the stories.
There is no avoiding such a person’s rise to power. But, when they become rulers, their sovereignty will end up in dissolution following a severe disagreement among themselves. Then, their power will collapse. There, Khorāsānī from the east, and Sufyanī from the west will revolt against them. Both will race to reach Kūfah, like fast horses, one from here, and another from there. Finally, such a person will perish by both of them[22].
Also, based on the narration of Sheykh al-Ṭūsī from Imām Baqīr (pbuh), ‘The rise of Sufyanī, Yamānī, and Khorāsānī happens in the same year, same month, and on the same day’[23]
According to that news, Imām (pbuh) has differentiated between Yamānī and Khorāsānī. He has stated that their rise will happen on the same day. Now, if Aḥmad is both Khorāsānī and Yamānī; it means, he is supposed to rise from two different locations along with himself in one day!!
Therefore, according to the Ahl al-Bayt’s narrations, what is meant by an unknown origin individual, is the owner of black flags. His name and title is “Khorāsānī”, and he will rise from Iraq towards Khorāsān. It has nothing to do with Yamānī, who will rise from Yemen. Also it has nothing to do with Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl, whose hometown is Baṣrah.
Second Introduction: “Corruption”
First of all, the narration that this people refer to, is originally quoted from weak, unreliable and false books of “Al-Fetan” written by bin Ḥammād. He is one of the unknown and non-Shiites. It is a shame, the ones who claim to be “pure Shiites”, set their most important intellectual foundations on the weak news of deviant people with wrong believes.
Secondly, by “From his Ahl al-Bayt”, it probably means “Prophet’s (Pbuh&h) Ahl al-Bayt”, not Mahdi’s (mGehr) Ahl al-Bayt.
Thirdly, in this narration, it is clearly mentioned that this individual will be murdered before he succeeds in his matter; As Bin Ḥammād said in Al-Fetan: “It has been stated from Imām Alī (Pbuh) that, ‘Before Mahdi (mGehr), a man from his Ahl al-Bayt will rise from the east. He carries a sword on his shoulder for eight months, killing and committing dismemberment. He moves toward Bayt al-Maqdis, but never reaches there until he dies. [24]
One of the tricks of Aḥmad Hambushī’s followers is that, they refuse to note the last part of this narration. Clearly, because it is completely against Aḥmad’s claim. Aḥmad claims that, in addition to being the one who initiated the Emergence of Imām Zamān (mGehr), he must remain alive to assume his caliphate after the demise of Imām Zamān (mGehr). But this narration claims that this individual will die before the Emergence of Mahdī (mGehr), when he will succeed in his mission.
Corruption of result:
First, since the first and the second introductions were found invalid in whole and in part. So the conclusion taken is invalid.
Second, even if by a baseless supposition, we ignore the invalidity of the first and second introductions, the conclusion drawn is still irrelevant. It’s because, there must be an explicit reason to prove it, to say: “By that unknown origin individual, who is into war and kill, and is from Ahl al-Bayt of Mahdī (mGehr) (or whatever they say), so surely it is Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl”. This claim is one of two things:
- The narrations of Ahl al-Bayt specify that, what it means by that unknown origin individual, who tends to start war, and is from Ahl al-Bayt of Mahdī (mGehr), is ʾIsmaʿīl.
- Or, these people have such a claim based on their suspicions and illusions.
So, the first case is ruled out. Because, there is no narration from Ahl al-Bayt (Pbu th), even with a poor reference, claiming the unknown origin is certainly “Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl”. And that he verily will rise toward Bayt al-Maqdis.
The second stage is also fundamentally invalid because suspicions and illusions of the followers of a new emerging sect have no authority!
