GLOBAL FREEMASONRY

GLOBAL FREEMASONRY25%

GLOBAL FREEMASONRY Author:
Publisher: www.alhassanain.org/english
Category: Miscellaneous Books

GLOBAL FREEMASONRY
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 19 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 11840 / Download: 4261
Size Size Size
GLOBAL FREEMASONRY

GLOBAL FREEMASONRY

Author:
Publisher: www.alhassanain.org/english
English

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought

-V- THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION revisited

It is 1832.6pHMS Beagle is making its way across the vast Atlantic. The ship looks like any ordinary cargo or passenger ship, but its journey is a journey of discovery, and one that will last many years. Setting out from England, it will cross the entire ocean and reach the shores of South America.6pThe Beagle, a ship that had been of little known importance until that time, was setting out on a 5 year voyage.

That which would ultimately make that ship famous was its passenger, Charles Robert Darwin, a 22 year-old naturalist. He had not actually studied biology but had been a student of theology at the University of Cambridge.

Though this young man's education in theology was extensive, the times in which he lived were deeply influenced by materialist thought. Indeed, one year before embarking on his journey on the Beagle, he had renounced a number of basic tenets of Christianity.

The young Darwin interpreted all the discoveries made in the course of his voyage in terms of materialist thought, and sought to explain the living things he investigated without reference to Divine Creation. He developed groundless these ideas over the ensuing years, refined them, and ultimately published his theory. His theory was proposed in 1859, in a book entitledOrigin of the Species, which was not well received by the intellectual world of the nineteenth century, though which would finally provide the so-called scientific basis that atheism had been seeking to find for centuries.

Was the theory of evolution an original discovery of Darwin? Did he alone develop a theory that opened the way to one of the greatest deceits in the history of the world?6pActually, Darwin did nothing other than to retouch a superstitious idea whose foundations had been established earlier.

THE EVOLUTIONARY MYTH, FROM ANCIENT GREECE TO MODERN EUROPE

The essence of Darwin's theory of evolution is the so-called claim that, under purely natural conditions, lifeless matter spontaneously brought forth the first living things, and that from them, again under these same conditions, all other species developed merely by chance. In other words, the theory of evolution proposes the existence of a self-contained system, that has organized itself without a creator, and spontaneously brings living things into being. This false idea, that nature organizes itself without a Creator, is called "naturalism."

The theory of naturalism is as absurd as the idea that a library could create itself without writers. But, since the earliest ages of history, this idea has been defended by numerous thinkers based merely on their philosophical and ideological whims, and been adopted by a number of civilizations.6pNaturalism was born and flourished in pagan societies such as Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece. But, with the spread of Christianity, this pagan philosophy was largely abandoned, and the idea that Allah created the whole of nature and the universe came to dominate. In a similar manner, as Islam spread throughout the East, naturalist ideas, and pagan beliefs, such as Zoroastrianism and Shamanism, were eradicated, and the fact of Creation was accepted.

Nevertheless, the naturalist philosophy persisted underground. It was preserved by secret societies and emerged again under more suitable circumstances. In the Christian world, as we mentioned at the beginning of this book, naturalism was preserved by the Masons, and other secret societies who followed their lead. A Turkish magazine, namedMason , published for distribution to members of the order, provides the following interesting information:

Those who arrived at new discoveries in the world of natural phenomena and events without taking gods into account were forced to keep their discoveries to themselves. Research was done secretly and even those who were engaged in similar research had to keep their relationship hidden. This secrecy required the use of several signs and symbols in the course of projects which were undertaken.94

What is meant here by "new discoveries" is an understanding of science aligned to naturalism, a theory that does not accept the existence of Allah. This distorted approach to scientific study was developed secretly in esoteric societies that needed to use signs and symbols for this purpose, and so the roots of Masonry were established.

One of these so-called secret societies, responsible for planting the roots of Masonry, was the Rose-Cross (Rosicrucian) order, a sort of meeting point between the Templars and Masons. This order, first heard of in the fifteenth century, created a fury of interest in alchemy, especially in Europe, of which its members were said to possess secret knowledge. But the most important legacy of the Rose Cross order today is the naturalist philosophy, and the idea of evolution, of which it is a part. TheMason declares that the roots of Masonry go back to the Templars and the Rosicrucians, stressing the evolutionist philosophy of the latter:

Speculative Masonry or the contemporary organization of Masonry is founded on Medieval construction guilds we refer to as Operative Masonry. But, those who brought the basic speculative elements to this foundation were members of certain organizations that studied pre-historic esoteric systems and the knowledge they contained. The most important of these organizations were the Templars and the Rosicrucians…

It is unknown where and how the Rosicrucian order was established. The first traces of it come from fifteenth century Europe, but it is clear that the order is much older. As distinct from the Templars, the basic interest of the Rosicrucians was scientific. Its members were widely engaged in alchemy….The most important characteristic of its members was the fact that they believed that every stage of development was a stage in the process of evolution. For this reason, they placed naturalism at the basis of their philosophies and became known the "naturalists."95

Another Masonic organization to have developed the idea of evolution was not in the West but it was another Masonic order founded in the East. Grand Master Selami Isindag provides the following information, in an article entitled "Masonry and Us From Its Foundation Until Today":

In the Islamic world there was a counterpart of Masonry called theIkhwan as-Safa' [The Brethren of Purity]. This society was founded in Basra in the time of the Abbasids and published an encyclopedia composed of 54 large volumes. 17 of these dealt with natural science and it contained scientific explanations that closely resembled those of Darwin. These found their way even to Spain and had an influence on Western thought.96

Though it developed in the Islamic world, this society distanced itself from basic Islamic tenets. It was influenced by Ancient Greek philosophy, which it expressed by means of an esoteric symbolism. Selami Isindag continues:

This society originated in the Ismaili sect and its basic purpose was to make religious dogmas intelligible by allegorical and symbolic explanations. Its philosophy was influenced by Pythagoras and Plato. To enter this secret society, a person was first enticed by mystical instruction and later purged of vain religious beliefs and dogmas. Later he was familiarized with philosophical and symbolic methods. Such an initiate who passed through his apprenticeship was sometimes put through training in neo-platonic ideas, and then he could begin chemistry, astrology and numerology, the science of the significance of numbers. But all this knowledge was kept secret and was given only to those deemed worthy to receive it. So, the origins of Masonry is based on these foundations. Some of the symbolic meanings of these elements were not contrary to science and logic and so survive in various places in our rituals today.97

The words quoted above, "purged of vain religious beliefs and dogmas" mean that initiates were made to reject religion at all. That is how the Mason Isindag defines religion. However, as we examined in earlier sections, "vain belief and dogma" is a euphemism particular to Masonic philosophy. It must be recognized that Masonry, or any other materialist group, express such anti-religious ideas without logical justification; they rely only on propaganda and suggestion. Because they cannot denounce religion rationally, they resort to these methods of suggestion and words selected to create a particular psychological effect.

From the quotation above, we learn that theIkhwan as-Safa', a parallel society of Freemasonry in the Islamic world, carried on activities much like those of the modern Masons. Their method was to espouse a pagan philosophy contrary to true religion, to express that philosophy by means of symbols, and to introduce this secret philosophy to its members gradually.

In the history of Islam there have been various thinkers who in this way distanced themselves from Islam, and were influenced by the Ancient Greeks' materialist and evolutionist myths. The fact that this school of thought, that the great Islamic scholar Ghazali so loathed and refuted in his works, has a Masonic character to it surely casts some important light on the matter. In his work entitledAl-Munqidh min al-Dalal (Deliverance From Error), Ghazali directly criticized theIkhwan as-Safa' society, explaining that it espoused a corrupt philosophy influenced by the ideas of the Ancient Greeks. And, in his work entitledFedaih-ul-Batinniyye , he demonstrated the perversity of the teachings of the Ismaili sect, to which theIkhwan as-Safa' belonged.

ENLIGHTENMENT AND THE ADVENT OF THE MYTH OF EVOLUTION

The materialist and evolutionist ideas adopted by Masonic organizations such as the Rosicrucians or theIkhwan as-Safa' , expressed secretly, but most often symbolically, became more open as the Catholic Church's social power weakened in Europe. As a result, these pagan teachings, which had gone underground for about 1,000 years because of the political and intellectual dominance of Christianity, came into vogue again among thinkers in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe.

That period in which materialist and evolutionist ideas gained widespread acceptance in European society, and influenced it in distancing itself from religion, is known as the Enlightenment. Surely, those who selected this word (that is those who characterized this change of ideas positively as a move into the light) were the leaders of this deviation. They described the earlier period as the "Dark Age" and blamed religion for it, claiming that Europe became enlightened when it was secularized and held religion at a distance. This biased and false perspective is still today one of the basic propaganda mechanisms of those who oppose religion.

