• Start
  • Previous
  • 11 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 17590 / Download: 5395
Size Size Size
German Literature: A Very Short Introduction

German Literature: A Very Short Introduction

Author:
Publisher: Oxford, University Press
ISBN: 978-0-19-920659-9 & 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
English

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


1

2

Chapter 5: Traumas and memories (1914- )

(i) The nemesis of ‘culture’ (1914-45)

The war that broke out in 1914 began the long collapse of the 19th-century attempt to organize the global economy into separate political empires. For most of the Germans who welcomed the release it brought from over a decade of increasingly ill-tempered rivalry, it was a battle against encirclement by the Triple Entente of Britain, France, and Russia. For Thomas Mann it was a battle of ‘culture’ against ‘civilization’, and of himself against his brother.

All that was truly German - he said in his two volumes of Unpolitical Meditations (Betrachtungen eines Unpolitischen, 1918) which he spent the war writing - was ‘culture, soul, freedom, art, and not civilization, society, the right to vote, and literature’.

‘Civilization’ was an Anglo-French superfi ciality, the illusion entertained by left-wing intellectuals generally, and Heinrich Mann in particular, that the life of the mind amounted to the political agitation and social ‘engagement’ of journalists who thought the point of writing was to change the world. Germany, by contrast, knew that ‘Art’ was a deeper affair than literary chatter, and that true freedom was not a matter of parliaments and free presses but of personal, moral, duty. The Western powers, while claiming to fi ght for their ‘freedom’ against German ‘militarism’ were, in this view, uniting to impose their commercial mass

society on Germans devoted to individual self-cultivation.

Mann therefore correctly perceived the association that linked the concepts of ‘Art’, ‘spirit’, ‘Bildung’, and interior Kantian ‘freedom’, with the hostility of the German class of officials, servants of an autocratic state, to such instruments of bourgeois self-assertion as parliamentarianism, free enterprise, and commercialized mass media. When in November 1918 the Emperor and his generals were no longer able to defend, or even to feed, the German population and handed over their responsibilities to the majority socialist party, the bureaucrats remained in offi ce and maintained the attitudes of autocracy into the new era of parliamentary government. In Prussia, the largest state within the republic that agreed its constitution at Weimar in 1919, a socialist administration fi tted seamlessly into the old structure. Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) argued in Prussianism and Socialism (Preußentum und Sozialismus, 1920) for the identity of the two systems, since both aimed to turn all workers into state officials and thereby to answer ‘the decisive question, not only for Germany but for the world […]: is commerce in future to govern the state, or the state to govern commerce?’

Accepting the political revolution which, with remarkably little fuss, had put an end to German monarchy, did not imply abandoning the struggle against ‘civilization’. Indeed, Spengler saw his vast ‘morphological’ survey of world history, The Decline of the West (Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918, 1922) as evidence of a pyrrhic victory of the German mind, which through him had been able to make sense of the coming displacement of traditional European culture by technological and mathematical organization.

For Germany the war did not end in 1918. Starvation, infl uenza, civil war, the reoccupation of territory by France to exact reparations, the economic disruption caused by the loss of population and resources and culminating in the infl ation of 1923, all prolonged the conditions of wartime emergency for fi ve years.

By the time the crisis was over, the Weimar Republic consisted of a few magnates whose property interests had survived the infl ation, a working population directly exposed to fl uctuations in the world economy, and the administrators and benefi ciaries of a welfare state 13 times larger than its equivalent in 1914. The intimations of the coming collapse of the European bourgeoisie that unsettled the pre-war world were fi rst fulfi lled in Germany.

The literature of this period of revolutionary transition reflected the instability of institutions and the isolation of individuals.

It was not a time for realism. It was a time for despair, abstract revolt, and utopian hopes of a new beginning. The movement of ‘Expressionism’ was correspondingly most active in the prophetic and emotional forms of poetry and drama. In 1920 the anthology Twilight of Humanity (Menschheitsdämmerung) brought together poems by 23 poets in the service of an indeterminate moral enthusiasm:

Ewig eint uns das Wort:

MENSCH we are for ever united by the word ‘Man’

Expressionist theatre was similarly characterized by a deliberate striving for abstractness and generality through heightened and declamatory language, but by its use of choruses, and stylization of character, it had more success than the poets in representing large-scale industrial and political confl ict: the works of Reinhard Goering (1887-1936), Georg Kaiser (1878-1945), and Ernst Toller (1893-1939) are now undeservedly neglected.

Profound though the social revolution was, it did not change everything. In 1919, commenting on the atmosphere in Berlin, Albert Einstein compared Germany to ‘someone with a badly upset stomach who hasn’t vomited enough yet’. Once the American Dawes Plan of 1924 and a huge associated loan had stabilized the German economy, the Expressionist era was effectively over, a ‘new sobriety’ (Neue Sachlichkeit) reigned in literature, and the continuities could re-establish themselves.

Weimar had seemed an appropriate place for the constituent assembly of the new republic to do its work at least partly because of the late 19th-century myth that in Goethe’s Weimar a cultural nation had been born which prefi gured the political nation. This mythical Weimar could now be regarded as the true and abiding Germany. Nor was the continuity simply ideological. Germany’s multiple theatres survived the deposition of their princely patrons and, subsidized now by government and freed from censorship, continued to provide a forum for drama conceived as ‘art’ rather than simply entertainment. The Protestant clergy and, above all, the universities carried over the role of official intelligentsia that they had occupied under the monarchy into an era that, bewilderingly, lacked a monarch, and the universities almost immediately began an intellectual assault on the new republic.

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), born a Catholic at a time when Catholics were second-class Germans, converted to Lutheranism in 1919 and so gained access to the wider and better-connected world of the Protestant universities. In Being and Time I (Sein und Zeit I, 1927; Part II was never written), Heidegger strangely combined a radically depersonalized re-reading of some of the most fundamental questions in philosophy with a rather Lutheran account of individual moral salvation. His ‘existentialism’ thus provided both the conceptual means for rejecting contemporary society as ‘inauthentic’ and, with his belief that one chooses one’s own history, the excuse for political activism regardless of rationality. Heidegger rapidly became an intellectual totem of the right, but Stefan George’s disciples, now in professorial chairs, also had a deep infl uence on academic discourse in the humanities, directing it away from social and economic concerns to what became known as ‘history of the mind’ (Geistesgeschichte) and elaborating the Master’s cult of the lonely, world-changing historical personality. Friedrich Gundolf (1880-1931) in Heidelberg published an epoch-making study of Goethe in 1916, and Ernst Bertram (1884-1957), professor in Bonn, published a similar study of Nietzsche in 1918, with George’s swastika sign on the title page. The year 1928 saw the publication not only of a major work of literary criticism by Max Kommerell (1902-44), professor in Frankfurt and Marburg, The Poet as Leader in German Classicism (Der Dichter als Führer in der deutschen Klassik), a title which already combined the Wilhelmine vision of Germany with the National Socialist version of monarchy, but also a new and fi nal collection of poems by George himself, The New Empire (Das neue Reich). To express a political opinion was infi nitely beneath George’s dignity, but it was clear from the Hölderlinian diction and military rhythms of the prophetically entitled ‘To a young leader in the fi rst world war’ (‘Einem jungen Führer im ersten Weltkrieg’) that in his view Germany’s humiliation in the recent confl ict was only a prelude to a greater future:

Alles wozu du gediehst rühmliches ringen hindurch Bleibt dir untilgbar bewahrt stärkt dich für künftig getös …

[Everything for which you grew and fl ourished throughout your glorious struggle remains your indelible own, strengthens you for future uproar … ]

Of all state employees, members of the armed forces were least likely to feel loyalty to the new régime which had signed the instruments of surrender and the Versailles Treaty. Ernst Jünger (1895-1998) fought throughout the World War with great distinction and his recollections of four years’ front-line service, Storms of Steel (In Stahlgewittern, 1920), are evidence of the chilling dispassion that was necessary to survive. ‘To live is to kill’, he later wrote, and though the enormous success of Storms of Steel established him as a professional writer, he continued to speak from and to his generation’s experience of mechanized mass warfare. In The Worker (Der Arbeiter, 1931), he interpreted modern economic life as an extension of the total mobilization of wartime: he rightly saw that the extinction of the bourgeoisie and proletarianization of the middle classes, already far advanced in Germany, was destined to become universal, but he wrongly assumed that only a bureaucratic and military command structure could organize the resulting industrial society. Heidegger was impressed by Jünger’s analysis of the modern world, though his reaction was to turn to Hölderlin and Nietzsche as guides to Germany’s future. Gottfried Benn, who had spent the war as a military doctor (and in that capacity had attended the execution of Edith Cavell), was yet more radical in his rejection of the civilian world from whose corruption he lived (he became a specialist in venereal disease). Infl uenced partly by Spengler, and partly by his own experiments with narcotics, he came in the 1920s to despise the superfi cial order modern civilization had constructed over the archaic and mythical layers of human experience: the only true order seemed to him that which he imposed on his poems, sometimes by rather too obvious force. His avowed refusal of a social role for the poet was a deliberate provocation to the socialists and communists who had fi gured alongside him in Twilight of Humanity. Like Heidegger and Jünger, however, he willingly lent an appearance of intellectual respectability to the imperious rhetoric of military leadership favoured by right-wing opponents of the republic.

Not that the left wing was any better. The Communists, bent on their own revolution, and under instructions from Moscow that their fi rst aim must be to destroy the ruling socialist party, were as willing as the right to make use of an anti-bourgeois rhetoric which after the infl ation no longer had a real object but which served to destabilize the fragile political consensus. The savage cartoons of George Grosz (1893-1959) created an image of Weimar Germany as a land of freebooting capitalism run wild, but when Grosz moved to 1930s America, where there was much more free enterprise, and much less social welfare, but where the political impetus provided by the German context was lacking,

his inspiration deserted him. A sense not just that politics matter, but that political institutions matter too, is lacking throughout the otherwise multifarious and often humane work of the poet and dramatist Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956).

Brecht’s family, paper-makers in Augsburg, belonged to the vanishing bourgeoisie; but after he moved to Berlin in 1924 to become a professional writer-director, his study of Marxism brought him close to those who saw the future in total rule by the state, though he was never a member of the Communist Party. Instead, like Grosz, he drew grotesques, satirical, comic, sometimes even tragic, particularly of an imaginary version of the Anglo-Saxon world - whether 18th-century England, 19th-century America, or Kipling’s Empire - which in the war, and in the boom years that eventually followed, seemed once again to have imposed itself on Germany as the authoritative embodiment of modernity. The jaunty discordancy of Brecht’s works of the 1920s, especially his collaborations with Kurt Weill, The Threepenny Opera (Die Dreigroschenoper, 1928) and Rise and Fall of the Town of Mahagonny (Aufstieg und Fall der Stadt Mahagonny, 1928-9), derived from powerfully confl icting feelings towards this vision, or mirage, of ‘capitalist’ life. On the one hand, there was a mischievously amoral appetite for the opportunities of consumption and uninhibited enjoyment that it offered - a theme of Brecht’s since his fi rst play Baal (1918), about a poet who is as ruthlessly self-indulgent as he is totally un-self-pitying. But there was also the moral sense of official Germany, with its long tradition of being offended by irresponsible consumerism, here expressing itself in bitter satire. The driving moral force behind this economic critique, however, was not a political concern for the integrity of the state but a demand, so to speak, for hedonistic justice, for equity in the distribution of pleasure, and solidarity with those to whom pleasure is denied or for whom it is turned into pain. There was a link of substance, as well as of form, with Büchner. One of the weightiest ballads in Brecht’s fi rst collection of poems, Domestic Breviary (Hauspostille, 1927), takes up the

‘Storm and Stress’ theme of the infanticide mother, and the song ‘Pirate Jenny’ in The Threepenny Opera shows us a washer-up who dreams of the ship with eight sails and 50 guns that will put out its fl ags in her honour and then bombard the town where she suffers. But Brecht’s engagement with the society of which he was a part did not extend beyond the desire to shoot it up. For all his claims that the ironical devices which made his productions both scandalous and successful were intended to set his audiences thinking about the political issues that they raised, the only institution of the Weimar Republic that Brecht’s plays really concerned was the theatre. The placards descending from the fl ies, the direct addresses to the spectators, the parodies of grand opera, and the reduction of characters to marionettes in Wedekind’s manner, all encouraged thinking, not about public affairs, but about the theatricality of the performance. It was a complete and successful break with the native German tradition of drama-as-book, but it was also an inverted aestheticism, making Art out of criticizing Art.

The same tendency to perpetuate old concepts under an appearance of criticizing the new can be found in the writings, many of them published posthumously, of Brecht’s Berlin friend and admirer, Walter Benjamin (1892-1940). Benjamin attempted unsuccessfully to become a professor of German literature, and at fi rst devoted himself to relatively unpolitical ‘Geistesgeschichte’.

He later moved closer to Marxism in the quest for a more materialist theory of the relation between art and society, eventually expressed programmatically in the essay ‘The work of art in the age of its technical reproducibility’ (‘Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit’, 1936). Here he argued, rather like Brecht, that in the age of mass-media Art, being no longer able to create individual beautiful objects, had to become political. He thus overlooked the specifi cally German roots of the concept of ‘Art’, the extent to which it was part of the ideology of bureaucratic absolutism, and the consequence that to criticize society in the name of Art was to maintain the values of an oppressive era. Benjamin was for a while associated with the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung)

in Frankfurt, founded in 1923 by the son of a millionaire corn-merchant to investigate the condition of the working classes and later incorporated into the new local university (opened in 1914). When Max Horkheimer (1895-1973) became its director in 1931, it turned to a new project: developing a critical theory of society in general. Among the brilliant talents Horkheimer briefl y concentrated in Frankfurt were the Hegelian and Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), the psychologist Erich Fromm (1900-80), and a young composer and theorist of music, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno (1903-69), a pupil of Alban Berg. Adorno, committed to the German musical tradition and impressed by Benjamin’s defence of the role of Art in modern society, was only being consistent when in 1934 he welcomed the Nazis’ ban on broadcasting the degenerate American form of music known as jazz.

The Weimar Republic had few friends among its intelligentsia, but the best and most indefatigable proved, in the end, to be Thomas Mann. During the long German postlude to the war, he rather grudgingly admitted that his elder brother’s politics had proved more realistic than his own, but in 1922 the murder, by right-wing extremists, of Germany’s Jewish foreign minister, the respected and successful Walter Rathenau, shocked him into whole-hearted commitment to the Republican cause. Over the next ten years and with the authority, after 1929, of a Nobel prizewinner, he delivered a number of high-profi le addresses in support of a system he now saw as fulfi lling the promise of the German Enlightenment. At a time when hostility to a Social Democrat government, in which emancipated Jews were understandably prominent, was increasingly taking the form of anti-Semitism, he embarked on an enormous series of linked variations on biblical narratives, Joseph and his Brothers (Joseph und seine Brüder, 1933-43), that deliberately drew attention to the Jewish roots of Western history. The crisis of 1922 also enabled Mann to fi nd a focus for the book he had been writing since 1913, The Magic Mountain (Der Zauberberg), fi nally published in 1924. A sanatorium in Davos provided him in this novel with a metaphor for the rarefi ed atmosphere of high culture in the immediately pre-war years, cosseted, morally lax, and impregnated with a sense of coming dissolution. Hans Castorp, an average ‘unpolitical’ German bourgeois, succumbs, in this unreal environment in which time seems to stand still, to a series of more and less intellectual temptations, from materialist science to hypochondria and sexual dalliance, from psychoanalysis to X-rays and recorded music. A half-comic, but in the end suicidally tragic, dispute on political and moral matters is maintained between Lodovico Settembrini, a representative of liberal and democratic bourgeois Enlightenment, and Leo Naphta, a Jewish Jesuit, whose arguments for amoral theocratic Terror seem - like Nietzsche, whom they echo - a nightmare condensation of the entire German official tradition, Left and Right. In an extreme and climactic moment, Hans Castorp escapes from the sanatorium into the snow but only narrowly avoids death from hypothermia. What draws him back into life is a belief in ‘love and goodness’ which transcends the opposition between Settembrini and Naphta.

He recognizes that his German, Romantic inheritance - from Novalis to Schopenhauer, Wagner, and Nietzsche - gives him a special understanding of the background of death against which life is defi ned, and which, by contrast, gives life its value, but he also recognizes that ‘loyalty to death and to what is past is only wickedness and dark delight and misanthropy if it determines our thinking and the way we allow ourselves to be governed’.

With this insight, more exactly prophetic than any of Stefan George’s oracles, Thomas Mann drew a lesson from the fall of the Second Empire which he could pass on to the Weimar Republic, and which could guide him in his own political engagement, unashamedly German, but unambiguously on the side of ‘life and goodness’. Unfortunately it is an insight that Hans Castorp forgets once he is safe, and he drifts through the fi nal stages of cultural decline into the killing fi elds of the World War. That too was prophetic.

Germany in the 1920s was a mature industrial state, at the forefront of technological innovation (its fi lm industry produced more fi lms than all its European competitors combined), with no empire, a proletarianized bourgeoisie, an active but headless official class, mass communications, and a colossal problem of identity. Its social and political postmodernity made it a natural incubator for cultural tendencies that have since spread widely as other nations have arrived in its condition. With Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) and Leo Strauss (1899-1973) pioneered political neo-conservatism. Heidegger, one of the fi rst to use the concept of ‘deconstruction’, was the fountainhead of most French philosophy in the second half of the 20th century. The physical appearance of the man-made Western world was profoundly affected by the decision of Walter Gropius (1883-1969) in 1919

to combine education in the fi ne arts and in crafts into a single institution in Weimar, known as the ‘Bauhaus’. The idealist concept of life-transforming ‘Art’, united with functionalist notions of design, was here applied to mass production in industry, buildings, and furniture. In literature too there was a serious quest for ways of adapting old forms to the unprecedented circumstances of a society more deeply revolutionized in defeat than any of the victor powers. The prolifi c novelist Alfred Döblin (1878-1957), a Jewish doctor in the East of Berlin who eventually became a Catholic, wrote his masterpiece in Berlin Alexanderplatz (1929), which uses a highly fragmented manner, reminiscent of Ulysses (though Döblin did not know Joyce’s book when he started), to evoke life in a great industrialized city. Despite its title, it is not a novel of place: Berlin in 1928 is too vast and too modern to have the cosy identity of Dublin in 1904. Berlin Alexanderplatz is a novel of language. The dialect of the main characters, proletarians and petty criminals, informs their semi-articulate conversations and indirectly reported thoughts, carries over

into some of the various narrative voices, and is cross-cut with officialese, newspaper stories, advertisements, age-old folk songs and 1920s musical hits, parodies and quotations of the German classics, statistical reports, and the propaganda of politicians.

Through this modern Babel we make out the story of the released jailbird Franz Biberkopf, big, dim, goodhearted, and shamefully abused by his friends, the breakdown of his attempt to be ‘decent’, and his eventual recovery (perhaps). It is a worm’s-eye view of the Weimar Republic, with its socialists, communists, and anarchists fi ghting obscurely in the background and the National Socialists remorselessly on the rise. Marching songs and rhythms and the memory and prospect of war run as leitmotifs through the book, and the overwhelming symbol of Biberkopf ’s life ‘under the poll-axe’ is provided by a centre-piece description of the main Berlin slaughter-house, fed by converging railway lines from all over the country, a symbol more terrifyingly apposite than Döblin could know.

An intellectual’s view of the destructive possibilities inherent in the directionless multiplicity of modern life was provided in 1927 by the most adventurous book of an author who had previously specialized either in monuments to self-pity or sugary (and not always well-written) stories of post-Nietzschean ‘Bildung’:

individuals who ripen beyond good and evil into mystical or aesthetic fulfi lment. Hermann Hesse (1877-1962) did not deny his origins but he supped German life with a long spoon: born in Württemberg, he travelled in India and settled in Switzerland.

The Wolf from the Steppes (Der Steppenwolf) is a transparently autobiographical account of a personal mental crisis but it is also a psychogram of the contemporary German middle classes.

Harry Haller, the main narrator, personifi es the disorientated ‘Bildungsbürger’ in the post-war era, caught, he recognizes, between two worlds: he loves the orderliness of the bourgeoisie and lives off his investments, he is devoted to the German official culture of classical literature and music, and he also embodies the wolf-like, anti-social, Nietzschean individualism that his class has secretly fostered. However, the new, wide open, Americanized world of the 1920s, with jazz and foxtrots, gramophones and radios, offers him the possibility of dissolving the shadow side of his psyche, the wolf from the steppes, into the myriad alternative personalities latent in him and so of escaping from ‘Bildungsbürgertum’ altogether. In the ‘magic theatre’ of the saxophonist Pablo he enjoys, as if by the aid of hallucinogenic drugs, such experiences as sleeping with all the women he has ever set eyes on, meeting Mozart (who gives him a cigarette), and playing at being a terrorist and a murderer. But evidently this is a highly ambiguous liberation. Haller, who opposed the First World War, knows that in the new age that is remaking him, ‘the next war is being prepared with great zeal day by day by many thousands of people’, and that it will be ‘even more horrible’ than the previous one, and we can see that the ‘magic theatre’ is one of the means by which the horror is being rehearsed. However, since Haller can no more stop war than he can stop death, he turns instead to learning to love, and to laugh at himself. Hesse is honest; he depicts both his own path to equilibrium and its cost: the withdrawal from responsibility for a monstrous, carnivorous mechanism whose workings he has understood with grim clarity.

With the crash of 1929, the time for fantasies of individual fulfi lment was over. As the political tensions within the Republic reached breaking point and unemployment rose to 30%, the cultural compromise that had created the ‘Bildungsbürger’ lost all plausibility. Brecht dropped his fl irtation with consumerism and from 1929 to 1932 wrote a series of ‘didactic plays’ (Lehrstücke), several in cantata form, with minimal character interest, intended to encourage audiences (particularly of school-children) to think of solving problems by subordinating individual concerns, and even lives, to collective programmes.

Knowing arrest was imminent, Brecht left Germany on the day after the Reichstag fi re in February 1933 that gave the recently elected Nazi government the excuse to take emergency powers and introduce totalitarian rule. Those who then supported the political nationalism which was Germany’s response to global economic protectionism were the immediate agents of the self-immolation of ‘culture’. Heidegger, now a member of the Party, gave his inaugural address as rector of Freiburg University in May, its title, The Self-Assertion of the German University (Die Selbstbehauptung der deutschen Universität) revealing the cruel delusion of Hitler’s camp-followers. For in the Third Empire there was to be no self-assertion by any institution other than the Party and its Leader, let alone by the university, which for over 300 years had been the heart of the German bureaucracy and for over 200 had given a unique character to Germany’s literary culture. The fi nal degradation of German officialdom to dutiful executants of murderous tyranny was at hand.

Heidegger lent his support to the new government’s rejection of globalization by campaigning for Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations, but within a year he had resigned his offi ce and was discarded by the regime, though he remained in the Party.

A similar fate befell Benn, seduced by the idea of ‘surrendering the ego to the totality’. In a radio broadcast in April 1933, he coarsely denounced the obsolete internationalism of ‘liberal intellectuals’, whether Marxists who thought of nothing higher than wage-rates or ‘bourgeois capitalists’ who knew nothing of the world of work, and opposed to it the new totalitarian nation-state which - he claimed, combining Nietzsche and Spengler - had history and biology on its side and showed its strength by controlling the thoughts and publications of its members. So it did, and after a series of violent attacks on him in the Party press for the ‘indecency’ of his poems, he took cover, like Jünger, by rejoining the army - ‘the aristocratic form of emigration’, he said, salving the smart - and in 1938 he was officially forbidden to publish or write. Stefan George bowed out with more dignity before he died in December 1933, refusing (for unclear reasons) to serve in succession to Heinrich Mann as president of the newly purged Prussian Academy. Hauptmann stayed in Silesia, without offi ce, but accepting honours and censorship (The Weavers was not to be performed) until he died after experiencing the bombing of Dresden. Otherwise, virtually all German writers and artists of signifi cance either emigrated or withdrew from sight. German literature could be said to have been officially terminated on 10 May 1933 when the German Student Federation arranged public burnings of ‘un-German works’ throughout the country.

