CHAPTER FOUR:

CRITIQUE OF

THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

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

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 han