It is true that Medieval Christianity was partially "dark" with superstitions and bigotry and most of these have been cleared in the post- Medieval age. In fact, the Enlightenment did not bring much positive results to the West either. The most important result of the Enlightenment, which occurred in France, was the French Revolution, that turned the country into a sea of blood. Today Enlightenment influenced literature praises the French Revolution; however, the Revolution cost France much and contributed to social conflicts that were to last into the twentieth century. The analysis of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment by the famous British thinker, Edmund Burke, is very telling. In his famous book,Reflections on the Revolution in France , published in 1790, he criticized both the idea of the Enlightenment and its fruit, the French Revolution; in his opinion, that movement destroyed the basic values that held society together, such as religion, morality and family structure, and paved the way towards terror and anarchy. Finally, he regarded the Enlightenment, as one interpreter put it, as a "destructive movement of the human intellect."98

The leaders of this destructive movement were Masons. Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, and other anti-religious thinkers who prepared the way for the Revolution, were all Masons. The Masons were intimate with the Jacobins who were the leaders of the Revolution. This had led some historians to the opinion that it is difficult to distinguish between Jacobinism and Masonry in France of this period. (See Harun Yahya'sNew Masonic Order )

During the French Revolution, much hostility was evinced toward religion. Many clergymen were sent to the guillotine, churches were destroyed, and, moreover, there were those who wanted to eradicate Christianity totally and replace it with a deviant, pagan, symbolic religion called "the Religion of Reason." The leaders of the Revolution also became casualties of this madness, every one of them finally losing their heads on the guillotine, to which they themselves had condemned so many people. Even today, many Frenchmen continue to question whether or not the revolution was a good thing.

The anti-religious sentiments of the French Revolution spread throughout Europe and, as a result, the nineteenth century became one of the boldest and most aggressive periods of anti-religious propaganda.

Therefore, this process allowed the possibility for materialist and evolutionist ideas, that had been operating underground for centuries through the use of symbols, to come forth into the public. Materialists, such as Diderot and Baron d'Holbach, sought to raise the anti-religious banner, and the Ancient Greek myth of evolution was introduced into the scientific community.

ERASMUS DARWIN

Those generally thought to be the founders of the theory of evolution are the French biologist Jean Lamarck and the English biologist Charles Darwin. According to the classic story, Lamarck first proposed the theory of evolution, but he made the mistake of basing it on the "inheritance of acquired traits." Later, Darwin proposed a second theory based on natural selection.

Though, here we must mention the name of another theoretician who played an important role in the origins of the theory of evolution: Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather.

Erasmus Darwin was an eighteenth century contemporary of Lamarck. A physicist, psychologist and poet, he was recognized as an authority. His biographer, Desmond King-Hele even called him the greatest Englishman of the eighteenth century.99 But, Erasmus Darwin had a very dark private life.100

Erasmus Darwin is mainly noted as one of England's most prominent naturalists. As we said at the beginning, naturalism is a view that does not accept that Allah created living things. Actually, this view, which is close to materialism, was the starting point of Erasmus Darwin's theory of evolution.

In the 1780's and 90's, Erasmus Darwin developed the main outlines of theory of evolution, according to which all living things came from a single common ancestor by chance and according to the laws of nature. He did his research in an eight acre botanic garden he had prepared, and sought evidence that would prove his idea. He explained his theory in two books, entitledTemple of Nature andZoonomia . Moreover, in 1784 he founded a society to manage the dissemination of his ideas, known as the Philosophical Society.

Years later, Charles Darwin would inherit his grandfather's ideas and the basic outlines for the proposal of his theory of evolution. Charles Darwin's theory elaborated upon the structure established by his grandfather, while the Philosophical Society became one of the greatest and most passionate supporters of his theory.101

In short, Erasmus Darwin was the true pioneer of the theory we know of as the theory of evolution that has been propagandized throughout the world over the past 150 years.

Where did Erasmus Darwin discover the idea of evolution? Where did his interest in this subject come from?6pAfter a thorough search for the answer to this question, we discover the interesting fact that Erasmus Darwin was a Mason. Though, Erasmus Darwin was no ordinary Mason, he was one of the highest ranking masters in the organization.6pHe was the master of the famous Canongate lodge in Edinburgh, Scotland.102 Moreover, he had close ties with the Jacobin Masons who were the organizers of the revolution in France at the time, and with the Illuminati, whose prime cause was fostering hostility to religion.103 That is, Erasmus Darwin was an important name in European Masonic anti-religious organizations.

Erasmus educated his son Robert (Charles Darwin's father), who too had been and made a member of the Masonic lodge.104 For this reason, Charles Darwin received the inheritance of Masonic teachings from both his father and his grandfather.

Erasmus Darwin hoped to have his son Robert develop and publish his theory, but it would be his grandson Charles who would undertake the enterprise. Although it came some time later, Erasmus Darwin'sTemple of Nature was finally revised by Charles Darwin. Darwin's views did not have the weight of a scientific theory; it was merely the expression of a naturalist doctrine that accepts that nature has creative power.

MASONS AND THE NATURALIST PHILOSOPHY

As for the theory of natural selection that we supposed to be Darwin's one particular contribution, it too was merely a theory put forward earlier by a number of scientists. But, the scientists before Darwin's time did not apply the theory of natural selection as an argument against Creation; on the contrary, they saw it as a mechanism generated by the Creator to protect the species from a hereditary distortion. Just like Karl Marx took the idealist Hegel's concept of "dialectics," and bent it to fit his own philosophy, so did Darwin take the theory of natural selection from Creationist scientists and used it in a way so as to fit the idea of naturalism.

Therefore, Darwin's personal contribution in the formulation of Darwinism must not be overstated. The philosophical concepts he used were invented by earlier philosophers of naturalism. If Darwin had not proposed the theory of evolution, someone else would have. In fact, a theory very similar to his was proposed at the same period by another English natural scientist by the name of Alfred Russell Wallace; it was for this reason that Darwin was hasty to publish theOrigin of the Species.

Finally, Darwin appeared at a stage when the long struggle had begun in Europe to supposedly destroy faith in Allah and religion, replace it with the naturalist philosophy and a humanist model for human life. The most significant force behind this struggle was not this or that thinker, but the Masonic organization, of which so many thinkers, ideologues and political leaders were members.

This fact was recognized and expressed by several Christians of the time. Pope Leo XIII, the leader of the world's Catholics, issued a famous bull in 1884, entitledHumanum Genus in which he made many important statements about Masonry and its activities. He wrote:6pAt this period, however, the partisans of evil seems to be combining together, and to be struggling with united vehemence, led on or assisted by that strongly organized and widespread association called the Freemasons. No longer making any secret of their purposes, they are now boldly rising up against God Himself.6p...For, from what We have above most clearly shown, that which is their ultimate purpose forces itself into view - namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced, and the substitution of a new state of things in accordance with their ideas, of "new state of things in accordance with their ideas which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere naturalism."105

The important fact that Leo XIII stated in the above quotation is of the attempt to destroy completely the moral values provided by religion. What Masonry tried to do with the help of Darwinism was to produce a morally degenerate society that recognized no Divine law, had no fear of Allah, and was susceptible to commit every kind of crime. What was meant above by "new state of things in accordance with their ideas which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere naturalism" is this kind of social model.

Masons, thinking that Darwinism could serve their goals, played a great role in its dissemination among the masses. As soon as Darwin's theory was published, a group of volunteer propagandists formed around it the most famous of whom was Thomas Huxley who was called Darwin's "bulldog." Huxley, "whose ardent advocacy of Darwinism was the single factor most responsible for its rapid acceptance"106 brought the world's attention to the theory of evolution in the Debate at the Oxford University Museum in which he entered into on June 30, 1860 with the bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce.6pHuxley's great dedication to spreading the idea of evolution, together with his establishment connections, is brought into further light according to the following fact: Huxley was a member the Royal Society, of one of England's most prestigious scientific institutions and, like nearly all the other members of this institution, was a senior Mason.107 Other members of the Royal Society lent Darwin significant support, both before and after the book was published.108 This Masonic society accepted Darwin and Darwinism to such an extent that, as with the Nobel Prize, Darwin's medal was awarded annually to a scientist deemed worthy of the honor.