For those emigrants who survived - Benjamin committed suicide rather than fall into the hands of the Gestapo and Toller did the same out of sheer despair - exile in a non-German-speaking country where they were unknown and had little opportunity of publishing usually put the end to a literary career. Alfred Kerr (1867-1948), for example, who made and broke reputations as a theatre critic in Naturalist and Expressionist Berlin, dwindled to a refugee Jewish invalid in his London fl at, though his daughter wrote a touching memoir of their life of banishment in her trilogy beginning with When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit. For Brecht, however, emigration meant liberation. Until 1941 he lived mainly

in Denmark and Finland, but he was already internationally known, he travelled widely, and his plays were put on in Paris, Copenhagen, New York, and Zurich. Since, however, he was writing in professional, though not personal, isolation, and no longer had his own theatre, what he wrote became gradually more reflective, less closely involved with German circumstances, and, without losing its theatricality, emotionally and psychologically more multidimensional. His poetry blossomed. He already resembled Luther and Goethe as a townsman with a love of the vernacular who had taken up with the politics of authoritarianism, and he now came to resemble them in the hide-and-seek his contradictory personality played with the public. (The theories of drama which he now elaborated were part of this game, and need not be taken seriously.) Perhaps because the public had become more diffi cult to defi ne, broader both in space and time than in the Weimar forcing-house, his poetic voice achieved a new level of generality, a German voice, certainly, but addressing everyone caught up in the global confl ict:

Was sind das für Zeiten, wo Ein Gespräch über Bäume fast ein Verbrechen ist Weil es ein Schweigen über so viele Untaten einschließt! […]

Ihr, die ihr auftauchen werdet aus der Flut In der wir untergegangen sind Gedenkt Wenn ihr von unseren Schwächen sprecht Auch der fi nsteren Zeit Der ihr entronnen seid. (‘An die Nachgeborenen’)

[What sort of times are these when a conversation about trees is almost a crime because it includes silence about so many misdeeds […] You who will emerge from the tide in which we have sunk, remember too, when you speak of our weaknesses, the dark time from which you have escaped.]

(‘To later generations’, 1939)

From 1938 Brecht was writing what were effectively morality plays for a world audience, in which the deeper themes of his early work returned: his passionate sense that pleasure and goodness are what human beings are made for and that justice requires that pleasure should be universal and goodness rewarded; his bitter countervailing belief that injustice is general, that it is often necessary for the survival even of the good, and that it may be remediable only by unjust means; and a Marxism which is not a source of answers to these dilemmas, but a background conviction that answers are possible and so should be looked for.

The Good Woman of Szechuan (Der gute Mensch von Sezuan, 1938-9, fi rst performed 1943) was still just about interpretable as a demonstration that in capitalist society moral goodness was necessarily symbiotic with economic exploitation, if the anguished love of the ‘good woman’ herself was overlooked, but The Life of Galileo (Leben des Galilei, 1938-9, fi rst performed 1943) was Brecht’s most personal play, and despite extensively adapting it after 1945, he was unable to fi t it into a Marxist scheme. The pleasure-loving genius with a huge appetite for life who fails the political test and recants when threatened by the Inquisition, but who argues that he serves progress better by devious compliance than by pointless heroism, clearly embodies some of Brecht’s own feelings about the priority he was giving - and had always given - to his literary work over the political struggle. His one genuinely tragic play, Mother Courage and her Children (Mutter Courage und ihre Kinder, 1939, fi rst performed 1941), though written before war had broken out, was the nearest he came in a major drama to commentary on the great events of his age. Set in early 17th-century Germany, in a state of war without beginning

or end, it dramatizes ‘the dark time’ in which Brecht’s generation had, somehow or other, to live. Mother Courage, who has little more than her name in common with Grimmelshausen’s character (and even that has lost most of its sexual connotations), drags her sutler’s wagon after the marauding armies on which she depends for a livelihood. Her calculating, unscrupulous, shopkeeper’s realism - like Galileo’s cunning - makes sense for as long as it serves the purpose of keeping her family alive and together.

But one by one she loses her children to different forms of the goodness she has warned them against. Alone at the end, she has survived - but what for? It was Brecht’s own question to himself.

In 1941 Brecht left Finland for Russia and, without stopping to inspect the workings of socialism, took the trans-Siberian route to the Pacifi c Ocean and California. There he met W. H. Auden (who thought him the most immoral man he had ever known) and found a colony of German émigrés, such as Erich Maria Remarque (1898-1970), author of the gripping pot-boiler All Quiet on the Western Front (Im Westen nichts Neues, 1929), many of them attracted, like him, by the prospect of work in Hollywood. There too Brecht wrote his happiest - and last signifi cant - play, The Caucasian Chalk Circle (Der kaukasische Kreidekreis, 1944-5, fi rst performed 1948, in English). In it the pure, self-sacrifi cing love of another ‘good woman’ and the self-preserving immoralism of an unjust judge, embodied in characters as fully drawn as Mother Courage or Galileo, are united in a moment ‘almost of justice’, while Marxism is relegated to sedately utopian, socialist-realist framework scenes which pretend to underwrite the hope expressed in the principal action. Not all of Brecht’s fellow exiles were as easily reconciled to life in the USA, however. Horkheimer and Adorno managed to re-establish the Institute of Social Research in California and tried there to use the inherited concepts of German philosophy to explain the barbarism engulfi ng Europe. But their joint study, Dialectic of Enlightenment (Dialektik der Aufklärung, 1944), suffers, like the Marxist tradition itself, and like Brecht’s feeble attempts at direct representation of the Nazi regime, from an inadequate theory of politics (treated simply as a cloak for economic interests) and from a limited understanding of the special character of the German society from which they came. It was boorish and inept to equate the capitalism of America, which was paying in blood to save their lives and their work, with genocidal Fascism (as Brecht also did in his lesser plays). Their assault on the American entertainment industry was not just the snobbery of expatriates from the homeland of Art: Adorno and Horkheimer explicitly defended, against the mass market and mass politics that had swept them away, 19th-century Germany’s ‘princes and principalities’, the ‘protectors’ of the institutions - ‘the universities, the theatres, the orchestras and the museums’ - which had maintained the idea of a freedom available through Art and transcending the (supposedly) false freedoms of economic and political life. In thus preparing to hand on to a later generation, as the key to modern existence, the concepts and slogans of the defunct German confl ict between bourgeoisie and bureaucracy, Adorno and Horkheimer committed themselves to much the same half-truths as a writer for whom they had no time at all, Hermann Hesse.

In 1943 Hesse issued from his Swiss retreat his own reaction to the contemporary crisis, The Glass-Bead Game (Das Glasperlenspiel), a novel of personal ‘Bildung’ set in the distant future and in the imaginary European province of Castalia. As the allusion to the Muses’ sacred spring suggests, Castalia is devoted to Art, but an Art which has absorbed all previous forms of artistic and intellectual expression into a single supreme activity, the Glass-Bead Game. A secular monastic order is dedicated to the cultivation of the Game, and the novel tells of the development of its greatest master, Josef Knecht, to the point where he recognizes the need to relate this religion of Art to the world beyond it.

Castalia is threatened by war, economic pressures, and political hostility, as in the ‘warlike age’ of the mid-20th century, in which the Game originated. Knecht’s end, however, and that of the novel, is obscure: has he indeed secured the survival of the Castalia that preserves his memory? Or has he, as his Castalian successors would clearly like to believe, betrayed Art to Life and been punished accordingly? The Castalian world of the Spirit (Geist) seems hermetically detached from the historical world of society, and even if Spirit is in reality dependent on Society, it seems not to acknowledge, or even to know, that it is. Hesse’s anxiety about the ability of Art and the Spirit to survive into the post-war era is expressed with more modesty, and greater political astuteness, than we fi nd in Dialectic of Enlightenment, but he is no more able than Adorno and Horkheimer to represent those concepts as peculiar to a particular time and place and tradition.

That was to be the task of another German resident of California, Thomas Mann, who had arrived in America in 1939, and from 1943, following daily the news of Germany’s military collapse, worked intensively on his greatest novel, completed and published in 1947, Doctor Faustus. The life of the German composer Adrian Leverkühn, narrated by a friend (Doktor Faustus. Das Leben des deutschen Tonsetzers Adrian Leverkühn erzählt von einem Freunde). Mann consulted Adorno about his manuscript, particularly its musical sections, and sent Hesse a copy of the published work with the inscription, ‘the glass-bead game with black beads’, but his book went to the heart of the issue that their books evaded. Doctor Faustus is a reckoning with the German past at many levels. It gives a fi ctionalized account of the social and intellectual world of the Second Empire and the Weimar Republic, particularly Munich (complete with proto-fascist poets).

In taking the life of Nietzsche as its model for the life-story of Adrian Leverkühn, and his apparent purchase of world-changing artistic achievement at the cost of syphilitic dementia, it asserts the typicality of a fi gure whose thinking was all-pervasive in 20th-century Germany and who contributed in his own way to what passed for Nazi ideology. It is shot through with allusions to earlier phases of destructive irrationalism in German literature and history, and above all it appropriates the central myth of modern German literature to suggest that the story of Leverkühn parallels the story of modern Germany, for both are the story of a Faustian pact with the devil. Links with contemporary reality punctuate the narrative, which is in the hands of Leverkühn’s friend, Serenus Zeitblom, a retired schoolteacher, who starts his work, like Mann, in 1943 and ends in the chaos of total defeat in 1945. The ultimate refi nement in this supremely complex work, however, is that, for all the apparent concentration on the artist fi gure Leverkühn and his assimilation to the fi gure of Faust, the true representative of Germany in it is Zeitblom. Zeitblom is a state official, steeped in the classics and German literature, who shares Thomas Mann’s ‘unpolitical’ attitude to the First World War, but not his post-war conversion; he does not emigrate, he has two Nazi sons, and he dissents from Hitler’s policies only quietly, on aesthetic grounds, and as they start to fail. Germany’s fate is here represented not by Faust, Art, and the life lived in extremis, but by the man who believes in these ideas, who needs them to give colour and signifi cance to his life, and who structures his narrative in accordance with them. The moral climax of the book, the point when it represents directly the sadistic monstrosity of the Third Reich, is Zeitblom’s chapter-long account of the agonizing death from meningitis of Leverkühn’s fi ve-year-old nephew, supposedly fetched by the devil. For a dozen pages this narrator tortures a child to death to justify his own desire to live out a myth. His fellows did as much across German-occupied Europe. In Zeitblom (the name means ‘fl ower of the age’), Thomas Mann created an image of the German class that saw itself as defi ned by ‘culture’ and that accepted Hitler as its monarch, its metaphysical destiny, and its nemesis.

(ii) Learning to mourn (1945- )

In 1967 the psychologists Alexander and Margarete Mitscherlich (1908-82 and 1917- ) published The Inability to Mourn (Die Unfähigkeit zu trauern), an analysis of Germany’s collective reaction to the trauma of 1945, the ‘zero hour’ in German history when the past was lost, the present was a ruin, and the future was a blank. Their conclusion was that there had been no reaction:

Germany had frozen emotionally, had deliberately forgotten both its huge affective investment in the Third Reich and the terrible human price paid by itself and others to rid it of that delusion, had shrugged off its old identity and identifi ed instead with the victors (whether America in the West or Russia in the East), and had thrown itself into the mindless labour of reconstruction, which created the Western ‘economic miracle’ and made East Germany the most successful economy in the Soviet bloc. This analysis, and in particular its conclusion that Nazi thinking was still as omnipresent in (West) German society as the old Nazis themselves, had a powerful infl uence on the revolutionary generation of 1968 and reinforced the accepted wisdom that ‘coming to terms with the past’ (Vergangenheitsbewältigung) was the major task of contemporary literature. But there was a good deal more to mourn than unacknowledged Nazism, repressed memories of Nazi crimes, the horrors of civilian bombardment, the misery of military defeat, or the uncomfortable fact that in the four years before the foundation of the two post-war German states in 1949 the prevailing mood was not joy and relief but sullen resentment both of the Allies and of the German emigrants.

There was the further complication that the past calling out to be reassessed did not begin in 1933, it was potentially as old as Germany itself, while the present, for all the talk of reconstruction, had no historical precedents. It might resemble the aftermath of the Thirty Years War, though without the princes, but more importantly it was without a bourgeoisie: both German states were workers’ states - one was just wealthier than the other. But because in the Eastern German state the absolutist rule of officials survived under the name of ‘socialism’, it created an image of its Western rival on the model of officialdom’s old enemy and characterized the Federal Republic as ‘bourgeois’

Germany. With the building of the Wall in 1961, this double illusion was set in concrete and barbed wire and exercised an increasingly malign infl uence on German intellectual life on both sides of the barrier. For the greatest obstacle to clear-sighted assessment of the present and the past was a factor which the Mitscherlichs did not mention: that neither of the world powers which had divided Germany between them wished to encourage it. Rather, they wanted their front-line German states, between which the Iron Curtain ran, to understand themselves as showcases for their respective blocs in the bipolar global system.

‘Denazifi cation’ procedures were stopped in the West, and held to be unnecessary in the East. Only after 1990 were German writers released from this imposed and misleading confrontation, and as they became free to understand Germany’s position in a global market and a global culture in which national identities had long been dissolving, they also became free to address their own history.

After 1945, many emigrants stayed where they were or avoided settling in Germany. By this time they were anyway largely exhausted. Thomas Mann, who returned to Switzerland, and Hesse, who continued to live there, were honoured - Hesse with the Nobel Prize in 1946 - but unproductive. The Communists returned to the Russian zone, but apart from Brecht they had little international standing. Adorno came back in 1949 to a professorship in Frankfurt, where the Institute for Social Research was reopened in 1951. In the West the task of reacting in literature to the traumatic past was in the hands of a new generation of ex-servicemen and ex-prisoners of war, many of whom arranged to meet annually to discuss their work and became known as ‘Group 47’ (Gruppe 47). For this new generation, the problem of inheritance was particularly evident in poetry. Adorno’s famous dictum of 1949 that ‘to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric’ reflected partly the special role of lyrical poetry in Germany as the literary medium for the exploration of individual ethical experience. That this role was over was emphatically stated in the last phase of the work of Gottfried Benn, which became known to the public in the early 1950s. Despite the Nazi prohibition, he had continued to write in secret, especially what he called ‘static poems’, regular in form and rich in imagery of autumn and extinction. A collection privately circulated in 1943 contained one of his greatest poems, ‘Farewell’ (‘Abschied’), a tormented admission that in 1933 he had betrayed ‘my word, my light from heaven’, and that it was impossible to come to terms with such a past: ‘Wem das geschah, der muß sich wohl vergessen’ (‘Anyone to whom that happened will have to forget himself ’). After this personal outcry, his public stance of unyielding nihilism, in the post-war years, was entirely consistent:

es gibt nur zwei Dinge: die Leere und das gezeichnete Ich [there are only two things: emptiness and the constructed self ]

(‘Nur zwei Dinge’, 1953)

If the self has become pure construction, not made out of interactions with its past experiences or with a given world, there is no place for poetry as it had been practised in Germany from Goethe to Lasker-Schüler. The poet who showed Adorno that it was still possible to write poetry in the knowledge of Auschwitz had certainly understood this lesson. There is no role for a self, or for any controlling construction, in the work of Paul Celan (1920-70), a German Jew from Romania, both of whose parents were killed in a death-camp, and who chose to live in Paris, where he committed suicide.

Celan is best known for the fi nest single lament for the Jewish genocide, ‘Death Fugue’ (‘Todesfuge’), an erratic block in the otherwise over-lush collection Poppies and Memory (Mohn und Gedächtnis, 1952), but he seems to have felt that even this impersonal, repetitive musical structure, with its motifs of ‘black milk’, ‘ashen hair’, the name of Jewish beauty, ‘Sulamit’, and the terrifying climactic phrase ‘death is a master from Germany’ (‘der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland’), imposed too much of a subjective order on a strictly unthinkable event.

In his later collections (e.g. Speechgrid [Sprachgitter], 1959; Breathturn [Atemwende], 1967), he thought of the poem as a ‘meridian’, an imaginary line both linking disparate words and names and events and, by its arbitrariness, holding them apart, so re-enacting the meaninglessly violent juxtapositions and discontinuities of 20th-century history. Although many of the elements, including the vocabulary, are hermetically personal, the call for interpretation that these Webern-like miniatures embody makes them strangely public statements in which the anguish of the bereaved survivor is largely uncontaminated by Germany’s growing ideological division.

[…] Stimmen im Innern der Arche:

Es sind nur die Münder geborgen. Ihr Sinkenden, hört auch uns. […]

[Voices inside the Ark: Only our mouths are rescued. You who are sinking, hear us too]

At the same time as Benn was marking the end of poetry as the coherent utterance of a solitary private voice, Brecht was providing it with a new role as the public voice of personal political engagement. He proved by far the strongest infl uence on the poetry of both the Federal and the Democratic Republics, but the infl uence was as ambiguous as the engagement. Brecht had returned to Europe in 1947 and, prevented by the Americans from entering the Western zone, settled instead in the East, where he was given a theatre and a privileged position as the jewel in the new republic’s cultural crown. While he did not publicly oppose the military suppression of the workers’ revolt in 1953, he wrote a series of epigrammatic poems sardonically distancing himself from the action (perhaps the government should elect itself a new people?) and asserting, presumably as a justifi cation of his position as court poet, the social value of literary pleasure. The example both of this last, laconic manner and of his earlier more discursive poetry enabled later poets to address public issues with directness and, often, lightness of touch. But his accommodation with the Communist régime and his failure to unmask either its false claim to cultural continuity with the German ‘classical heritage’ or the reality of its institutional continuity with the bureaucracy of the Third and Second Empires set a bad precedent. Even the most gifted West German poet of the next generation, Hans Magnus Enzensberger (born 1929), succumbed to the assumption that the complacencies and contradictions of life in the Federal Republic lit up by his satirical fi reworks were somehow a consequence of the division of the world between Right and Left. It seemed to him (as it did to all of us) that to be modern was to be subject to the threat of thermonuclear Mutual Assured Destruction by these two opposing systems. When, therefore, he wrote a counter-poem to Brecht’s ‘To later generations’, he began it with an equation of the Cold War and the Second War which became obsolete in 1989:

wer soll da noch auftauchen aus der fl ut, wenn wir darin untergehen?

[who else is supposed to emerge from the tide if we sink in it?]

(‘Extension’ [‘Weiterung’])

By contrast, Celan’s revision of Brecht’s poem gets much closer to the heart of Germany’s diffi culty with its past-haunted present.

Poetry, Celan knew, needed a purifi cation of language and memory, not the prescription of acceptable topics:

[…] Was sind das für Zeiten, wo ein Gespräch

beinah ein Verbrechen ist, weil es soviel Gesagtes mit einschließt?

[What sort of times are these when any conversation is almost a crime because it includes so much that has been said?]

(‘A Leaf ’ [‘Ein Blatt’], 1971)

In drama, Brecht, of course, was everywhere. He wrote nothing of importance after his return to Germany, but in his decade with the Berliner Ensemble he created a model of modernist, politically didactic theatre which, while at fi rst having little effect on the resolutely Second Empire traditions of production in the East, gained great authority in the West, especially after 1968, and made it possible to conceal a lack of direct engagement with the literary heritage beneath an appearance of critical detachment.

The institutional continuity, however, was virtually unbroken: ass in 1918, Germany’s theatres survived the revolution and not for 20 years did major new writing talent emerge. Even then the function assigned to the theatre by a new generation of producers and writers was what it had always been, except in the brief bourgeois period before 1914 - to be a state institution in which the intellectual elite could through Art perfect the morals of the citizens (or subjects). The plays of Rolf Hochhuth (born 1931) do not deny their Schillerian ancestry. His denunciation of Pope Pius XII for complicity in the murder of Europe’s Jews (The Representative [Der Stellvertreter], 1963) was written in fi ve acts and a form of blank verse, and concentrated on issues of personal moral responsibility. Hochhuth’s determination to fi nd highly placed individuals to blame for great crimes - Churchill in Soldiers (Soldaten, 1967); Hans Filbinger, the prime minister of Baden-Württemberg, in Lawyers (Juristen, 1979) - was on occasion highly effective (Filbinger was forced to resign). But it did not help a broader understanding of the historical and cultural context that made the crimes possible. Moral improvement might not seem to be the purpose of the explosively entertaining and hugely successful fi rst play of Peter Weiss (1916-82), a Jewish emigrant and Communist who had lived in Sweden since 1939.

The Persecution and Murder of Jean Paul Marat Represented by the Theatre Company of the Hospital of Charenton under the Direction of M. de Sade, usually known as Marat/Sade (1964), plays to the gallery with sex, violence, and madness, slithering between illusion and reality, with songs and self-conscious effects in the manner of the early Brecht, and with an early Brechtian theme: the confl ict between the isolated hedonist, Sade, and Marat, the spokesman of impersonal and collective revolutionary action. But Weiss himself saw it as a Marxist play, and in his next, much grimmer, work, The Investigation (Die Ermittlung, 1965), a documentary drama drawing on the transcripts of the recent trial in Frankfurt of some of the staff in Auschwitz, he selected his material in accordance with the thesis of Brecht’s Third Reich plays: that Hitler could be explained by the logic of big business.

Weiss’s ideas were formed in the 1930s and contributed minimally to German self-understanding. The three volumes of his last work, the novel Aesthetics of Resistance (Ästhetik des Widerstands, 1975-81), reiterated the fallacy that had done so much damage in the inter-war years: that ‘Bildung’ was a supra-historical value with no particular basis in the German class structure. In the GDR, by contrast, Heiner Müller (1929-95), as director of the Berliner Ensemble, combined his own passionate demand for humanistic socialism, which he felt states always betray, with Brechtian devices taken to a postmodernist extreme, to create extraordinarily powerful works which frequently proved too much for the GDR authorities and had little in common with the armchair leftism prevalent in the Federal Republic. In a loose cycle which opened with Germania Death in Berlin (Germania Tod in Berlin, 1977) and closed with its intertextual counterpart Germania 3 Ghosts at The Dead Man (Germania 3 Gespenster am Toten Mann, 1996), a lament for the GDR, Müller puts bodies, language, and history through the mincing machine; cannibalism, mutilation, and sexual perversion abound; theatrical conventions are strained to the limit and beyond; and the contributions of Prussian militarism, Nazism, and Stalinism to the formation of the modern German states are brutally demonstrated. These plays have the uninhibited wildness of true mourning. However, since their underlying assumption is that the real victim of the German past has been socialism, they are mourners at the wrong funeral.

As for narrative prose, the sharpest insights tend to be found at the beginning of the period of German division, before the confrontation of the two republics had been consolidated. Much of the best writing of Heinrich Böll (1917-85) is in the disillusioned and understated short stories he wrote in the immediate post-war years: stories of military chaos and defeat, of shattered cities and lives, of the black market, hunger, and cigarettes. Traveller, if you come to Spa … (Wanderer, kommst du nach Spa … , 1950)

is the interior monologue of a fatally wounded ex-sixth-former carried to an emergency operating theatre in the school he left only months before. He recognizes the room from a fragment of Simonides’ epigram on Thermopylae which he had himself written on the blackboard, and most of the brief narrative is taken up with enumeration of the cultural objects that still litter the corridors - the bust of Caesar, the portraits of Frederick the Great and Nietzsche, the illustrations of Nordic racial types.