Sheykh al-Nuʿmānī, the student of Thiqat al-Islām Sheykh al-Kulaynī, in his book, Al-Ghayba, and Sheykh al-Tūsī in the book Al-Ghayba, by referring to two authentic sources, have quoted from Imām al-Ṣādiq (pbuh) that he stated, ‘There are two occultations for the owner of this matter (Sāhib al- Zamān (mGehr)), one of which is longer than the other. During the longer occultation, some people will say that he has passed away. Some others will say Mahdī (mGehr) was killed, and others will say that he has gone. It will be such that only a small number of his companions will persist on his way. None of his children or anyone else will be aware of his place, except for a helper who organizes the affairs of Mahdī (mGehr). But, the base of reasoning for Basrī’s followers in this honorable narration is the last paragraph; “Non of his children or anyone else will be aware of his place”
Note 1: As it was said before, our purport is “Aḥmad Basrī is the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr)”. Now the question is whether “None of his children or anyone else will be aware of his place” denotes that “Aḥmad Basrī is the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr)”?! No, it apparently denotes that Imām Zamān (mGehr) has children! However, the narration doesn’t denote whether Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl is one of those children or not!
.لا یطلع على موضعه أحد من «ولی» وال غیره إال المولى الذی یلى أمره
Note 2: Referring to the book cited by Mīrzā Nourī in “Najm al-Thāqib”, we see that the narration is mentioned in this way:
.لا یطلع على موضعه أحد من «ولی» وال غیره إال المولى الذی یلى أمره
“None of his Walī (the Helper, Friend) or anyone else will be aware of his (Mahdī (mGehr)) place, except for a helper who organizes his affairs.[25]
In other words, the first source that used this narration in his book was the book Al-Ghayba by Shaykh al-Nuʿmānī. He quoted this narration with the word “Walī” (Guardian) and not “Wold” (children), but in some later versions such as Al-Ghayba Shaykh al-Tūsī and other books, the word “Walī” has been changed and misspelled to “Wold”.
It should be noted that Shaykh al-Tūsī has quoted this narration in two ways too: The first is the one in which the word “Wold” is used. And the other one did not mention anything about the existence of the word “Wold”:
No one will be informed about his [Mahdī (mGehr)] place, life affairs, and anything else, except the helper who organizes his affairs.[26]
Such narrations are called misspelled narrations [Misreading of letters in Arabic script, due to the similarity of their writing]. That is, the narrations that some of their words throughout history have been misspelled and written incorrectly, as a result of numerous copying and human errors in copying. This is very common in Aḥādīth and also in the writing of narrators’ names. For example, Burayd B. Muʿāwiyah is one of the precious companions of Imām Baqīr (pbuh) and Imām al-Ṣādiq (pbuh), whose name was written as “Yazīd b. Muʿāwiyah” in some manuscripts, due to misspelling! That is, because the misspelling “Burayd” has been written “Yazīd” [In Arabic letters, يـ Y and بـ B have the same basic shape, but with one dot added below. So an extra dot that may be added due to misspelling, can totally change the letter, sound, and meaning.] Therefore, in some narrations it has been written, ‘Quoted from Al-Qāsim ibn Urwah quoted from “Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah”, ‘I heard from Abā Ja’far that he stated …’
Likewise, their manuscripts are subjected to misspellings. Now, they [The followers of Aḥmad Basrī] are like someone who, citing a misspelled narration, proves that Yazīd b. Muʿāwiyah b. Abū Sufyān was the student of Imām Bāqir (pbuh)!
One of the claimants of that new sect movement writes:
It’s not a contradiction, that the narration of Tūsī is “from the children (Wold)” and the narration of al-Nuʿmānī is “from the helper (Walī)”. Rather, they interpret each other. So, due to the difference in narrations, we understand that the meaning of “Walī” in al-Nuʿmānī’s narration is the same as “Wold” in Sheikh Tūsī’s narration.[27]
So this narration is clearly false. It’s because, an exegesis must provide “explanation and compendium”, not “change”. That is, it can be said that such narration interprets a similar narration; provided that, there is a multiplicity of the interpreting narration in quotation to the interpreted narration. However, it is not about the exegesis. Rather, it’s all about change and misspellings; resulting in the changing of a word to another word due to errors of narrators. Therefore, we are not permitted to combine the misspelled word with the original word, as every scholar is aware of that.