In short, Darwin wasn't acting alone; from the moment his theory was proposed, he received the support that came from the social classes and groups whose nucleus was made up of Masons. In his book,Marxism and Darwinism , the Marxist thinker Anton Pannekoek writes about this important fact and describes the support lent to Darwin by the "bourgeoisie," that is, the wealthy European capitalist class.:

That Marxism owes its importance and position only to the role it takes in the proletarian class struggle, is known to all… Yet it is not hard to see that in reality Darwinism had to undergo the same experiences as Marxism. Darwinism is not a mere abstract theory which was adopted by the scientific world after discussing and testing it in a mere objective manner. No, immediately after Darwinism made its appearance, it had its enthusiastic advocates and passionate opponents. ...Darwinism, too, played a role in the class-struggle, and it is owing to this role that it spread so rapidly and had enthusiastic advocates and venomous opponents.6pDarwinism served as a tool to the bourgeoisie in their struggle against the feudal class, against the nobility, clergy-rights and feudal lords...What the bourgeoisie wanted was to get rid of the old ruling powers standing in their way... With the aid of religion the priests held the great mass in subjection and ready to oppose the demands of the bourgeoisie...6pNatural science became a weapon in the opposition to belief and tradition; science and the newly discovered natural laws were put forward; it was with these weapons that the bourgeoisie fought...6pDarwinism came at the desired time; Darwin' s theory that man is the descendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation of Christian dogma. It is for this reason that as soon as Darwinism made its appearance, the bourgeoisie grasped it with great zeal.6p...Under these circumstances, even the scientific discussions were carried on with the zeal and passion of a class struggle. The writings that appeared pro and con on Darwin have therefore the character of social polemics, despite the fact that they bear the names of scientific authors...109

Though Anton Pannekoek, because he thinks in terms of Marxist class analysis, defines the force that spread Darwinism and put into effect an organized struggle against religion as "bourgeoisie," when we examine the matter in light of more historical evidence, we see that there was an organization within the bourgeoisie that used Darwinism to pursue their war against religion. That organization was Masonry.6pThis fact is clear both from historical evidence as well as Masonic sources. One of these sources is an article by Master Mason Selami Isindag, entitled "Obstacles to the Development of Knowledge and Masonry," that appeared in the1962 Annual Bulletin of the Turkish Great Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons. At the beginning of this article, Isindag repeats the classical Masonic claim that religion is a myth invented by human beings, and that monotheism is contrary to reason and science. Later, he describes the true instigator of the war against religion carried out under the guise of "science":

It will be noticed that in this struggle for the spread of knowledge, Masons are known to have participated at every level. The reason for this is that Masonry, in every period, has been guided always by logic, knowledge and maturity, that is, by wisdom. Since it was founded, it had fought against superstition and myth.1106p However, in reality, "superstition and myth" is not, as the Masons claim, religion; it is, rather, the basis of the materialist, naturalist and evolutionist beliefs they espouse. The clearest proof of this fact is that it is their outmoded ideas, their repetitions of the empty beliefs of the ancient pagan civilizations of Egypt and Greece, that have been invalidated by the discoveries of modern science.

A comparison of the scientific facts relevant to the origins of life and Masonic beliefs about it will be enough to let us form a conclusion as to this fact.

THE MASONIC THEORY OF THE ORIGINS OF LIFE

As we stated at the beginning, the theory of evolution rests on the claim that living things were not created, but arose and developed due to chance and natural laws. In order to test this theory scientifically, it is necessary to look at every stage of this supposed process, and to examine whether or not such a process occurred in the past and whether such a process could have been possible.

The first step in this process is a hypothetical condition within which lifeless matter could engender a living organism.

Before looking at this condition, we must recall a law that has been recognized in biology since the time of Pasteur: "Life comes from life." That is, a living organism can be generated only from another living organism. For example, mammals are born from their mothers. In many other species of animals the young are born from eggs that had been laid by the mothers. Plants grow out of seeds. Single-cell organisms such as bacteria divide and multiply.

Nothing has ever been observed to the contrary. Throughout the history of the world no one has ever witnessed lifeless matter giving birth to a living being. Of course, there were those in Ancient Egypt, Greece and the Middle Ages who thought they had observed such an outcome; the Egyptians believed that frogs sprang from the mud of the Nile, a belief also sustained by Ancient Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle. In the Middle Ages it was believed that mice were begotten from the wheat of granaries. However, all these beliefs proved to be out of ignorance, and finally, in his famous experiments in the 1860's, Pasteur proved that even bacteria, the most basic form of life, did not come to be without a predecessor, that is, it is not possible for lifeless things to produce life.

But, the theory of evolution is dependent on this impossibility because it claims that living things were born and developed without the involvement of a Creator, and this requires that, at the first stage of this proposed scenario, living things be generated by chance.

Darwin attempted to describe the origins of life, about which he knew little, in a short sentence, wherein he stated that life must have first appeared "some warm little pond,"111 but evolutionists that followed him became concerned about elaborating on this matter. However, efforts made throughout the twentieth century to produce an evolutionist explanation of the origins of life resulted only in deepening the impasse in which evolutionists had found themselves. Apart from the fact that evolutionists have not been able to give the slightest scientific proof that life can be generated from lifeless matter, they have also not been able to provide even a theoretical explanation. This is because the structure of the most basic single-celled living organism is highly complex. It is mathematically impossible that even a cell's basic constituents - proteins, DNA or RNA - could have come to be by chance, much less the cell itself.

The fact that the probability of life generating by chance is zero alone proves the existence of order, in other words the fact of Creation. On this matter, the famous English astronomer and mathematician, Fred Hoyle, makes this comment:6pIndeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.112 6pThis "psychological reason" that Hoyle mentions is the evolutionists' disposition by which they insist on rejecting, in advance, every result that should lead them to accept the existence of Allah and their conditioning themselves for this.

In our other works focusing on the invalidity of the theory of evolution, we cited many admissions of this fact by the evolutionists and we examined the irrational hypotheses that evolutionists have blindly proposed merely in order to not accept the existence of Allah. At this point though, we will focus our attention on the Masonic lodges to see their view on this matter. While it is so clearly evident that "life was brought into being by an intelligent Creator," what do the Masons think about the question?

Master Mason, Selami Isindag, in his book intended for Mason audience, entitledEvrim Yolu (The Way of Evolution), explains the matter in this way:

The most important characteristic of our school of morality is that we do not depart from the principles of logic and we do not enter the unknowns of theism, secret meanings or dogmas. On this basis we assert that the first appearance of life began in crystals under conditions that we cannot know or discover today. Living things were born according to the law of evolution and slowly spread over the earth. As a result of evolution, today's human beings came to be and advanced beyond other animals both in consciousness and intelligence.113

It is important to notice the connection between cause and effect suggested in the above quotation: Isindag stresses that the most important characteristic of Masonry is that it rejects theism, that is, belief in Allah. And immediately afterwards, he claims "on this basis" that life arose spontaneously from lifeless matter, and later underwent evolution that resulted in the appearance of human beings.

It will be noticed that Isindag brings no scientific evidence to bear on the theory of evolution. (The fact that there is no scientific evidence is presupposed by the obtuse words these are facts "that we cannot know or discover today"). The only support that Isindag supplies for the theory of evolution is the Masonic non-acceptance of theism.

In other words, Masons are evolutionists because they do not accept the existence of Allah. This is the only reason for their being evolutionists.

In the constitution of the "Great Council of Turkey" organized by Turkish Masons of the 33rd degree, the evolution scenario was once again restated, and the Masons' rejection of the Creationist explanation expressed in these words:

In a very early age and according to an inorganic process, organic life came to be. In order to produce cellular organisms cells came together in groups. Later, intelligence sprang forth and human beings were born. But from where? We keep asking ourselves this question. Was it from God's breathing over formless mud? We reject the explanation of an abnormal kind of creation; a kind of creation that excludes man. Since life and its genealogy exist, we must follow the philogenetic line and feel, understand and acknowledge that a wheel exists that explains this great deed, that is the act of "leap." We must believe that there was a phase of development in which there was a great rush of activity that caused life to pass at a particular moment from that phase to another.114 6pIt is possible here to recognize Masonic fanaticism. When the writer says that they "reject a kind of creation that excludes man," he is repeating the basic dogma of humanism, that "a human being is the highest creature that exists," and announcing that Masons reject any other explanation. When he says, "an abnormal kind of creation," he means Allah's intervention in the creation of living beings, rejecting this possibilitya priori . (However, what is truly abnormal is that Masons accept, without observation or experiment, the illogical belief that lifeless matter came to life by chance and formed life on earth, including human beings.) It will be noticed that according to the Masonic explanation there is no suggestion of scientific proof. Masons do not say, "There is proof for evolution and therefore we reject Creation." They are only blinded by a philosophical fanaticism.

Masonic publications insist on this tenet. Master Mason Selami Isindag claims that "apart from nature there is no force that guides us, and is responsible for our thoughts and actions." He immediately adds, "life began from one cell and reached its present stage as a result of various changes and evolutions."115 Later he summarizes what the theory of evolution means for Masons:

From the point of view of evolution, human beings are no different from animals. For the formation of man and his evolution there are no special forces other than those to which animals are subjected.116

This assertion shows clearly why Masons attach such importance to the theory of evolution. Their aim is to defend the idea that human beings were not created and to present their own humanist materialist philosophy as tenable. And, the only method that can be used to reject the idea that human beings were created is the theory of evolution. So, it is for this reason that Masons, to whatever extent, believe in the theory of evolution and seek to disseminate it throughout society.

This shows that Masons, who are constantly accusing those who believe in Allah of being dogmatic, are themselves dogmatic.