The bloodstained downfall of ‘Bildung’ has been given us in cruel miniature. Böll’s most ambitious investigation of the Nazi infection in the German body politic was the novel Billiards at 9.30 (Billard um halbzehn, 1959), which spans the period from the end of the 19th century to 1958. Three generations of an architect family have been involved with a Benedictine monastery: the grandfather built it; the father blew it up in the Second World War, nominally for military reasons, but in fact because he knew it to be corrupted by Nazism; the son is rebuilding it, unaware who was responsible for its destruction.

Round this theme is woven a picture of a society in which former criminals, their victims, and their opponents mingle on equal or unequal, but usually unjust, terms. During the Adenauer years, Böll, also a Catholic Rhinelander, seems to have seen himself as the moral conscience of a Church compromised by its wartime record and by its association with wealth and power in the new and predominantly Catholic Germany. But in his later work the sense of a historically defi ned Germany measured by an external standard of justice faded, the targets of his critiques became more secular, and his position became more simply that of socialist opposition to the Christian Democrat Party (e.g. The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum [Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum], 1974). Böll remained interested in modernist techniques such as multiple, undefi ned, or unreliable narrative viewpoints, but the clunking symbolism and schematic morality already apparent in Billiards at 9.30 became more pronounced and his original fi erce identifi cation with a unique moment in the national life was lost.

Günter Grass (born 1927) followed a course rather like Böll’s, though Böll got his Nobel Prize in 1972, while Grass, more of an enfant terrible, had to wait until 1999. Grass is a poet, dramatist, graphic artist, and prolifi c novelist, but he will be remembered above all for one book. The Tin Drum (Die Blechtrommel, 1959) is the life story of Oskar Matzerath, who begins, like Grass, on the interface between the German and Polish communities in Danzig, who decides at the age of three to stop growing, who drifts, lecherous and seemingly invulnerable, though armed only with his tin drum and a voice that can break glass when he sings, through the absurdist horrors of the Third Reich, and who is fi nally incarcerated in a lunatic asylum in the Federal Republic where he composes his memoirs. The novel stands out from everything else written, by Grass or others, about the Nazi period for the amoral exuberance of its narration. Oskar is, at most, passingly puzzled by the eagerness of these adults to destroy each other and the nice things he enjoys. The amorality is

essential, for it reflects that of the acts and actors that are being described. So too is the exuberance, for against all the evil and death, from which the book refuses to avert its gaze, it asserts the value of life and pleasure - the untiring verbal inventiveness, some of it encouraged by Döblin’s example, is a sustained act of resistance. But the crucial device that makes The Tin Drum into an exceptionally powerful analysis of how the German catastrophe happened is its parodistic relation to the German literary tradition - specifi cally to the tradition since the last comparable catastrophe, the Thirty Years War. Grass goes back to the early sections of Grimmelshausen’s Simplicissimus to fi nd a narrative standpoint from which he can encompass a political development that ends in Nazism and a literary development that ends in Oskar Matzerath. Oskar learns to read from Goethe’s novel of personal maturing, Wilhelm Meister, regarded since the Second Empire as the fountainhead of ‘Bildung’, and from a life of Rasputin. That Goethe and Rasputin could also, grotesquely, go hand in hand in German 20th-century history is shown by a novel in which every convention of ‘Bildung’ is overturned, starting with the idea of personal growth, and the course of events seems to be determined not by Nature or Spirit but by a homicidal maniac. In Grass’s later works - even the next two books in what the English scholar John Reddick has called his ‘Danzig trilogy’ - the inventiveness became arch or stilted and the themes lost urgency as they became politically correct (e.g. The Flounder [Der Butt], 1977). The Wall made not only the GDR but the Federal Republic too a more introverted place and, responding to the need to defend public life from the left-wing Fascism of the Baader-Meinhof gang, and perhaps inspired by the example of Thomas Mann, Grass became a reliable and important campaigner for the Social Democrat Party as he became a less penetrating analyst of his world.

Because much of the writing of Arno Schmidt (1914-79) was done in the 1950s, and from 1958 he led the life of a (married and atheist) hermit in rural lower Saxony, he was insulated from these local diffi culties and maintained, partly thanks to his enormous erudition, a broader view of German nationhood. The Heart of Stone (Das steinerne Herz, 1956) balanced an unfl attering picture of both the modern zones with a sub-plot dependent on the earlier trauma from which the contemporary division of Germany derived: the absorption of the independent principalities, in this case the Kingdom of Hanover, into Bismarck’s Empire. In The Republic of Scholars (Die Gelehrtenrepublik, 1957), Schmidt wrote a science-fi ction parable of the Cold War, that other and larger-scale determinant of German identities, set in a post-World War Three era, when German is a dead language. Schmidt’s eccentricities of style, spelling, and punctuation were part of his deliberate detachment from his contemporaries and should not be dismissed simply as pastiche of Joyce - though his magnum opus, Bottom’s Dream (Zettel’s Traum, 1970), 1,300 multi-columned A3 pages weighing over a stone, owed much to Finnegan’s Wake.

Uwe Johnson (1934-84) chose a different way to preserve his independence and his ability to write, moving from East to West Germany in 1959, spending much of the 1960s abroad, and settling in England in 1974. He developed a narrative method without a privileged narrator of any kind, piecing together fragments of discourse in a montage which eventually made extensive use of newspaper material: there is no single truth about the lives of his characters or about their relation to the major public events which intimately affect them. Speculations about Jakob (Mutmaßungen über Jakob, 1959) treats the murky circumstances surrounding the death of a man who is a ‘stranger in the West, but no longer at home in the East’ at the time of the Hungarian uprising and the Suez crisis, while The Third Book about Achim (Das dritte Buch über Achim, 1961) asks whether a personality is continuous across the divide between the Nazi years and the GDR and fi nds no answer. The possibility of socialism with a human face, already an issue in Speculations about Jakob, is a central theme in the four volumes of Anniversaries (Jahrestage, 1971-83), which take up some of the same characters and follow every day of their lives throughout the year 1967-8, cross-cutting the German past, the American present, and the crushing of the Prague Spring. In comparison with these powerful books, the experiments in narrative indeterminacy of Christa Wolf (born 1929), who stayed in the GDR, joining the party hierarchy and literary bureaucracy, seem relatively colourless.

The Quest for Christa T. (Nachdenken über Christa T, 1968) shows little awareness of the social constituents of personality, despite spanning the same period as The Third Book about Achim.

Her autobiographical Patterns of Childhood (Kindheitsmuster, 1976), however, impressively presents both the illusions of a Nazi childhood and the traumatic effect of the transition to the later standpoint from which she tries to write.

Since 1945 the challenge facing Germans writing about Germans has been to transform trauma into memory and to understand the present by mourning the past, to show what it is to be German by telling stories broad and deep enough to contain the indescribable. After 1961 that challenge became even more diffi cult, and only those whose narrative could rise to include the global power relationships which were imposing on Germany an economic, social, and cultural schizophrenia had any chance of success. Only a resolutely international or historical perspective could resist the hypnotic attraction of the great lie on which German division was based: that the Democratic Republic was a nation freely working to realize socialism, when it was actually, as the Wall proclaimed, an old-fashioned bureaucratic dictatorship maintained by the military force of a foreign power. Such a perspective was easier to attain in philosophy than in literature.

Heidegger and Jünger in their later, and unrepentant, work perhaps achieved it, if for quite the wrong reasons. Adorno paid a cruel penalty for his continued adherence to ‘Bildung’ when he was pilloried by students as a reactionary and, probably as a result, died of a heart attack in 1969; but the tradition of the ‘Frankfurt School’ was carried on and decisively broadened by his pupil Jürgen Habermas (born 1929). Habermas sought a synthesis of German philosophy with the American and British traditions (rejected by Adorno) in a theory of evolving democratic argument: in democracies Enlightenment was embodied in institutions (The Theory of Communicative Action [Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns], 1981). He thereby both related the constitutional order of the Federal Republic to that of other Western nations and marked it off critically from the German past. His fear that, none the less, the government of Helmut Kohl was encouraging a nationalist form of West German patriotism which would efface the difference between the Federal Republic and earlier German states was expressed in 1986-7 in his criticisms of revisionist historians of the Jewish genocide (the ‘battle of the historians’, or ‘Historikerstreit’). Arguably, however, Kohl was consciously concerned only that Germany should also mourn its 11 million casualties of the Second World War: a true assessment of the Third Reich was possible only if its full cost was recognized.

That goal came signifi cantly nearer in 1989 with Russia’s withdrawal of military cover from Eastern Europe and the collapse of its puppet regimes. In East Germany the last survival from the era of bureaucratic absolutism came to an inglorious end, and with it 30 years of false consciousness for the whole nation. Those, like Christa Wolf, who had already once rebuilt their lives on those hollow foundations could not be expected to reconstruct themselves after a second trauma. But for established Western writers and younger writers from the East a new degree of honesty became possible. After an angry critique of Kohl’s handling of reunifi cation that was more a political intervention than a novel (Too far afi eld [Ein weites Feld], 1996), Grass returned to something like his old form with Crabwalk (Im Krebsgang, 2002), centred on the fl ight of East Prussians from the advancing Russian armies in 1945 and the torpedoing of a refugee ship with the loss of 9,000 lives. His admission of service in the Waffen-SS in his autobiography of 2006 also showed that his portrait of Oskar Matzerath was closer to reality than anyone had been prepared to allow when The Tin Drum was fi rst published. In 2005 the prizewinning poet Durs Grünbein (born 1962) attempted to address the most notorious of all Allied war crimes, the fi re-bombing of Dresden, from the point of view of a native of the city, taking into account Dresden’s political and cultural history, its associations with the Nazis and its dismal reconstruction in the GDR: incongruities of tone were essential to the poem but brought it a mixed reception (Porcelain. Poem on the death of my city [Porzellan. Poem vom Untergang meiner Stadt]). Germany’s inability to mourn the terrible bombing campaign against its cities had been the subject of a controversial study by W. G. (‘Max’) Sebald (1944-2001), On the Natural History of Destruction (literally: Literature and the War in the Air [Luftkrieg und Literatur], 1999), itself a sign that the taboo was being broken. Sebald’s novels, the most striking event in German literature of the 1990s, are both single-minded and endlessly varied in their concentration on the process of remembering past violence, the process by which, as we are told in The Emigrants (Die Ausgewanderten, 1992), a dead body, snowed up on the mountainside, will eventually, after many years, emerge at the foot of a glacier. Like Uwe Johnson, Sebald, long a professor at the University of East Anglia, had to settle outside Germany in order to give his memory the freedom and scope necessary for his literary project. The lives and deaths that his stories retrieve from the ice ramify round the world. Though the German catastrophe is usually their overt or covert point of reference, they involve highly detailed presentations of many seemingly unrelated topics and locales: Istanbul and North America, the architecture of railway stations, the history of the silk industry, and the works of Sir Thomas Browne. Germany appears to be quite tangential to The Rings of Saturn. An English Pilgrimage (Die Ringe des Saturn. Eine englische Wallfahrt, 1995), which is concerned (as the title indicates) with the patterns made by the debris left over from another world-historical implosion, that of the British Empire. By his deliberate ambiguity of genre - are we reading fi ction, autobiography, history, or documentary?; are the blurred photographs scattered through the narrative authentic or staged, relevant or irrelevant? - Sebald replicates both the layers of forgetting that have to be excavated to get at the past and the variety, always eluding unity, in what we are trying to recover.

The books have a unity, however, and it lies in something wholly German: their cultivation of exquisitely calm, statuesque, and elaborate sentences which, apart from little, scarcely noticeable, 20th-century spoilers, could have been written by Goethe. It is these which tell us that this view of our present condition, global though it is in its reach, is achieved from a historically and culturally particular standpoint - a tragic standpoint because it is German and because in no other language would it have been necessary or possible to write Sebald’s greatest single sentence, a ten-page account of the concentration camp in Theresienstadt, in

his last novel, Austerlitz (2001). Sebald’s work is a clear sign that since the turning point (Wende) of 1989-90, German literature has resumed its original post-war search for a national historical identity, a search that is important to all of us, not just because every nation has similarly to fi nd its place in an ever more integrated world system, but because the German example makes it peculiarly clear that what matters in the end is not identity, national or personal, but the pursuit of justice.

Chapter Two

Mahdi is From the Arab Descent

Author of “Eqdud-Durar” in Chapter one section 4 narrates from Abu Abdullah Na’eem-ibn-Hemaad (from his book “Al-Fatan”) who is turn narrates from Ali (AS.) who said: - “The kingdom of Bani-Abbass is such that if the Turks, Deylamites, and the inhabitants of Indus valley and India were to attack them they would fail to destroy them and Bani-Abbass would continue to be successful until they become aggressive towards the slaves and the weak. Then God will make a ‘Gusale’ (the wicked one who will revolt against Bani-Abbass and destroy them) to dominate over them which shall come out from a place where their kingdom will be disclosed. He shall not pass any city but that which conquers; no flag will be hoisted before him but that which he destroys and he will not come across any bounty but that which he misuses. Woe be to the one who takes his side. This shall continue until victory is achieved by the hands of an Arab who shall rise fore the truth and act upon it.”

It is apparent that ‘on Arab’ in the above sentence refers to Mahdi, the Awaited One who shall appear at the end of time and his signs are the very ones which have come in the same chapter of the aforesaid book which has been taken from the book of “Al-Fatan”, where its author, Imam Abu Abdulla Na’eem-ibn -Hemaad narrates from Abi Qabil as such: “People shall always be in comfort until the kingdom of Bani-Abbass comes to an end. Then they will live in disturbed conditions until the advent of Mahdi.”

Author says: History bears witness that right from the time of Holaku’s revolt, the East has not enjoyed liberty. Disturbed conditions and discord among the rulers and kings has always continued to exist. Thus Ali’s saying that: Until he gains victory and hands it over to an Arab is perhaps referring to this point that that discord and disturbed conditions are all incidental to the coming of Holaku and his subsequent revolt and it shall remain till the advent of Mahdi. Thus, as one of the causes and means of Mahdi’s victory and his success in inviting the people (towards his mission) and his domination over the cities is the discord and disturbed conditions which shall follow the revolt of Holaku. It is like this that Holaku himself will surrender the affairs of Government to Hazrat (A.S.). Another factor, which shows that Mahdi is from an Arab line is the diffused traditions which have come with regards to determination of his family and relatives. Ragheb in his “Mufradaat” says: “Arab (*) are the children of Ismail (-Ishmaeel) and (*) (-Aarab) its plural form. Later on, the nomads were called by that name.”

The author of “Saba’ek-uz-Zahak”, on page 4 says:

“The city-dwellers are called as “(*) - Arab” and the desert - dwellers as “(*) - Aarab” and what is common is that the word of (*) is used for both groups.”

Jauhari in “Sihah” says: “(*) - Arab” a tribe and they are the city-dwellers. They have been called Arabi by the title of A’raab-e-Erabi. But what is commonly used is the word of      “(*)-Arab” at all levels. The same has been written in the dictionaries.”

The author of “Ebar” says: ‘The word of Arab “(*) - Arab” is constructioned from “(*) - Aarab” and its meaning of expression (speech) has been taken from those who say:         (*) - At the time when a person expresses and describes his need and since they possess the faculty of expression and eloquency in speech they have been called by this name. So know that every non-Arab - whether Iranians, Turks, Romans or Europeans are all “(*) - Ajam - non-Arab” and it is not what the people commonly believe that the word of (*) is particular to the Persian - speaking nation. Rather, the people of West have hitherto used this word for the French and those who fall in the same category. However the word of (*) (by an addition of “(*) - A”) is used for the one who does not clarify his speech even though he may be an Arab.

Mahdi is From This “Ummah” (Nation)

Tirmidhi is his “Sahih”, on page 270 narrates from Abu Sa’eed Khudri who said: ‘I feared that after the Holy Prophet, something bad might take place, so we asked the Prophet and he replied as such: “Indeed Mahdi is from my ‘Ummah’ and he shall emerge from amongst them.”

The magazine “Hudal-Islam” in its 25th publication, line No. 3 has narrated the same tradition from Ibn-Maajah who in turn has narrated it from Abu Sa’eed.

The author of “Eqdud-Durar”, in the first chapter narrates from Abu Muslim Abdur-Rahman-ibn-Auf and he from his father and he from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) who said: -

“Surely God shall appoint a man from my “Ummah” (nation). He continued to the point of saying: He shall fill the earth with Justice.”

In the 3rd chapter of the same book, the author narrates from the book of “Sefat-ul-Mahdi” written by Hafez Abu-Na’eem who in turn narrates from Abu Sa’eed Khudri and he from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) who said:

‘Mahdi is from us, the Ahl-ul-bait (i.e. People of the House). He is from my ‘Ummah’.

The author of ‘Fusu1 al-Muhimma’ narrates from Abu Dawoud and Tirmidhi and these two from Abdullah-ibn-Mas’oud and he from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A) who said:

“If there remains not more than a day from the life the earth, God will set the day so long until a person from my “Ummah” and progeny who carries the same lame as mine appears (and fills the world with Justice.)”

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” has narrated (on page 433 of his afore-said book) a tradition from the book “Jawaher-ul-Aqd’ain” of Abu Sa’eed Khudri. In that tradition the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) says: - ‘Mahdi is in my Ummah’. Also the afore-said author narrates from Abu Abdullah Na’emm-ibn-Hemaad (from his book of “Al-Fatan” and he from Hisham-ibn-Muhammad and he from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) who said: - “Mahdi is from this “Ummah” and he is the one who shall lead Isa-ibn-Maryam.[20]

Ragheb in his ‘Mufradaat’ says: ‘Ummah’ is any group of people which is formed through things like custom, time or place - making no difference whether that thing brings them together voluntarily or involuntarily and the plural of “ (*) - Ummah” is “(*) - Ummam.”

One group has said as such: - ‘The “Ummah” of every Prophet are his followers and the one who does not follow his custom will not be included in his “Ummah” even though he may have lived during his time. Therefore, the “Ummah” of Islam are those people who follow the Islamic rules and all that the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) has brought making no difference whether he has visited him or not or whether he has lived during his time or not. Moreover this applies to all, without any difference in families or tribes even though they may differ from each other from the view-point of language, time and place.

The Author is of the opinion that: ‘It is apparent that the “object of making known” i.e. ((*) - ‘A’ & (*) - ‘L’) in (*) (Al-MAHDI) is for covenant; meaning that Mahdi - the one who has been remembered in the heavenly books and about whom the Prophets have given glad-tidings to their nations, - shall be from this same blessed “Ummah” and not from any other “Ummah”. So this “Ummah” deserves to rejoice and be happy for being honored such a virtue. It is true that in some of the exceptional and less common traditions we find such contents like this one - “Mahdi is not but Isa-ibn-Maryam (A.S.)” .

Ibn-Hajar has written (this tradition) in “Sawa’eq” on page 89.

Ibn-Maaja and Hakem have brought one tradition from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as such: - ‘It will not be long when difficulties and problems will dominate the people and the world shall turn away from its inhabitants and the people will resort to greediness. The Hour shall not be established but upon the wicked and Mahdi is not but Isa-ibn-Maryam.

Ibn-Hajar quotes Hakem as saying:

“This traditions did not disturb me as such but rather astonished me greatly.”

Baihaqi says: “Only Muhammad-ibn-Khalid has narrated this tradition.”

Hakem says: “He (i.e. Muhammad-ibn-Khalid) is unknown and there exists differences in the chain of transmission of traditions narrated by him.”

Nesa’ee too rejects such traditions.

In the 10th Volume of Da’erat-ul-Ma’aref (page 475) the author after narrating the afore-said tradition mentions the views of Ibn-Maaja as such: Imam Qurtabi says: -  ‘This tradition is not inconsistent with what the previous traditions have mentioned about Mahdi because, this tradition only aims to respect the dignity of Isa-ibn-Maryam (A.S.) over Mahdi. That is to say, there is no Mahdi but Isa from the viewpoint of is position of Immaculateness and perfection. So it does not contradict existence of Mahdi. It is identical to this saying that there is no stalwart but Ali. Moreover, this view can be supported with the tradition which says that Mahdi is from my progeny; he shall fill the earth with Justice and will e merge along with Isa (A.S.) who shall help him in the killing of Dajjal at a place called “Lad” in the land of Palestine. Indeed, he shall rule over this ‘Ummah’ and Isa-ibn-Maryam will pray behind him and God Almighty is All -Knowing.[21]

The author of “Eqdud-Durar” in the preface of his afore-mentioned book writes as such: ‘And amongst the people, there are those who reckon that Mahdi is none other than Isa-ibn-Maryam, the pure and holy. So I told them - The one who denies the emergence of Mahdi is not actually referring to Hazrat Isa because there is no reason to believe that that reference is made to him and the one who thinks that Mahdi is the same as Isa-ibn-Maryam and insists on the authenticity of this tradition has indeed made the zeal of prejudice and error to bring him to the point of precipice. Thereafter he says: - “Even though this tradition may be proverbial among the people yet, how can it be considered authentic when the traditionists have rejected it.” After accurately examining its references and deliberating on its authorities if a person still relies on this tradition, it will be a matter of grave fallacy.

The proof of this statement is that Imam Abu Abdur-Rahman has emphasized on its denial and his view is worthy of acceptance because the tradition returns back to Muhammad-ibn-Khalid Jundi. Moreover, Imam Abul-Faraj Jauzi narrates in his book ‘Elal-Mutanahiya’ the weakness of this tradition from the words of Hafez Abi Bakr Baihaqi who said: - ‘This tradition is connected to Jundi and he is an unknown person. Moreover, Jundi narrates from Aba’an-ibn Myaash and he too is a rejected and un-laudable person. Aba’an too narrates from Hassan and he from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) and there is an interval in his transmission (i.e. all the sources have not been narrated). Anyhow, there is no reason to consider this tradition to be authentic.

Baihaqi narrates from his master, Hakem Naishabouri (and his words are sufficient enough to make you understand the technique of tradition and the position of its narrators) as follows: -

  ‘Jundi is an unknown person and Ibn-Aaiyaash, a rejected one and with such transmitters this tradition is severed. Almost all the scholars of traditions have brought traditions about Imam Mahdi and all have mentioned his name and remembered him and for those who are clear-sighted and are also aware, it is clear that a part of those traditions are a rectification for the other parts and this is the highest proof of those traditions being better than this rejected tradition.

Also, Hafez Abu Abdullah Hakem has spoken on this subject in his ‘Mustadrak’ which has (also) been mentioned in ‘Sahiain’ and this makes us needless of other talks.

He reminds that if a tradition has been narrated by a large number of people it is having priority over those traditions which are not as such and while coming across this tradition he discusses its position from the view-point of credibility and un-credibility. Thereafter he writes:

“The reason I have brought this tradition is not to argue upon it but to express my surprise.” This statement of Hakem finally proves his inattention towards this tradition.

He further says: “Better than this tradition is the tradition of Sunan Suri and his adherents.”

Thereafter, he mentions the tradition of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) which says; “His name is the same as my name” and then writes as such: - “The eminent scholars are of the view that what Hazrat intends to say by this statement is that Mahdi’s name is the same and similar to his name.”

Thus the above statement reveals the truthfulness of this statement that Mahdi is someone other than Isa-ibn-Maryam (A.S.). Besides, even if we assume this tradition to be correct, we cannot take it in its apparent form. Rather, we should resort to its esoteric interpretation, since we have not found any reason for giving up those genuine traditions which are in opposition to this tradition and perhaps its esoteric interpretation may be like the esoteric interpretation of[22](*) from this angle that a part of the wordings of the two traditions are near to each other and the number of such traditions are numerous.

