Then I Was Guided

Then I Was Guided16%

Then I Was Guided Author:
Publisher: www.alhassanain.org/english
Category: Debates and Replies

Then I Was Guided
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 32 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 15305 / Download: 3664
Size Size Size
Then I Was Guided

Then I Was Guided

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

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

The Companions and the Raziyat Yawm al Khamis (The Calamity of Thursday)

Briefly the story is as follows:

The Companions were meeting in the Messenger's house, three days before he died. He ordered them to bring him a bone and an ink pot so that he could write a statement for them which would prevent them from straying from the right path, but the Companions differed among themselves and some of them disobeyed the Prophet and accused him of talking nonsense. The Messenger of Allah became very angry and ordered them out of his house without issuing any statement.

This is the story in some details:

Ibn Abbas said: Thursday, and what a Thursday that was! The Messenger's pain became very severe, and he said, "Come here, I will write you a document which will prevent you from straying from the right path." But Umar said that the Prophet was under the spell of the pain, and that they had the Qur'an which was sufficient being the Book of Allah. Ahl al-Bayt then differed and quarreled amongst themselves, some of them agreeing with what the Prophet said, while others supported Umar's view. When the debate became heated and the noise became louder, the Messenger of Allah said to them, "Leave me alone."

Ibn Abbas said: “The disaster was that the disagreement among the Companions prevented the Messenger from writing that document for them.”1

The incident is correct and there is no doubt about its authenticity, for it was cited by the Shi’i scholars and their historians in their books, as well as by the Sunni scholars and historians in their books. As I was committed to consider the incident, I found myself bewildered by Umar's behavior regarding the order of the Messenger of Allah. And what an order it was! "To prevent the nation from going astray", for undoubtedly that statement would have had something new in it for the Muslims and would have left them without a shadow of doubt.

Now let us leave the points of view of the Shi’a, that is that the Messenger wanted to write the name of ‘Ali as his successor, and that Umar realized this, so he prevented it. Perhaps because they do not convince us initially with that hypothesis, but can we find a sensible explanation to this hurtful incident which angered the Messenger so much that he ordered them to leave, and made Ibn Abbas cry until he made the stones wet from his tears and called it a "great disaster"? The Sunnis say that Umar recognized that the Prophet's illness was advancing, so he wanted to comfort him and relieve him from any pressure.

This type of reasoning would not be accepted by simple-minded people, let alone by the scholars. I repeatedly tried to find an excuse for Umar but the circumstances surrounding the incident prevented me from finding an excuse. Even if I changed the words "He is talking nonsense", God forbid, to "the pain has overcome him", I could not find any justification for Umar when he said, "You have the Qur'an, and it is sufficient being the Book of Allah."

Did he know the Qur'an better than the Messenger of Allah, for whom it was revealed? Or was the Messenger of Allah, God forbid, unaware of what he was? Or did he seek, through his order, to create division and disagreement among the Companions, God forbid.

Even if the Sunni reasoning was right, then the Messenger of Allah would have realized the good will of Umar and thanked him for that and perhaps asked him to stay, instead of feeling angry at him and telling them to leave his house. May I ask why did they abide by his order when he asked them to leave the room and did not say then that he was "talking nonsense"?

Was it because they had succeeded in their plot to prevent the Prophet from writing the document, so that there was no need for them to stay any longer? Thus, we find them creating noise and difference in the presence of the Messenger, and divided into two parties: one agreeing with the Messenger of Allah about writing that document, while the other agreed with Umar "that he was talking nonsense.”

The matter is not just concerned with Umar alone, for if it was so, the Messenger of Allah would have persuaded him that he could not be talking nonsense and that the pain could not overcome him in matters of the nation's guidance and of preventing it from going astray. But the situation became much more serious, and Umar found some supporters who seemingly had a prior agreement on their stand, and so they created the noise and the disagreement among themselves and forgot, or perhaps pretended to forget, the words of Allah, the Most High:

“O You who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and do not speak loud to him as you speak loud to one another, lest your deeds become null while you do not perceive.” (Holy Qur'an 49:2)

In this incident they went beyond raising their voices and talking loud to accusing the Messenger of Allah of talking nonsense, God forbid, then they increased their noise and differences until it became a battle of words in his presence.

I think the majority of the Companions were with Umar, and that is why the Messenger of Allah found it useless to write the document, because he knew that they would not respect him and would not abide by the command of Allah by not raising their voices in his presence, and if they were rebellious against the command of Allah, then they would never obey the order of His Messenger.

Thus, the wisdom of the Messenger ruled that he was not to write the document because it had been attacked during his lifetime, let alone after his death.

The critics would say that he was talking nonsense, and perhaps they would doubt some of the orders he passed whilst on his death-bed, for they were convinced that he was talking nonsense.

I ask Allah for forgiveness, and renounce what has been said in the presence of the holy Messenger, for how could I convince myself and my free conscience that Umar ibn al-Khattab was acting spontaneously, whereas his friends and others who were present at the incident cried until their tears wet the stones, and named the incident "the misfortune of the Muslims". I therefore decided to reject all the justifications given to explain the incident, and even tried to deny it so that I could relax and forget about the tragedy, but all the books referred to it and accepted its authenticity but could not provide sound justification for it.

I tend to agree with the Shi’i point of view in explaining the incident because I find it logical and very coherent.

I still remember the answer which al-Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr gave me when I asked him, "How did our master Umar understand, among all the Companions what the Messenger wanted to write, namely the appointment of ‘Ali as his successor, as you claim, which shows that he was a clever man?"

Al-Sayyid al-Sadr said: Umar was not the only one who anticipated what the Messenger was going to write. In fact most of the people who were present then understood the situation the same way as Umar did, because the Messenger of Allah had previously indicated the issue when he said, "I shall leave you with two weighty things: the Book of Allah and the members of my Family (Ahl al-Bayt) and their descendants, if you follow them, you will never go astray after me."

And during his illness he said to them, "Let me write you a document, if you follow its contents, you will never go astray." Those who were present, including Umar, understood that the Messenger of Allah wanted to reiterate, in writing, what he had already said in Ghadir Khum, and that was to follow the Book of Allah and Ahl al-Bayt and that ‘Ali was the head of it. It was as if the holy Prophet (saw) was saying, "Follow the Qur'an and ‘Ali." He said similar things on many occasions, as has been stated by many historians.

The majority of Quraysh did not like ‘Ali because he was young and because he smashed their arrogance and had killed their heroes; but they did not dare oppose the Messenger of Allah, as they had done at the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyah, and when the Messenger prayed for Abdullah ibn Abi al- Munafiq, and on many other incidents recorded by history. This incident was one of them, and you see that the opposition against writing that document during the Prophets illness encouraged some of those who were present to be insolent and make so much noise in his presence.

That answer came in accordance with what the saying meant. But Umar's statement, "You have the Qur'an, and it is sufficient, being the Book of Allah" was not in accordance with the saying which ordered them to follow the Book of Allah and the Household (Ahl al-Bayt) together. It looks as if he meant to say, "We have the Book of Allah, and that is sufficient for us, therefore there is no need for Ahl al-Bayt."

I could not see any other reasonable explanation to the incident other than this one, unless it was meant to say, 'Obey Allah but not His Messenger." And this argument is invalid and not sensible. If I put my prejudices and my emotions aside and base my judgment on a clean and free mind, I would tend towards the first analysis, which stops short of accusing Umar of being the first one to reject the Prophet's Tradition (al-Sunnah) when he said, "It is sufficient for us, being the Book of Allah.”