MASONIC DOGMATISM AND TRADITIONALISM

Dogmatism means to blindly and insistently support a view, for whose validity there is no proof, because of a certain psychological predisposition. A dogmatic person does not investigate or reconsider something he believes in whether or not there is any proof for it. He accepts it totally and sticks to it adamantly.

Masons and other anti-religious groups regularly use the term "dogmatic" to refer to those who believe in Allah. We encounter this accusation frequently today. For example, in a debate about the theory of evolution, the evolutionist side will probably accuse those who do not accept the theory as dogmatic, and declare themselves scientific by maintaining that science has no interest in "dogmas."

However, this accusation is false. Belief in the existence of Allah, and that He created all beings, is a fact proven by much rational and scientific evidence. There is great balance, order and organization in nature, and it is clear that this was established intelligently and with deliberate purpose.

It is for this reason that the Qur'an calls human beings to discover the signs of Allah, and invites them to consider this balance, order and organization, and in many verses commands them to think about the proofs in the heavens and on earth of the existence of Allah. Those proofs pointed out in the Qur'an are such phenomena as, not only the balance and order in the universe, but the suitability of the world to human life, the structure of plants and animals, the miraculous features of the human body, and the spiritual qualities of human beings, all of which has been substantiated by modern science. (For details, see Harun Yahya's Allah is Known Through Reason, The Creation of the Universe, Darwinism Refuted, For Men of Understanding, Design in Nature )6pRather, dogmatism is a quality of those who refuse to consider these things, and reject Allah while continuing to defend the view that the universe exists by its own accord and that living things came to be by chance. Masons are a true example of such an outlook. Despite the fact that the proofs for Allah's existence are evident, they prefer to ignore and reject them in favor of the humanist and materialist philosophy.

In the Qur'an, Allah refers to of those of such a mentality:

Do you not see that Allah has subjected to you everything in the heavens and earth and has showered His blessings upon you, both outwardly and inwardly? Yet there are people who argue about Allah without knowledge or guidance or any illuminating Book.

When they are told: "Follow what Allah has sent down," they say, "No, we will follow what we found our fathers doing." What! Even if satan is calling them to the punishment of the Blazing Fire? (Surah Luqman: 20-21)

These verses show that the godless, despite the fact that they see the proofs for Allah, "argue about Allah," that is, they engage in a war against His religion. The reason for this is that these godless people follow what they found their fathers doing, that is, they are mired in a blind traditionalism.

Evidently, traditionalism defines very well the history and philosophy of Masonry as we have been examining it from the beginning of this book.

Indeed, traditionalism is a word that describes Masonry very well because Masonry is nothing other than an "organization of traditions," whose roots go back thousands of years to earlier pagan societies. It blindly follows the traditions of Ancient Egypt, of the pharaohs and their magicians, Ancient Greek materialist philosophers, Hermeticists, Kabbalists, Templars, Rosicrucians and of Masons before them.

It is important to recognize this traditionalism. In modern Masonic lodges, legends, symbols and words that are thousands of years old, are still used. Despite the fact that nearly all Masons have a high level of education, and occupy some of the highest positions in society, they organize ceremonies in which they take gilt swords and skulls into their hands, murmur words in Ancient Egyptian, stand before columns modeled on Ancient Egyptian temples in silver aprons, white gloves and even more strange costumes and make profound oaths. If a person who knows nothing about Masonry is brought into one of their lodges, he will probably think that he is visiting a comedy film-set, and perhaps not be able to stop himself from laughing when he sees Masons in the course of the initiation ceremony, with their eyes blindfolded, ropes around their necks, and walking around with one bare foot. But, Masons, living in their secret world, regard these strange ceremonies as very normal, and find psychological satisfaction in the mystical atmosphere of their lodges. After these ceremonies, they sit and talk with one another about their beliefs that "atoms have spirits and come together to form living things," that "the world attained its balance because of the hidden intelligence in magma," or that Mother Nature has created us very well" and other myths. This whole charade is staged only to preserve tradition, and is so clearly devoid of reason that it is amazing that such a system of ideas could still survive and be defended.

The Masons' blind attachment to their traditions clearly shows the great importance they give to the idea of the "landmark." A landmark is a place or object that symbolizes something that has historical importance or meaning. In Masonic language, landmarks are the rules that have been passed down unchanged since the foundation of the organization. Why did they not change? The Masons offer an interesting answer to this question. An article published inMimar Sinan in 1992 says:

Masonry's Landmarks are very old laws that have been passed on from age to age and generation to generation. No one knows when they appeared and no one has the right to change them or cancel them. They are written and unwritten laws of the society. The unwritten laws can be learned only from the rituals and rites of the lodge. There are six written laws that can be found under the title "The Obligations of a Freemason" first published in the English Constitution in 1723.117

Let us examine these words closely: An organization called Masonry exists. The members of this organization have for centuries followed a number of laws whose origins are unknown. Moreover, they are quite determined that no one alter these laws. Not one of them comes forward to ask why they follow them!… And, for the sake of following these laws, they readily ignore the discoveries of science and their logical conclusions. Can it be that such a society is following the path of "reason" and "science"?

Another part of the article quoted above, states literally that a Mason must obey the laws without questioning:

In my opinion, a landmark is such an old part of Masonry that I have never been curious about their origins neither in the lodge nor in my activities as a freemason. I cannot help analyzing why I should feel this way but I feel that if the structure of Freemasonry is not altered it will last…..I live with it without exerting any special effort.118

How can an organization comprised of followers who believe and abide by laws about whose origins they are not curious be regarded as reasonable?…

Surely, Masonry's claim to be reasonable and scientific is completely hollow. Like other materialists, they too, despite the fact that they continually use the terms of reason and science, insistently defend a philosophy that has no logical or scientific support, and turn away from the facts that science has discovered. Essentially, what has led Masons into such error, or indeed spellbound them, is their blind attachment to their traditions.6pThis shows that the teaching of Masonry is deceptive. It alienated people from their belief in Allah, making them fall into superstition by following empty laws, myths and legends. What is revealed in the Qur'an about the pagans of Saba, who abandoned Allah to prostrate themselves before the Sun, is valid also for Masonry: "Satan has made their actions seem good to them and debarred them from the Way so they are not guided" (Surat an-Naml: 24). Masons reject the religion of Allah in favor of an outmoded doctrine that they elaborate upon with gilt symbols and mystical elements.

Moreover, not content with rejecting Allah, they fight against religious moral values, a struggle they have been engaged in a very long time.

Supplement

However, since his obedience is obligatory in the present, and we do not find obedience to him to be stipulated with any condition or a specific time, it follows that he must be existent, so the legitimate excuse of the Divinely ordained duties is removed and such duties become fair. The response to the example of the master and his slave is the same.

Because he ordered his servant to approach him at present, not to buy. And when he approaches him and he requires him to buy, he must give him the money. That is why we said that Allah, the Exalted, has set obligations for all who will come until the Day of Judgment, and it is not necessary that they should be existent and without legitimate excuses, for He has not set obligations over them now; when He creates them and removes their excuses with respect to the duties by granting them power and instruments and setting proofs, then the duties will encompass them. Thus, his fallacy loses its tenability by this elaboration.

Besides, if the Imam bears the Divine duty of establishing the order and carrying the burdens of Imamate, how is it possible that he be nonexistent? Would any sane person see it fair to commission someone nonexistent with acts and duties? Bear in mind that these duties of his are not stipulated to our empowerment of him at all, but rather, our obligation of empowering and strengthening him is secondary to him carrying these duties, as explained earlier and as it is very clear.

Furthermore, they are asked, Did not the Messenger of Allah (a.s) hide in the Mount of Abu Ta-lib for three years, where no one was able to reach him? Did he not hide in the Cave for three days? Why do not you apply the analogy there as well that Allah should discontinue his existence for that period, while keeping the duties over public for whom He sent him as a lutf? If they say that he hid after he called the people to his message and manifested his Prophethood, and when they threatened him he went into hiding; we will respond that likewise the Imam did not go into hiding but after his forefathers manifested his position and his qualities and guided the people to him, and when his father al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali (a.s) feared for his life, he hid him. Therefore, both situations are identical.

Moreover, we demand them to give us an answer in the following case: Allah discerns from the condition of a person that it is in the best of his interest that He sends a particular prophet to him who will inform him of what is good for him, and He knows that should He send the said apostle, this person will kill him.

If He prohibits him from killing the apostle through coercion, it will be disadvantageous for him and others. Is it fair that this person should be bound by the Divinely ordained duties while an apostle has not been sent to him, or should he not be bound by these duties? If they say that he should not be bound, we ask them, why not if it entails for him the possibility of knowing what is best for him by empowering the apostle to deliver to him the message? And if you say he must be bound to the Divinely ordained duties and the prophet is not sent to him, we will ask you, How is it possible to bind him by these duties when he the necessary lutf has not been conferred to him?”