Thus rejection is not the factual aim so that we may conclude that Mahdi is the same as Isa-ibn-Maryam. Rather, it should be said that this sentence has come in honor of Hazrat Mahdi and / or Isa or perhaps it might be having some other interpretation.’

Author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 434 says:

‘Indeed the fabrication of this tradition from Ibn-Khalid is apparent from various aspects: -

Firstly, if this tradition was correct then the oppression and cruelty which was prevalent during the time of Yazid and Hajjaj should have increased manifold and until today there should have not remained any goodness in this world. However, after the afore-mentioned period, that is from the time of Omar-ibn-Abdul Aziz and the Abbasside Caliphs up to now, peace and goodness has been settled by the Grace of Allah.

Secondly, before the appointment of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) to the position of Prophethood, the subject of Mahdaviyat was not prevalent among the Arabs so that it could possibly reject this saying (there is no Mahdi but Isa-ibn-Maryam).

Thirdly, God has hinted about Mahdi in many verses of His Book and as such the Holy Prophet too has given glad-tidings about him to his followers just as the previous Prophets (AS.) had given glad-tidings to others about the coming of our Prophet and the circumstances concerning Mahdi. I have collected and mentioned these glad-tidings in a book entitled “Mashreq-ul-Ekwan”. (end)

What we can derive from the sayings of these great men in reply to the afore-mentioned tradition is the following: -

Firstly, it is a fabricated one; secondly it is null and void and hence weak; thirdly it is contradicting the widely transmitted tradition and fourthly its actual interpretation differs from its apparent meaning.

It is possible to conclude from this tradition that the advent of Mahdi and the descending of Isa from the heavens are two related affairs connected to each other where none can be separated from the other. Therefore it is correct to say that reference to one applies to the other and it seems that both are one and the same or it can be said that something is missing from the tradition and in reality it was as such: (*) (Mahdi is not but that Isa is with him) Moreover, the diffused traditions prove this meaning to be correct. Thus Isa is one of the signs of authenticity of the subject of Mahdi (AS.).

Mahdi is From Kanane

Author of “Eqdud-Durar” in his first chapter narrates from ‘Sunan’ of Imam Abu Amro Osman-ibn-Sa’eed Muqari who narrates from Qatada who said:

“I asked Sa’eed-ibn-Maseeb whether Mahdi is the truth and he replied: ‘Yes, he is the truth, I then asked:

‘To which tribe does he belong? He replied: “To the Kanane.” I again asked: ‘To which clan does he belong? He replied: ‘To the Quraish’ I further asked:

To which family does he belong? He replied: ‘To the Bani-Hashim’ Again I asked: ‘To which one of the families does he belong? He replied: “To the progeny of Fatemah.”

Author says: “By Kanane is meant the same son of Kazima, who was the son of Madraka, son of Elyaas, son of Mazar, son of Nezar, son of Sa’ad, son of Adnan.”

Author of “Saba’ek al-Zahab” says: ‘Banu Kanane are a family from Mazar and Mazar had a son in whom the lineage of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) terminated and he was called as Nezar. Moreover Mazar had children who were from the Holy Prophet’s lineage and they were: Malik, Malkaan, Haaris, Amr, Aamer, Saad, Ghanam, Auf, Mujraba, Jarwal, Jazaal and Gurwaan. Abu Ubaid says: ‘They were all from Yemen’ and in the book called “Ebar” it has come that their place of stay was in the outskirts of Mecca.’

Mahdi is From Quraish

In the first chapter of “Eqdud-Durar”, the author narrates from Imam Abu Abdullah Na’eem-ibn-Hamad who narrates from Ibn-Wa’el who narrates from Imam Abul Hussein Ahmad-ibn-Jafar Manawi who narrates from Qatada who said: ‘I asked Sa’eed-ibn-Maseeb whether Mahdi was on truth and lie replied: ‘Yes’. I asked: ‘To which tribe does he belong? He replied: ‘Quraish’. I asked: “To which clan does he belong?” He replied: ‘Bani-Hashim’. I asked: “To which family does he belong:” He replied: “He is from the offspring of Abdul-Muttalib.” I asked: “Which one of the families?” He replied: “From the progeny of Fatemah.” I asked: “Which one of her sons?” He replied: “That is enough now.”

Also, the afore-mentioned book narrates (in the seventh chapter) from the book “Al-Fatan” of Hafez Abu Abdullah Na’eem-ibn-Hemaad which in turn narrates from Ishaaq-ibn-Yahya-ibn-Thalha who narrates from Ta’oos who said: - Omar-ibn-Khattab was on death-bed and bidding farewell to his family members. He then said: ‘I do not know of any treasure, which I can bestow. The house and all that it contains from wealth and weapons should be spent in the way of Allah.

Then Ali (May Allah be satisfied with him) said: “O Amir-ul-Momineen, leave aside this matter because you are not the owner of (this) wealth. Rather its owner is a young man from the tribe of Quraish who shall, at the end of time distribute it in the way of Allah.”[23]

Ibn-Hajar writes on page 99 of his book “Sawa’eq” as such: -

‘Ahmad and Maawardi have brought a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) who said: Glad-tidings be to you about Mahdi. He is from the Quraish; from my progeny.[24]

Esa’af-ur-Raghebeen too has narrated the same in his book on page 151. The author believes: ‘Quraish is the same Nazr-ibn-Kanane. In Ja’ame-ul-Latif we read as such: “Know that there exists differences in Quraish as to why they were called by this name. So it is said: They were titled in the name of a beast living in the sea - a beast which eats and itself is not eaten; conquers and itself is not conquered (a metaphoric remark signifying power and magnificence) and this tribe too is similar to that beast due to their toughness and significance.”

In Madarek we read: Quraish is a mighty beast which plays with the ships and except for fire it cannot be repulsed by any other thing. Its diminutive form is due to reverence.”

Some others say: The reason they were called as Quraish was that the leader of their tribe Ibn-Yakhled Ghalib-ibn-Fahr was named as Quraish. Thus it was said: The tribe of Quraish came; the tribe of Quraish went and in this way they became famous by this name.

Still some others have said: Qusi (*) who was one person belonging to their tribe gathered them together and brought them to Mecca and “(*) - Qurash” means “to gather together”. Thus, as he gathered them together he was named as (*) (gathering) just as we saw in the poem of Fazl-ibn-Abbas-ibn-Utba and also in his following poem:[25]

(*)

It is also said that Quraish was the name of Qusi and it was because of this reason that his tribe was named as Quraish. What is more common however is that his name had been Zaid just as it was previously mentioned.

Yet others have said: The word of (*) is derived from (*) which means “to earn” and because they were carrying on business and earning they were called as Quraish.

It is also said that since “Nazr” was called as Quraish, his family too became famous by this name.

Some say: They were called as Quraish because they were doing “Taqrish” of goods of the pilgrims going for Haj and “Taqrish” means ‘to inspect’. Thus they erected inspection points in their way and prevented them from moving ahead unchecked. The proof that this statement is correct is the saying of Haaris-ibn -Khulatul-Yashkari who says:[26]

(*)

Mahdi is From Bani-Hashim

The author of “Uqdud-Durar” in the first chapter of his book, narrates from Imam Abul-Hussein Ahmad-ibn-Jafar Manawi and Imam Abu Abdulla Na’eem-ibn-Hamad and these two from Qatada who said:

I asked Sa’eed-ibn-Maseeb: “Is Mahdi the truth?”

He replied: “Yes.”

I asked: “To which tribe does he belong?”

He replied: “To the Quraish.”

I asked: “To which clan does he belong?”

He replied: “To the clan of Bani-Hashim.”

I asked: “From which of its families?”

He replied: “From the offspring of Abdul-Muttalib.”

I asked: “From which one of them?”

He replied: “From the offspring of Fatemah.”

I asked: “From which one of her offspring?”

He replied: “That is enough now.”

The author says: Hashim was the same son of d-Munaf who was the son of Qusi, son of Kalab, son Marra, son of Ka’ab, son of Lui, son of Ghalib, son Fehr, son of Malik, son of Nazr, son of Kanane.

In Ja’ame-ul-Latif it has come as such: Hashim’s name was Amrol-Ala and the reason he was called by name was that during the period of famine he used provide food and water for his tribe.

In generosity and beneficence he had reached to such high level that he used to provide food to the beats and birds and slaughter camels for them on top mountains. Whenever a famine would occur in Mecca, he would feed its people by his own doing and persuaded the rich men of Mecca to donate their wealth to the poor and indigent up to the time when God caused rain to descend. Thereafter, he traveled to Syria, went to Caesar (king) and took from him an order vouching the freedom of Quraish. He also sent Abdul-Muttalib towards Yemen and in this way took a letter of trust from the king of that place. Thereafter he ordained the traders and merchants of Quraish to move out in the winter and summer seasons for the purpose of trading. Thus, they would move towards Syria in summer and proceed for Yemen in winter. As such, from then on their subsistence and means of livelihood got extended through such trading and by blessings of Hashim, God delivered them from fear of (loss of) life and hunger. ABD-MUNAF was the father of Hashim who was named as the “moon of the fourteenth night” because of his good-looking face and beneficence. After him, Qusi succeeded him and the post of ruling and giving water to the pilgrims was transferred to him. He was called by the name of Mughaira and his agnomen was Abu Abd-Shams the name of Qusi (father of Abd-Munaf) was Zaid and also Yazid. The reason he was called as (*) (Qusi) was that he along with his mother Fatemah daughter of Sa’ad, left the tribe of Bani-Uzra and started living with his uncles and distanced himself from Mecca. Thus, for this reason he was named as (*) and this word is derived from (*), which means “distant”. It also carried the meaning of “gathering” because, when he grew up and returned back to Mecca he gathered the Quraish who had been scattered in the deserts and got them back to Mecca and then expelled the tribe of Khaza’e. Fazl-ibn-Abbass-ibn-Abu Lahab says:[27]

(*)

Mahdi is From the Progeny of Abdul-Muttalib

The author of “Eqdud-Durar”, in the seventh chapter narrates from the books of a group of traditionists such as Imam Abu Abdulla-ibn-Maaja in his Sunan, Hafez Abul-Qasum Tabarani in his Mu’ajam and Hafez Abu Na’eem Esfahani and others like Anas-ibn-Malik who said: The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) said:

“We seven, (i.e. Ali, my brother, Hamza, my uncle,

Jafar, Hassan, Hussein, Mahdi and myself) the sons of Abdul-Muttalib are the leaders of Paradise.”

The author says: This denotes the subject which had previously been mentioned in the tradition of Qatada narrated from Saad-ibn-Maseeb. In Ja’ame-ul-Latif it is written as such: -

  Abdul-Muttalib’s name was “Shaibat-ul-Hamd’ and sometimes he was also called by the name of Aamer. He was called ‘Shaibat-ul-Hamd’ because of the appearance of signs of whiteness on his hair. Abul-Haaris was his agnomen since he had a son by the name of Haaris and he was called as Abdul-Muttalib because, when his father Hashim who was living in Mecca was about to die, he told Muttalib, his brother as such: “Take care of your (*) (servant) in Yathrib.” So from then on he was called as Abdul-Muttalib. Some say that when his uncle Muttalib was taking him to Mecca he had an undeserving appearance. For this reason when Muttalib was asked about his nephew’s condition he felt ashamed to say that he was his nephew and instead said: He is my (*) (slave or servant). Later on when they entered Mecca itself and he had put on a decent look Muttalib revealed that he was his nephew. In this way he became famous by the name of

Abdul-Muttalib. It is said that he had a pale face and so when he left for Mecca with Muttahb, people were under impression that he was his (*) (slave) and were saying: Muttalib has brought one (*), (slave). As such he became famous by the name of Abdul-Muttalib.

Mahdi is From the Progeny of Abu-Talib

The author of “Eqdud-Durar” in the fourth chapter of section No.3 narrates from Saif-ibn-Omaira who said: ‘I was near Abu Jafar Mansoor. He addressed me as such: -

O Saif! It is inevitable that a caller from the heavens shall call out in the name of a man from the offspring of Abu Talib. I said: “May I be sacrificed for you ‘O Amirul-Momineen. Are you narrating what you just said.” He replied: Yes, I swear by the One in whose Hand is my life. I am narrating exactly what my ears have heard. I said: “But until now I had not heard such a tradition.” He said: “O Saif, Indeed he is the truth and at the time when this affair takes place we will be more worthy than others in answering (his call). However Mahdi will be someone from our cousins.” I said: “Someone from the offspring of Fatemah!” He replied:

‘O Saif, if I had heard it from someone other than Abu Jafar (Hazrat Baqir) I would have not narrated it for you and indeed I was told about this matter by the most wise person on earth.

In Saba’ek al-Zahab we read as such: Ibn Ishaaq says: “Abu-Talib’s name was Abd-Munaf while Hakem Abu Abdullah says: ‘Abu-Talib’s name and agnomen is one and the same.”

The author of “Tazkerat-ul-Aimma” writes: - ‘With regards to his lineage we have mentioned that he is the son of Abdul-Muttalib and when the latter was about to die, he recommended Abu Talib about the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.).

In the book of “Tabaqaat” Muhammad-ibn-Saad narrates from a group of Ulemas (scholars) such as Ibn-Abbass, Mujahida, Atha, Zahri and the like of them that Abdul-Muttalib passed away in the second year of “Aam-ul-Feel” (the Year of the Elephants) and the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) at that time was eight years old. In fact, Abdul-Muttalib passed away at the age of one hundred and twenty and was buried in Hejwan.

Umm-Aiman says: I saw the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) walking and crying under the coffin of Abdul-Muttalib, while it was being carried away.

According to another saying, Abdul Muttalib was eighty years when he left this world. However the first saying appears to be more correct. Mujahid has narrated from Ibn-Abbass that when a group of people from the tribe of “Qaafa” from ‘BANI-MUZHAQ’ saw the footsteps of the Holy Prophet they told this child, for we have not seen any footsteps which are similar to the holy prophet’s footsteps resembling those in position.

Then Abdul-Muttalib turned towards Abu-Talib and said: “listen to whatever they have said. Indeed there shall be a kingdom for this son of mine.”

From then on, Abu Talib stood up, in the best possible manner, to help the Messenger of Allah and made himself responsible for assisting him in his affairs so much so that he would never get separated from him. He was so much attracted towards him that he would give more preference to him than his own sons and would sleep only when Hazrat was besides him. He would tell him: “You are well-paced and your future is bright.”

In the book of “Tabaqa’at”, Ibn-Sa’ad writes: Once Abu Talib went to “Zil-Mujaaz” along with the Messenger of Allah. When the latter felt thirsty, Abu Talib said: “O nephew, you have become thirsty and there is no water.” Then the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A) came down and striked the ground with his heels. Very soon, water gushed out and Hazrat drank from it. Historians have written that as Abu Talib arose to support Hazrat and would often drive off the enemies from him, the Quraish once approached him and said: “Your nephew has insulted our gods, called our great men as insane and reckoned our fathers to be deviated one. Therefore, you surrender him to us or else, there shall occur a war between us.”

Abu Talib replied: “May your mouths be shut forever. I swear by Allah that I shall never surrender him to you.”

They said: “Emara-ibn-Walid-ibn-Mughaira is the most handsome and noble young man among the Quraish. You may keep him as your son instead of Muhammad and surrender Muhammad to us so that we can kill him. Let us exchange our man with your man.”

Abu Talib replied: “Woe be upon you people. May Allah turn your face dark and gloomy. I swear by Allah that you have indeed spoken the evil. Do you mean that I should hand over my son to you so that you can kill him and will give me your son m exchange so that I take care of him! I swear by Allah that if I do so, I would be but an evil man.”

Thereafter he said: I would like you to separate the baby-camels from their mother. If the mother camel gets attracted towards the other baby-camels (and not her own ones) then, I shall hand over Muhammad to you. He then recited a poem.

Then, from the eighth year of his birth until the tenth year of his appointment, which totally amounts to forty-two years, Abu Talib stood up in support of Hazrrat and prevented the enemies from harming him.

He spared no effort in taking care of him till the end of his life.

In the “Nur-ul-Absar”, the author mentions the date of demise of Abu Talib to be the first of Zilqada after the removal of economic sanctions, which lasted for 8 months and 21 days.

In “Mawaheb-ul-Ladnia”, the age of Abu Talib at the time of his demise is mentioned to be eighty-seven. It was in the same year that Umm-ul-Mumineen, Khadija passed away and the Holy Prophet (S.A.WA) named that year as the year of sorrow (Aam-ul-Huzn).

For knowing more about Abu Talib please refer to historical books like Seera-ibn-Hisham and Tarikh-e-Tabari and to recent writings, especially the book of “Bagyat at-Talib-Fi-Ahwal-Abi Talib” by Zaini Dehlan who is also the author of Al-Fotouhat-Islamiah. Also refer to the book of ‘Shaikh-ul-Abtah’ written by our cousin Sayyid Muhammad Ali Sharafuddin Aamali which thought to be the best book in this regard.

Mahdi is From the Descendant of Muhammad

Abu Dawoud in the Fourth volume of his ‘Sahih’ (page 87) narrates from Abdulla-ibn-Masoud that the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) said: “If there remains not more than a day from the life of the earth, God will set the day so long until He appoints a person from my descendant.”

In the afore-mentioned book on page 81, he narrates from Abu Sa’eed Khudri that the Holy Prophet (SAWA) said: “Mahdi is from me.”

The author of “Nur-ul-Absar” on page 230 narrates from Tirmidhi who narrates from Abi Sa’eed Khadri who in turn narrates from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) one such similar tradition. Thereafter, he writes that Tirmidhi has reckoned this tradition to be firm and genuine and that Tabarani and others too have narrated this tradition.

Ibn Hajar in his “Sawa’eq” on page 98 has written that Ruyani, Tabarani and others have brought a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as such: “Mahdi is from my progeny.”

In “Es’aaf ur-Rhagebeen” (page 149) and “Nur-ul-Absar” (page 230) the same tradition of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) has been narrated from shirviya who in turn has narrated from Hazaifa-ibn-Yamaan.[28]

Also, the author of “Nur-ul-Absar” on page 231 has narrated from Ali-ibn-Abi Talib as such: “I asked the Holy Prophet whether Mahdi would be from us, the descendants (*) of Muhammad or from others” and he replied: “He is from us.”[29]

The author of “Matalib-us-Su’ool” writes: ‘I have reviewed the views of the people about the exegesis of (*)                   (descendants) and found out that a group believes that by is meant his family-members.

Another group says: (*) of the Holy Prophet are those upon whom “Zakat” (alms-tax) is forbidden and instead “Khums” (one-fifth levy) is permissible.

Yet another group says: (*) refers to those personalities who follow his religion and adhere to his manners.

Thereafter he says: “These are the three views, which are more famous than all other views in this regard.

However the reason that the first view is correct is a tradition which Qazi Hussein-ibn-Mas’oud Baghwi has brought in his book “Commentary of Sunnat ar-Rasul” (which is a collection of all those traditions which are in agreement) and he quotes its reference from Abdur-Rahman-ibn-Laili who said: - ‘Ka’ab-ibn-Ajza met me and said – “Should I present you with something which I heard from the Messenger of Allah?” I replied: ‘Yes give it to me.’

He said: I asked the Holy Prophet as to how one should send salutations upon them - the Ahlul-Bait.

The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A) replied:

(*)

(‘O Allah, send salutations upon Muhammad and his descendants just as Thou sends salutations upon Ibrahim and his descendants and send blessings upon Muhammad and his descendants just as Thou sends blessings upon Ibrahim and his descendants. Surely Thou art All -Praiseworthy and All-Glorious).

Thereafter he says: - The Holy Prophet interpreted his Ahlul-Bait as his “(*)-Aâl” Thus both are similar as far as their meaning is concerned and Hazrat interchanged one word for the other in a manner that his (*) are his Ahlul-Bait and his Ahlul-Bait are his (*). Therefore, on this basis, “(*) -Aâl” and “(*) - Ahl” are similar in meaning. The reality of this affair can be discovered from here that the root of (*) had been (*) and ‘(*) - h’ was changed to (*) - ?, for this reason that the letter of “(*) - h”  becomes “Tasgheer -dimunitive form and (*)[30]Tasgheer of (*) becomes (*) as per this rule which states that “Tasgheer” returns back every noun to its original form.

The reason that the second view is correct is a tradition, which the traditionists have brought in their books. Moreover, Imam Muslim-ibn-Hajjaj, Abu Dawoud and Nesa’ee are unanimous in the authenticity of this tradition and each one of them have, in their respective ‘Sahihs’ narrated from Abdul-Muttalib-ibn Rabiya-ibn-Haaris as such:

‘I heard the Holy Prophet (SAWA) saying: -

It is not that alms is filth and is not permissible for Muhammad and his (*), to eat from it.

Moreover, they have supported their view by a tradition which Malik-ibn-Anas has narrated in his “Mutha” referring to the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as saying: “Alms is not permissible for (*) (descendants) of Muhammad because they are the dirt and filth of people.” Thus, he made alms specifically un-permissible for his (*) and those upon whom alms is forbidden are Bani-Hashim and Abdul-Muttalib. It was asked from Zaid-ibn-Arqam as to who are the (descendants) of the Messenger of Allah upon whom alms are forbidden and he replied: - (*) of Ali, (*) of Jafar, (*), of Abbass and (*) of Aqeel and this second view is nearer to the first view.

However the reason which the supporters of the third view give is the sayings of Exalted Allah:

(*)

(except (*) of Lot; We will most surely deliver them all) where, as per the consensus of the exegetists, (*) in this verse refers to those who have turned towards him and followed his path. Thereafter he says: Now, keeping in view all that has been said about (*), it becomes apparent that its meaning comprehensively fits them because they are his Ahlul-Bait. “Zakat” (alms-tax) is forbidden for them and they have followed his religion and adhered to his path. Ascribing them with (*) and naming them with this word is accidentally true.

Mahdi is From the Progeny of the Holy Prophet

Abu Dawoud, in the fourth volume of his ‘Sahih’ on age 87 has written a tradition which has been narrated by Umm-Salma from the Holy Prophet as such:

“Mahdi is from my progeny.”

In “Esaaf ur-Rhagebeen” Page 147 a similar tradition from the Holy Prophet has been narrated by Nesa’ee, Ibn-Maaja, Baihaqi and others.[31]

Ibn Hajar in ‘Sawa’eq’ on page 98 writes: Abu Na’eem has brought a tradition from the Holy Prophet as such: - “Indeed, God will send a man front my progeny.” Thereafter he said: - “He shall fill the earth with Justice.”

The same has also come in “Es’aaf ur-Rhagebeen” page 149.[32]

In the afore-mentioned book on page 97, the author writes: Abu Dawoud, Tirmidhi and Ibn-Maaja have brought a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as such: - “If there remains not more than a day from the life of the earth, indeed God will make a man to appear from my progeny.”

In another tradition the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) says: “He is from my progeny, the one who shall fill the earth with Justice just as it had been filled with oppression.”

The same can be seen in “Es’aaf ur-Rhagebeen” on page 147.[33]

The author of “Mataleb-us-Su’ool” writes: - ‘The meaning of (*) (progeny) in Arabic is said to be (*) (family) and as per the saying of others it means (*) (offspring).

Thereafter he says: - “Both the meanings can be found in them because they are his family as well as his offspring. However they are considered to be his (*) (family) because are the near kinsmen and they too were as such. They are reckoned to be his (*) (offspring) for this reason that (*) are considered to be children of a daughter and they were as such because Allah speaks about Ibrahim as follows:”

(*)

Thus Allah, the Exalted placed all the afore-mentioned personalities including Hazrat Isa among the offspring of Ibrahim where the relation of Isa with Ibrahim is only through his mother Maryam and no one else.