Then if there were some rulers who rejected the Prophet's Traditions claiming that it was "contradictory", they only followed an earlier example in the history of Islam. However, I do not want to burden Umar alone with the responsibility for that incident and the subsequent deprivation of the nation of the guidance. To be fair to him, I suggest that the responsibility should be borne by him and those Companions who were with him and who supported him in his opposition to the command of the Messenger of Allah.

I am astonished by those who read this incident and feel as if nothing happened, despite that it was one of the "great misfortunes" as Ibn Abbas called it. My astonishment is even greater regarding those who try hard to preserve the honor of a Companion and to correct his mistake, even if at the cost of the Prophet's dignity and honor and at the cost of Islam and its foundations.

Why do we escape from the truth and try to obliterate it when it is not in accordance with our whims…why do not we accept that the Companions were human like us, and had their own whims, prejudices and interests, and could commit mistakes or could be right?

But my astonishment fades when I read the Book of Allah in which He tells us the stories of the prophets- may Allah bless them and grant them peace - and the disobedience they faced from their people despite all the miracles they produced. Our God! Make not our hearts to deviate after thou hast guided us aright, and grant us from Your Mercy; surely You are the Most Liberal Giver.

I began to understand the background to the Shi’a's attitude towards the second Caliph, whom they charge with the responsibility for many tragic events in the history of Islam, starting from "Raziyat Yawm al-Khamis" when the Islamic nation was deprived of the written guidance which the Messenger wanted to write for them. The inescapable fact is that the sensible man who knew the truth before he encountered the men seeks an excuse for the Shias in this matter, but there is nothing we can say to convince those who only judge truth through men.

Note

1. Sahih, Bukhari, Chapter: About the saying of the sick, vol 2, Sahih, Muslim, End of the book of al Wasiyyah, vol 5 p 75, Musnad, Ahmed, vol 1 p 335, vol 5 p 116 Tarikh, Tabari, vol 3 p 193, Tarikh, Ibn al Athir, vol 2 p 320

The Companions in the Military Detachment under Usamah

The story in brief is as follows: The Prophet (saw) organized an army to be sent to Asia Minor two days before his death. He appointed Usamah ibn Zayd ibn Haritha, (who was eighteen years old), as its commander in chief, then the holy Prophet attached some important men, both MuHajjireen and Ansar, to this expedition, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Obaydah and other well-known Companions.

Some people criticized the Prophet for appointing Usamah as the commander in chief of that army, and asked how could he have appointed so young a man as their commander. In fact the same people had previously criticized the Prophet for appointing Usamah's father as an army commander before him. They went on criticizing until the Prophet became so angry that he left his bed, feverish and with his head bandaged, with two men supporting him and his feet barely touching the ground (may my parents be sacrificed for him).

He ascended the pulpit, praised Allah highly then said, “O People! I have been informed that some of you object to my appointing Usamah as commander of the detachment. You now object to my appointing Usamah as commander in chief as you objected to me appointing his father commander in chief before him. By Allah, his father was certainly competent for his appointment as commander in chief and his son is also competent for the appointment.”1

Then he exhorted them to start without further delay and kept saying, “Send the detachment of Usamah; deploy the detachment of Usamah, send forward the detachment of Usamah." He kept repeating the exhortations but the Companions were still sluggish, and camped by al-Jurf.

Events like that made me ask, "What is this insolence towards Allah and His Messenger? Why all that disobedience towards the orders of the blessed Messenger who was so caring and kind to all the believers?"

I could not imagine, nor indeed could anybody else, an acceptable explanation for all that disobedience and insolence. As usual, when I read about those events which touch on the integrity of the Companions, I try to deny or ignore them, but it is impossible to do so when all the historians and scholars, Shi’a and Sunnis, agree on their authenticity.

I have promised my God to be fair, and I shall never be biased in favor of my creed, and will never use anything but the truth as my criterion. But the truth here is so bitter, and the holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said, "Say the truth even if it is about you, and say the truth even if it is bitter..." The truth in this case is that the Companions who criticized the appointment of Usamah disobeyed all the clear texts that could not be doubted or misinterpreted, and there is no excuse for that, although some people make flimsy excuses in order to preserve the integrity of the Companions and "the virtuous ancestors".

But the free and sensible person would not accept such feeble excuses, unless he is one of those who cannot comprehend any saying, or is perhaps one of those who are blinded by their own prejudice to the extent that they cannot differentiate between the obligatory task that must be obeyed and the prohibition that must be avoided. I thought deeply to find an acceptable excuse for those people, but without success.

I read the points of view of the Sunnis which provide us with an excuse based on the fact that these people were the elders of Quraysh, and were among the early followers of Islam, whereas Usamah was a young man who had not fought in the decisive battles that gave Islam its glory, such as Badr, Uhud and Hunayn; and that he was a young man with no experience of life when the Messenger of Allah appointed him military commander. Furthermore, they thought that human nature, by its inclination, makes it difficult for elderly people to be led by young men, therefore they (i.e. the Companions) criticized the appointment and wanted the Messenger of Allah to appoint a prominent and respectable Companion.

It is an excuse which is not based on any rational or logical premise, and any Muslim who reads the Qur'an and understands its rules must reject such an excuse, because Allah- the Almighty - says:

"Whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back." (Holy Qur'an 59:7)

"And it behooves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying." (Holy Qur'an 33:36)

So what kind of an excuse could any rational person accept after reading all these clear texts, and what can I say about people who angered the Messenger of Allah, when they knew that the Messenger's anger is Allah's anger. They accused him of talking "nonsense", and they shouted and disagreed in his presence when he was ill (may my parents be sacrificed for him), until he ordered them to leave his room.

That did not seem to be enough for them, and instead of returning to the right path and asking Allah's forgiveness for what they had done to His Messenger, and asking the Messenger for forgiveness as the Qur'an taught them, they went on criticizing him, despite all the care and kindness he had for them. They did not appreciate him or respect him, and two days after having accused him of talking "nonsense", they criticized him for appointing Usamah as military commander.

They forced him to come out in the appalling condition which the historians describe. Due to the severity of his illness, he had to walk with the support of two men, and then he had to swear by Allah that Usamah was a competent commander for the army.

Furthermore, the Messenger informed us that they had criticized him previously for appointing his father as a commander, which indicates that these people had had many previous confrontations with him, and that they were not willing to obey his orders or accept his judgment, rather, they were prepared to oppose him and confront him, even if such behavior went against the rules of Allah and His Messenger.

What leads us to believe that there was open opposition (to the orders of the Prophet), was that in spite of all the anger shown by the Messenger of Allah, and the fact that he himself tied the flag with his noble hand to the post and commanded them to march immediately, they were sluggish and reluctant to move, and did not go until he had died (may my parents be sacrificed for him). The Prophet (s.a.w.) died feeling sorry for his unfortunate nation, which he feared would go backwards and end up in hell, and no one would be saved except a few, and the Messenger of Allah described them as a handful.

I am surprised that those Companions angered the Prophet on that Thursday and accused him of talking "nonsense", and said, "It is sufficient for us that we have the Book of Allah,” when the Holy Qur'an states:

"Say if you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you." (Holy Qur'an 3:31)

As if they were more knowledgeable about the Book of Allah and its rules than he to whom it had been revealed. There they were, two days after that great misfortune, and two days before he (the holy Prophet) went up to meet his High Companion, angering him even more by criticizing him for appointing Usamah, and not obeying his orders.

Whereas he was ill and bed-ridden in the first misfortune, in the second one he had to come out, with his head bandaged and covered by a blanket and supported by two men with his feet barely on the ground, and address them from the top of the pulpit. He started his speech with the profession of the unity of Allah and praised Him in order to make them feel that he was not talking nonsense, and then he informed them about what he knew regarding their criticism of his orders.