It means, “Verily, in Biḥār al-ʾAnwār, al-ʿAllāma al-Majlisī narrates this narration quoting Nuʿmānī’s Al-Ghayba with the words “from his children”.[28]
However, what we have narrated is from the late Nuʿmānī’s book “Al-Ghayba”.Since all the terms in narrations of Sheykh al-Ṭūsī ‘s and Sheykh Nuʿmānī ‘s were the same, al-ʿAllāma al-Majlisī did not pay attention to the misspelled part, i.e. the change of “Walī=helper” to “Wold=children”. Deeming as preponderant, he quoted both of them at the same time, due to Taghlīb*.
Sheykh Nuʿmānī was especially very careful and attentive to this ḥādīth. Hence, immediately after quoting this narration as “None of his Walī (=the Helper, Friend) or anyone else”, he wrote, ‘even if there were no other narrations other than this ḥādīth to prove the occultation of His Majesty Ḥujjat (mGehr), yet this ḥādīth would be sufficient for the thoughtful.’ [29]
* The sum between two things and the application of the specific ruling of one of them to the sum is called Taghlib.
It should be noted that the narration was referred to in the same way as “From his Walī (=the Helper, Friend)” excerpted from the Al-Ghayba of Nuʿmānī, etc., by much later Muhaddithin of Shia, such as the late Isfahānī in “Mikyāl al-Makārim”, and the late Muqadasī in “ʿAqd al-Darar”, and others, have quoted
Note 3
If you look carefully at the wording of the ḥādīth, it can be seen that in the doubted part: None of his helpers [Misspelled word by Wold (children)] will be informed about his [Mahdī (mGehr)] place, life affair. And no one else, except the helper who organizes his affairs, after the word “Walī (helper)” wrote, “And anything else “. Here, the pronoun “هاء” is at the end of “غیره” as a singular connected pronoun, which indicates that what is used before it must also be singular, while “Wold (Children)” is plural, and if this word were correct, it should be said like this: “None of his children, and no ones else”. In this honorable narration, it has been mentioned: “And no one else”. This is also an emphasis on the fact that between two different versions of the same narration, the word “Walī” is more correct, and “Wold” is the opposite of originality and wording.
One of the claimants of this sect writes:
Although the inflection of the singular on the plural is uncommon, it is sustained in the word. [30]
That is, there is no problem if Ahl al-Bayt speaks incorrectly and unusually, like people who have not learned the Arabic language. Therefore, one should refer to the same wrong reading as “None of his children or anyone else!” This stubbornness is really deplorable.
Note 4:
Whether we take this narration as the strong text of “None of his children or anyone else” or “None of his children”, it is basically against the claim of Aḥmad Hambushī; because, it continues, “None of his the Helper or anyone else will be aware of his (Mahdī (mGehr)) place, except for a helper who organizes his affairs”.
This means, no individual is aware of the location of His Majesty Mahdī (mGehr), during the occultation period (From the beginning of the Major Occultation until the time of his Emergence), whether he is his offspring or not. And if that individual who was at the service of the Imām (mGehr) were his offspring, the infallible Imām (pbuh) would clarify, that the one who is connected to Mahdī (mGehr) during his occultation is his offspring. However, according to the same questionable narration, the Imām (pbuh) deprives the offspring of Mahdī (mGehr) of this position, “None of his Helper or anyone else will be aware of his (Mahdī (mGehr)) place”. He designates only one of his helpers, and not his offspring, as the companion of Mahdī Sāhib al- Zamān (mGehr), and aware of his living position, which according to the narrations of Ahl al-Bayt, He is His Majesty Al-Khiḍr (Pbuh);
Because he didn’t say further, ‘except for an offspring who organizes his affairs.’ Rather, he stated, ‘except or a helper who organizes his affairs’
As Imām Riḍā (pbuh) stated, ‘Verily, Al-Khiḍr (Pbuh) has drunk from living water; so, he is alive and will not die until they Blow the Trumpet (Nafkh al-Ṣūr). He comes to us (the Imāms (Pbu th)) and greets us. We hear his voice but we do not see him. God has certainly assigned Al-Khiḍr (Pbuh) as the intimate friend of Qā’im (mGehr), not to feel very lonely, during his occultation. And God appointed Al-Khiḍr (Pbuh) to get him [the Imām] out of loneliness.[31]
Therefore, this narration neither proves that Aḥmad Basrī is from the descent of Imām Zamān (mGehr), nor indicates the existence of any offspring for His Majesty. Moreover, this narration is one of the Aḥādīth that is in opposition to the sect of Aḥmad Hambushī.