Thereafter he writes: - ‘It has been narrated that Shobi who was one of the Sunni ‘Ulemas’ living at the time of Hajjaj-ibn-Yusuf Saqafi was among the lovers of Hassan and Hussein such that whenever he would remember them he would say: “Those two are the children and offspring of the Messenger of Allah.” Later some of the people informed Hajjaj about this matter as a result of which he became angry and started to imprecate him. Once Hajjaj called him in one of his gatherings where the aristocrats and ‘Ulemas’ (scholars) of Basra and Kufa and the Quraish were present. Shobi entered and greeted but Hajjaj did not pay any heed and did not reply his greetings which was indeed the right of Shobi. When he sat down, Hajjaj said: ‘O Shobi, Do you know what I have heard about you which indeed proves your foolishness?

Shobi replied: What is it?

Hajjaj said: Don’t you know that sons of men are those who are allied to him and kinship is only through fathers. Thus, on what basis do you say that the sons of Ah are the children and offspring of the Holy Prophet! Except for their mother Fatemah, are they having any other connection with the Holy Prophet considering that kinship is not from the daughters’ side but rather from the fathers’ side. Shobi put down his head for some time until Hajjaj exceeded the limits in his disavowal and notified the others in the gathering about this matter. Shobi continued his silence and the more Hajjaj witnessed his silence the more he rebuked him. Thereafter, Shobi raised his head and said: ‘O Amir, I do not see you but a speaker who is ignorant of the Book of Allah and the ‘Sunnah’ of the Holy Prophet and one who has grown weary of them. Then the anger of Hajjaj intensified and he addressed Shobi as such: “Woe be upon you, how dare you speak to me in these words!”

Shobi replied: Yes, those present in your gathering -the Chanters (of Quran) from Egypt and the bearers of knowledge of the Book who are dear before you are all aware of what I say. Is it not that when Allah wishes to address His slaves (i.e. servants) He says:- ‘O Bani (sons of) Adam or ‘O Bani-Isra’el. About Ibahim, Allah says (*) (and from his offspring) until He mentions Yahya and Isa. Therefore, ‘O Hajjaj how do you see the relationship of Isa with Adam, Isra’el and Ibrahim? Is it through his father or any of his forefathers? Is it not that he is connected to them only through his mother Maryam! Moreover, as per the genuine narrators, the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) with regard to Hassan has said: Indeed my son (and he pointed out to Hassan) is “Sayyid” (Chief).

When Hajjaj heard such reasoning he lowered his head in shame. Later he showed kindness and politeness towards Shobi and felt ashamed of those present in the gathering.

Now that the matter has become clear (*) (progeny) is the very offspring, children and family of the Holy Prophet and in reality, all the meanings are applied to them.

Mahdi is From the Family of the Holy Prophet

Abu Dawoud, in the fourth Volume of his “Sahih” on page 17 has brought a tradition which has been narrated by Ali (A.S.) from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as such:

“If there remains not more than a day from the life of the earth, indeed God will make a man from my family to appear.”[34]

Tirmidhi, in the second Volume of his “Sahih” on page 270 has brought a tradition which has been narrated by Abu Huraira from the Holy Prophet (S.AW.A) as follows: -

“If there remains not more than a day from the life of the earth, God will set the day so long until a person from my family shall appear.”

Thereafter he says: ‘This is a good and authentic tradition;

Moreover, a similar tradition from the Holy Prophet with a slight variation has been narrated by Ibn Hajar (on page 97 of his Sawa’eq) and Shaikh Saban (on page 148 of Esaaf ur-Rhagebeen) from Abu Dawoud and Tirmidhi.[35]

The magazine “Huda-Islam” No. 2, in the third of its weekly publication No. 25 mentions:

Ibn Maaja has brought a tradition narrated by Ali (A.S.) from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as such:

“Mahdi is from my family.”[36]

Shaikh Saban on page 148 of “Es’aaf ur-Rhagebeen” and Ibn-Hajar on page 99 of “Sawa’eq” have written that Ahmad, Abu Dawoud, Tirmidhi and Ibn-Maaja have brought a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as such:

‘If there remains not more than a day from the life of the earth, God shall indeed make a person from my progeny to appear. As per some other traditions, we find the words ‘my family’.[37]

Ibn-Hajar on page 97 of “Sawa’eq” and Shaikh Saban on page 148 of “Esaaf ur-Rhagebeen” have written that Ahmad, Abu Dawoud, and Tirmidhi have brought a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as follows: -

  “The world shall not pass, or perhaps he said: The world shall not cease to exist until a person from my family comes and rule.”[38]

The author of  “Nur-ul-Absar” on page 231 has brought a tradition narrated by Abu Dawoud who in turn has narrated from Zar-ibn-Abdullah that the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) has said: “The world shall not pan until a person from my family comes and rules among the Arabs”. Thereafter he said: - “He shall ml the earth with Justice.”[39]

In the afore-mentioned book, the author writes on page 229 as such:

Abu Dawoud has narrated from Ali (may Allah be satisfied with him) who in turn has narrated from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A) who said: “If there remains not more than a day from the life of earth, God will indeed make a person from my family to appear on that day and fill the earth with Justice just as it had been filled with oppression.[40]

The author of “Matalib-ul-Su’ool” in the chapter of “Asking one’s whish from Ahlul-Bait” writes: Some have said that “Ahlul-Bait” refers to those people who are nearer in relation to a person in ancestorship. Some others have said that “Ahlul-Bait” are those who gather together in one womb. Still others have said: Ahlul-Bait are those who are attached to him by kinship and relation. All of these meanings can be

found in them because, their lineage returns back to the Holy Prophet’s grandfather, Abdul-Muttalib.

Also they have gathered together with him (i.e. the Holy Prophet) in one womb and they are connected to him through kinship as well as relation (son-in-law).

Thus they are in fact his (*) (progeny) and (*) and         (Ahlul-Bait) are one and the same whether they differ in meaning or not. Thus the meaning of these two terms are fixed for them.

Muslim in his ‘Sahih’ narrates from Zaid-ibn-Hasaan who said: ‘I went with Hasain-ibn-Seera and Omar-ibn-Muslim to visit Zaid-ibn-Arqam. When we sat down, Hasain began to speak and said: ‘O Zaid, Verily, now that you have numerous good actions in your record, have seen the Holy Prophet, have heard traditions from him, have fought beside him and prayed behind him, so narrate for us what you have heard from the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.A).

Zaid replied: “O brother, surely I have turned old and my memory has become worn out. As a result, a part of what I have acquired from the Holy Prophet has been forgotten by me. So accept whatever I narrate to you and do not bother me about what I do not narrate to you.”

Thereafter he said: ‘Once the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) stood near a place called “Hema’a” situated between Mecca and Medina and delivered a sermon. After praising and extolling God Almighty and then exhorting the people, he said:

‘O people, I am a human being and it seems that my Lord’s emissary (i.e. Izra’eel) is going to come and take away my soul. I am leaving amongst you, two precious things. The first of them is the Book of Allah wherein you will find guidance and light. So take hold of the Book of Allah; In this regard, he incited and exhorted the people toward the Book of Allah. Thereafter he said: The other is my Ahlul-Bait. I remind you of Allah with regards to my Ahlul-Bait. I remind you of Allah about them.

Then Hasain told Zaid-ibn-Arqam as such: ‘O Zaid, who are his Ahlul-Bait? Are his wives the Ahlul-Bait!?

He replied: ‘No, his Ahlul-Bait are those upon whom alms is forbidden.[41]

Mahdi is From Kinsfolk

When it is proved that Mahdi (A.S.) is from the progeny, descendant and family of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) and from the offspring of Ali, Fatemah, Hassan and Hussein then it is automatically proved that he is from “(*) - Zolghorba” (Kinsfolk) where their friendship has been made

obligatory upon all.

The author of ‘Yanibiul-Muwadda’ narrating from Bukhari and Muslim writes On page 106 of his book as such: '’t was asked from Ibn-Abbass that to whom (*) in the verse of (*) - Alghorba” referred to? Then Sa’eed-ibn-Jubair said: They are the near ones of the progeny of Muhammad (S.A.W.A).

The author of ‘Matalib-us-Su’ool’ narrates from Tafseer of Imam Abul-Hassan Ali-ibn-Ahmad Wahadi (the chain of transmission which ends. in Ibn-Abbass) as such: When the verse:

(*) was revealed, it was asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah! who are these people whom Allah has commanded us to love?

The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) replied: “Ali, Fatemah and their children.”

Ibn-Hajar in his “Sawa’eq” (page 101) and Qunduzi in “Yanibi-ul-Muwadda” (page 106) have brought a tradition (bearing the same contents) under thc afore-said verse narrating from the great Mu’ajam of Tabarani, Tafseer-e-ibn-Abu Hatim, Manaqib of Hakem, Waseet of Wahadi, Helyat al-Aulia of Abu Na’eem, Tafseer-e-Sualabi and Fara’ed as-Semtain.

Ibn-Hajar in “Sa’waeq” (page 101) narrates from Zain-ul-Abedeen at the time when he was taken as captive after his lather Hussein was killed; and on the way to Syria some of the foul-mouthed people said: All praise be to Allah for having caused the killing of you all, turning you into a wretched state and severing the root of sedition.

He replied: Haven’t you read (the Book) where Allah says:

(*)

They said: “Is it that (*) refers to you people!?”

He replied: “Yes.”

The author of “Matalib-us-Su’ool” writes:

‘Know that those in the verse who have been asked to be loved are indeed the (*). Therefore any one who is bestowed with the attribute of “(*) ghorba” deserves love as per specification of the afore-mentioned verse because if there is a decree for any particular case and at any other occasion, that case stipulates that the same decree too will be applicable and with regards to love towards those who have been mentioned in the verse even though they themselves are associates to each other (from the view-point of their similarity in a case which is expedient for love) yet, love posses different levels. Therefore, anyone who is the more nearer to the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.), that case will become more firm in him. As per research, the consensus of “Ulemas” is firm in this regard that the matter of level of love and friendship does indeed carry priority over all other levels such that in their writings and compositions they have specified that:

‘If a person endows or makes a will to the most nearest person to Zaid and if Zaid does not have a father, the most preferable person with regards to the endowment and will are his children as compared to his other near ones. If he has a father, then there exists a difference as to whether the children are having priority over father or are equal to him. Through this reasoning it becomes clear and obvious that Fatemah possess the highest level in the matter of love and being the (*) (kinsfolk). When it becomes apparent to what has been written about the pleasing expressions and attractive statements about Fatemah (A.S.), (especially her purity) and the fact that the superfluous virtue and lofty position which the Imams behold is through her means, then we are helpless in being loyal to her right in such affairs just as we are bound to do so in the subsequent chapters about the circumstances of Imam and the days of their birth and death.’

Mahdi is From the Offspring of the Holy Prophet

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 234 narrates from the author of Firdaus who narrates from Jaber-ibn-Abdullah Ansari who said:

Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) said: Indeed Allah, the Exalted placed the offspring of every Prophet from their own rear and placed my offspring from the rear of Ali-ibn-Ali Talib.

The author says: - The explicitness of this valuable ,tradition is that the children of Ali-ibn-Abi Talib Amir-ul-Mumineen (A.S.) from Fatemah (A.S.) are indeed the offspring of the Holy Prophet (S.AW.A)and there is no difference between Hassan and Hussein. Verily, as Mahdi, the Awaited one is from this particular house and this pure offspring, he is therefore counted to be from the offspring of Muhammad (S.A.W.A) (as per research and previous explanation of the meaning of offspring).

The author of “Tuhuful-Uqool” has brought a lengthy tradition in this regard from Musa-ibn-Jafar’s conversation with Haroon ar-Rashid and we shall produce here only that portion which serves our discussion. He writes:

‘Hazrat Musa-ibn-Jafar approached Haroon for the reason that the letter wished to inquire from him the (false) things which people have ascribed to Hazrat before Haroon. So he took out a lengthy scroll which contained accusations about his Shias and read it out. Then Hazrat said: ‘O Amir-ul-Mumineen, we are a family which have been afflicted with such accusations and Allah is ‘All-Forgiving’ and ‘One veils the vices’ and He refrains from lifting the veil from the deeds of His servants except when He will be taking their account and that will be the Day when wealth and children shall be of no avail and only the one who comes in the presence of Allah with a pure heart shall benefit. Thereafter he said: ‘My father narrated (for me) from Ali who in turn narrated from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A) as such :  (Whenever the ties of relationship are felt and maintained with the other; there occurs some movement and excitement and then it calms down.”  If Amir-ul-Mumineen (i.e. Haroon) deems it advisable to maintain relationship and shake hands with me, he can do so.

Then Haroon came down from his throne and stretched out his right hand and caught hold of Hazrat’s hand. He embraced him and made him sit besides him and said: I bear witness that you are truthful and your father and grand - father too were truthful. When you came to inquire I was the most harshful person towards you because of the hatred and anger which I had acquired about you. Since you spoke to me in the manner which you did and so shook hands with me, the feeling of hatred and anger has disappeared from my heart and I have become satisfied with you. Thereafter, he felt silent for some moment and then said: ‘I wish to ask you something about Abbass and All. On what basis was Ali more worthy of inheritance (from the Holy Prophet) than Abbass, the Uncle of the Holy Prophet.

Hazrat replied: “You excuse me from this matter.” He said: “I swear by Allah that I shall not excuse you until you answer me.”

Hazrat replied: “if you do not excuse me then grant me safety.”

He said: “I gaurantee your safety.”

Hazrat said: “Surely, the Holy Prophet did not nominate as heir the one who was able to migrate but did not migrate. Indeed, Abbass your father was amongst those who brought faith but did not migrate and Ali brought faith and migrated too. Allah says:

(*)

Haroon turned pale and then said: ‘On what basis do you relate yourself to the Holy Prophet and not Ali notwithstanding the fact that Ali was your father and the Holy Prophet your grand - father!

Haarat replied: Surely Allah related Isa-ibn-Maryam to Hazrat Ibrahim, His “Khaleel” through Isa’s mother who was a virgin. As Allah says:

(*)

Thus He related Isa to Ibrahim through Mary- only, just a: He related Sulaiman, Ayub, Yusuf, Musa and Haroon to their father and mother. From the view-point of excellence of Isa which concluded In him only from his mother’s side without any other person’ it has come in the holy Quran in the verse below that:

(*)

(‘O Maram! Surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and He has chosen you above the women of the world) because of Messiah.

So in the same manner, Allah chose Fatemah and purified her and made her superior to all the woman of the world through Hassan and Hussein, the two youthful Chiefs of Paradise.

Mahdi is From the Progeny of Ali (A.S.)

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 494 narrates from “Manaqeb” of Khawrazmi (the chain of transmission which ends in Sabeth-ibn-Dinar) who narrates from Sa’eed-ibn-Jubair and he from Ibn-Abbass (may Allah be satisfied with them) who said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.A.) said: “Indeed Ali is the Imam of my ‘Ummah’ (nation) after me and it is from his children that the ‘Qaem’ will come and whenever he emerges, he shall fill the earth with Justice and equity just as it had been filled with cruelty and oppression.”

The author of  “Eqdud-Durar” in the first chapter, narrates from ‘Sunan’ of Abu Dawoud, ‘Jaame’ of Tirmidhi and ‘Sunan’ of Nesa’ee from Ibn Ishaaq as such: Ali (may Allah’s blessings be upon him) looked at his son, Hussein, and then said: - ‘Surely my son is a ‘Sayyid’ (Chief) just as the Holy Prophet named him so. Very soon shall emerge the one from his rear. His name will be the same as your Prophet’s flame. In creation he is the same as the Prophet but in morals he is not so. He shall fill the earth with Justice.[42]

In the second chapter of the afore-mentioned book, the author narrates from the book of “Ba’as -Wa-Nushur” of Baihaqi a similar tradition until he comes to the section where Ali says: In manners, he is not similar to the Prophet.

Moreover, in the second chapter of the afore-mentioned book, the author writes: ‘Abu Wa’el says: Ali looked at Hussein and then said: Indeed my son is “Sayyid” (Chief) just as the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.A.) named him so. Very soon a person, whose name shall be the same as your Prophet’s name will emerge from Hussein’s rear. He shall emerge at the time when people will be negligent and un-aware. A time when the truth will be dead and oppression will be in force. The inhabitants of the heavens and earth will rejoice from his emergence. He will be having a broad forehead, protracted nose, broad stomach, broad thighs, a spot on his right cheek and his front teeth seperated from each other. He shall fill the earth with Justice just as it had been filled with cruelty and oppression.[43]

Mahdi is From the Progeny of Fatemah (A.S.)

Abu Dawoud in the fourth Volume of his ‘Sahih’ on page 87 writes: Umm-Salma says: ‘I heard the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) saying: Mahdi is from my progeny; from the children of Fatemah.[44]

Ibn-Hajar in his “Sawa’eq” (page 97) and Shaikh Saban in “Es’aaf ur-Rhagebeen” (page 148) have brought the same tradition from Muslim, Abu Dawoud, Nesa’e, Ibn-Maaja and Baihaqi.

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 430 narrates from “Mashkut al-Masabih” from Abu Dawoud from Umm-Salma who said: ‘I heard the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) saying: - Mahdi is from my progeny, from the children of Fatemah.

Again, the same author on page 223 of his afore-said book narrates from Ali-ibn-Hallal who narrates from his father who said: ‘I was honored by visiting the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) at the time when he was feeling unwell and Fatemah was crying besides him. Then the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) said: ‘O my daughter, what causes you to cry? She replied: I fear that after you, harm shall befall me.           

  The Holy Prophet (S.AW.A.) replied: ‘O my beloved one, Allah put the rein of care on the inhabitants of the earth. Then, amongst them, He appointed your father and then bestowed upon him the Messengership. Thereafter, He showed another care. He appointed your husband Ali and revealed to me that I should give your hand in marriage to him. ‘O Fatemah, we are such an Ahlul-Bait that Allah, the Exalted has given us privilege of seven things which others do not possess. Neither those before us nor those who will come after us will have the privilege of those seven things.

I am your father, the Last of the Prophets and the most hondurable among them before Allah and my “Wasi” (legatee) is your husband, the best of the legatees and the most beloved amongst them before Allah. Our martyr Hamza, the loved uncle of your father as well as your husband, are the best of the martyrs and the most beloved amongst them before Allah. Moreover, the one who possesses two wings is from us. He shall fly with them in Paradise along with the angels to whichever place he wishes. He is your father’s cousin and the brother of your husband. The two “Sebt” (offsprings) of this “Ummah” (nation) are from us and they are Hassan and Hussein, the two Chiefs of the youth of Paradise and they are your sons. I swear by the one Who rightly appointed me to the station of the Prophethood that Mahdi is from your sons. He shall fill the earth with Justice just as it had been filled with oppression. The author of ‘Yanabi’ mentions that Hafez Abul-Ala Hamadani has brought this tradition in the “Forty traditions” (which has been written about Mahdi).

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 434 narrates from “Ausa’th” of Tabarani who narrates from Abaya-ibn-Raba’ee who in turn narrates from Abu Ayub Ansari who said:

  The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) told Fatemah (May Allah’s peace be upon her) as such: The best of the Prophets is from us and he is your father. The best of - the Wasi’s (legatees) is from us and he is your husband. The best of the martyrs is from us and he is Hamza, your father’s uncle. The one who possesses two wings is from us. He shall fly with them to whichever place he wishes in Paradise and he is Jafar, your father’s cousin. The two “Sebt” (offsprings) of this ‘Ummah’ and the two Chiefs of the youths of Paradise are from us and they are Hassan and Hussein, your two sons. Moreover, Mahdi is from us and he shall be from your children.

In the afore-mentioned book, the author on page 490 narrates from the book “Faza’el as-Sahabah” of Abu Muzaffar Sam’ani who in turn narrates from Abu Sae’ed Khudri a tradition almost similar to the one which was just mentioned.

The author says: Traditions in this regard (which

you came across in the preface of this book) are “Mustafiza” traditions. Rather they are wildly transmitted traditions and what we have written shall be adequate.[45]

Mahdi is From the Progeny of “Sebtain” (i.e. Hassan and Hussein)

The author of “Eqdud-Durar” in the third chapter of section No.3 narrates from the book “Sefat al-Mahdi” of Hafez Abu Naeem Esfahani who in turn narrates from Ali-ibn-Hallal who narrates from his father as such:

‘I received the honor of visiting the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.A) at the time when his soul was about to depart and Fatemah was crying besides him. He recited the afore-said lengthy tradition and in the end of it he said: ‘O Fatemah, I swear by the One Who rightly appointed me that Mahdi of this ‘Ummah’ will be from those two (i.e. Hassan and Hussein).

The world will become such that chaos and disturbances will be intensified all path (of solution) will be served and people will fiercely fall upon one another such that neither the elders will show mercy upon the young nor the children will honor the old. When this happens, Allah will appoint someone (i.e. Mahdi) who shall conquer the deviated castles and open out the sheathed hearts (a metaphoric remarks that Hazrat shall dominate over the false religions and tame the deviated hearts towards Islam). Indeed he shall revolt at the end of time just as I revolted at my time. He shall fill the earth with Justice just as it had been filled with oppression.

The author says: This tradition has been narrated by Ganji from the book “NETAI-MAHDI” of Abu Na’eem Esfahani and “Mu’ajam Kabeer” of Abul Qasim Tabarani and most of the experts of tradition too, have narrated this tradition in their respective books with slight differences in wordings. in some of them, the words ‘from us’ has been written instead of ‘from those two’.[46]

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 432 writes: ‘The author of Jawaher al-Aqdain says; ‘As per research, the effects of the Holy Prophet’s ‘dua’ (invocation) at the time of marriage of Ali and Fatemah (peace be upon them) became apparent in the offspring of Hassan and Hussein. Thus, from their offspring are those who have passed away and those who are still to come. If there will not come anyone in the future except Mahdi, suffice it will be for the invocation of the Holy Prophet to have come into effect.

In this regard, the author says: ‘Just as we saw in the tradition of Ali-ibn-Hallal, Hazrat’s swearing, in spite of being truthful and trustworthy was only to emphasize the matter. From amongst the seven-fold characteristics, Hazrat has set aside Mahdi and sweared by him only, showing the importance of this matter.

However the reason that Mahdi (A.S.) is from the sons of “Sebtain” (A.S.) (offspring of Ali) is that Hazrat Baqer’s mother (i.e. Fatemah) was the wife of Hazrat Ali-ibn-Hussein Zain-ul-Abedeen (A.S.) and daughter of Hazrat Abu Muhammad Hassan Mujtaba (AS.) and about this woman, Imam Baqer has said: -

  ‘Fatemah is a righteous woman. So Abu Jafar Muhammad-ibn-Ali Baqer is from the sons of Hassan and Hussein and he and his honorable sons are amongst those who have attained this honor. Mahdi, the Awaited one too is from this propitious splendor and blessed family tree because, he is Muhammad-ibn-Hassan- ibn-Jafar-ibn-Muhammad - ibn - Baqir-ibn-Ali-ibn Hussein-ibn-Ali-ibn-Abi Talib Amir-ul-Mumineen (A.S.)

Mahdi is From the Offspring of Hussein (A.S.)

In the first chapter of “Eqdud-Durar” its author narrates from Hafez Abu Na’eem from his book “Sefat al-Mahdi” who in turn narrates from Huzaifa-ibn -Yamaan who said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.A) delivered a sermon. Then, he disclosed for us all that was sure to take place till the Day of Judgement. Thereafter he said: If there remains not more than a day from the life of the earth, God Almighty will set the day so long until a person from my progeny who carries the same name as me shall appear. Then Salman stood up and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, from which of your progeny he shall come? The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) replied: ‘He shall be from this son (and he put his hand on Hussein’s head) of mine.