Furthermore, he reminded them of an incident which had occurred four years previously, in which he was criticized by them. After all that, did they really think that he was talking nonsense or that his illness had overcome him so that he was unaware of what he was saying?

Praise and thanks be to You, Allah, how did these people dare oppose Your Messenger? They disagreed with him when he signed the peace treaty, they opposed him very strongly even when he ordered them to make the sacrifice and shave their heads, and even repeated it three times although no one cared to obey; and again they pulled him by his shirt to prevent him from praying for Abdullah ibn Ubay and said to him, "Allah forbade you from praying for the hypocrites!" As if they were teaching him what had been revealed to him, when You said in Your Holy Qur'an:

"We have revealed to you the reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them." (Holy Qur'an 16:44)

And You said:

"We have revealed the Book to you with the truth that you may judge between people by means of that which Allah has taught you."(Holy Qur'an 4:105)

And You said, and Your saying is the truth:

"We have sent among you a messenger from among you who recites to you Our Verses and purifies you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know." (Holy Qur'an 2:151)

I am astonished at those people who put themselves in a position higher than that of the Prophet. On one occasion they disobeyed his orders, and on another occasion they accused him of talking nonsense, and then talked loudly and without respect in his presence.

They criticized him for appointing Zayd ibn Harithah to the military command, and after him his son Usamah. How could they leave the scholars in any doubt, after all this evidence, that the Shi’a are right when they put a question mark on the position of some of the Companions, and show their resentment towards these positions purely out of respect and love for the Messenger and the members of his Household.

I have mentioned only four or five of these controversial issues to be brief and to use them as examples, but the Shi’i scholars could recount hundreds of situations in which the Companions contradicted the clear texts. In all this the Shi’a refer to sources written in books by Sunni scholars.

When I look at a number of positions taken by a few of the Companions with regard to the Messenger of Allah, I stand astonished; not because of the attitudes of those Companions alone, but because of the position of the Sunni scholars who gave us the impression that the Companions were always right and could not be criticized. Thus they prevented any researcher from reaching the truth and left him puzzled in the midst of all these contradictions.

In addition to the examples that I have mentioned above, I will bring some more in order to establish a better picture of those Companions, so that we may understand the position of the Shi’a towards them.

According to al-Bukhari in his Sahih, Vol. 4 Page 47, section "The virtue of Patience when one is hurt" and the words of the Almighty "...And those who are patient, surely they will be rewarded,” in the Book of Conduct he said:

“Al-Amash told us that he heard Shaqiq saying that Abdullah told him: ‘Once the Holy Prophet divided something among a group of men, as he used to do, when one man from al-Ansar stood up and said, ‘This division is not for the sake of Allah.’ I said, ‘For my part, I shall have a word with the Prophet (s.a.w.).’ So I went to see him, and I found him with his Companions. I explained my grievances, and the Prophet's face changed and showed signs of anger, and I wished that I had not told him, and then he said: ‘Moses was hurt more than that but he was patient.’"

Al-Bukhari mentioned in the same book - i.e. the book of Conduct - in the chapter concerning smiling and laughter that Anas ibn Malik was heard saying: “I was walking with the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) who was wearing a Najrani cloak with a rather thin edge to it, and suddenly a man approached him and pulled harshly at his cloak.

Anas continued: I looked at the side of the Prophet (s.a.w.) and noticed that as a result of that harsh pull, the edge of the cloak went up to his shoulder, then the man said, 'O Muhammad, give me some of what you have from Allah's wealth!’ The Prophet turned to him and laughed, and then he ordered his Companions to pay him something.”

Al-Bukhari also mentioned the following incident in the Book of Conduct and put it in the chapter concerning "He who does not face people with blame", he said: “Aisha said that the Prophet (s.a.w.) did something and made it permissible, but no one followed what the Prophet did. The Prophet (s.a.w.) happened to hear about it, so he decided to address the people. He first thanked Allah then said: ‘What is the matter with people who refrain from the thing I did? By Allah, I know more than any of them about Allah, and I fear Him most...!’

When we look deeply at incidents like those above we find that the Companions put themselves on a higher level than the Prophet, and thought that he was wrong and they were right. Furthermore, there were some historians who deliberately corrected the position of the Companions, even if that contradicted the action taken by the Prophet, and showed them at a level of knowledge and piety higher than that of the Prophet.

As is the case when they judge the Prophet wrong in the case of the Prisoners of War at the battle of Badr, so it appears that Umar ibn al-Khattab was right. They also tell wrong stories, such as the following saying attributed to the people: If Allah decided to inflict a disaster on us; no one will escape except Ibn al-Khattab. In other words, they were saying, "If it was not for Umar, the Prophet would have perished." God protect us from such a corrupt and shameful belief, and he who adheres to this kind of belief is surely far from Islam, and ought to review his thinking or rid himself of the devil.

Allah, the most High, said:

"Have you considered him who takes his low desire for his God and Allah has made him err having knowledge and has set a seal upon his ear and his heart and put a covering upon his eye. Who can then guide him after Allah? Will not they be mindful?" (Holy Qur'an 45:23)

I believe that those who think that the Prophet (s.a.w.) was subject to his emotions to the extent that he deviated from the right path and made a judgment not for the cause of Allah, or those who refrained from doing things which were done by the Messenger of Allah thinking that they were more knowledgeable and more pious than the Messenger, do not deserve any respect or appreciation from the Muslims.

They were put at the same level as the angels, as the best people in the whole of creation after the Messenger of Allah, so that Muslims are obliged to follow them and take them as an example, just because they were the Companions of the Messenger of Allah.

That contradicts the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah, who pray for Muhammad and his family, and then add all the Companions. If Allah, praise be to Him the Most High, appreciated them and put them in their correct position and ordered them to pray for His Messenger and the purified members of his family, they should have submitted and known their place with Allah. Why should we then put them in a position which is higher than they deserve and equate them with those people whom Allah has elevated and preferred above all people?

Let me then conclude that the Umayyads and the Abbasids, who opposed-Ahl al-Bayt and exiled them and killed them with their followers, got the gist of that distinguished position and recognized its danger for them. For if Allah, praise be to Him, would not accept the prayers of a Muslim unless he prays for them (Ahl al-Bayt): how could they justify their opposition to them. Therefore, they attached the Companions to Ahl al-Bayt in order to give the impression to the public that they are equal.

Especially when we know that their masters and dignitaries were Companions who bought some other Companions known to have weak personalities and asked them to distribute fabricated sayings (of the Prophet) in praise of the Companions and the next generation, and in particular those who reached the position of Caliphs (i.e. the Umayyad and Abbasid) and they were the direct reason behind them attaining this position and becoming rulers over all the Muslims.

History is the best witness to what I am saying: Umar ibn al-Khattab, who was well known for his strictness towards his governors whom used to dismiss them on mere suspicions, was quite gentle towards Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan and never disciplined him. Muawiyah was appointed by Abu Bakr and confirmed by Umar throughout his life, who never even rebuked him or blamed him, despite the fact that many people complained about Muawiyah and reported him for wearing silk and gold, which was prohibited to men by the Messenger of Allah. Umar used to answer these complaints by saying, "Let him be, he is the Kisra (king) of the Arabs."

Muawiyah continued in the governorship for more than twenty years without being touched or criticized, and when Uthman succeeded to the caliphate of the Muslims, he added to his authority further districts and regions, which enabled him to a mass great wealth from the Islamic nation and to raise armies to rebel against the Imam (Leader) of the nation and subsequently take the full power by force and intimidation. Thus he became the sole ruler of all Muslims, and later forced them to vote for his corrupt and alcohol drinking son Yazid, as his heir and successor.