The second narration: Salawāts of Ḍarāb Isfahānī:
Based on various documents, Al-Shaykh al-Ṭūsī and some others, have quoted from Yaʿqūb ibn Yūsuf al-Ḍarāb that, he went to Hajj in 894. He settled in a house named “the House of Khadīja”, which was located in Suq al-Layl, Mecca. There, an old woman lived who was a mediator between Shi’a and Imām Zamān (mGehr).
It’s a long story. But at the end, she said that His Majesty had sent a notebook to Yaʿqūb bn. al-Ḍarāb, in which, there had been a Salawāt upon Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh&h), the rest of Imāms (Pbu th), and himself (Imām Zamān (mGehr). His Majesty had ordered him to say Salawāt upon Ahl al-Bayt [in Arabic] the preceding way, whenever he wanted. That is almost long.
In a part, it reads, “O’ Allah, may you put in him, his descent, Shiite, obedient, special companions, the companions of his common people, his enemies, and all the people of the world, the one who will be the light of his eyes.”
He also goes on to say:
[In Arabic] “O’ Allah! Send blessing to Muḥammad Muṣṭafā (pbuh&h), Alī Murtaḍā (pbuh), Fātimā al-Zahrā (pbuh), Ḥasan Riḍā (pbuh), Ḥusayn al-Muṣṭafā (pbuh), and all Successors, the Lights of Guidance in the dark night. Send blessing to your Walī [guardian], and the Walīs of his covenant, Imāms who are from his descendant”
Point 1: Based on what we found, this story was just mentioned by Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, in Al-Ghayba. And what Mīrzā Nūrī said in the beginning of his writing as “various documents”, and that he claimed, “There are many sources for this story”, is not true!
Point 2: The source of this narration is not authentic; because, neither Yaʿqūb Ḍarāb Isfahānī, nor the woman he pointed to in this story, are well-known to Shiites! They are unknown people and their words cannot be trusted!
Point 3: That narration does not denote the purport. As it was said before, our purport is “Aḥmad Basrī is the offspring of Imām Zamān (mGehr)”. However, this narration is only about owning, offspring and descendant of Imām Zamān (mGehr), and not anything more!
Point 4: This narration is even too unable to prove that His Majesty Sāhib al- Zamān (mGehr) had offspring during his Occultation! Rather, assuming the proof of progeny, its only statement is that His Majesty will have offspring; now, it is not defined whether these offspring will live during the Minor Occultation, Major Occultation, or after the Emergence.
Therefore, it should not be said, “It is nonsense to recite Salawāt and send greetings to an individual who does not exist! So, if we send greetings to the descendant of the Imām Zamān (mGehr), it means, they exist!”
﴾وَالسَّلَامُ عَلَيَّ يَوْمَ وُلِدْتُ وَيَوْمَ أَمُوتُ وَيَوْمَ أُبْعَثُ حَيًّا ﴿۳۳
We say, “This statement is against religious law and wisdom.” The Holy Qurʾān specifies that at the time of his birth and infancy, His Majesty Jesus (pbuh) sent greetings to himself when he will die and when he will be resurrected on the doomsday, while he was still in the cradle.
“So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)﴿; Qurʾān.” (Surah Maryam, verse 33).