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 49 says: In the commentary on Nahiul-Balagha (most probably he is referring to commentary of Ibn-Abil Hadeed) Qazi-ul-Quza’at narrates from Kafi-ul-Kufa’at, Abul-Qasim Ismail-ibn-Ebad a tradition where the chain of transmission is linked to Ali (A.S.) who mentioned something about Mahdi and then said:

‘Verily he is from the children of Hussein.[47]

The author says: Traditions in this regard are “Mustafiza” traditions. Rather, the consensus amongst we Shia Imamiah is the same and what is famous among the scholars of our brethren Sunnis too is the same. However in some of the rare traditions (very few) we find something which is opposite to this meaning.

Among them, Abu Dawoud in his ‘Sahih’ (vol. 4, pg. 89) narrates from Abu Ishaaq who said:

Ali (may Allah’s peace and blessing be upon him) looked at Hassan and Said: “Surely my son is ‘Sayyid’ (Chief) just as the Holy Prophet called him by this name. Soon a person will emerge from his rear. His name shall be the same as your Prophet’s name. In creation he will be similar to the Prophet but in behaviour he will not be so. He shall fill the earth with Justice.”

Some of Sunni ‘Ulemas’ have reckoned Mahdi to be from the children of Abu Muhammad Hassan Mujtaba (A.S.)

Amongst them, Ibn Hajar in his ‘Sawa’eq’ on page 99 writes: “Abu Dawoud in his ‘Suaan’ has narrated a tradition that Mahdi is from the children of Hassan and its mystery lies in this that Hassan waived his Caliphate for the sake of Allah and his affection for his people. Thus Allah placed the ‘Qa’em’ (who shall emerge at the time of dire strait) amongst his children so that he fills the earth with Justice. The traditions which say that he is from the children of Hussein are weak.”

The author says: ‘As per the prescribed rules in ‘Usul-e-Fiqh’ (Principles of Jurisprudence) relying on the afore-said tradition is not correct for the following reasons:

Firstly, there exists a discrepancy in the narration of Abi Dawoud as the author of ‘Eqdud-Durar’ narrates from ‘Sunan’ of Abi Dawoud that All looked towards Hussein.

Secondly, a group of experts on traditions have narrated the same tradition in its exact form except that Ali looked at Hussein.

Thirdly, there is the possibility of an error because the words of Hassan and Hussein are sometimes erroneously written for one another especially in the Kufi script.

Fourth, the tradition is contrary to what is famous among the Sunni Ulemas.

Fifth, the said tradition is contradicting most of the other traditions, which are more authentic in their chain of transmission and more evident in expression.

Some of these traditions have already been mentioned and Allah - willing, the rest too will be mentioned later on.

And Sixth, this tradition is probably a false and fabricated one for this reason that they wanted to get near to Muhammad-ibn-Abdulla known as ‘Nafs-e-Zakiyah’. Thus they resorted to fabrication merely to please him.

Mahdi is From the Ninth Descendant of Hussein (A.S.)

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 493 narrates from “Manaqib” of Muwaffaq-ibn- Ahmad Khawrazmi who narrates from Sulaim-ibn-Qais  Hallali who narrates from Salman Farsi who said: ‘I got the honor of visiting the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.A.). What I saw was Hussein-ibn-Ali sitting on his lap and the Holy Prophet kissing over his eyes and licking his clothes and then saying:

You are a Chief, son of a Chief and brother of Chief. You are an Imam, son of an Imam and brother of Imam. You are a divine proof, brother of a divine proof and father of nine Divine Proofs, the ninth of them being the “Qaem”.

The same too can be seen in “Uqdud-Durar”.

In the afore-mentioned book on page 258, the author narrates from the tenth chapter of “Mawaddat-ul-Qurba” as such:

It has come from Salim-ibn-Qais Hallali that Salman Farsi said: When I went to meet the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) I saw Hussein sitting on his lap and kissing over his eyes and licking his clothes. Thereafter the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) said: You are a Chief and the son of a Chief You are an Imam and the son of an Imam. You are a divine proof and the son of a divine proof and the father of nine Divine Proofs, the ninth of them shall be the Qaem.

Besides these one, there are still other numerous traditions and Allah-willing, we shall soon narrate them.

The author says: - It does not seem likely that anyone amongst the Muslims is ignorant of these nine personalities and has not known them by name. With this description there is no holding back to mentioning their names out of benediction and remembrance. The first of them is Abul-Hassan Zain-ul-Abedeen, followed by his son Abu Jafar Muhammad Baqir, followed by his son Abu Abdulla Jafer Sadeq, followed by his Abul-Hassan Musa Kazim, followed by his son Abul-Hassan lih ar-Reza, followed by his son Abu Jafar Muhammad Jawad, followed by his son Abul-Hassan Ali Haadi, followed by his son Muhammad Hassan Askari, followed by his son Abul Qasim Muhammad Mahdi who is the ninth of them and the “Qaem”.

Mahdi is From the Offspring of Sadeq (A.S.)

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 499 has narrated from “Arba’een” of Hafez Abu Na’eem Esfahani (which is a collection of forty traditions about Mahdi). Amongst them is a tradition, which he has narrated from ‘Laghwi’ better known as Ibn ‘Khesbab’.

He said: Abul Qasim Thaher-ibn-Haroon-ibn-Musa Kazim narrated for me a. tradition from his grand - father who said: my master Jafer-ibn -Muhammad said: ‘The pious successor shall be from my progeny and he is the Mahdi. His name is Muhammad and his agnomen is Abul-Qasim. He shall emerge at the end of time. His mother is named as Nargis and above his head is a cloud, which shall provide a shadow for him from the sun. It shall accompany him wherever he goes and will call out in an eloquent voice: This is Mahdi, so obey him.’

Besides this, there are some other traditions which Allah-willing we shall acquaint you with very soon.

Ibn-Hajar in “Sawa’eq” on page 120 says: Muhammad-ibn-Ali Baqer left behind six sons which the most learned and perfect amongst all is Jafar Sadeq. It was for this reason that he was made as his father’s successor and legatee and people have narrated so much knowledge from him that his fame (of excellence) had engulfed all the places.

Great Sunni scholars like Yahya-ibn-Sa’eed, Ibn-Jareeh, Malik, Sufyanin, Abu Hanifa, Shuaba and Ayub Bakhtiyani have narrated traditions from him...

Under the verse (*) Imam Fakhr Raazj says: ‘Among the meanings of ‘Kauthar’ (river in Paradise) one meaning can be that of ‘offspring’ because, this Sura was revealed in refutation of those who were rebuking the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) for not having a son and then Allah provided him a generation which would continue to remain in the course of time. Thus, you may see for yourself that how many an offspring of the Holy Prophet have been killed and yet the world is full of their existence whereas not even one has remained from Bani-Ummayid. Once again, you may see for yourself that those who are from his Ahlul-Bait like Baqir, Sadeq, Kazim, Reza (A.S.), ‘Nefs-Zakiyah’ and their likes are great scholars.

Mahdi is From the Offspring of Reza (A.S.)

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 448 narrates from the book of “Fara’ed-ul-Semtain” as such: Hassan-ibn-Khalid says: - Ali-ibn-Musa Reza (peace be upon him) said: - ‘The one who does not have (*) (i.e. piety), does not have faith and the most honorable of you before Allah is the one who is the most pious. Thereafter he said: - Verily the fourth from my descendant is the son of a princess of slave-maids who shall cleanse the earth from every cruelty and oppression.

In the afore-mentioned book on page 489, the author narrates from Hassan-ibn-Khalid who said: - Ali-ibn-Musa ar-Reza (A.S.) said: - ‘The appointed time (in Quran) refers to the day of emergence of our ‘Qa’em’. Then it was asked from Hazrat as to who is the Qaem and he replied: ‘He is the fourth of my descendant, the son of a princess of slave-maids who shall purify the earth from every cruelty and oppression.

Once again, in the same book on page 454 the author narrates from “Fara’ed-ul-Semtain” as such:

Ahmad-ibn-Ziad has narrated from De’abel Khuza’ee who said:- ‘I read out my elegy which began with (*) before Hazrat Reza (AS.) until I reached to this part of the poem:[48]

(*)

Hazrat cried bitterly and then said: ‘O De’abel, the Holy Spirit has spoken through your tongue. Do you know who this Imam is?

I replied: No, I do not know him. But, I have heard that an Imam shall emerge from your household, the one who shall fill the earth with equity and Justice.

Hazrat said: The Imam after me shall be my son Muhammad and after Muhammad will be his son Ali and after Ali will be his son Hassan and after Hassan will be his son Hujjat al-Qaem and he is the Awaited one.[49]

Ibn-Hajjar in his ‘Sawa’eq’ on page 122 says:

‘When Hazrat Musa-ibn-Jafar passed away, he left behind thirty-seven sons and daughters. Amongst them was Ali-ar-Reza who was more renowned in name and more manifest in merit than the others. For this reason Ma’mun gave him a place in his heart and gave his daughter’s hand in marriage to him. He also placed him as his partner in his kingdom and entrusted the affairs of Caliphate to him. In the year of 201 Hijra, he wrote by his own hand the ‘testamental-guardianship’ for Hazrat and took a large number of people into witness. However Hazrat passed away from this world before him as a result of which Ma’mun became very depressed and sad. Before dying, Hazrat had foretold that he would die because of the poisonous effect of grapes and pomegranates and that Ma’mun would wish to bury him near his father, Rashid’s grave, but would not succeed. Thus, all that Hazrat had foretold did occur.

Once Hazrat told a person as such: ‘O Abdulla! Be satisfied with what Allah wishes and be prepared for that which is inevitable for you to occur. Then on the third day Abdulla died. This incident has been narrated by Hakem. Also, he narrates from Muhammad-ibn-Isa who narrates from Abu Habib who said: I saw in my dreams that I had visited the Holy Prophet and greeted him. At that very moment, I saw a tray of Saihani dates next to him and he offered eighteen of those dates to me. Then I woke up and interpreted my dream in this manner that I would live for another eighteen days. However, after the twentieth day, Abul-Hassan Ali ar-Reza arrived from Medina and came to the same mosque where I had seen the Holy Prophet in my dream. People hastened towards him in order to offer their greetings. I too went close to him and saw him sitting in the very place which the Holy Prophet had sat and besides him was kept a tray of Saihani dates, the same tray of dates which I had seen in my dream. Later, I greeted him and he called me close to himself and offered me a handful of those dates. When I counted them, I realized that they were exactly the same numbers of dates the Holy Prophet had offered me in my dream. I asked for more but he said: If the Holy Prophet had offered you more than this amount, I too would offer you more.

When Hazrat arrived in Naishabour he was mounted on a mule and on top of the mule-litter was a cover, which was not visible from behind. Then two persons from the experts of traditions, i.e. Abu Zarra Raazi and Muhammad-ibn-Aslam Tusi went in his presence along with a large number of scholars. They asked Hazrat to disclose his blessed face and narrate for them traditions, which he had received from his fore - fathers. Then, as per his commands the mule-litter came to a stand - still and his slaves drew back the curtain. When the people’s eyes fell on his blessed face they began to rejoice. A group was jubilating while another group was crying out of excessive happiness. Yet others threw themselves on the ground and those who were near were seen kissing the hooves of his mule. Then the scholars cried out: “O people, be quiet and listen to what Hazrat says.” When the people prepared themselves to listen, Hazrat started to deliver this tradition and as the crowd was great in number those too i.e. Abu Zarra and Muhammad-ibn-Aslam were calling Out Hazrat’s message to the people. Later, Hazrat said: ‘My father Musa Kazim narrated to me from his father Jafer Sadeq who narrated from his father Muhammad Baqer who narrated from his father Zain-ul-Abedeen who narrated from his father Hussein who narrated from his father Ali-ibn-Abi Talib (may Allah be satisfied with him) who said: My dear and beloved Messenger of Allah (S.AW.A) said:

Gibra’eel (Gabriel) told me as such: - I heard the Exalted Lord saying: The words of:

(*)

is My castle. So anyone who recites it shall enter My castle and the one who enters My castle will be saved from My chastisement.

Thereafter, he removed the cover from the mule-litter and moved ahead. About twenty - thousand writers have narrated this tradition.

In another tradition it has come that Hazrat said: ‘Faith’ is recognition by the heart, confession by the tongue and action by the limbs. Perhaps he said both of them.

Ahmad says: “If this tradition which is having a chain of transmitters is read for an insane person he shall be cured of his madness.”

Mahdi is From the Offspring of Hassan Askari (A.S.)

When you will follow what we have said and understand the traditions, which we have written, there should not be any reason for you to doubt its conclusion (i.e. Mahdi, the Awaited one is the very son of Abu Muhammad Hassan Askari). However from the view - point of elucidation of the conclusion, we have written them under the above title and also notified the stipulation of some of the great scholars of Ahl-e-Sunnah. We say: The afore-mentioned traditions which indicated that Mahdi is the ninth descendant of Hussein and fourth descendant of Abul Hassan ar-Reza proves this matter (i.e. he being the son of Hassan Askari) especially the tradition which we narrated from Fara’ed-ul-Semtain where Hazrat Reza speaks to De’bel Khuza’ee as such: “Indeed the Imam after me will be my son Muhammad Taqi Jawad and the Imam after him will be his son, Ali Haadi Naqi and the Imam after him will be his son Hassan Askari and the Imam after him will be his son Muhammad Hujjat Mahdi Muntaaar.”

Moreover, that which we shall narrate later on (the fact that Mahdi, the Awaited one is the twelfth from the Caliphs, Imams, legatees and divine proofs) also proves this matter.

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 491 has narrated from “Arba’een” of Hafez Abu Na’eem who in turn has narrated from Ibn-Kheshab who said:

‘Sadeq-ibn-Musa narrated to me from his father who narrated from Ali-ibn-Musa ar-Reza who said: - The virtuous successor shall be from children of Hassan-ibn-Ali Askari. He is the Mahdi, the master of time.

The author of “Es’aaf-ur’Raghebeen” on page 157 has narrated from the book “Al-Yawaqit-wal-Jawahar” of Abdul-Wahab Sha’rani who in turn has narrated from the book of “Al-Fotouhat al-Makkah” as follows: -

‘Know that the emergence of Mahdi is inevitable. However he shall not emerge until the earth has been filled with cruelty and oppression. Then he shall fill it with equity and Justice. He shall be from the generation of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) and from the progeny of Fatemah (peace be upon them). His great grand-father is Hussein-ibn-Ali-ibn-Abi Talib and his father is Hassan Askari, the son of Imam Ali an-Naqi, the son of Imam Muhammad Taqi, the son of Imam Ali ar-Reza, the son of Imam Musa Kazim, the son of Imam Jafer Sadeq, the son of Imam Muhammad Baqir, the son of Imam Zain-ul-Abedeen, the son of Imam Hussein, the son of Imam Ali-ibn -Abi Talib (peace be upon them all).

His name is the same as the Holy Prophet’s name and the Muslims will give allegiance to him between ‘Rukn’ and ‘Maqaam’ (station of Ibrahim).

The author says: Most of our (Shute) scholars as well as the scholars of Ahl-e-Sunnah have narrated these invaluable and precious sentences or expressions from the book of “Al-Yawaqit-wal-Jawahar” where its author in turn has narrated from the book of “Al-Fotouhat al-Makkiyeh”. However in the recent edition of that book I have not seen the above expressions. So please ponder (a metaphoric remark that perhaps the afore-mentioned tradition has been dropped).

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 451 has narrated from the book “Fasl-ul-Khetaab” as such:

‘And it is the saying of the pure Imam Abu Muhammad Hassan Askari where he says- ‘And shall not leave any son except Abul-Qasim Muhammad who shall be given such titles as ‘Qaem’, ‘Hujjat’, ‘Mahdi’, ‘Saheb-uz-Zaman’ and ‘Khatam-ul-Ai’mma Ithna-Ashar among the Imamiahs’.

The author says: The words “among the Imamiahs” is related to the fact that Hazrat is twelfth in number and not that it is referring to the other afore-mentioned titles.

The same scholar in the afore-said book, on page 470 says: Sayyid Abdul-Wahab Sharani in the sixty fifth Chapter of his book ‘Al-Yawaqit-wal-Jawahar’ writes:

‘Mahdi is the son of Imam Hassan Askari.’

Once again, the same scholar on page 471 of his book narrates from “Matalib-ul-Su’ool” and “Durrul-Munazzam” of Kamaluddin Thaiha who has written as such: “Mahdi is the son of Muhammad Hassan Askari.”

Also, in the same book on page 471 the author writes: In the last Chapter of the book of ‘Bayan’, Ganji says: - “Surely Mahdi will be the son of Hassan Askari.”

In the same book, the author on page 471 writes:

the author of “Fusool-ul-Muhimma” says: - ‘Verily the promised Mahdi is the son of Abu Muhammad Hassan Askari, the son of Abu Muhammad Hassan Askari, the son of Ali an-Naqi’ (Peace be upon them).

The author of “Durrul-Musawiya” writes: Those whom I found to be having the same belief as we Shiites in the matter of Mahdi are Muhammad- ibn-Yusuf Ganji in ‘Al-Bayan’, Muhammad - ibn-Thalha Shafa’ee in ‘Matalib - us Su’ool’, Sebt-ibn-Jauzi in ‘Tazkerat-ul-Aim’am’ and Sh’arani in ‘Al-Yawakit- wal-Jawahar’ where they have all said: - ‘Mahdi is the son of Imam Hassan Askari. He was born in the night of fifteenth of Sha’ban 255 A.H and is still living until he and Isa-ibn-Maryam meet each other.

The same matter has also come in “Al-Yawakit” and “Tabaqa’at” where its authors have narrated from Shaikh Hassan Araqi, the one who has met Mahdi as per the detailed account which has come in the book of “Tabaqa’at” (translated by the afore-said Shaikh Hassan). It is also reported that Ali Khawa’as and Shaikh Mohiuddin (in his book of Fotouhat ch. 366) have given their consent with regard to this belief. Sha’rani in “Lawaqeh al-Anwar-ul-Qudsiah” (which is a conclusion of Fotouhat al-Makkiyah), Saban Mesri in Es’aaf-ur-Rhagebeen and his exact wordings in “Al-Yawakit” which are both Egyptian prints, Shaikh Salahuddin Safadi whose exact statement has been narrated in the book of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” from “Shar-e-Dayera”, Shaikh Ali-ibn-Muhammad Maliki in his book “Fusul-ul-Muhimma” and Shaikh Hamuini Shafa’ee in “Fara’ed-ul-Semtain” have narrated as such:

‘Verily the promised Mahdi is the son of Abi Muhammad Hassan Askari son of Ali an-Naqi (Peace be upon them)[50]and the same has been mentioned by Shaikh Hamu’ani Shafa’ee in his book “Fara’ed-us-Semtain”.

Chapter Two

Mahdi is From the Arab Descent

Author of “Eqdud-Durar” in Chapter one section 4 narrates from Abu Abdullah Na’eem-ibn-Hemaad (from his book “Al-Fatan”) who is turn narrates from Ali (AS.) who said: - “The kingdom of Bani-Abbass is such that if the Turks, Deylamites, and the inhabitants of Indus valley and India were to attack them they would fail to destroy them and Bani-Abbass would continue to be successful until they become aggressive towards the slaves and the weak. Then God will make a ‘Gusale’ (the wicked one who will revolt against Bani-Abbass and destroy them) to dominate over them which shall come out from a place where their kingdom will be disclosed. He shall not pass any city but that which conquers; no flag will be hoisted before him but that which he destroys and he will not come across any bounty but that which he misuses. Woe be to the one who takes his side. This shall continue until victory is achieved by the hands of an Arab who shall rise fore the truth and act upon it.”

It is apparent that ‘on Arab’ in the above sentence refers to Mahdi, the Awaited One who shall appear at the end of time and his signs are the very ones which have come in the same chapter of the aforesaid book which has been taken from the book of “Al-Fatan”, where its author, Imam Abu Abdulla Na’eem-ibn -Hemaad narrates from Abi Qabil as such: “People shall always be in comfort until the kingdom of Bani-Abbass comes to an end. Then they will live in disturbed conditions until the advent of Mahdi.”

Author says: History bears witness that right from the time of Holaku’s revolt, the East has not enjoyed liberty. Disturbed conditions and discord among the rulers and kings has always continued to exist. Thus Ali’s saying that: Until he gains victory and hands it over to an Arab is perhaps referring to this point that that discord and disturbed conditions are all incidental to the coming of Holaku and his subsequent revolt and it shall remain till the advent of Mahdi. Thus, as one of the causes and means of Mahdi’s victory and his success in inviting the people (towards his mission) and his domination over the cities is the discord and disturbed conditions which shall follow the revolt of Holaku. It is like this that Holaku himself will surrender the affairs of Government to Hazrat (A.S.). Another factor, which shows that Mahdi is from an Arab line is the diffused traditions which have come with regards to determination of his family and relatives. Ragheb in his “Mufradaat” says: “Arab (*) are the children of Ismail (-Ishmaeel) and (*) (-Aarab) its plural form. Later on, the nomads were called by that name.”

The author of “Saba’ek-uz-Zahak”, on page 4 says:

“The city-dwellers are called as “(*) - Arab” and the desert - dwellers as “(*) - Aarab” and what is common is that the word of (*) is used for both groups.”

Jauhari in “Sihah” says: “(*) - Arab” a tribe and they are the city-dwellers. They have been called Arabi by the title of A’raab-e-Erabi. But what is commonly used is the word of      “(*)-Arab” at all levels. The same has been written in the dictionaries.”

The author of “Ebar” says: ‘The word of Arab “(*) - Arab” is constructioned from “(*) - Aarab” and its meaning of expression (speech) has been taken from those who say:         (*) - At the time when a person expresses and describes his need and since they possess the faculty of expression and eloquency in speech they have been called by this name. So know that every non-Arab - whether Iranians, Turks, Romans or Europeans are all “(*) - Ajam - non-Arab” and it is not what the people commonly believe that the word of (*) is particular to the Persian - speaking nation. Rather, the people of West have hitherto used this word for the French and those who fall in the same category. However the word of (*) (by an addition of “(*) - A”) is used for the one who does not clarify his speech even though he may be an Arab.

Mahdi is From This “Ummah” (Nation)

Tirmidhi is his “Sahih”, on page 270 narrates from Abu Sa’eed Khudri who said: ‘I feared that after the Holy Prophet, something bad might take place, so we asked the Prophet and he replied as such: “Indeed Mahdi is from my ‘Ummah’ and he shall emerge from amongst them.”

The magazine “Hudal-Islam” in its 25th publication, line No. 3 has narrated the same tradition from Ibn-Maajah who in turn has narrated it from Abu Sa’eed.

The author of “Eqdud-Durar”, in the first chapter narrates from Abu Muslim Abdur-Rahman-ibn-Auf and he from his father and he from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) who said: -

“Surely God shall appoint a man from my “Ummah” (nation). He continued to the point of saying: He shall fill the earth with Justice.”

In the 3rd chapter of the same book, the author narrates from the book of “Sefat-ul-Mahdi” written by Hafez Abu-Na’eem who in turn narrates from Abu Sa’eed Khudri and he from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) who said:

‘Mahdi is from us, the Ahl-ul-bait (i.e. People of the House). He is from my ‘Ummah’.

The author of ‘Fusu1 al-Muhimma’ narrates from Abu Dawoud and Tirmidhi and these two from Abdullah-ibn-Mas’oud and he from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A) who said:

“If there remains not more than a day from the life the earth, God will set the day so long until a person from my “Ummah” and progeny who carries the same lame as mine appears (and fills the world with Justice.)”