This is a long story so I will not go into its details in this book, but the important thing is that we should understand the mentality of those Companions who reached the position of caliph and facilitated the establishment of the Umayyad state in a direct way, so as to please Quraysh which did not want to see both the Prophethood and the caliphate in the House of Bani Hashim.2

The Umayyad state had the right, or indeed was obliged to thank those who had facilitated its establishment, most of all the "story tellers" whom it hired to tell tales about the virtues of their masters. In the meantime it elevated them to a higher place than that of their enemies, Ahl al-Bayt, simply by inventing virtues and merits, which if (may Allah witness) examined under the light of logical and legal evidence mostly disappear, unless there is something wrong with our minds or we have started believing in contradictions.

For example, we hear so much about Umar's justice which the "story-tellers" attributed to him. It was even said about him "You ruled with justice, therefore you can sleep." It has also been said that Umar was buried in a standing position so that justice would not die with him…and you could go on and on talking about Umar's justice.

However, the correct history tells us that when Umar ordered that grants should be distributed among the people during the twentieth year of al-Hijrah, he did not follow the tradition of the Messenger of Allah, nor did he confine himself to its rules. The Prophet (s.a.w.) distributed the grants on an equal basis among all Muslims and did not differentiate between one person and another, and Abu Bakr did the same throughout his caliphate.

But Umar introduced a new method. He preferred the early converts to Islam to those who came later. He preferred al-MuHajjireen (immigrants from Mecca to Medinah) from Quraysh to other MuHajjireen. He preferred all the MuHajjireen to al-Ansar (followers of Prophet Muhammad in Medinah who granted him refuge after the Hijra). He preferred the Arabs to the non-Arabs. He preferred the freeman to the slave.3 He preferred (the tribe of) Mudar to (the tribe of) Rabia for he gave three hundred to the former and two hundred to the latter.4 He also preferred al-Aws to al-Khazraj.5

Where is the justice in all this differentiation, O people who have minds?

We also hear so much about Umar's knowledge, to the extent he was described as the most knowledgeable Companion, and it has been said about him that he agreed with his God on many ideas that were revealed in various Qur'anic verses, and that he disagreed with the Prophet about them. But the correct history tells us that Umar did not agree with the Qur'an, even after it had been revealed.

When one of the Companions asked him one day during his caliphate, "O Commander of the Believers, I am unclean, but I cannot find water to wash." Umar answered, "Do not pray." Then Ammar ibn Yasir had to remind him about Tayammum (ritual cleaning with earth), but Umar was not convinced, and said to Ammar, "You are responsible only for the duties which have been assigned to you."6

Where is Umar's knowledge regarding the Tayammum verse which had been revealed in the Book of Allah, and where is Umar's knowledge of the Tradition of the Prophet (s.a.w.) who taught them how to do Tayammum as well as Wudu (ritual ablution). Umar himself confessed on many occasions that he was not a scholar, and that all people, even women were more knowledgeable than him, and he was heard saying many times, "If it was not for ‘Ali, Umar would have perished." And throughout his life he did not know the rule of al-Kalalah (relatives of the dead excluding the son and the father), although he passed various different judgments about it, as history witnesses.

We also hear a great deal about the courage and physical strength of Umar, and it has been said that Quraysh feared the day when Umar became a Muslim, and that Islam became even stronger when he entered the religion. It has also been said that Allah glorified Islam with Umar, and that the Messenger of Allah did not call for Islam openly until after Umar had become a Muslim.

But the correct historical references do not seem to indicate that courage, and history does not mention one famous or even ordinary person who has been killed by Umar in a dual or a battle like Badr and Uhud or al-Khandaq. In fact the correct historical references tell us exactly the opposite; they tell us that he escaped with the fugitives in Uhud, and escaped on the day of Hunayn, and that when the Messenger of Allah sent him to take the city of Khayber he returned defeated. He was never even the leader in the military detachments in which he served and in the last one (that of Usamah) he was put under the charge of young Usamah ibn Zayd. So where is all that courage compared to these historical facts…O people who have minds?

We also hear about Umar's piety and his great fear of Allah, to the extent of crying. It has been said that he was afraid of being accountable before Allah if a mule tumbled in Iraq because he did not pave the road for it. But the correct historical sources tell us that he was a rough man who lacked piety and did not hesitate to beat a man until he bled because he asked him about a Qur'anic verse, and even that women used to miscarry their babies out of fear when they saw him. Why did he not fear Allah when he raised his sword and threatened anybody who said that Muhammad had died, and he swore by Allah that he had not died, rather, he had gone to talk to his God in the same way as Moses did. Then he threatened to kill whoever said that Muhammad was dead.7

Why did he not fear Allah when he threatened to burn Fatimah al-Zahra's house if those who refrained from voting for the successorship of the caliphate did not come out?8 It has been said that when he was told that Fatimah was inside, he answered, "So what!" He violated the Book of Allah and the Tradition of the Prophet and passed rules and judgments during his caliphate which contradicted the texts of the Holy Qur'an and the noble Tradition of the Prophet (s.a.w.).9

So where was all that piety and fear of Allah in all these bitter and sad historical facts, O good worshippers of Allah? I took this great and famous Companion as an example, and I have summarized a great deal to avoid prolongation, but if I wanted to talk in some detail, I could have filled many volumes. But as I said I have mentioned these historical references as examples and not for specific reasons.

What I have mentioned is a small amount, but it gives us a clear indication as to the mentalities of the Companions and the contradictory attitudes of the Sunni scholars and historians. For on the one hand they forbid people from criticizing them or doubting their intentions, but on the other hand they write in their books things that make people doubt their deeds and criticize them.

I wish the Sunni scholars had not written about these matters in such a way that it clearly sullies the dignity of the Companions and ruins their integrity. If they had not we would have been spared all that confusion.

I still remember meeting a scholar from al-Najaf whose name was Asad Hayder (author of "Al-lmam al-Sadiq wa al- Madhahib al-Arbaah") and as we were talking about the Sunnis and the Shi’a he told me a story about his father. He (i.e. the father) had met a Tunisian scholar from al-Zaytunah during the pilgrimage season some fifty years ago, and started a debate about the Imamate of ‘Ali - may Allah's peace be upon him - and his eligibility to the succession for the caliphate. The Tunisian scholar listened attentively as the other man mentioned four or five reasons. When he had finished, the scholar from al-Zaytunah asked him, "Have you got any other reasons?" The man answered, "No." Then the Tunisian scholar said, "Get your rosary out and start counting, then he listed some hundred reasons that my father had not known before.”

Shaykh Asad Hayder added, "If the Sunnis read what is in their books, then they would say similar things to what we are saying and we would not have any differences between us for a long time."

By my life! It is the inevitable truth, if only man would liberate himself from his blind prejudice and his arrogance and submit to the clear proof.

Notes

1. Al-Tabaqat by Ibn Sa’ad Vol.; Tarikh Ibn al-Athir Vol. 2 page 317; Al-Sirah al-Halabiyah Vol. 3 page 207; Tarikh al-Tabari Vol. 3 page 226

2. For more detail read: Al-Khilafah wa al-mulk by Abu al Aala al-Mawdudi.; Yawm al-Islam by Ahmed Amin.

3. Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid Vol. 8 page 111.

4. Tarikh al-Ya’qubi Vol.2 page 106.

5. Futuh al-Buldan page 437.

6. Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 1 page 52.

7. Tarikh al-Tabari and Tarikh Ibn al-Athir.

8. Al-Imamah wal Siyasah by Ibn Qutaybah.

9. See Al-Nas wal-Ijtihad by Abdul Husayn Sharaf al-Din.

Realization of the prophecies

In this chapter, we shall discuss whether the prophecies of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) and the infallible Imams (a.s.) concerning Hazrat Mahdi (a.t.f.s.) have occurred or not. For example, it has been prophesied that Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) is the ninth son of Imam Husain (a.s.). Now we shall see whether this prediction has been actualised or Allah forbid, there was an element of falsehood in this statement. Here, we should refer to history.