فلما كانت طاعته واجبة في الحال ولم نقف على شرطه ولا وقت منتظر وجب أن يكون موجودا لتنـزاح العلة في التكليف ويحسن. والجواب عن مثال السيد مع غلامه مثل ذلك لانه إنما كلفه الدنو منه لا الشراء فإذا دنا منه وكلفه الشراء وجب عليه إعطاء الثمن ولهذا قلنا إن الله تعالى كلف من يأتي إلى يوم القيامة ولا يجب أن يكونوا موجودين مزاحي العلة لانه لم يكلفهم الآن فإذا أوجدهم وأزاح علتهم في التكليف بالقدرة والآلة ونصب الادلة حينئذ تناولهم التكليف، فسقط بذلك هذه المغالطة. على أن الامام إذا كان مكلفا للقيام بالامر وتحمل أعباء الإمامة كيف يجوز أن يكون معدوما وهل يصح تكليف المعدوم عند عاقل، وليس لتكليفه ذلك تعلق بتمكيننا أصلا، بل وجوب التمكين علينا فرع على تحمله على ما مضى القول فيه وهذا واضح. ثم يقال لهم: أليس النبي (ص) اختفى في الشعب ثلاث سنين لم يصل إليه أحد واختفى في الغار ثلاثة أيام ولم يجز قياساً على ذلك أن يعدمه الله تلك المدة مع بقاء التكليف على الخلق الذين بعثه لطفا لهم، ومتى قالوا: إنما اختفى بعدما دعا إلى نفسه وأظهر نبوته فلما أخافوه استتر قلنا: وكذلك الامام لم يستتر إلا وقد أظهر آباؤه موضعه وصفته، ودلوا عليه، ثم لما خاف عليه أبو الحسن بن علي(ع) أخفاه وستره فالامر إذا سواء. ثم يقال لهم: خبرونا لو علم الله من حال شخص أن من مصلحته أن يبعث الله إليه نبيا معينا يؤدي إليه مصالحه وعلم أنه لو بعثه لقتله هذا الشخص ولو منع من قتله قهرا كان فيه مفسدة له أو لغيره هل يحسن أن يكلف هذا الشخص ولا يبعث إليه ذلك النبي أو لا يكلف فان قالوا: لا يكلف قلنا وما المانع منه، وله طريق إلى معرفة مصالحه بأن يمكن النبي من الاداء إليه وإن قلتم يكلفه ولا يبعث إليه قلنا وكيف يجوز أن يكلفه ولم يفعل به ما هو لطف له مقدور

If they should say he has done that by his own choice, we will say that he has not done anything. Only Allah knew that he will not allow the apostle and knowing this does not justify that he should be bound by duties, which he does not know. If this should be fair then it is fair that anyone should be bound by duties he does not know when Allah knows that he will not consider them. An absurd supposition. Therefore, it must be said that Allah will send the apostle to this person and will require this person to submit to the apostle, so he may not have any legitimate excuse, and then He will protect His apostle through means which do not violate free-will, or renders him such that he is unable to kill the apostle, in which case he will not be able to reach him through his own actions. This is our very identical situation with the Imam during the occultation.

Should it be suggested that He must inform him through someone other than the apostle that it is in the best of his interest that the apostle has been sent to him, so he may know it is his own wrongdoing, our reply will be that on parallel grounds, Allah has informed us through the tongue of His Messenger and the Imams his forefathers, peace be unto them, the Hujja’s position and He has obliged us to obey him. And if we do not know what we should, it is our own guilt, hence the equivalence of the two situations.

As for the proof of the second principle, which is that it is the feature of the Imam that his infallibility must be ascertained, it is that the reason for which we need the Imam is our fallibility, for if the public were infallible, they would never need an imam. It is when they are fallible that they need him. This leads one to infer that the reason for the need to the Imam is fallibility, as we say that the reason for the need to an action to its efficient cause is its hudu-th[12] , on the virtue of the fact that an entity that can have hudu-th, it needs to an efficient cause in its hudu-th, and an entity that cannot have hudu-th, it never needs an efficient cause.

This leads us to the inference that every muhdath needs a muhdith. On parallel grounds, the need of every fallible to an imam must be acknowledged, or the rule of causality will be violated. Should the Imam be a fallible, this reason for the need to an Imam will exist in him and his need for another Imam will be just as dire. And the same argument applies to his Imam, leading to the conclusion of infinite number of Imams or to an infallible imam, which is our purpose. We have established this argument in our books, therefore, we will not prolong the inquiry by raising further questions and answering them, as the purpose of this book is different from other books and this much suffices.

As for the third principle - the truth is exclusive to this Ummah - it is a common grounds agreed upon by us and our adversaries, even if we may disagree in its reason.

فان قالوا: اتي في ذلك من قبل نفسه، قلنا هو لم يفعل شيئا وإنما علم أنه لا يمكنه، وبالعلم لا يحسن تكليفه مع ارتفاع اللطف، ولو جاز ذلك لجاز أن يكلف مالا دليل عليه إذا علم أنه لا ينظر فيه، وذلك باطل. ولابد أن يقال: إنه يبعث إلى ذلك الشخص ويوجب عليه الانقياد له، ليكون مزيحا لعلته فإما أن يمنع منه بما لا ينافي التكليف أو يجعله بحيث لا يتمكن من قتله، فيكون قد اتي من قبل نفسه في عدم الوصول إليه، وهذه حالنا مع الامام في حال الغيبة سواء. فان قال: لابد أن يعلمه أن له مصلحة في بعثة هذا الشخص إليه على لسان غيره، ليعلم أنه قد اتي من قبل نفسه قلنا: وكذلك أعلمنا الله على لسان نبيه والائمة من آبائه (ع) موضعه، وأوجب علينا طاعته، فإذا لم يظهر لنا علمنا أنا اتينا من قبل نفوسنا فاستوى الامران. وأما الذي يدل على الاصل الثاني وهو أن من شأن الامام أن يكون مقطوعا على عصمته، فهو أن العلة التي لاجلها احتجنا إلى الامام ارتفاع العصمة بدلالة أن الخلق متى كانوا معصومين لم يحتاجوا إلى إمام وإذا خلوا من كونهم معصومين احتاجوا إليه، علمنا عند ذلك أن علة الحاجة هي ارتفاع العصمة، كما نقوله في علة حاجة الفعل إلى فاعل أنها الحدوث بدلالة أن ما يصح حدوثه يحتاج إلى فاعل في حدوثه، وما لا يصح حدوثه يستغني عن الفاعل. وحكمنا بذلك أن كل محدث يحتاج إلى محدث، فمثل ذلك يجب الحكم بحاجة كل من ليس بمعصوم إلى إمام وإلا انتقضت العلة فلو كان الامام غير معصوم، لكانت عل الحاجة فيه قائمة، واحتاج إلى إمام أخر، والكلام في إمامته كالكلام فيه فيؤدي إلى إيجاب أئمة لا نهاية لهم أو الانتهاء إلى معصوم وهو المراد. وهذه الطريقة قد أحكمناها في كتبنا فلا نطول بالاسولة عليها لان الغرض بهذا الكتاب غير ذلك وفي هذا القدر كفاية. وأما الاصل الثالث وهو أن الحق لا يخرج عن الأمة فهو متفق عليه بيننا وبين خصومنا وإن اختلفنا في علة ذلك

Because the proof of the validity of consensus of the Ummah in our belief is the fact that no age can remain without an infallible Imam, who cannot possibly do a wrong, based on our proofs, therefore, the truth does not leave this Ummah, for the infallible entity is amongst us; and according to our adversary, on the virtue of the arguments they mention, which conclude that consensus is a binding proof. Therefore, there is no need to occupy ourselves with proving this principle.

Having established these principles, the Imamate of the Patron of the Age (a.s) is proved; because everyone who believes that the Imam must be infallible, is certain that he is the Imam. There is no one who believes in the Imam’s infallibility and questions his Imamate, except parties that irrefutable proofs demonstrate the invalidity of their creed, such as al-Kisa-niyya, al-Na-wu-siyya, and al-Wa-qifa. When we disprove their claims, the Imamate of our Master is demonstrated.

The arguments that prove the invalidity of the creed of al-Kisa-niyya, who believe in the Imamate of Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyya, are many. One of them is that if he were an Imam, with ascertained infallibility, there must be explicit statements by the Messenger of Allah (a.s) and the Prince of the Believers Imam ‘Ali Ibn Abi Ta-lib (a.s) about him, because infallibility can only be determined through the word of another infallible entity. However, the Kisa-niyya do not claim an explicit tradition with this regard.