So, it means sending greetings to something that does not exist at the current time and will happen in distant time, is possible. It is also mentioned in the prayers of Ahl al-Bayt [pbu th], that they have mentioned the late Imāms in their prayers and have recited Salawāt and sent greetings to them and their family. Like Ziyārah Amīn Allāh, which was narrated from Imām al-Sajjād (Pbuh), who named the Imāms after himself; from Imām Baqīr (pbuh) to Imām Mahdī (mGehr).
عَنِ الْبَاقِر مَضَى أَبِی عَلِی بْنُ الْحُسَینِ 7إِلَى مَشْهَدِ أَمِیرِ الْمُؤْمِنِینَ 7فَوَقَفَ عَلَیهِ ثُمَّ بَكَى وَ قَالَ السَّلَامُ عَلَیكَ یا أَمِینَ اللََِّّ فِی أَرْضِهِ وَ)
حُجَّتَهُ عَلَى عِبَادِهِ… وَ قُلِ السَّلَامُ عَلَیكَ یا أَمِیرَ الْمُؤْمِنِینَ وَ رَحْمَةُ اللََِّّ وَ بَرَكَاتُهُ أَسْتَوْ دِعُكَ اللََّّ وَ أَسْتَرْعِیكَ وَ أَقْرَأُ عَلَیكَ السَّلَامَ وَ آمَنَّا
بِاللََِّّ وَ بِالرُّسُلِ وَ بِمَا جَاءَتْ بِهِ وَ دَلَّتْ عَلَیهِ اللَّهُمَّ فَاكْتُبْنا مَعَ الشّاهِدِینَ اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّی أَشْهَدُ فِی مَمَاتِی عَلَى مَا شَهِدْتُ عَلَیهِ فِی حَیاتِی أَنَّ
الْأ ئِمَّةَ عَلِی بْنُ أَبِی طَالِبٍ وَ الْحَسَنُ وَ الْحُسَینُ وَ عَلِی بْنُ الْحُسَینِ وَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَلِی وَ جَعْفَرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَ مُوسَى بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ وَ عَلِی بْنُ
(مُوسَى وَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَلِی وَ عَلِی بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِی وَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْحَسَن:وَ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مَنْ قَتَلَكُمْ [قَاتَلَكُمُ] وَ حَارَبَكُمْ مُشْرِكُونَ.
“So, it is not forbidden for Imam Mahdi to have a wife and children after his appearance and the establishment of a just government. However, the Salawat of Zarrab does not indicate that Imam Mahdi has children during the occultation.”
“Third narrative: Green Island”
“In part of the story of the Green Island, the narrator claims to travel to an island in the heart of the Mediterranean Sea, where its waters drown any ship or boat not related to the Ahl al-Bayt. There, the children of Imam Mahdi live. The promoter of this deviant narrative about the story of the Green Island says:
“And if the truth of this story is proven, then this is the greatest evidence for the existence of children for Imam Mahdi during the Major Occultation. (32)
Point 1: The source of this story is very weak and one cannot believe in the truth of this story.
The source of this story contains unknown individuals. The only finder of this story is an unknown person whom, despite research, we did not know who he is; Seyyed Hashem Bahrani writes: «Some of the elders have quoted from some Sheikh that he found this story.’» (…( قال بعض المشایخ : وجدت بخط الشیخ…)
In al-ʿAllāma al-Majlisī’s book, the founder of the story wasn’t referred to. Rather, he claims that this story cannot be found in any authentic Shia ḥādīth. Even if there is a possibility and suspicion that the narrator of this story is of the ones contemporaries with ʿAllāma Ḥillī; however, from the age of al-ʿAllāma to ʿAllāma al-Majlisī’s, many books have been doubtlessly written regarding Aḥādīth and other materials, and there is no trace of this story except in the writings of al-Majlisī’s contemporaries such as “Sayyid Shūshtarī”!