Our subject of historical investigation is whether the birth of this promised person has taken place or not? If yes, when? Who was his father? Where was he born? In other words, we will try to find out the details of Imam-e-Zaman’s (a.t.f.s.) birth certificate. Of course, this is a partial discussion that should not be searched for in the general Islamic history. This discussion should be pursued in the life history of the Imams (a.s.), and that too, the twelfth Imam (a.t.f.s.).

Anyway, it should also be known that books of traditions compiled on this subject prove that a detailed knowledge of the birth of Prophets (a.s.) and Imams (a.s.) are not an essential part of our creed. For, it is possible that somebody believes in the basic principle of Imam-e-Zaman’s (a.t.f.s.) Imamat and also accepts his existence, but does not accept that he was born on the 15th Sha’baan. It does not weaken his belief in Imamat in any way.

The characteristics of birth are not an important subject that belief in it necessitates a series of historical references. Even for other Imams (a.s.) too, we do not have traditions dwelling in detail about the birth of all of them.

Perhaps in this regard, the least controversial and most informative is the discussion concerning Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.). Of course, for some other Imams (a.s.) too, a lot of traditions have been narrated e.g. regarding the birth of Imam Husain (a.s.) {3rd Sha’baan}, numerous quotes are available. But concerning the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.s.) birthday, considerable differences are found. Anyhow, regardless of such differences, it does not create any contrariety in the basic principle. Hence, we can see quite a few contrasts regarding the birth dates in the books of traditions and history. But the 15th Sha’baan is the most famous and most authentic date narrated.

The year of Imam-e-Zaman’s (a.t.f.s.) birth has been given as 255 or 256 A.H. The cause of this difference may be because in the past, history was jotted on the basis ofAbjad (arithmatcal arrangement of Arabic alphabet). In Hazrat Mahdi’s (a.t.f.s.) case, the contrariety arose due to the word “Noor ” (light) and “Nahr ” (river), the differing handwriting of historians gave birth to such variances.[25] Hence, if we read “Noor”, it will be 256 and in “Nahr”, it will be 255 A.H.

The special characteristics of Imam-e-Zaman’s (a.t.f.s.) birth gain more significance because from the time of the ninth Imam, Muhammad Taqi (a.s.), the reigning Caliphs became very sensitive on the issue of Imamat. After the martyrdom of Imam Reza (a.s.), there were uprisings by the Hashimites and other children of Imam Moosa al-Kaazim (a.s.) in different nooks and corners of Iran and other parts of the Islamic world. Splinter groups raised the banner of rebellion against the government and all were coming under one umbrella i.e. the children of Imams (a.s.). All this led to the ruling Caliphate becoming very tense, thereby causing the disintegration of Madina as the capital of the Islamic world.

It should be known that the infallible Imams (a.s.) always strove to retain Madina as the city of their residence and never desired to abandon it. For, Madina was the focal point of travel of all Muslims and was considered to be the religious and spiritual capital of the Islamic world. Notwithstanding the transfer of the political capital of the ruling caliphate, the twin holy cities of Mecca and Madina held their own as the focus (of the Muslims). Today, we don’t have any focal point like Mecca and Madina. The Shia scholars ceased to lend significance to such a centre, maybe out of grave misjudgment, or gross negligence or sheer inability of preservation.

Anyway, to the best of their ability, the Imams (a.s.) did not forsake Madina. When the Haj or Umrah pilgrims visited Madina, the Imams (a.s.) or their companions went among the pilgrims and tried to maintain contact with them.

Basically, the Abbasides were cunning hypocrites and ostentatious. From this aspect, they were far ahead of the Ummayyid Caliphs and the Ottoman rulers. Their deportation of Imam Reza (a.s.) from Madina to Khorasan under the ruse of appointing him as the crown prince was a clear poof of their deceit and trickery.

After the martyrdom of Imam Reza (a.s.), they saw to it that Imam Jawad (a.s.) also was kept away from the holy city of Madina. In this instance, the apparent excuse was to get him married to the Caliph’s daughter and hence, force him to reside in Baghdad.

Therefore, in the face of such trickery and machinations, a very formidable strategy was required to counter them, defeat their purpose and expose the designs of the Caliphs for the public. Thus, despite having a beautiful and learned wife (the Caliph’s daughter), Imam (a.s.) married a slave girl and fathered her child, an honour not granted to the daughter of Mamoon. Of course, this was a well-executed plan to defeat Mamoon’s designs and consequently, anybody who became aware of the entire scenario, realised that Imam Jawad (a.s.) did not migrate to Baghdad because of Mamoon’s daughter.

In the reign of Mutawakkil or Mo’tasim Abbasi, Imam Hadi’s (a.s.) entry in Madina was prevented outright. Initially, he (a.s.) was kept in Baghdad under surveillance; but when they noticed that he was coming into contact with his Shias even in Baghdad, he was shifted to Saamarra. Here too, the strict vigil of the government could not prevent him coming into contact with his followers. Finally, out of sheer desperation, the government shifted him to the military cantonment (which is called asAskar ) where Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) was born and lived, and hence got the title of“Askari” .

Briefly, the Caliphs with all the power at their disposal, tried their best to prove as wrong the prediction of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) regarding the Promised One, the ninth descendant of Imam Husain (a.s.). They planned to eliminate the progeny of the Imams (a.s.) and then announce that the eighth descendant of Imam Husain (a.s.) did not bear any offspring, thereby proving the prophecies to be false and fabricated. With this purpose in mind, they attempted to impose as many controls as possible on the house and family of Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.).

One day, Mo’tamid, the Abbaside Caliph, said to Imam Askari (a.s.), “Dear cousin, I feel sorry for you. Permit me to dispatch two slave girls to your house as domestic help.” Imam (a.s.) retorted, “We the progeny of Muhammad (s.a.w.s.), discharge our responsibilities ourselves. And I don’t have so much work that I will need your slave girls.” Despite constant pressures from the Caliph, Imam Askari (a.s.) firmly turned down his offer in order to prevent spies from entering the holy household.

Birth of Hazrat Mahdi (a.t.f.s.)

Hakeemah Khatoon, the aunt of Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) narrates the incident of Imam Mahdi’s (a.t.f.s.) birth as follows:

“One day, I went to Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.). He (a.s.) requested me, ‘Aunt, Stay with us tonight because my successor will appear.’ I asked, ‘From whom?’ He (a.s.) answered, ‘Narjis’. I reasoned, ‘But I don’t see any signs of pregnancy in her!’ He retorted, ‘Her likeness is of the mother of Hazrat Moosa (a.s.) who did not have any signs of motherhood till the actual hour of delivery.’

I and Narjis slept in one room. At midnight, I became busy in performing the midnight prayers. I said to myself, ‘Dawn is near but whatever Imam Askari (a.s.) had said has not yet come to pass.’ Suddenly from the next room, Imam Askari (a.s.) called out, ‘Aunt! Don’t be in haste.’ Being ashamed (of my thought), I returned to my room. Narjis came forward to receive me, restless and shivering. I held her close to my chest and recited Surah Tauheed, Surah Qadr and Ayat al-Kursi for her. As I was reciting the above verses, the child in the womb was reading along with me. At that very moment, the room shone with light. The sight of Allah’s newborn representative in prostration towards the Holy Ka’bah delighted me. I picked him up in my arms. Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) called out, ‘Bring my son to me.’