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” has narrated (on page 433 of his afore-said book) a tradition from the book “Jawaher-ul-Aqd’ain” of Abu Sa’eed Khudri. In that tradition the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) says: - ‘Mahdi is in my Ummah’. Also the afore-said author narrates from Abu Abdullah Na’emm-ibn-Hemaad (from his book of “Al-Fatan” and he from Hisham-ibn-Muhammad and he from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) who said: - “Mahdi is from this “Ummah” and he is the one who shall lead Isa-ibn-Maryam.[20]

Ragheb in his ‘Mufradaat’ says: ‘Ummah’ is any group of people which is formed through things like custom, time or place - making no difference whether that thing brings them together voluntarily or involuntarily and the plural of “ (*) - Ummah” is “(*) - Ummam.”

One group has said as such: - ‘The “Ummah” of every Prophet are his followers and the one who does not follow his custom will not be included in his “Ummah” even though he may have lived during his time. Therefore, the “Ummah” of Islam are those people who follow the Islamic rules and all that the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) has brought making no difference whether he has visited him or not or whether he has lived during his time or not. Moreover this applies to all, without any difference in families or tribes even though they may differ from each other from the view-point of language, time and place.

The Author is of the opinion that: ‘It is apparent that the “object of making known” i.e. ((*) - ‘A’ & (*) - ‘L’) in (*) (Al-MAHDI) is for covenant; meaning that Mahdi - the one who has been remembered in the heavenly books and about whom the Prophets have given glad-tidings to their nations, - shall be from this same blessed “Ummah” and not from any other “Ummah”. So this “Ummah” deserves to rejoice and be happy for being honored such a virtue. It is true that in some of the exceptional and less common traditions we find such contents like this one - “Mahdi is not but Isa-ibn-Maryam (A.S.)” .

Ibn-Hajar has written (this tradition) in “Sawa’eq” on page 89.

Ibn-Maaja and Hakem have brought one tradition from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as such: - ‘It will not be long when difficulties and problems will dominate the people and the world shall turn away from its inhabitants and the people will resort to greediness. The Hour shall not be established but upon the wicked and Mahdi is not but Isa-ibn-Maryam.

Ibn-Hajar quotes Hakem as saying:

“This traditions did not disturb me as such but rather astonished me greatly.”

Baihaqi says: “Only Muhammad-ibn-Khalid has narrated this tradition.”

Hakem says: “He (i.e. Muhammad-ibn-Khalid) is unknown and there exists differences in the chain of transmission of traditions narrated by him.”

Nesa’ee too rejects such traditions.

In the 10th Volume of Da’erat-ul-Ma’aref (page 475) the author after narrating the afore-said tradition mentions the views of Ibn-Maaja as such: Imam Qurtabi says: -  ‘This tradition is not inconsistent with what the previous traditions have mentioned about Mahdi because, this tradition only aims to respect the dignity of Isa-ibn-Maryam (A.S.) over Mahdi. That is to say, there is no Mahdi but Isa from the viewpoint of is position of Immaculateness and perfection. So it does not contradict existence of Mahdi. It is identical to this saying that there is no stalwart but Ali. Moreover, this view can be supported with the tradition which says that Mahdi is from my progeny; he shall fill the earth with Justice and will e merge along with Isa (A.S.) who shall help him in the killing of Dajjal at a place called “Lad” in the land of Palestine. Indeed, he shall rule over this ‘Ummah’ and Isa-ibn-Maryam will pray behind him and God Almighty is All -Knowing.[21]

The author of “Eqdud-Durar” in the preface of his afore-mentioned book writes as such: ‘And amongst the people, there are those who reckon that Mahdi is none other than Isa-ibn-Maryam, the pure and holy. So I told them - The one who denies the emergence of Mahdi is not actually referring to Hazrat Isa because there is no reason to believe that that reference is made to him and the one who thinks that Mahdi is the same as Isa-ibn-Maryam and insists on the authenticity of this tradition has indeed made the zeal of prejudice and error to bring him to the point of precipice. Thereafter he says: - “Even though this tradition may be proverbial among the people yet, how can it be considered authentic when the traditionists have rejected it.” After accurately examining its references and deliberating on its authorities if a person still relies on this tradition, it will be a matter of grave fallacy.

The proof of this statement is that Imam Abu Abdur-Rahman has emphasized on its denial and his view is worthy of acceptance because the tradition returns back to Muhammad-ibn-Khalid Jundi. Moreover, Imam Abul-Faraj Jauzi narrates in his book ‘Elal-Mutanahiya’ the weakness of this tradition from the words of Hafez Abi Bakr Baihaqi who said: - ‘This tradition is connected to Jundi and he is an unknown person. Moreover, Jundi narrates from Aba’an-ibn Myaash and he too is a rejected and un-laudable person. Aba’an too narrates from Hassan and he from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) and there is an interval in his transmission (i.e. all the sources have not been narrated). Anyhow, there is no reason to consider this tradition to be authentic.

Baihaqi narrates from his master, Hakem Naishabouri (and his words are sufficient enough to make you understand the technique of tradition and the position of its narrators) as follows: -

  ‘Jundi is an unknown person and Ibn-Aaiyaash, a rejected one and with such transmitters this tradition is severed. Almost all the scholars of traditions have brought traditions about Imam Mahdi and all have mentioned his name and remembered him and for those who are clear-sighted and are also aware, it is clear that a part of those traditions are a rectification for the other parts and this is the highest proof of those traditions being better than this rejected tradition.

Also, Hafez Abu Abdullah Hakem has spoken on this subject in his ‘Mustadrak’ which has (also) been mentioned in ‘Sahiain’ and this makes us needless of other talks.

He reminds that if a tradition has been narrated by a large number of people it is having priority over those traditions which are not as such and while coming across this tradition he discusses its position from the view-point of credibility and un-credibility. Thereafter he writes:

“The reason I have brought this tradition is not to argue upon it but to express my surprise.” This statement of Hakem finally proves his inattention towards this tradition.

He further says: “Better than this tradition is the tradition of Sunan Suri and his adherents.”

Thereafter, he mentions the tradition of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) which says; “His name is the same as my name” and then writes as such: - “The eminent scholars are of the view that what Hazrat intends to say by this statement is that Mahdi’s name is the same and similar to his name.”

Thus the above statement reveals the truthfulness of this statement that Mahdi is someone other than Isa-ibn-Maryam (A.S.). Besides, even if we assume this tradition to be correct, we cannot take it in its apparent form. Rather, we should resort to its esoteric interpretation, since we have not found any reason for giving up those genuine traditions which are in opposition to this tradition and perhaps its esoteric interpretation may be like the esoteric interpretation of[22](*) from this angle that a part of the wordings of the two traditions are near to each other and the number of such traditions are numerous.

Thus rejection is not the factual aim so that we may conclude that Mahdi is the same as Isa-ibn-Maryam. Rather, it should be said that this sentence has come in honor of Hazrat Mahdi and / or Isa or perhaps it might be having some other interpretation.’

Author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 434 says:

‘Indeed the fabrication of this tradition from Ibn-Khalid is apparent from various aspects: -

Firstly, if this tradition was correct then the oppression and cruelty which was prevalent during the time of Yazid and Hajjaj should have increased manifold and until today there should have not remained any goodness in this world. However, after the afore-mentioned period, that is from the time of Omar-ibn-Abdul Aziz and the Abbasside Caliphs up to now, peace and goodness has been settled by the Grace of Allah.

Secondly, before the appointment of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) to the position of Prophethood, the subject of Mahdaviyat was not prevalent among the Arabs so that it could possibly reject this saying (there is no Mahdi but Isa-ibn-Maryam).

Thirdly, God has hinted about Mahdi in many verses of His Book and as such the Holy Prophet too has given glad-tidings about him to his followers just as the previous Prophets (AS.) had given glad-tidings to others about the coming of our Prophet and the circumstances concerning Mahdi. I have collected and mentioned these glad-tidings in a book entitled “Mashreq-ul-Ekwan”. (end)

What we can derive from the sayings of these great men in reply to the afore-mentioned tradition is the following: -

Firstly, it is a fabricated one; secondly it is null and void and hence weak; thirdly it is contradicting the widely transmitted tradition and fourthly its actual interpretation differs from its apparent meaning.

It is possible to conclude from this tradition that the advent of Mahdi and the descending of Isa from the heavens are two related affairs connected to each other where none can be separated from the other. Therefore it is correct to say that reference to one applies to the other and it seems that both are one and the same or it can be said that something is missing from the tradition and in reality it was as such: (*) (Mahdi is not but that Isa is with him) Moreover, the diffused traditions prove this meaning to be correct. Thus Isa is one of the signs of authenticity of the subject of Mahdi (AS.).

Mahdi is From Kanane

Author of “Eqdud-Durar” in his first chapter narrates from ‘Sunan’ of Imam Abu Amro Osman-ibn-Sa’eed Muqari who narrates from Qatada who said:

“I asked Sa’eed-ibn-Maseeb whether Mahdi is the truth and he replied: ‘Yes, he is the truth, I then asked:

‘To which tribe does he belong? He replied: “To the Kanane.” I again asked: ‘To which clan does he belong? He replied: ‘To the Quraish’ I further asked:

To which family does he belong? He replied: ‘To the Bani-Hashim’ Again I asked: ‘To which one of the families does he belong? He replied: “To the progeny of Fatemah.”

Author says: “By Kanane is meant the same son of Kazima, who was the son of Madraka, son of Elyaas, son of Mazar, son of Nezar, son of Sa’ad, son of Adnan.”

Author of “Saba’ek al-Zahab” says: ‘Banu Kanane are a family from Mazar and Mazar had a son in whom the lineage of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) terminated and he was called as Nezar. Moreover Mazar had children who were from the Holy Prophet’s lineage and they were: Malik, Malkaan, Haaris, Amr, Aamer, Saad, Ghanam, Auf, Mujraba, Jarwal, Jazaal and Gurwaan. Abu Ubaid says: ‘They were all from Yemen’ and in the book called “Ebar” it has come that their place of stay was in the outskirts of Mecca.’

Mahdi is From Quraish

In the first chapter of “Eqdud-Durar”, the author narrates from Imam Abu Abdullah Na’eem-ibn-Hamad who narrates from Ibn-Wa’el who narrates from Imam Abul Hussein Ahmad-ibn-Jafar Manawi who narrates from Qatada who said: ‘I asked Sa’eed-ibn-Maseeb whether Mahdi was on truth and lie replied: ‘Yes’. I asked: ‘To which tribe does he belong? He replied: ‘Quraish’. I asked: “To which clan does he belong?” He replied: ‘Bani-Hashim’. I asked: “To which family does he belong:” He replied: “He is from the offspring of Abdul-Muttalib.” I asked: “Which one of the families?” He replied: “From the progeny of Fatemah.” I asked: “Which one of her sons?” He replied: “That is enough now.”

Also, the afore-mentioned book narrates (in the seventh chapter) from the book “Al-Fatan” of Hafez Abu Abdullah Na’eem-ibn-Hemaad which in turn narrates from Ishaaq-ibn-Yahya-ibn-Thalha who narrates from Ta’oos who said: - Omar-ibn-Khattab was on death-bed and bidding farewell to his family members. He then said: ‘I do not know of any treasure, which I can bestow. The house and all that it contains from wealth and weapons should be spent in the way of Allah.

Then Ali (May Allah be satisfied with him) said: “O Amir-ul-Momineen, leave aside this matter because you are not the owner of (this) wealth. Rather its owner is a young man from the tribe of Quraish who shall, at the end of time distribute it in the way of Allah.”[23]

Ibn-Hajar writes on page 99 of his book “Sawa’eq” as such: -

‘Ahmad and Maawardi have brought a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) who said: Glad-tidings be to you about Mahdi. He is from the Quraish; from my progeny.[24]

Esa’af-ur-Raghebeen too has narrated the same in his book on page 151. The author believes: ‘Quraish is the same Nazr-ibn-Kanane. In Ja’ame-ul-Latif we read as such: “Know that there exists differences in Quraish as to why they were called by this name. So it is said: They were titled in the name of a beast living in the sea - a beast which eats and itself is not eaten; conquers and itself is not conquered (a metaphoric remark signifying power and magnificence) and this tribe too is similar to that beast due to their toughness and significance.”

In Madarek we read: Quraish is a mighty beast which plays with the ships and except for fire it cannot be repulsed by any other thing. Its diminutive form is due to reverence.”

Some others say: The reason they were called as Quraish was that the leader of their tribe Ibn-Yakhled Ghalib-ibn-Fahr was named as Quraish. Thus it was said: The tribe of Quraish came; the tribe of Quraish went and in this way they became famous by this name.

Still some others have said: Qusi (*) who was one person belonging to their tribe gathered them together and brought them to Mecca and “(*) - Qurash” means “to gather together”. Thus, as he gathered them together he was named as (*) (gathering) just as we saw in the poem of Fazl-ibn-Abbas-ibn-Utba and also in his following poem:[25]

(*)

It is also said that Quraish was the name of Qusi and it was because of this reason that his tribe was named as Quraish. What is more common however is that his name had been Zaid just as it was previously mentioned.

Yet others have said: The word of (*) is derived from (*) which means “to earn” and because they were carrying on business and earning they were called as Quraish.

It is also said that since “Nazr” was called as Quraish, his family too became famous by this name.

Some say: They were called as Quraish because they were doing “Taqrish” of goods of the pilgrims going for Haj and “Taqrish” means ‘to inspect’. Thus they erected inspection points in their way and prevented them from moving ahead unchecked. The proof that this statement is correct is the saying of Haaris-ibn -Khulatul-Yashkari who says:[26]

(*)

Mahdi is From Bani-Hashim

The author of “Uqdud-Durar” in the first chapter of his book, narrates from Imam Abul-Hussein Ahmad-ibn-Jafar Manawi and Imam Abu Abdulla Na’eem-ibn-Hamad and these two from Qatada who said:

I asked Sa’eed-ibn-Maseeb: “Is Mahdi the truth?”

He replied: “Yes.”

I asked: “To which tribe does he belong?”

He replied: “To the Quraish.”

I asked: “To which clan does he belong?”

He replied: “To the clan of Bani-Hashim.”

I asked: “From which of its families?”

He replied: “From the offspring of Abdul-Muttalib.”

I asked: “From which one of them?”

He replied: “From the offspring of Fatemah.”

I asked: “From which one of her offspring?”

He replied: “That is enough now.”

The author says: Hashim was the same son of d-Munaf who was the son of Qusi, son of Kalab, son Marra, son of Ka’ab, son of Lui, son of Ghalib, son Fehr, son of Malik, son of Nazr, son of Kanane.

In Ja’ame-ul-Latif it has come as such: Hashim’s name was Amrol-Ala and the reason he was called by name was that during the period of famine he used provide food and water for his tribe.

In generosity and beneficence he had reached to such high level that he used to provide food to the beats and birds and slaughter camels for them on top mountains. Whenever a famine would occur in Mecca, he would feed its people by his own doing and persuaded the rich men of Mecca to donate their wealth to the poor and indigent up to the time when God caused rain to descend. Thereafter, he traveled to Syria, went to Caesar (king) and took from him an order vouching the freedom of Quraish. He also sent Abdul-Muttalib towards Yemen and in this way took a letter of trust from the king of that place. Thereafter he ordained the traders and merchants of Quraish to move out in the winter and summer seasons for the purpose of trading. Thus, they would move towards Syria in summer and proceed for Yemen in winter. As such, from then on their subsistence and means of livelihood got extended through such trading and by blessings of Hashim, God delivered them from fear of (loss of) life and hunger. ABD-MUNAF was the father of Hashim who was named as the “moon of the fourteenth night” because of his good-looking face and beneficence. After him, Qusi succeeded him and the post of ruling and giving water to the pilgrims was transferred to him. He was called by the name of Mughaira and his agnomen was Abu Abd-Shams the name of Qusi (father of Abd-Munaf) was Zaid and also Yazid. The reason he was called as (*) (Qusi) was that he along with his mother Fatemah daughter of Sa’ad, left the tribe of Bani-Uzra and started living with his uncles and distanced himself from Mecca. Thus, for this reason he was named as (*) and this word is derived from (*), which means “distant”. It also carried the meaning of “gathering” because, when he grew up and returned back to Mecca he gathered the Quraish who had been scattered in the deserts and got them back to Mecca and then expelled the tribe of Khaza’e. Fazl-ibn-Abbass-ibn-Abu Lahab says:[27]

(*)

Mahdi is From the Progeny of Abdul-Muttalib

The author of “Eqdud-Durar”, in the seventh chapter narrates from the books of a group of traditionists such as Imam Abu Abdulla-ibn-Maaja in his Sunan, Hafez Abul-Qasum Tabarani in his Mu’ajam and Hafez Abu Na’eem Esfahani and others like Anas-ibn-Malik who said: The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) said:

“We seven, (i.e. Ali, my brother, Hamza, my uncle,

Jafar, Hassan, Hussein, Mahdi and myself) the sons of Abdul-Muttalib are the leaders of Paradise.”

The author says: This denotes the subject which had previously been mentioned in the tradition of Qatada narrated from Saad-ibn-Maseeb. In Ja’ame-ul-Latif it is written as such: -

  Abdul-Muttalib’s name was “Shaibat-ul-Hamd’ and sometimes he was also called by the name of Aamer. He was called ‘Shaibat-ul-Hamd’ because of the appearance of signs of whiteness on his hair. Abul-Haaris was his agnomen since he had a son by the name of Haaris and he was called as Abdul-Muttalib because, when his father Hashim who was living in Mecca was about to die, he told Muttalib, his brother as such: “Take care of your (*) (servant) in Yathrib.” So from then on he was called as Abdul-Muttalib. Some say that when his uncle Muttalib was taking him to Mecca he had an undeserving appearance. For this reason when Muttalib was asked about his nephew’s condition he felt ashamed to say that he was his nephew and instead said: He is my (*) (slave or servant). Later on when they entered Mecca itself and he had put on a decent look Muttalib revealed that he was his nephew. In this way he became famous by the name of

Abdul-Muttalib. It is said that he had a pale face and so when he left for Mecca with Muttahb, people were under impression that he was his (*) (slave) and were saying: Muttalib has brought one (*), (slave). As such he became famous by the name of Abdul-Muttalib.

Mahdi is From the Progeny of Abu-Talib

The author of “Eqdud-Durar” in the fourth chapter of section No.3 narrates from Saif-ibn-Omaira who said: ‘I was near Abu Jafar Mansoor. He addressed me as such: -

O Saif! It is inevitable that a caller from the heavens shall call out in the name of a man from the offspring of Abu Talib. I said: “May I be sacrificed for you ‘O Amirul-Momineen. Are you narrating what you just said.” He replied: Yes, I swear by the One in whose Hand is my life. I am narrating exactly what my ears have heard. I said: “But until now I had not heard such a tradition.” He said: “O Saif, Indeed he is the truth and at the time when this affair takes place we will be more worthy than others in answering (his call). However Mahdi will be someone from our cousins.” I said: “Someone from the offspring of Fatemah!” He replied:

‘O Saif, if I had heard it from someone other than Abu Jafar (Hazrat Baqir) I would have not narrated it for you and indeed I was told about this matter by the most wise person on earth.

In Saba’ek al-Zahab we read as such: Ibn Ishaaq says: “Abu-Talib’s name was Abd-Munaf while Hakem Abu Abdullah says: ‘Abu-Talib’s name and agnomen is one and the same.”

The author of “Tazkerat-ul-Aimma” writes: - ‘With regards to his lineage we have mentioned that he is the son of Abdul-Muttalib and when the latter was about to die, he recommended Abu Talib about the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.).

In the book of “Tabaqaat” Muhammad-ibn-Saad narrates from a group of Ulemas (scholars) such as Ibn-Abbass, Mujahida, Atha, Zahri and the like of them that Abdul-Muttalib passed away in the second year of “Aam-ul-Feel” (the Year of the Elephants) and the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) at that time was eight years old. In fact, Abdul-Muttalib passed away at the age of one hundred and twenty and was buried in Hejwan.

Umm-Aiman says: I saw the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) walking and crying under the coffin of Abdul-Muttalib, while it was being carried away.

According to another saying, Abdul Muttalib was eighty years when he left this world. However the first saying appears to be more correct. Mujahid has narrated from Ibn-Abbass that when a group of people from the tribe of “Qaafa” from ‘BANI-MUZHAQ’ saw the footsteps of the Holy Prophet they told this child, for we have not seen any footsteps which are similar to the holy prophet’s footsteps resembling those in position.

Then Abdul-Muttalib turned towards Abu-Talib and said: “listen to whatever they have said. Indeed there shall be a kingdom for this son of mine.”

From then on, Abu Talib stood up, in the best possible manner, to help the Messenger of Allah and made himself responsible for assisting him in his affairs so much so that he would never get separated from him. He was so much attracted towards him that he would give more preference to him than his own sons and would sleep only when Hazrat was besides him. He would tell him: “You are well-paced and your future is bright.”

In the book of “Tabaqa’at”, Ibn-Sa’ad writes: Once Abu Talib went to “Zil-Mujaaz” along with the Messenger of Allah. When the latter felt thirsty, Abu Talib said: “O nephew, you have become thirsty and there is no water.” Then the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A) came down and striked the ground with his heels. Very soon, water gushed out and Hazrat drank from it. Historians have written that as Abu Talib arose to support Hazrat and would often drive off the enemies from him, the Quraish once approached him and said: “Your nephew has insulted our gods, called our great men as insane and reckoned our fathers to be deviated one. Therefore, you surrender him to us or else, there shall occur a war between us.”

Abu Talib replied: “May your mouths be shut forever. I swear by Allah that I shall never surrender him to you.”

They said: “Emara-ibn-Walid-ibn-Mughaira is the most handsome and noble young man among the Quraish. You may keep him as your son instead of Muhammad and surrender Muhammad to us so that we can kill him. Let us exchange our man with your man.”

Abu Talib replied: “Woe be upon you people. May Allah turn your face dark and gloomy. I swear by Allah that you have indeed spoken the evil. Do you mean that I should hand over my son to you so that you can kill him and will give me your son m exchange so that I take care of him! I swear by Allah that if I do so, I would be but an evil man.”

Thereafter he said: I would like you to separate the baby-camels from their mother. If the mother camel gets attracted towards the other baby-camels (and not her own ones) then, I shall hand over Muhammad to you. He then recited a poem.

Then, from the eighth year of his birth until the tenth year of his appointment, which totally amounts to forty-two years, Abu Talib stood up in support of Hazrrat and prevented the enemies from harming him.

He spared no effort in taking care of him till the end of his life.

In the “Nur-ul-Absar”, the author mentions the date of demise of Abu Talib to be the first of Zilqada after the removal of economic sanctions, which lasted for 8 months and 21 days.

In “Mawaheb-ul-Ladnia”, the age of Abu Talib at the time of his demise is mentioned to be eighty-seven. It was in the same year that Umm-ul-Mumineen, Khadija passed away and the Holy Prophet (S.A.WA) named that year as the year of sorrow (Aam-ul-Huzn).

For knowing more about Abu Talib please refer to historical books like Seera-ibn-Hisham and Tarikh-e-Tabari and to recent writings, especially the book of “Bagyat at-Talib-Fi-Ahwal-Abi Talib” by Zaini Dehlan who is also the author of Al-Fotouhat-Islamiah. Also refer to the book of ‘Shaikh-ul-Abtah’ written by our cousin Sayyid Muhammad Ali Sharafuddin Aamali which thought to be the best book in this regard.

Mahdi is From the Descendant of Muhammad

Abu Dawoud in the Fourth volume of his ‘Sahih’ (page 87) narrates from Abdulla-ibn-Masoud that the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) said: “If there remains not more than a day from the life of the earth, God will set the day so long until He appoints a person from my descendant.”