Instead, they rely on weak instances which have led them to confusion but are far from being explicit words, such as that the Prince of the Believers granted him the standard on the battle of the Camel in Basra, and such as his saying, “You are truly my son,” while al-Hasan and al-Husain (a.s) were also his sons. These instances do not establish his Imamate in any way, and rather, indicate his excellence and high position. Besides, the Shi-‘a narrate that a conversation took place between him and ‘Ali Ibn al-Husain (a.s) with respect to him being worthy of Imamate and they both invoked a rock to issue a verdict and the rock testified on the Imamate of ‘Ali Ibn al-Husain (a.s). This humbled Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyya and he submitted the position to his nephew and professed belief in his Imamate.

This narration is quite reputable before the Ima-miyya. Secondly, the Shi-‘a have narrated inordinate number (mutawa-tir) of traditions from his father and his grandfather explicitly naming ‘Ali Ibn al-Husain for Imamate. These traditions are present in our books and we will not lengthen the book by bringing them here.

Thirdly, there are the narrations recorded from the Messenger of Allah (a.s) by the commonality as well as the Chosen Congregation carrying explicit words with regard to the Twelve Imams and anyone who believes in their Imamate is certain of the demise of Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyya and the continuation of Imamate to the Patron of the Age (a.s). Fourthly, this sect has died away. Not in our time, nor before us for a very lengthy time, a believer of this creed has existed. If it were a true faith, their extinction would not have been possible.

Query: How can their extinction be known and why is it not possible that in faraway lands, such as islands in the seas and sides of the earth, there may be nations believing in this word, just as it is possible that there may be people believing in the word of al-Hasan that someone who commits a major sin is a hypocrite.

لان عندنا أن الزمان لا يخلو من إمام معصوم لا يجوز عليه الغلط على ما قلناه، فإذا الحق لا يخرج عن الأمة لكون المعصوم فيهم وعند المخالف لقيام أدلة يذكرونها دلت على أن الاجماع حجة فلا وجه للتشاغل بذلك. فإذا ثبتت هذه الاصول ثبت إمامة صاحب الزمان (ع) لان كل من يقطع على ثبوت العصمة للامام قطع على أنه الامام، وليس فيهم من يقطع على عصمة الامام ويخالف في إمامته إلا قوم دل الدليل على بطلان قولهم كالكيسانية والناووسية والواقفة فإذا أفسدنا أقوال هؤلاء ثبت إمامته (ع). أقول: وأما الذي يدل على فساد قول الكيسانية القائلين بإمامة محمد بن الحنفية فأشياء: منها: أنه لو كان إماما مقطوعا على عصمته لوجب أن يكون منصوصا عليه نصا صريحا، لان العصمة لاتعلم إلا بالنص، وهم لا يدعون نصا صريحا وإنما يتعلقون بامور ضعيفة دخلت عليهم فيها شبهة لا يدل على النص نحو إعطاء أمير المؤمنين إياه الراية يوم البصرة، وقوله له: " أنت ابني حقا " مع كون الحسن والحسين(ع) ابنيه وليس في ذلك دلالة على إمامته على وجه، وإنما يدل على فضله ومنـزلته، على أن الشيعة تروي أنه جرى بينه وبين علي بن الحسين (ع) كلام في استحقاق الإمامة فتحاكما إلى الحجر فشهد الحجر لعلي بن الحسين (ع) بالإمامة فكان ذلك معجزا له فسلم له الامر وقال بامامته، والخبر بذلك مشهور عند الامامية. ومنها: تواتر الشيعة الامامية بالنص عليه من أبيه وجده وهي موجودة في كتبهم في أخبار لا نطول بذكره الكتاب. ومنها: الاخبار الواردة عن النبي (ص) من جهة الخاصة والعامة بالنص على الاثني عشر، وكل من قال بامامتهم قطع على وفات محمد بن الحنفية، وسياقة الإمامة إلى صاحب الزمان (ع). ومنها: انقراض هذه الفرقة فانه لم يبق في الدنيا في وقتنا ولا قبله بزمان طويل قائل يقول به، ولو كان ذلك حقا لما جاز انقراضهم. فإن قيل: كيف يعلم انقراضهم وهلا جاز أن يكون في بعض البلاد البعيدة وجزائر البحر وأطراف الأرض أقوام يقولون بهذا القول، كما يجوز أن يكون في أطراف الأرض من يقول بمذهب الحسن في أن مرتكب الكبيرة منافق

Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the followers of this path no longer exist. It would have been possible if Muslims were few in the world with scant number of scholars, whereas Islam has spread and scholars are in abundant numbers. So how can that be known?”

Answer: This assertion leads to the impossibility of discerning the consensus of the Ummah on any principle or idea, as it is always convenient to say that perchance there is someone in some remote periphery of the earth who disagrees with this. It follows that there might be in faraway parts of the earth who says that cold does not violate fasting and that it is permissible for someone fasting to eat until sunrise. For the first was the view of Abu Talha al-Ansa-ri and the second that of Hudhaifa and al-A‘mash.

Likewise, there are many other rulings of jurisprudence on which the companions and the ta-bi‘i-n disagreed, and then later on the disagreements disappeared and the Ummah united on a different view. Therefore, it is worthy to doubt that and mistrust any consensus on any question that has previously been the subject of disagreement. This is argument of a person who says that consensus cannot be discerned and as this question is not exclusive to our subject, there is no reason we should go into its details here.

We know that the Ansa-r demanded caliphate and the Muha-jiru-n turned them away and then Ansa-r submitted to the idea of the Muha-jiru-n, according to the adversary. If someone should argue that Caliphate is possible for the Ansa-r, for a disagreement has occurred on this matter, and perchance there is someone in the peripheries of the earth who believes in this, whatever the adversary says in response to him, is our very identical answer here as well.

If they argue that consensus is a valid proof before you only when the infallible is included, from where do you know his word is included amongst the words of the Ummah; we will answer that as Imam is one of the scholars of the Ummah, his word must be included amongst the words of the scholars, for he cannot be a loner and manifesting infidelity, because that is not permissible for him. Therefore, his view has to be one of the views, even if we may not know which one is the Imam’s. When we consider the views of the Ummah and find some scholars disagreeing, if we know them and their birth and place, we will not honor their views, for we know the Imam is not one of them. And if we doubt a scholar’s ancestry, the question will not be of consensus.

Therefore, we consider the views of the scholars of the Ummah, and do not find anyone amongst them advancing this idea, which is the faith of the Kisa-niyya or the Wa-qifa. And if by supposition we find one or two instances, we know their place and their birth, and do not heed to their word and consider the views of the remainders, amongst whom we are certain that the Infallible is present. Therefore, this problem is solved by this explication and its weakness is demonstrated.

As for those who profess to the Imamate of Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad, namely, the Na-wu-siyya, and believe that he is alive and has not died and he is the Mahdi, the argument against them is clear, for we know Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad died just as his father and grandfather died and the Prince of the Believers was killed and the Messenger (a.s) passed away.

فلا يمكن ادعاء انقراض هذه الفرقة، وإنما كان يمكن العلم لو لكان المسلمون فيهم قلة والعلماء محصورين فأما وقد انتشر الاسلام وكثر العلماء فمن أين يعلم ذلك؟. قلنا: هذا يؤدي إلى أن لا يمكن العلم باجماع الأمة على قول ولا مذهب بأن يقال لعل في أطراف الأرض من يخالف ذلك ويلزم أن يجوز أن يكون في أطراف الأرض من يقول: إن البرد لا ينقض الصوم وأنه يجوز للصائم أن يأكل إلى طلوع الشمس لان الاول كان مذهب أبي طلحة الانصاري والثاني مذهب حذيفة والاعمش وكذلك مسائل كثيرة من الفقه كان الخلف فيها واقعا بين الصحابة والتابعين ثم زال الخلف فيما بعد واجتمع أهل الاعصار على خلافه فينبغي أن يشك في ذلك ولا يثق بالاجماع على مسألة سبق الخلاف فيها، وهذا طعن من يقول إن الاجماع لا يمكن معرفته ولا التوصل إليه والكلام في ذلك لا يختص بهذه المسألة فلا وجه لا يراده ههنا. ثم إنا نعلم أن الانصار طلبت الامرة ودفعهم المهاجرون عنها ثم رجعت الانصار إلى قول المهاجرين على قول المخالف فلو أن قائلا قال: يجوز عقد الإمامة لمن كان من الانصار الان الخلاف سبق فيه ولعل في أطراف الأرض من يقول به فما كان يكون جوابهم فيه؟ فأي شئ قالوه فهو جوابنا بعينه. فان قيل: إن كان الاجماع عندكم إنما يكون حجة لكون المعصوم فيه فمن أين تعلمون دخول قوله في جملة أقوال الأمة؟ قلنا المعصوم إذا كان من جملة علماء الأمة فلابد أن يكون قوله موجودا في جملة أقوال العلماء لانه لا يجوز أن يكون منفردا مظهرا للكفر فان ذلك لا يجوز عليه فإذا لابد أن يكون قوله في جملة الاقوال وإن شككنا في أنه الامام. فإذا اعتبرنا أقوال الأمة ووجدنا بعض العلماء يخالف فيه فان كنا نعرفه ونعرف مولده ومنشأه لم نعتد بقوله، لعلمنا أنه ليس بامام وإن شككنا في نسبه لم تكن المسألة إجماعا. فعلى هذا أقوال العلماء من الأمة اعتبرناها فلم نجد فيهم قائلا بهذا المذهب الذي هو مذهب الكيسانية أو الواقفة وإن وجدنا فرضا واحدا أو اثنين فانا نعلم منشأه ومولده فلا يعتد بقوله واعتبرنا أقوال الباقين الذين نقطع على كون المعصوم فيهم فسقطت هذه الشبهة على هذا التحرير وبان وهنها. فأما القائلون بامامة جعفر بن محمد من الناووسية وأنه حي لم يمت وأنه المهدي فالكلام عليهم ظاهر لانا نعلم موت جعفر بن محمد كما نعلم موت أبيه وجده وقتل علي (ع) وموت النبي (ص).