I took the infant to his father. He put his tongue in his mouth and laying him in his lap, he ordered, ‘Son, talk, by the permission of Allah.’ At once, the infant began reciting,

« أعوذ بِاللّه السميع العُليم مِن الشّيطان الرّجيم. بِسم اللّه الرُّحمن الرُّحيم. و نُريد أن نَمْنُّ علي الّذين استُضعِفوا فِي الاَرض و نَجعلهم أئمه و نجعلهم الوارثين. و نُمكِنُّ لَهْم فِي الارض و نُريُ فرعون و هامان و جنودهما مِنهم ما كانوا يحذَرون و صلي اللّه علي محمد المصطفي و عليٍّ المرتضي و فاطمه الزهرا و الحسن و الحسين و علي بن الحسين و محمد بن علي و جعفر بن محمد و موسي بن جعفر و علي بن موسي و محمد بن علي و علي بن محمد و الحسن بن علي أبي ».

‘I seek refuge in Allah, the All-Hearing, and the All-Seeing from the accursed Shaitan. In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. And We intend to oblige those who have been rendered weak in the land and that We will make them the Imams and We will make them the heirs. And We will establish them in the earth and We showed Firaon and Haamaan and their armies from them what they were warned. And blessings of Allah be upon Muhammad al-Mustafa, Ali al-Murtaza, Fatema al-Zahra, al-Hasan, al-Husain, Ali Ibn Husain, Muhammad Ibn Ali, Ja’far Ibn Muhammad, Moosa Ibn Ja’far, Ali Ibn Moosa, Muhammad Ibn Ali, Ali Ibn Muhammad and, my father Hasan Ibn Ali.

Hakeemah says, ‘We were surrounded by green birds’. Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) looked at one of them and cried, ‘Take care of him (the new infant) till Allah grants him permission. Allah will take His affair to completion.’ I enquired, ‘Who is this bird and who are the other birds that are accompanying him?’ He (a.s.) replied, ‘He is Jibraeel and the others are the angels of divine mercy.’ Thereafter, he (a.s.) said, ‘Aunt! Kindly return the child to his mother so that she becomes happy and joyous. Know that Allah’s Promise is true but most of the people know not.’

I returned the child to his mother. He was very clean, pure and unblemished. On his right shoulder, it was inscribed,

« جاءَ الحق و زَهق الباطِل إنُّ الباطِل كانُ زهوقاً ».

‘Truth has come and falsehood vanished. Surely, falsehood was bound to vanish. [26]

This was the incident of Imam-e-Zaman’s (a.t.f.s.) birth which we have supported from the books of traditions. In the past, whenever this occurrence was narrated, some skeptics objected that all the traditions about Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) terminated at one woman and that the validity of a woman’s narration is unacceptable because her testimony is disallowed under Islamic laws. These skeptics have not realised the fact that the tradition concerning Hazrat Mahdi’s (a.t.f.s.) birth does not end at Hakeemah Khatoon. It is just the narration of the actual process of his birth that has been narrated by the mid-wife who happened to be Hakeemah Khatoon. The same applies for every newborn baby whose news is given by the mid-wife or the nurse. The question of witnesses or testimony does not arise. Moreover, traditions other than that of Hakeemah Khatoon have been narrated regarding the birth of Hazrat Mahdi (a.t.f.s.). For details, one can refer to the 51st volume of Behaar al-Anwaar and other related books on the subject.

Imam Hasan al-Askari’s (a.s.) marriage to Narjis Khatoon

The story of Narjis Khatoon and her marriage to Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) has been related in the traditions thus: One day Imam Hadi (a.s.), the tenth Imam, said to one of his companions, Bishr Ibn Sulaiman, a descendant of Abu Ayyub Ansari[27] , “Considering the reputation and status you and your ancestors enjoy in Islam, I want to entrust a very important but confidential task to you.” Thereafter, Imam Hadi (a.s.) proceeded to explain to him the details of the mission, “Go to the bridge of Baghdad and await the arrival of a man who has numerous maid-slaves with him for sale. When he puts them up for sale, take this pouch of money and buy a maid with the following characteristics. If the maid refuses, hand over this letter to her and bring her along with you.” Bishr Ibn Sulaiman proceeded to the bridge of Baghdad to implement the order of his Imam. At that moment, a man passed by with a good number of slave girls, among them being the one described by Imam Hadi (a.s.). Bishr Ibn Sulaiman went ahead and offered to buy that slave girl. The man replied, ‘I give the freedom of choice to the slave girl herself if she wants to accept your offer. Go and talk to her. If she agrees, I have no objection.

Bishr Ibn Sulaiman went to the slave girl who refused the offer. On this, he handed over the letter of Imam Hadi (a.s.) to her. After reading the letter, she accepted the offer. After the amount was finalized, Bishr handed over the agreed remuneration to the seller and brought the slave girl along to Saamarra.

On the way, he asked the slave girl, ‘Do you recognise the owner of the letter? Because I think you are not an Arab but a Roman. Did you have any prior contact with the owner of the letter?’ The girl replied, ‘Had I not recognised him, I would not have agreed to this deal.’ Bishr inquired, ‘Have you seen him?’ She replied, ‘apparently no. But I am acquainted with him.’

A perplexed Bishr asked, ‘From where? How?’ The girl retorted, ‘Are you not among his Shias? Then, why are you asking such questions? Is he not an Imam? Is not your recognition about Imam Hadi (a.s.) like mine?’ Bishr queried, ‘What is your story?’ The slave girl commenced her story, ‘I am the daughter of Yashooa, the Caesar of Rome[28] . I saw Hazrat Mariam (a.s.) in a dream and through her, I became a Muslim. In my country, I was supposed to marry my cousin. But my wedding congregation was disrupted due to which I had become slightly disgruntled. That very night, the Messenger of Islam (s.a.w.a.) and Hazrat Eesa (a.s.) appeared in my dream and I became engrossed in the thought of coming to the Islamic capital. In the same dream, I saw Imam Hadi (a.s.) that he was saying, ‘In the war raging between the Muslims and your father’s army, the latter will face defeat. You make use of this opportunity, line up yourself in the queue of slave girls, and come over to Baghdad. Near the bridge of Baghdad, my representative shall come to you and hand over my letter.”

Books of traditions and history have narrated this incident[29] .

So, among the accepted facts of Imam-e-Zaman’s (a.t.f.s.) life history is that his mother was a Roman slave girl, whose name was Narjis or Sosan or Reyhana, or other names. She was given different names because of the various qualities that she possessed. Even today, if a foreign girl comes to an Islamic country in marriage, she is given an Islamic name along with her previous name.

This was the story of Narjis, the mother of Imam Mahdi (a.t.f.s.). During the 15th Sha’baan celebrations, the orators narrate this very narration of Bishr Ibn Sulaiman in detail. As stated earlier, even the inability to prove this tradition, will not harm the basic belief of Mahdaviyyat.

The Imamat of Hazrat Mahdi (a.t.f.s.) And the Minor Occultation

As stated in the previous chapter, Hazrat Mahdi (a.t.f.s.) was born on 15th Sha’baan. Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) requested those involved to keep this event as a secret. From the year 255 A.H., Hazrat Mahdi (a.t.f.s.) was being nourished and nurtured in the house of his father but in a way that the ordinary folks were unaware about it.

The Introduction of Hazrat Mahdi (a.t.f.s.) to the elite among the Shias

Numerous traditions have cited that some of the companions of the Imams (a.s.) were coming to Saamarra. They used to come with various types of questions, many of them concerning Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.). Like they asked Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) as to who would be the Imam after him.