With his unparalleled coverage of books, Shi’a narrative encyclopedias, and despite his interest in news and traditions, when al-ʿAllāma al-Majlisī clearly spoke of the absence of any infinitive to strengthen this imaginary story, the weakness of this fictional story is discovered.
The original story is of Wejāde type. It is, “Found in the treasury of Amir al-Mu’menin ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (pbuh)”. Yet, the scholars of hadith are aware of the low credibility (or unreliability) of Wejāde[33] narrations. Wejāde a person learns a narration/ news from a Shaykh, but the Shaykh doesn’t have an acceptable document to prove it with.
Rather, he found that book. So, these Aḥādīth are called Wejāde that are divided into two categories:
- One is the relatively reliable ways in which the narrator claims the definitive attribution of the book to the author. This kind of Wejāde is known as valid by some groups and invalid by others.
- The other is that, the finder does not testify to the correctness of the attribution of this book to the author; in which case, Wejāde is involved in suspicion or illusion and cannot be trusted on. So, the evidences of the story of Lush Island indicates that it cannot be claimed for its originality.
ʿAllāma Al-Sayyid Jaʿfar Murtaḍā has made a great effort in his book “The Khaḍrāʾ Island and the Bermuda Triangle”, that should be referred to for further study.
On the other hand, the main related argument to prove the existence of children for His Majesty Sāhib al- Zamān (mGehr) in the era of Occultation is that, an individual named “Shams al-Dīn” claims that, he is a descendant of His Majesty Sāhib al- Zamān (mGehr). However, there is neither information about the existence of such a person, nor has he been introduced in the books of Rijāl (Biographical evaluation) as one of the Shiite scholars; let alone the fifth deputy of Imām Zamān (mGehr) and his son! Rather, he is an imaginary character whose external existence has only appeared in this story.
On the other hand, even if this claim is true; That is, even if we assume that this story has a document_ which it does not _ or its document is authentic_ which is not _and its narrator “Ibn Fāḍil” is a reliable narrator, which is not proven, it is not rational, to definitely trust or rely on an imaginary and unknown person in a strange land and believe the words of that unknown person!
Yet, his fictional story contains too much false information and lies such as:
- “Belief in the distortion of the Qurʾān”: ‘They collected that Qurʾān and removed the wrongdoing they had done from it.’
- “Completion of three hundred people out of the 313 Companions of His Excellency Sāhib al- Zamān (mGehr)”: ‘I counted They were 300 people, and 13 people were left.’
- “The monthly meeting of the commanders of the Imām Mahdī (mGehr) Corps in Lush Island”: ‘After that, I asked Sayyid about what he heard from the Imām, and he told me, ‘Indeed, the commanders of our armies are equipped every Friday in the middle of the month, and looking forward to the Emergence’ So, I asked him to let me see and he allowed me to see it. And those commanders were a large group who glorified God, worshiped Him, honored Him, and prayed for the Emergence of the Imām Qā’im (mGehr).
“The commanders are on high alert for the Emergence every Friday”: ‘Verily, the commanders of our armies are equipped every Friday in the middle of the month and look forward to the Emergence’
One can enumerate undocumented and absurd things as signs of the Emergence of His Majesty Sāhib al- Zamān (mGehr); like Arabic speaking of Dhū l-Faqār’s sword: “There are indications and proofs for the Emergence of the Mahdī (mGehr), one of which is that Dhū l-Faqār speaks in fluent Arabic, when coming out of the sheath
The disconnection of the Qurʾānic verses due to distortion: “That is why you see, the verses of the Qurʾān are broken”
And there are many other items which were unbelievable and from the standpoint of reason and narration, distasteful and unfair! Moreover, for several centuries after creating this false story, Shi’a scholars criticized and objected to its statements.