If dispute should be allowed in the case of Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad, all these instances should be open to dispute, leading to the belief of the Ghula-th and the Mufawwidha, who denied the murder of the Prince of the Believers and that of al-Husain, peace be with them all. All pure sophistry.

As for the reason of the invalidity of the path of the Wa-qifa, who stop at the Imamate of Abu al-Hasan Musa- (a.s) and say that he is the Mahdi: Their assertion is invalid because his death was manifest and well known and widely reported, as the deaths of his father, grandfather, and his other forefathers before him were witnessed and reportedly widely.

If we doubt in his death, we will not have any merits of distinction from the Na-wu-siyya, Kisa-niyya, the Ghula-th, and the Mufawwidha, who disputed the deaths of his forefathers, peace be with them all. Besides, his death was widely witnessed, more so than the death of anyone of his forefathers, because it was very so more visible. They called the judges and the witnesses and a proclamation was made in Baghdad over the bridge and it was declared, “He is the person the Ra-fidha believe is ever-alive and immortal, and has died now through a natural death.” And the other similar acts of publicity of his death are facts that cannot be disputed.

‘Alla-mah al-Majlisi says, The Sheikh of the Congregation (a.s) then records great number of traditions, which we have narrated on his authority in the chapter of the demise of al-Ka-dhim (a.s) of Biha-r al-Anwa-r. Then the Sheikh of the Congregation continues,

The demise of the Holy Seventh Imam is more evident than to need the relation of a tradition about it, for an adversary on this matter is a person who rejects the obvious. Such doubts legitimize doubts in the death of anyone of his holy forefathers, peace be with them all, and others, rendering the death of anyone dubious. Notwithstanding that it is well-known that he bequeathed his son ‘Ali (a.s) after him and referred his affairs to him after his death. Narrations with this regard are more than to be accounted for.

‘Allamah al-Majlisi says, Then the revered Sheikh of the Congregation mentions some of the traditions which I have registered in the section pertinent to the Imamate of the Eighth Hujja (a.s). Then he says,

Query: It was mentioned in your discourse that we know the death of Musa- Ibn Ja‘far just as we know the death of his father and grandfather. This justifies the following critique: We know that al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali al-‘Askari did not have a son, just as we know he did not have ten sons, just as we know that the Messenger of Allah (a.s) did not have a son who outlived him.

If you should say that if we knew the former of the two the same way as we know the second, it would be impossible to have a disagreement on the former, just as it is impossible to have a disagreement on the second; your adversary can say that if we knew the death of Muhammad Ibn al-Hanafiyya and Ja‘far Ibn Muhammad and Musa- Ibn Ja‘far in the same manner we know the death of Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn al-Husain al-Ba-qir, there would not be any dispute in the former just as it is not possible to have a difference on the latter.

فلو جاز الخلاف فيه لجاز الخلاف في جميع ذلك ويؤدي إلى قول الغلاة والمفوضة الذين جحدوا قتل علي والحسين(ع) وذلك سفسطة. وأما الذي يدل على فساد مذهب الواقفة الذين وقفوا في إمامة أبي الحسن موسى (ع) وقالوا: إنه المهدي. فقولهم باطل بما ظهر من موته، واشتهر واستفاض كما اشتهر موت أبيه وجده ومن تقدمه من آبائه (ع) ولو شككنا لم ننفصل من الناووسية والكيسانية والغلاة والمفوضة الذين خالفوا في موت من تقدم من آبائه (ع). على أن موته اشتهر ما لم يشتهر موت أحد من آبائه (ع) لانه اظهروا حضر القضاة والشهود ونودي عليه ببغداد على الجسر وقيل هذا الذي تزعم الرافضة أنه حي لا يموت، مات حتف أنفه، وما جرى هذا المجرى لا يمكن الخلاف فيه. أقول: ثم ذكر في ذلك أخبارا كثيرة روينا عنه في باب وفات الكاظم (ع) ثم قال: فموته (ع) أشهر من أن يحتاج إلى ذكر الرواية به لان المخالف في ذلك يدفع الضرورات والشك في ذلك يؤدي إلى الشك في موت كل واحد من آبائه (ع) وغيرهم، فلا يوثق بموت أحد. على أن المشهور عنه (ع) أنه أوصى إلى ابنه علي (ع) وأسند إليه أمره بعد موته والاخبار بذلك أكثر من أن تحصى. أقول: ثم ذكر بعض الاخبار التي أوردتها في باب النص عليه صلوات الله عليه ثم قال: فان قيل: قد مضى في كلامكم أنا نعلم موت موسى بن جعفر كما نعلم موت أبيه وجده فعليكم لقائل أن يقول إنا نعلم أنه لم يكن للحسن بن علي ابن كما نعلم أنه لم يكن له عشرة بنين وكما نعلم أنه لم يكن للنبي (ص) ابن من صلبه عاش بعد موته، فان قلتم لو علمنا أحدهما كما نعلم الآخر لما جاز أن يقع فيه خلاف كما لا يجوز أن يقع الخلاف في الآخر قيل: لمخالفكم أن يقول ولو علمنا موت محمد بن الحنفية وجعفر بن محمد وموسى بن جعفر كما نعلم موت محمد بن علي بن الحسين لما وقع الخلاف في أحدهما كما لم يجز أن يقع في الآخر

Answer: To prove the negation of the birth of an offspring is impossible in any situation. It is not possible to claim that someone who is not known to have an offspring does not have an offspring. Such claims are made through likelihoods and conjectures and circumstances indicating that if he had an offspring, it would have been known and its news would have spread. However, many a time, prudence indicates that men of wisdom and letters hide their offspring for various considerations.

Many kings hide their offspring for their fear and compassion for their progeny. This has been observed often in the routines of Persian emperors and kings of the antiquity and their stories are famous. People sire sons from their concubines or from their wives they have married secretly, so they reject and ignore their progeny, fearing enmity with their other wives and children.

This is also not uncommon amongst the people. Some people marry a woman of low social prominence and class, while they are coming from the upper echelon and when they father a son from such a woman, they consider it a challenge to their distinction to attribute the son to himself so they deny their relationship altogether, and some of them pity and offer the boy some of their wealth. Sometimes a man of a low stature marries a woman coming from a noble family, many a time because of her infatuation in him and without her family knowing, either because her guardian does not exist as many jurists allow that, or the ruler has taken over her affairs and marries her to him.

When a son is born for him, though the boy is healthy, she disowns the son because of her pride or because of her fear from her guardians or elders. Many other reasons are conceivable, which we will not mention to avoid lengthening the discourse. Therefore, it is not possible to negate fatherhood altogether. We can know that only when all the aspects are immaculate and it is known there is no encumbrance from declaring fatherhood - only then the negation of fatherhood can be known.

Our knowledge that the Messenger of Allah (a.s) did not have a son who outlived him is due to our knowledge of his infallibility and his Prophethood, and that if he had a son he would have made it known, because there was no fear in making it public. Moreover, we know through the consensus of the Ummah that he did not have a son who lived after him.

The same cannot be claimed with respect to the offspring of al-Hasan (a.s) because al-Hasan (a.s) was interdicted and was practically a prisoner. There was much worry and concern and fear for the offspring, as it had been a known and famed article of the Shi-‘a faith that the Twelfth Hujja is going to be the Establisher (Qa-'im) of the Order for the termination of the governments. Therefore, he was inevitably wanted. Also he feared from his family members like Ja‘far his brother, who was eying the inheritance and the wealth with greed. Thus, he hid his son and doubts with respect to his birth were caused.

It is not warranted to analogize the negation of having a son to the subject of knowing the death of a person. Because when someone dies, the deceased is seen and known, and his death is known through the circumstances and other evidences that compel anyone who sees them into conviction and when he informs someone who has not seen the deceased personally, he would be compelled to conviction as well.