To the tried and true, Imam (a.s.) gave clear and detailed explanations. Among those who referred was a person by the name Ahmed Ibn Ishaaq. Shaykh Sadooq (a.r.) in his book, “Kamaaluddin” has narrated his incident in the chapter of traditions narrated from Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) in the discussion concerning Hazrat Mahdi’s (a.t.f.s.) occultation.

Ahmed Ibn Ishaaq says, “I went to Abu Muhammad Hasan Ibn Ali (a.s.) to ask him about his successor and the Imam after him. Before I could pose my query, Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) said, ‘O Ahmed Ibn Ishaaq! Allah the Almighty has not left His earth without a proof since the creation of Adam (a.s.). Nor will it remain without His representative till the day of judgement.’ I said, ‘O son of Allah’s Messenger! Who is the Imam and successor after you?’ Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) stood up quickly and went into a room. Later, he emerged with a three year old boy in his arms whose face shone like a full moon. Then he said, ‘Had you not enjoyed such a status and rank in front of Allah the Almighty and His Proofs (a.s.), I would not have shown my son to you.”

Sometimes, in these five years, the companions of Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) attended to him and were narrating a few things to him. On these occasions, they were also inquiring from him about his successor, to which Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) was replying in general. One such person was Abu al-Adyaan, whose incident is reported as under:

“I was a servant of Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.), and carried his letters to different cities and environs. I had the honour to attend to his service in his last illness. He (a.s.) gave the letters to me and said, ‘Go to Madaaen. Your journey will last for fifteen days. On the fifteenth day, you will return to Saamarra. Here, wails and cries from my house will greet you. You will see me in the room where corpses are given the ritual bath.’

I asked, ‘Master! In such a case, who will be the Imam after you?’ Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) responded, ‘One who will ask you about the replies to my letters will be my successor.’ I requested, ‘Please provide me more details.’ Imam (a.s.) replied, ‘He will lead my funeral prayers.’ I pleaded again, ‘Please furnish more information.’ He (a.s.) retorted, ‘He will inform you about what is in the bag.’

The awe-inspiring personality of Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) prevented me from further inquiry about the bag. Anyway, I took the letters to Madaaen and procured the ripostes. On the 15th day, just as Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) had predicted, I entered Saamarra. Loud voices of wailing and crying echoed from the house of Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.). I saw Ja’far, the brother of Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.), standing on the door and receiving condolences and consolation from the local Shias.

I said to myself, ‘If this man is the Imam, then it will be clear that the position of Imamat has undergone change. For, I have seen him drink wine, gamble and play musical instruments.’ I went near him and offered my condolences. He did not ask me anything. Afterwards ‘Aqeed’ emerged from the house and said, ‘Master! Your brother has been shrouded. Come and lead his funeral prayers.’

Ja’far went ahead to lead the prayers. As he was about to announce theTakbeer, a young boy with a wheatish complexion, curly hair, broad teeth, shining like a brilliant moon, came out of the house. He caught hold of Ja’far’s robe and threw him aside, saying, ‘Uncle! Move aside. I am more worthy of leading the funeral prayers of my father.’

Ja’far withdrew in a corner as his face went colourless. The child went ahead to recite the prayers on his father’s dead body and buried him next to his father’s (10th Imam’s) grave. Thereafter, he turned towards me and said, ‘O Basri! Give me the replies of the letters that are with you.’ I handed the letters to him and said to myself, ‘Two prophecies are already fulfilled. Now only the third one about the contents of the bag remains.’

We were sitting when some residents of Qum arrived and asked about the condition of Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.). When they were informed about his demise, they inquired about the Imam after him.

People guided them towards Ja’far Ibn Ali. They saluted him and offered their condolences. They wanted to know from him about the money that they had brought along with themselves, to whom did it belong and how much? Ja’far stood up from his place, and while gathering his clothes, he said, ‘They expect me to know the unseen.’

Afterwards, a servant emerged from the house of Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) and announced, ‘The letters of so and so are in your possession. You also have a bag containing a thousand dinars. Of which, only ten dinars are pure. They gave the letters and money to this servant saying, ‘The one who has sent you must be an Imam.[30]

The story of this man has also been recorded in books of traditions. It should be borne in mind, as stated earlier, these are the particulars of an individual and one should not expect to search for these in general books of history or even Islamic history. For, these are personal matters and if a few traditions are available in this regard, we simply accept them.

Anyway, we repeatedly emphasize that our basic belief vis-à-vis the existence of Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) is not related to these traditions. If someone refuses to accept these traditions as true and correct, we will reply, ‘Well, what is the basis of your rejection? For, the onus is on you to prove the falsity of these traditions. Even if we assume the above tradition to be false and unacceptable, yet the basic belief remains unharmed and unaffected on account of the numerous consecutive traditions narrated concerning the twelfth Imam (a.t.f.s.). Now, when the basic belief remains unharmed, and the discussion is from the aspect of belief itself, and moreover, there is no proof to refute a tradition or to establish its absence, we shall narrate traditions while maintaining our stand that this is just a narration and only a part of the general history.

Steps taken by the Caliph to Arrest Hazrat Mahdi (a.t.f.s.)

Due to the funeral prayers led by Hazrat Mahdi (a.t.f.s.) and the instigation of Ja’far, the government became very sensitive. The Caliph Mo’tamid used all possible steps to gain access to and arrest Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.). The commanders of the Caliph swooped on the house of Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.). They searched it in and out but to no avail. Instead, they began plundering the house. Perhaps, while they were busy pillaging, Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) took the opportunity and fled, to escape captivity.

After this episode, the Abbaside government became busy with its internal problems. The incidents of Yaqoob al-Laith, Saaheb al-Zanj, etc. took place, which occupied their attention to such an extent that they really could not bother about Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.). During the reign of Mo’tazid, another event occurred that is worth reading.

Mo’tazid dispatched three officers to Imam al-Askari’s (a.s.) house. The orders were clear- behead anybody you find among the males and get their heads to the court as souvenirs. Rasheeq Maarzaani, one of the three selected officers, narrates the incident thus:

As per the orders, we attacked the house…We saw a room so huge as if it was an ocean. At the end of the room, there was a straw mat spread on water. On the mat, a man with a handsome visage and awe-inspiring dignity sat performing namaz and did not pay any heed to our presence. Ahmed Ibn Abdullah (one of us) went ahead with the intention of entering the room but was drowned. He struggled to survive inside the water and waved at us vigorously so that we may extend our hands to pull him out, but to no avail. The second one among us also attempted to enter the room and met with the same fate. I was left standing alone, perplexed and confused. I pleaded with the owner of house,‘I seek pardon from Allah and from you. By Allah! I don’t know what’s happening and whom I have approached. I seek repentance from Allah. ’ He did not pay heed to my talks at all and was engrossed in his own work. I got scared and returned.

After the failure of this attempt, Mo’tazid sent more officers with the same orders. When they reached the house, they heard somebody reciting the Holy Quran in the cellar (sardaab ). They surrounded the cellar to prevent anybody from escaping. Thereafter, Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) emerged from the cellar right in front of all those present. Miraculously, with Allah’s permission, the commander could not see him and hence behaved as if nothing had happened. For others, the silence and non-objection of the commander was a tacit approval and consequently, they too did not protest or demur. It was too late when they realised as to what had actually occurred[31] .

The Cellar (Sardaab)

This is an issue about which there are a lot of misconceptions. A few Sunni biased scholars in order to denounce the Shias have also misused these misinterpretations. Therefore, it is essential that we throw more light on this issue.

It should be known that the cellar was the residence of three Imams (a.s.) viz. Imam Hadi (a.s.), Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) and Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) himself. Incidentally, this house was the personal residence of Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.). For, it is unanimously accepted by the historians that none of the Imams (a.s.) had an underground residence in Saamarra. Even for the house of Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.), we cannot state its precise location with certainty, either in Madina or Kufa. Some say it’s inBaab-e-Jibraeel but its very general place. But for the cellar of Samarra, it was believed in the long duration of one thousand four hundred years, that it was the abode of Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.t.f.s.). Due to this reason alone, the cellar at Saamarra is a holy place for us.