Despite the absurd beliefs in this story that are attributed to His Majesty Sāhib al- Zamān (mGehr), this story has several contradictions that researchers have always criticized; As Al-Sayyid Jaʿfar Murtaḍā has started a separate chapter about this and has mentioned the inconsistencies of this story.[34]
Note 2: There is no link between the signifier and the signified, so the [preceding] argument is basically invalid! The ultimate use of the story of the lush island is to prove the existence of an offspring for Imām Zamān (mGehr) and to show they are virtuous people. But what we meant is that Aḥmad ʾIsmaʿīl is indeed the son of Imām Mahdī (mGehr).
It can be seen that this story is fictional and anonymous. On the other hand, it does not prove the claim of this sect! While, one of the leaders of this sect writes “And if the truth of this story is proven, then this is the biggest proof of the existence of an offspring for Imām Mahdī (mGehr), in the era of Major Occultation”
So, the most major proof this sect has introduced to prove their most important ideological pillar is a fictional, undocumented, and contradictory story. But even this story can not prove the sect’s claims.
The opinion of scholars about the Khaḍrāʾ island:
Al-ʿAllāma al-Majlisī:
The only narrator of this story is al-ʿAllāma al-Majlisī’, who writes about it in Bihār al-Anwār:
I say, ‘There is a treatise known as the story of “The Lush Island”. I found it in the Mediterranean region. I want to mention it because some people have met Imām Mahdī (mGehr) there, and it also contains strange sayings. Hence, I created a separate chapter for this story.
It’s because I did not find this story in any reliable source.’
Therefore, Al-ʿAllāma al-Majlisī, the only narrator of that story has clearly stated that this strange story is not found in any authentic Shi’a book. So, the Shi’a principles of narration and Hadith are free from narrating such story.
ʿAllāma Al-Sayyid Jaʿfar Murtaḍā:
In his book “What about the Green Island and the Bermuda Triangle?” ʿAllāma Al-Sayyid Jaʿfar Murtaḍā has subjected this story to documentary scrutiny and proven the anonymity of the narrators of this story.35
While mentioning this story, in his book Rijāl ʿAllāma Al-Sayyid Baḥr al-ʿUlūm wrote, “…Whether the narration was authentic…” Also, the scholars are aware that this statement means doubt authenticity of narration, and the absence of a reliable source of narration.36
Al-ʿAllāma Shahīd Sayyid Qāḍī Tabātabā’i:
In his commentary on the book Anwār Naʿamānīyyah (Tabrīz edition), Al-ʿAllāma Shahīd Sayyid Qāḍī Tabātabā’i, has examined this story twice from various documentary and textual perspectives, and has presented various arguments in support of the impossibility of trusting this story.[37]
In his book “The Major Occultation”, Al-ʿAllāma Shahīd Sayyid Muḥammad Ṣādiq al-Ṣadr, also raised objections to this strange story and considered it unauthentic.
Shahīd Sayyid Muḥammad Ṣādiq al-Ṣadr:
In his book “The History of the Major Occultation”, the late Shahīd Muḥammad Ṣādiq al-Ṣadr, examined aspects of this story and raised various objections to it. He raised three main objections to this narration, writing in his conclusion:
“It is absolutely impossible to find any truth, in these two stories”[38]
Refrences:
1. ‘Adeya’a al-Mahdī, Farajollah Aḥmadī, P. 12
1-The complete form is:
اللهم، صل على ولاة عهده والأئمة من بعده وبلغهم آمالهم وزد في آجالهم وأعز نصرهم وتمم لهم ما أسندت إليهم من أمرك لهم وثبت دعائمهم واجعلنا لهم أعواناً وعلى دينك أنصاراً فإنهم معادن كلماتك وخزان علمك وأركان توحيدك ودعائم دينك وولاة أمرك وخالصتك من عبادك وصفوتك من خلقك وأولياؤك وسلائل أوليائك وصفوة أولاد نبيك والسلام عليه وعليهم ورحمة الله وبركاته.
It refers to the point that the Imām doesn’t necessarily have children! It can refer to the Shiites, etc.