قلنا: نفي ولادة الأولاد من الباب الذي لا يصح أن يعلم صدوره في موضع من المواضع ولا يمكن أحدا أن يدعي فيمن لم يظهر له ولد أن يعلم أنه لا ولد له وإنما يرجع في ذلك إلى غالب الظن والامارة بأنه لو كان له ولد لظهر وعرف خبره لان العقلاء قد يدعوهم الدواعي إلى كتمان أولادهم لاغراض مختلفة. فمن الملوك من يخفيه خوفا عليه وإشفاقا وقد وجد في ذلك كثير في عادة الاكاسرة والملوك الاول وأخبارهم معروفة. وفي الناس من يولد له ولد من بعض سراياه أو ممن تزوج به سرا فيرمي به ويجحده خوفا من وقوع الخصومة مع زوجته وأولاده الباقين وذلك أيضا يوجد كثيرا في العادة. وفي الناس من يتزوج بامرأة دنيئة في المنـزلة والشرف وهو من ذوي الاقدار والمنازل فيولد له، فيأنف من إلحاقه به فيجحده أصلا وفيهم من يتحرج فيعطيه شيئا من ماله. وفي الناس من يكون من أدونهم نسبا فيتزوج بامرأة ذات شرف ومنـزلة لهوى منها فيه بغير علم من أهلها إما بأن يزوجه نفسها بغير ولي على مذهب كثير من الفقهاء أو تولى أمرها الحاكم فيزوجها على ظاهر الحال فيولد له فيكون الولد صحيحا وتنتفي منه أنفة وخوفا من أوليائها وأهلها! وغير ذلك من الاسباب التي لانطول بذكرها، فلا يمكن ادعاء نفي الولادة جملة، وإنما نعلم ما نعلمه إذا كانت الاحوال سليمة ويعلم أنه لا مانع من ذلك فحينئذ يعلم انتفاؤه. فأما علمنا بأنه لم يكن للنبي (ص) ابن عاش بعده فانما علمناه لما علمنا عصمته ونبوته ولو كان له ولد لأظهره لأنه لا مخافة عليه في إظهاره وعلمنا أيضا باجماع الأمة على أنه لم يكن له ابن عاش بعده، ومثل ذلك لا يمكن أن يدعى العلم به في ابن الحسن (ع) لأن الحسن (ع) كان كالمحجور عليه، وفي حكم المحبوس، وكان الولد يخاف عليه، لما علم وانتشر من مذهبهم أن الثاني عشر هو القائم بالامر لإزالة الدول فهو مطلوب لا محالة. وخاف أيضا من أهله كجعفر أخيه الذي طمع في الميراث والاموال فلذلك أخفاه ووقعت الشبهة في ولادته ومثل ذلك لا يمكن ادعاء العلم به في موت من علم موته لان الميت مشاهد معلوم يعرف بشاهد الحال موته، وبالامارات الدالة عليه يضطر من رآه إلى ذلك، فإذا أخبر من لم يشاهده علمه واضطر إليه، وجرى الفرق بين الموضعين

The parallel analogy of the two situations is like the edict of the jurists that witnesses can only testify to prove rights, not to negate them, because negation is not subject to observation unless it is based on an affirmation. Therefore, the difference of the two situations is clear.

Query: The merit is the same between the two scenes, for in the case of death, many a time it is observed that the man is dying, just as midwives witness the birth of a child. However, not everyone witnesses the death of another man, just as not everyone witnesses the birth of a child. The best a man may know about the death of another person whom he has not seen die is to be his neighbor, know of his malady, visit him during his unwell period, then learn of his worsening condition, and then hear wailing from his house, while there has been no other sick person there. Then he sees the family of the sick neighbor sit in mourning and observes marks of grief and loss on their faces. Then his inheritance is distributed and long times pass while no reason can be thought off that his family would proclaim his death while he is alive. The same is true with respect to birth, since women witness the pregnancy and talk about it. Specially, if she is the honor of a nobleman, people will discuss the condition of such a person.

And if he courts a concubine, his visits to her will not remain a secret. And when the child is born, people of the house will exude gaiety and jubilation. People will congratulate them if the family is a prominent one and the news will spread. And according to the prominence of the family, people will know that such and such has sired a baby, specially so when it is known that there is no objective in expressing that a baby has been born for him or not. So when we consider this, the ordinary behavior is the same in both cases. And if Allah should desire to supercede the ordinary behavior, He can do it in either one of the two. It is possible that He may disallow through certain encumbrances the pregnant woman to be seen and that her delivery not to be attended but by a few who are as trustworthy as themselves in safeguarding their secret. It is equally possible that a man should become sick and visitors visit him and when his malady worsens and his death is expected and hope is lost in his life, Allah transfers him to a mountain top and place in his stead a dead person who looks like him.

Then through encumbrances He disallows him to be viewed except by trusted individuals. Then the corpse is buried and his funeral is attended by all those who expected his death and had lost hope in his life, all thinking that the one who is buried is the one who was sick. Many a time, it is possible that a man’s pulse and breathing ceases, and then Allah breaks the ordinary norms and takes him away from the people, while he is alive. Because a living individual needs pulse and breathing in order to exhale burning gases from around the heart through inhaling cool clean air, to cleanse the heart. It is possible that Allah creates coolness in the air surrounding the heart so it may work in the place of the cool air that enters through respiration and it is possible that He arranges that none of it may burn, for the heat that is produced therein is killed by the coolness.

Answer: First we say that no one who believes in the occultation takes recourse to such superstitions, unless he is deprived of proofs and unable to refute a strong doubt.

مثل ما يقول الفقهاء من أن البينة إنما يمكن أن يقوم على إثبات الحقوق لا على نفيها لان النفي لا تقوم عليه بينة إلا إذا كان تحته إثبات فباق الفرق بين الموضعين لذلك. فان قيل: العادة تسوى بين الموضعين لان (في) الموت قد يشاهد الرجل يحتضر كما يشاهد القوابل الولادة، وليس كل أحد يشاهد احتضار غيره كما أنه ليس كل أحد يشاهد ولادة غيره ولكن أظهر ما يمكن في علم الانسان بموت غيره إذا لم يكن يشاهده أن يكون جاره ويعلم بمرضه ويتردد في عيادته ثم يعلم بشدة مرضه ثم يسمع الواعية من داره ولا يكون في الدار مريض غيره، ويجلس أهله للعزاء وآثار الحزن والجزع عليهم ظاهرة ثم يقسم ميراثه ثم يتمادى الزمان ولا يشاهد ولا يعلم لاهله غرض في إظهار موته وهو حي. فهذه سبيل الولادة لان النساء يشاهدن الحمل ويتحدثن بذلك سيما إذا كانت حرمة رجل نبيه يتحدث الناس بأحواله مثله وإذا استسر بجارية لم يخف تردده إليها ثم إذا ولد المولود ظهر البشر والسرور في أهل الدار وهنأهم الناس إذا كان المهنأ جليل القدر وانتشر ذلك وتحدث على حسب جلالة قدره فيعلم الناس أنه قد ولد له مولود سيما إذا علم أنه لا غرض في أن يظهر أنه ولد له ولد ولم يولد له. فمتى اعتبرنا العادة وجدناها في الموضعين على سواء وإن نقض الله العادة فيمكن في أحدهما مثل ما يمكن في الآخر فانه قد يجوز أن يمنع الله ببعض الشواغل عن مشاهدة الحامل وعن أن يحضر ولادتها إلا عدد يؤمن مثلهم على كتمان أمره ثم ينقله الله من مكان الولادة إلى قلة جبل أو برية لا أحد فيها ولا يطلع على ذلك إلا من لا يظهره على المأمون مثله. وكما يجوز ذلك فانه يجوز أن يمرض الانسان ويتردد إليه عواده فإذا اشتد وتوقع موته، وكان يؤيس من حياته، نقله الله إلى قلة جبل وصير مكانه شخصا ميتا يشبهه كثيرا من الشبهه ثم يمنع بالشواغل وغيرها من مشاهدته إلا بمن يوثق به ثم يدفن الشخص ويحضر جنازته من كان يتوقع موته ولا يرجو حياته فيتوهم أن المدفون هو ذاك العليل. وقد يسكن نبض الانسان وتنفسه وينقض الله العادة ويغيبه عنهم وهو حي لان الحي منا إنما يحتاج إليهما لاخراج البخارات المحترقة مما حول القلب بادخال هواء بارد صاف ليروح عن القلب وقد يمكن أن يفعل الله من البرودة في الهواء المطيفة بالقلب ما يجري مجرى هواء بارد يدخلها بالتنفس، فيكون الهواء المحدق بالقلب أبدا باردا ولا يحترق منه شئ لان الحرارة التي تحصل فيه يقوم بالبرودة. والجواب أنا نقول: أولا أنه لا يلتجئ من يتكلم في الغيبة إلى مثل هذه الخرافات إلا من كان مفلساً من الحجة، عاجزاً عن إيراد شبهة قوية


3

4

5

6

7

8