It is an established fact that Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) did not sink in the cellar’s wall nor did its earth swallow him. He did not disappear like the Jinn from the human eyes nor did he fly to the skies in the form of angels. Just as the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had become invisible for the Meccan polytheists at the time of emigration, similarly Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) emerged from the cellar but the Caliph’s men were unable to see him (of course with Allah’s permission).

From the time of Imam Hadi (a.s.) and Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.), a person was appointed in Baghdad who acted as the representative of the two Imams (a.s.). Later, on the command of Imam Hasan al-Askari (a.s.) and Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.), he also became the special deputy of the latter in Baghdad. The general Shias were unaware and uninformed of the exact location of Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.). The special representative was a narrator of traditions and a majestic scholar, at the same time being an ordinary businessman involved in selling oils.

Of course being a narrator of traditions is an important position from the aspect of knowledge and relation of traditions. But this special deputy did not possess the customary appearance of a religious scholar. He was a businessman selling oils that answered by the name of “Usman Ibn Saeed Amri” and knew the exact residence of Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.). Quite often, Hazrat Mahdi (a.t.f.s.) was either in his house, some other close companions, or his proximate relatives. In reality, Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) became invisible from the eyes of the people in this very meaning.

In the compound of Imam-e-Zaman’s (a.t.f.s.) house, there was a well from which he drew water. Apart from its function of providing water, the aforementioned well does not have any significance in our traditions. Thus, those who visit Saamarra, take the mud of this well (astabarruk ), throw a letter in it, or think that an Arab is still sitting on the edge of the well with his sword hidden inside his robe, so that whenever Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) emerges, he would kill him. All these are talks of stupidity, emanating from the foolishness of a Sunni. Worse is the one who believes that the Arab is still sitting over there waiting to kill Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) or that he is living inside the well or that he was swallowed by the wall of the cellar.

We don’t believe in the Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) who is living inside the well or is swallowed by the cellar’s wall. But we respect the cellar only and only because it was the place of worship for three Imams (a.s.) and because in the length of one thousand four hundred years, Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) has visited it a number of times and was his personal residence for a considerable period of time. Thus, even today when a person visits the cellar, he feels that he is the guest of Hazrat Mahdi (a.t.f.s.). Finally, if the Shias revere the cellar, it is because of theowner of the house and not because of the story of the well or any other such absurdity.

Commencement of the Minor Occultation (Ghaibat-e-Sughra)

The minor occultation commenced from the year 260 A.H. Why the minor occultation? Perhaps because its duration is shorter or maybe because there was a link between Imam (a.s.) and the people. During this era, Usman Ibn Saeed Amri (r.a.) took many people to the service of Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) and brought the replies of numerous letters from Imam (a.s.) to them. Therefore, those Shias, who were inclined to get some information from Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) and desired to forward their queries to him, almost had a direct contact with him (a.t.f.s.). That is, they got their religious queries answered through minimum links and on numerous occasions through Imam’s letters and signatures.

In this period, it was prohibited to utter the name of Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.). Why? Because it created some problems and difficulties for the Shias and hence, they remembered him by the title of “Saahebuz Zamaan”.

Thus, for the Shias, it was forbidden to take the name of Imam (a.s.), which was the same as the name of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.). Quite a few jurists considered this edict to be applicable till date. The reason they cite is that when something is declared to be illegal, it continues to be so, till the promulgator who has issued the legislation, lifts the restriction. And in this case, its illegality has not yet been removed.

Some other jurists are of the view that this restriction was confined to the era of the minor occultation, when Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) was subject to danger. But presently, it has been revised and they don’t regard uttering the name of Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) in this time asharaam (forbidden). This restriction was applicable only in olden times when even in the books his name was written asM-H-M-D .

The Special Deputies of Hazrat Mahdi (a.t.f.s.)

Usman Ibn Saeed was the special deputy for duration of two and a half years. After his demise, as per the advice of Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.), his son Muhammad Ibn Usman was raised to the state of deputyship. A reliable narrator of Imamite traditions, he remained in this coveted position for a period of thirty-five years and executed his responsibilities.

After him, an Iranian from the renowned family of Nawbakht, Husain Ibn Rauh Nawbakhti, became the special deputy and continued to be so for duration of twenty years.

Ali Ibn Muhammad Samori or Seymouri, an inhabitant of Saamarra, followed Husain Ibn Ruh on the advice of Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) and the recommendation of Husain Ibn Ruh.

The era of special deputyship of these four lasted till the year 329 A.H. Of course, apart from these four special deputies, Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) did have deputies and representatives in far-flung Islamic cities and towns but these formed the core of representation. These representatives were either appointed by Husain Ibn Ruh and his ilk or some times by Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) directly but ultimately, had to act through any of these four special representatives.

From among this second line of deputies, there was one in Qum who abused his position after being in it for some time. Although he was a directly appointed representative of Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.), yet this appointment did not render him an infallible. Finally, he misused his status and attributed lies and falsity to Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.). He put the people’s wealth and property to personal use. Consequently, Husain Ibn Ruh received a signed letter from Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) cursing this deputy. His name was “Muhammad Ibn Ali Shalmaghani”, who was based in Qum and was conferred with special deputyship. Apart from him, there were a couple of other people who were rejected by Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) after being appointed as deputies.

In the preface of the book “Kalemah al-Imam al-Mahdi”[32] , a brief history of the deputies has been jotted and a list of fifteen people has been mentioned, who were appointed by Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.) directly. Of course, these fifteen did not bear the same position as the four special representatives and hence, in common understanding, it is famous that the special deputies were only four in number.

Six days prior to his death, the fourth special deputy, Ali Ibn Muhammad Seymouri (a.r.) received a signed letter (tawqee) from Imam-e-Zaman (a.t.f.s.), reminding him of a few things. This letter is quite well known and has been recorded in quite a few books with explanations.

«بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم. يا علي بن محمد السُّمري, أعظم الله أجر إخوانك فيك فانّك ميت ما بينك و بين أيام, فاجمع أمرك و لا توص إلي أحد فيقوم مقامك بعد وفاتك, فقد وقعت الغيبه التّامه فلا ظهور إلا بعد إذن الله تعالي ذكره. و ذلك بعد طول الأمد و قسوه القلوب و امتلاء الأرض جورا. و سيأتي من شيعتي من يدعي المشاهده. ألا فمن ادعي المشاهده قبل خروج السفياني و الصيحه فهو كذّاب مفتر. و لا حول و لا قوه إلّا بالله العلي العظيم »

“O Ali Ibn Muhammad Seymouri! May Allah increase the reward of your brothers concerning you? You will die after six days. Now, you don’t appoint anybody as your successor for special deputyship because the door of representation now stands closed and the major occultation shall begin. The reappearance will not occur except by the order and permission of Allah. This reappearance will take place only after the earth becomes replete with injustice, oppression, and the hardening of hearts. Beware! Soon there will be a number of my Shias who will claim to meet me. Anybody who makes such a claim before the emergence of Sufyani and the heavenly shriek is a liar and a deceiver. There is no power and strength except that of Allah. [33]

In this letter, mention has been made of the prolongation of the major occultation, the shutting of the door of representation, and the fact that anybody claiming to meet Imam (a.s.) at will, is a liar and a cheat. Six days after the receipt of this letter, Ali Ibn Muhammad (a.r.) completed his pending tasks, made his will and expired.

This was the brief history of the minor occultation till the commencement of the major one, which began when Imam-e-Zaman’s (a.t.f.s.) age was seventy-four.


3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12