2. Since the tribe of Abu-Sūylam is located in three regions of Nasiriyah, Basrah, and Karbala, the residents of this tribe in Nasiriyah and Basrah are called “Āl-Ḥasan”, and the residents of Karbala are called “Bani-Ḥasan”. According to this, Aḥmad, who is from a tribe which is based in Basrah, is known as the title of “Ḥasan”, and it is worth knowing that the people of this tribe are not the descendants of Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh&h). Nāser Mahdī Muḥammad al-Basrī, Aţ-Ţāmmatu Al-Kubrá, P. 18.
3. The name of Aḥmad Basrī’s father was Ismail, and his mother was Bouthaina Najm, from the tribe of Hamboush and the clan of Nasiriyah. ‘Adeya’a al-Mahdī, Farajollah Aḥmadī, P. 151
4. Al-Javāb al-Monīr Abr al-thāīr, second seasion, P.73
5. Abū- Muḥammad al-Ansārī, Jāmeh al-adeleh, P355
6. Abū- Muḥammad al-Ansārī, Jāmeh al-adeleh, P355
7. Al-Ṣaduq, ʿIlal al-sharāyiʿ, V1, P79, H1
8. Al-Ṣaduq, Al-Amālī, P563, H18, Faḍl Allāh Rāwandī, Al-Navāder, P261
9. Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh, V1. P307. Abū al-Fidāʾ, Tārikh al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbār al-Bashar, History of Abu al-Fida, V1, P35
10. Ibn Ṭāwūs, Al-Ṭarā’if fī ma’rifat madhāhib al-ṭawā’if, P69. Ibn al-Biṭrīq, ʿUmdat ʿuyūn ṣiḥāḥ al-Akhbār fī Manāqib Imām al-Abrār, P220. Al-Ṭabarī, Bishārat al-Muṣṭafā li Shīʿat al-Murtaḍā, P323
11. Mʿlūmāt al-Waṭānīyya, drāsāt Taḥlīlīyah Ḥūl al-Ḥarakāt-o al-Mahdavīyah, P152
12. Drāsāt Taḥlīlīyah, Ḥūl al-ḥādāt-e al-Mahdavīyah, P720
13. Good news for all the people of the earth, P. 20
14. Refer to: Ehdā-o Reʿayāt, Alī Al-e Ḥasan
15. Al-Kāfī, (publ. Al-Islāmīyeh), V. 1, P.372
16. Madina al-Ma’ajiz, Al-Sayyid Hāshim al-Tūbilī al-Baḥrānī, V. 7, P. 476.
17. Al-Fawa’id al-rijaliyya, Al-Sayyid Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, V. 2, P. 345
18. Holy Qurʾān, Surah Yunus, verse 36.
20. Ᾱmiʿ al-Addeleh, Abū Muḥammad Ansārī, P.383
21. Al-Ghayba, P. 425
22. Al-Ghayba, P. 264
23. Al-Ghayba, P. 264
24. Al-Fetan, Nu‘aym bin Ḥammād, P.198
25. Al-Ghayba, al-Nuʿmānī, P.171 and 172
26. Al-Ghayba, Shaykh al-Tūsī, P.41
27. Fi Al-Qatif Zeja, V.1, P. 14
28. Biḥār al-ʾAnwār, V. 53, P. 324
29. Al-Ghayba, P.176
30. Fi Al-Qatif Zeja, V.1, P. 14
31. Kamāl al-dīn, al-Shaykh al-Ṣadūq, P. 390, Hadith 4
32. Al-Radd Al-Hasim , P.24
33. It is to narrate a hadithو in such a way that the transmitter has seen the hadith in written form and has neither heard from the author nor has permission from him to narrate the hadith. At this time, almost all quotes from hadith books are through Wejāde.
34.“What about the Green Island and the Bermuda Triangle?”
35. Refer to: The Khaḍrāʾ Island and the Bermuda Triangle, ʿAllāma Al-Sayyid Jaʿfar Murtaḍā
36. Al-Fawa’id al-Rijaliyya, V. 3, P. 137
Leave a Reply