In the afore-mentioned book on page 81, he narrates from Abu Sa’eed Khudri that the Holy Prophet (SAWA) said: “Mahdi is from me.”

The author of “Nur-ul-Absar” on page 230 narrates from Tirmidhi who narrates from Abi Sa’eed Khadri who in turn narrates from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) one such similar tradition. Thereafter, he writes that Tirmidhi has reckoned this tradition to be firm and genuine and that Tabarani and others too have narrated this tradition.

Ibn Hajar in his “Sawa’eq” on page 98 has written that Ruyani, Tabarani and others have brought a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as such: “Mahdi is from my progeny.”

In “Es’aaf ur-Rhagebeen” (page 149) and “Nur-ul-Absar” (page 230) the same tradition of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) has been narrated from shirviya who in turn has narrated from Hazaifa-ibn-Yamaan.[28]

Also, the author of “Nur-ul-Absar” on page 231 has narrated from Ali-ibn-Abi Talib as such: “I asked the Holy Prophet whether Mahdi would be from us, the descendants (*) of Muhammad or from others” and he replied: “He is from us.”[29]

The author of “Matalib-us-Su’ool” writes: ‘I have reviewed the views of the people about the exegesis of (*)                   (descendants) and found out that a group believes that by is meant his family-members.

Another group says: (*) of the Holy Prophet are those upon whom “Zakat” (alms-tax) is forbidden and instead “Khums” (one-fifth levy) is permissible.

Yet another group says: (*) refers to those personalities who follow his religion and adhere to his manners.

Thereafter he says: “These are the three views, which are more famous than all other views in this regard.

However the reason that the first view is correct is a tradition which Qazi Hussein-ibn-Mas’oud Baghwi has brought in his book “Commentary of Sunnat ar-Rasul” (which is a collection of all those traditions which are in agreement) and he quotes its reference from Abdur-Rahman-ibn-Laili who said: - ‘Ka’ab-ibn-Ajza met me and said – “Should I present you with something which I heard from the Messenger of Allah?” I replied: ‘Yes give it to me.’

He said: I asked the Holy Prophet as to how one should send salutations upon them - the Ahlul-Bait.

The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A) replied:

(*)

(‘O Allah, send salutations upon Muhammad and his descendants just as Thou sends salutations upon Ibrahim and his descendants and send blessings upon Muhammad and his descendants just as Thou sends blessings upon Ibrahim and his descendants. Surely Thou art All -Praiseworthy and All-Glorious).

Thereafter he says: - The Holy Prophet interpreted his Ahlul-Bait as his “(*)-Aâl” Thus both are similar as far as their meaning is concerned and Hazrat interchanged one word for the other in a manner that his (*) are his Ahlul-Bait and his Ahlul-Bait are his (*). Therefore, on this basis, “(*) -Aâl” and “(*) - Ahl” are similar in meaning. The reality of this affair can be discovered from here that the root of (*) had been (*) and ‘(*) - h’ was changed to (*) - ?, for this reason that the letter of “(*) - h”  becomes “Tasgheer -dimunitive form and (*)[30]Tasgheer of (*) becomes (*) as per this rule which states that “Tasgheer” returns back every noun to its original form.

The reason that the second view is correct is a tradition, which the traditionists have brought in their books. Moreover, Imam Muslim-ibn-Hajjaj, Abu Dawoud and Nesa’ee are unanimous in the authenticity of this tradition and each one of them have, in their respective ‘Sahihs’ narrated from Abdul-Muttalib-ibn Rabiya-ibn-Haaris as such:

‘I heard the Holy Prophet (SAWA) saying: -

It is not that alms is filth and is not permissible for Muhammad and his (*), to eat from it.

Moreover, they have supported their view by a tradition which Malik-ibn-Anas has narrated in his “Mutha” referring to the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as saying: “Alms is not permissible for (*) (descendants) of Muhammad because they are the dirt and filth of people.” Thus, he made alms specifically un-permissible for his (*) and those upon whom alms is forbidden are Bani-Hashim and Abdul-Muttalib. It was asked from Zaid-ibn-Arqam as to who are the (descendants) of the Messenger of Allah upon whom alms are forbidden and he replied: - (*) of Ali, (*) of Jafar, (*), of Abbass and (*) of Aqeel and this second view is nearer to the first view.

However the reason which the supporters of the third view give is the sayings of Exalted Allah:

(*)

(except (*) of Lot; We will most surely deliver them all) where, as per the consensus of the exegetists, (*) in this verse refers to those who have turned towards him and followed his path. Thereafter he says: Now, keeping in view all that has been said about (*), it becomes apparent that its meaning comprehensively fits them because they are his Ahlul-Bait. “Zakat” (alms-tax) is forbidden for them and they have followed his religion and adhered to his path. Ascribing them with (*) and naming them with this word is accidentally true.

Mahdi is From the Progeny of the Holy Prophet

Abu Dawoud, in the fourth volume of his ‘Sahih’ on age 87 has written a tradition which has been narrated by Umm-Salma from the Holy Prophet as such:

“Mahdi is from my progeny.”

In “Esaaf ur-Rhagebeen” Page 147 a similar tradition from the Holy Prophet has been narrated by Nesa’ee, Ibn-Maaja, Baihaqi and others.[31]

Ibn Hajar in ‘Sawa’eq’ on page 98 writes: Abu Na’eem has brought a tradition from the Holy Prophet as such: - “Indeed, God will send a man front my progeny.” Thereafter he said: - “He shall fill the earth with Justice.”

The same has also come in “Es’aaf ur-Rhagebeen” page 149.[32]

In the afore-mentioned book on page 97, the author writes: Abu Dawoud, Tirmidhi and Ibn-Maaja have brought a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as such: - “If there remains not more than a day from the life of the earth, indeed God will make a man to appear from my progeny.”

In another tradition the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) says: “He is from my progeny, the one who shall fill the earth with Justice just as it had been filled with oppression.”

The same can be seen in “Es’aaf ur-Rhagebeen” on page 147.[33]

The author of “Mataleb-us-Su’ool” writes: - ‘The meaning of (*) (progeny) in Arabic is said to be (*) (family) and as per the saying of others it means (*) (offspring).

Thereafter he says: - “Both the meanings can be found in them because they are his family as well as his offspring. However they are considered to be his (*) (family) because are the near kinsmen and they too were as such. They are reckoned to be his (*) (offspring) for this reason that (*) are considered to be children of a daughter and they were as such because Allah speaks about Ibrahim as follows:”

(*)

Thus Allah, the Exalted placed all the afore-mentioned personalities including Hazrat Isa among the offspring of Ibrahim where the relation of Isa with Ibrahim is only through his mother Maryam and no one else.

Thereafter he writes: - ‘It has been narrated that Shobi who was one of the Sunni ‘Ulemas’ living at the time of Hajjaj-ibn-Yusuf Saqafi was among the lovers of Hassan and Hussein such that whenever he would remember them he would say: “Those two are the children and offspring of the Messenger of Allah.” Later some of the people informed Hajjaj about this matter as a result of which he became angry and started to imprecate him. Once Hajjaj called him in one of his gatherings where the aristocrats and ‘Ulemas’ (scholars) of Basra and Kufa and the Quraish were present. Shobi entered and greeted but Hajjaj did not pay any heed and did not reply his greetings which was indeed the right of Shobi. When he sat down, Hajjaj said: ‘O Shobi, Do you know what I have heard about you which indeed proves your foolishness?

Shobi replied: What is it?

Hajjaj said: Don’t you know that sons of men are those who are allied to him and kinship is only through fathers. Thus, on what basis do you say that the sons of Ah are the children and offspring of the Holy Prophet! Except for their mother Fatemah, are they having any other connection with the Holy Prophet considering that kinship is not from the daughters’ side but rather from the fathers’ side. Shobi put down his head for some time until Hajjaj exceeded the limits in his disavowal and notified the others in the gathering about this matter. Shobi continued his silence and the more Hajjaj witnessed his silence the more he rebuked him. Thereafter, Shobi raised his head and said: ‘O Amir, I do not see you but a speaker who is ignorant of the Book of Allah and the ‘Sunnah’ of the Holy Prophet and one who has grown weary of them. Then the anger of Hajjaj intensified and he addressed Shobi as such: “Woe be upon you, how dare you speak to me in these words!”

Shobi replied: Yes, those present in your gathering -the Chanters (of Quran) from Egypt and the bearers of knowledge of the Book who are dear before you are all aware of what I say. Is it not that when Allah wishes to address His slaves (i.e. servants) He says:- ‘O Bani (sons of) Adam or ‘O Bani-Isra’el. About Ibahim, Allah says (*) (and from his offspring) until He mentions Yahya and Isa. Therefore, ‘O Hajjaj how do you see the relationship of Isa with Adam, Isra’el and Ibrahim? Is it through his father or any of his forefathers? Is it not that he is connected to them only through his mother Maryam! Moreover, as per the genuine narrators, the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) with regard to Hassan has said: Indeed my son (and he pointed out to Hassan) is “Sayyid” (Chief).

When Hajjaj heard such reasoning he lowered his head in shame. Later he showed kindness and politeness towards Shobi and felt ashamed of those present in the gathering.

Now that the matter has become clear (*) (progeny) is the very offspring, children and family of the Holy Prophet and in reality, all the meanings are applied to them.

Mahdi is From the Family of the Holy Prophet

Abu Dawoud, in the fourth Volume of his “Sahih” on page 17 has brought a tradition which has been narrated by Ali (A.S.) from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as such:

“If there remains not more than a day from the life of the earth, indeed God will make a man from my family to appear.”[34]

Tirmidhi, in the second Volume of his “Sahih” on page 270 has brought a tradition which has been narrated by Abu Huraira from the Holy Prophet (S.AW.A) as follows: -

“If there remains not more than a day from the life of the earth, God will set the day so long until a person from my family shall appear.”

Thereafter he says: ‘This is a good and authentic tradition;

Moreover, a similar tradition from the Holy Prophet with a slight variation has been narrated by Ibn Hajar (on page 97 of his Sawa’eq) and Shaikh Saban (on page 148 of Esaaf ur-Rhagebeen) from Abu Dawoud and Tirmidhi.[35]

The magazine “Huda-Islam” No. 2, in the third of its weekly publication No. 25 mentions:

Ibn Maaja has brought a tradition narrated by Ali (A.S.) from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as such:

“Mahdi is from my family.”[36]

Shaikh Saban on page 148 of “Es’aaf ur-Rhagebeen” and Ibn-Hajar on page 99 of “Sawa’eq” have written that Ahmad, Abu Dawoud, Tirmidhi and Ibn-Maaja have brought a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as such:

‘If there remains not more than a day from the life of the earth, God shall indeed make a person from my progeny to appear. As per some other traditions, we find the words ‘my family’.[37]

Ibn-Hajar on page 97 of “Sawa’eq” and Shaikh Saban on page 148 of “Esaaf ur-Rhagebeen” have written that Ahmad, Abu Dawoud, and Tirmidhi have brought a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) as follows: -

  “The world shall not pass, or perhaps he said: The world shall not cease to exist until a person from my family comes and rule.”[38]

The author of  “Nur-ul-Absar” on page 231 has brought a tradition narrated by Abu Dawoud who in turn has narrated from Zar-ibn-Abdullah that the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) has said: “The world shall not pan until a person from my family comes and rules among the Arabs”. Thereafter he said: - “He shall ml the earth with Justice.”[39]

In the afore-mentioned book, the author writes on page 229 as such:

Abu Dawoud has narrated from Ali (may Allah be satisfied with him) who in turn has narrated from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A) who said: “If there remains not more than a day from the life of earth, God will indeed make a person from my family to appear on that day and fill the earth with Justice just as it had been filled with oppression.[40]

The author of “Matalib-ul-Su’ool” in the chapter of “Asking one’s whish from Ahlul-Bait” writes: Some have said that “Ahlul-Bait” refers to those people who are nearer in relation to a person in ancestorship. Some others have said that “Ahlul-Bait” are those who gather together in one womb. Still others have said: Ahlul-Bait are those who are attached to him by kinship and relation. All of these meanings can be

found in them because, their lineage returns back to the Holy Prophet’s grandfather, Abdul-Muttalib.

Also they have gathered together with him (i.e. the Holy Prophet) in one womb and they are connected to him through kinship as well as relation (son-in-law).

Thus they are in fact his (*) (progeny) and (*) and         (Ahlul-Bait) are one and the same whether they differ in meaning or not. Thus the meaning of these two terms are fixed for them.

Muslim in his ‘Sahih’ narrates from Zaid-ibn-Hasaan who said: ‘I went with Hasain-ibn-Seera and Omar-ibn-Muslim to visit Zaid-ibn-Arqam. When we sat down, Hasain began to speak and said: ‘O Zaid, Verily, now that you have numerous good actions in your record, have seen the Holy Prophet, have heard traditions from him, have fought beside him and prayed behind him, so narrate for us what you have heard from the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.A).

Zaid replied: “O brother, surely I have turned old and my memory has become worn out. As a result, a part of what I have acquired from the Holy Prophet has been forgotten by me. So accept whatever I narrate to you and do not bother me about what I do not narrate to you.”

Thereafter he said: ‘Once the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) stood near a place called “Hema’a” situated between Mecca and Medina and delivered a sermon. After praising and extolling God Almighty and then exhorting the people, he said:

‘O people, I am a human being and it seems that my Lord’s emissary (i.e. Izra’eel) is going to come and take away my soul. I am leaving amongst you, two precious things. The first of them is the Book of Allah wherein you will find guidance and light. So take hold of the Book of Allah; In this regard, he incited and exhorted the people toward the Book of Allah. Thereafter he said: The other is my Ahlul-Bait. I remind you of Allah with regards to my Ahlul-Bait. I remind you of Allah about them.

Then Hasain told Zaid-ibn-Arqam as such: ‘O Zaid, who are his Ahlul-Bait? Are his wives the Ahlul-Bait!?

He replied: ‘No, his Ahlul-Bait are those upon whom alms is forbidden.[41]

Mahdi is From Kinsfolk

When it is proved that Mahdi (A.S.) is from the progeny, descendant and family of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) and from the offspring of Ali, Fatemah, Hassan and Hussein then it is automatically proved that he is from “(*) - Zolghorba” (Kinsfolk) where their friendship has been made

obligatory upon all.

The author of ‘Yanibiul-Muwadda’ narrating from Bukhari and Muslim writes On page 106 of his book as such: '’t was asked from Ibn-Abbass that to whom (*) in the verse of (*) - Alghorba” referred to? Then Sa’eed-ibn-Jubair said: They are the near ones of the progeny of Muhammad (S.A.W.A).

The author of ‘Matalib-us-Su’ool’ narrates from Tafseer of Imam Abul-Hassan Ali-ibn-Ahmad Wahadi (the chain of transmission which ends. in Ibn-Abbass) as such: When the verse:

(*) was revealed, it was asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah! who are these people whom Allah has commanded us to love?

The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) replied: “Ali, Fatemah and their children.”

Ibn-Hajar in his “Sawa’eq” (page 101) and Qunduzi in “Yanibi-ul-Muwadda” (page 106) have brought a tradition (bearing the same contents) under thc afore-said verse narrating from the great Mu’ajam of Tabarani, Tafseer-e-ibn-Abu Hatim, Manaqib of Hakem, Waseet of Wahadi, Helyat al-Aulia of Abu Na’eem, Tafseer-e-Sualabi and Fara’ed as-Semtain.

Ibn-Hajar in “Sa’waeq” (page 101) narrates from Zain-ul-Abedeen at the time when he was taken as captive after his lather Hussein was killed; and on the way to Syria some of the foul-mouthed people said: All praise be to Allah for having caused the killing of you all, turning you into a wretched state and severing the root of sedition.

He replied: Haven’t you read (the Book) where Allah says:

(*)

They said: “Is it that (*) refers to you people!?”

He replied: “Yes.”

The author of “Matalib-us-Su’ool” writes:

‘Know that those in the verse who have been asked to be loved are indeed the (*). Therefore any one who is bestowed with the attribute of “(*) ghorba” deserves love as per specification of the afore-mentioned verse because if there is a decree for any particular case and at any other occasion, that case stipulates that the same decree too will be applicable and with regards to love towards those who have been mentioned in the verse even though they themselves are associates to each other (from the view-point of their similarity in a case which is expedient for love) yet, love posses different levels. Therefore, anyone who is the more nearer to the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.), that case will become more firm in him. As per research, the consensus of “Ulemas” is firm in this regard that the matter of level of love and friendship does indeed carry priority over all other levels such that in their writings and compositions they have specified that:

‘If a person endows or makes a will to the most nearest person to Zaid and if Zaid does not have a father, the most preferable person with regards to the endowment and will are his children as compared to his other near ones. If he has a father, then there exists a difference as to whether the children are having priority over father or are equal to him. Through this reasoning it becomes clear and obvious that Fatemah possess the highest level in the matter of love and being the (*) (kinsfolk). When it becomes apparent to what has been written about the pleasing expressions and attractive statements about Fatemah (A.S.), (especially her purity) and the fact that the superfluous virtue and lofty position which the Imams behold is through her means, then we are helpless in being loyal to her right in such affairs just as we are bound to do so in the subsequent chapters about the circumstances of Imam and the days of their birth and death.’

Mahdi is From the Offspring of the Holy Prophet

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 234 narrates from the author of Firdaus who narrates from Jaber-ibn-Abdullah Ansari who said:

Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) said: Indeed Allah, the Exalted placed the offspring of every Prophet from their own rear and placed my offspring from the rear of Ali-ibn-Ali Talib.

The author says: - The explicitness of this valuable ,tradition is that the children of Ali-ibn-Abi Talib Amir-ul-Mumineen (A.S.) from Fatemah (A.S.) are indeed the offspring of the Holy Prophet (S.AW.A)and there is no difference between Hassan and Hussein. Verily, as Mahdi, the Awaited one is from this particular house and this pure offspring, he is therefore counted to be from the offspring of Muhammad (S.A.W.A) (as per research and previous explanation of the meaning of offspring).

The author of “Tuhuful-Uqool” has brought a lengthy tradition in this regard from Musa-ibn-Jafar’s conversation with Haroon ar-Rashid and we shall produce here only that portion which serves our discussion. He writes:

‘Hazrat Musa-ibn-Jafar approached Haroon for the reason that the letter wished to inquire from him the (false) things which people have ascribed to Hazrat before Haroon. So he took out a lengthy scroll which contained accusations about his Shias and read it out. Then Hazrat said: ‘O Amir-ul-Mumineen, we are a family which have been afflicted with such accusations and Allah is ‘All-Forgiving’ and ‘One veils the vices’ and He refrains from lifting the veil from the deeds of His servants except when He will be taking their account and that will be the Day when wealth and children shall be of no avail and only the one who comes in the presence of Allah with a pure heart shall benefit. Thereafter he said: ‘My father narrated (for me) from Ali who in turn narrated from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A) as such :  (Whenever the ties of relationship are felt and maintained with the other; there occurs some movement and excitement and then it calms down.”  If Amir-ul-Mumineen (i.e. Haroon) deems it advisable to maintain relationship and shake hands with me, he can do so.

Then Haroon came down from his throne and stretched out his right hand and caught hold of Hazrat’s hand. He embraced him and made him sit besides him and said: I bear witness that you are truthful and your father and grand - father too were truthful. When you came to inquire I was the most harshful person towards you because of the hatred and anger which I had acquired about you. Since you spoke to me in the manner which you did and so shook hands with me, the feeling of hatred and anger has disappeared from my heart and I have become satisfied with you. Thereafter, he felt silent for some moment and then said: ‘I wish to ask you something about Abbass and All. On what basis was Ali more worthy of inheritance (from the Holy Prophet) than Abbass, the Uncle of the Holy Prophet.

Hazrat replied: “You excuse me from this matter.” He said: “I swear by Allah that I shall not excuse you until you answer me.”

Hazrat replied: “if you do not excuse me then grant me safety.”

He said: “I gaurantee your safety.”

Hazrat said: “Surely, the Holy Prophet did not nominate as heir the one who was able to migrate but did not migrate. Indeed, Abbass your father was amongst those who brought faith but did not migrate and Ali brought faith and migrated too. Allah says:

(*)

Haroon turned pale and then said: ‘On what basis do you relate yourself to the Holy Prophet and not Ali notwithstanding the fact that Ali was your father and the Holy Prophet your grand - father!

Haarat replied: Surely Allah related Isa-ibn-Maryam to Hazrat Ibrahim, His “Khaleel” through Isa’s mother who was a virgin. As Allah says:

(*)

Thus He related Isa to Ibrahim through Mary- only, just a: He related Sulaiman, Ayub, Yusuf, Musa and Haroon to their father and mother. From the view-point of excellence of Isa which concluded In him only from his mother’s side without any other person’ it has come in the holy Quran in the verse below that:

(*)

(‘O Maram! Surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and He has chosen you above the women of the world) because of Messiah.

So in the same manner, Allah chose Fatemah and purified her and made her superior to all the woman of the world through Hassan and Hussein, the two youthful Chiefs of Paradise.

Mahdi is From the Progeny of Ali (A.S.)

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 494 narrates from “Manaqeb” of Khawrazmi (the chain of transmission which ends in Sabeth-ibn-Dinar) who narrates from Sa’eed-ibn-Jubair and he from Ibn-Abbass (may Allah be satisfied with them) who said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.A.) said: “Indeed Ali is the Imam of my ‘Ummah’ (nation) after me and it is from his children that the ‘Qaem’ will come and whenever he emerges, he shall fill the earth with Justice and equity just as it had been filled with cruelty and oppression.”

The author of  “Eqdud-Durar” in the first chapter, narrates from ‘Sunan’ of Abu Dawoud, ‘Jaame’ of Tirmidhi and ‘Sunan’ of Nesa’ee from Ibn Ishaaq as such: Ali (may Allah’s blessings be upon him) looked at his son, Hussein, and then said: - ‘Surely my son is a ‘Sayyid’ (Chief) just as the Holy Prophet named him so. Very soon shall emerge the one from his rear. His name will be the same as your Prophet’s flame. In creation he is the same as the Prophet but in morals he is not so. He shall fill the earth with Justice.[42]

In the second chapter of the afore-mentioned book, the author narrates from the book of “Ba’as -Wa-Nushur” of Baihaqi a similar tradition until he comes to the section where Ali says: In manners, he is not similar to the Prophet.

Moreover, in the second chapter of the afore-mentioned book, the author writes: ‘Abu Wa’el says: Ali looked at Hussein and then said: Indeed my son is “Sayyid” (Chief) just as the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.A.) named him so. Very soon a person, whose name shall be the same as your Prophet’s name will emerge from Hussein’s rear. He shall emerge at the time when people will be negligent and un-aware. A time when the truth will be dead and oppression will be in force. The inhabitants of the heavens and earth will rejoice from his emergence. He will be having a broad forehead, protracted nose, broad stomach, broad thighs, a spot on his right cheek and his front teeth seperated from each other. He shall fill the earth with Justice just as it had been filled with cruelty and oppression.[43]

Mahdi is From the Progeny of Fatemah (A.S.)

Abu Dawoud in the fourth Volume of his ‘Sahih’ on page 87 writes: Umm-Salma says: ‘I heard the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) saying: Mahdi is from my progeny; from the children of Fatemah.[44]

Ibn-Hajar in his “Sawa’eq” (page 97) and Shaikh Saban in “Es’aaf ur-Rhagebeen” (page 148) have brought the same tradition from Muslim, Abu Dawoud, Nesa’e, Ibn-Maaja and Baihaqi.

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 430 narrates from “Mashkut al-Masabih” from Abu Dawoud from Umm-Salma who said: ‘I heard the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) saying: - Mahdi is from my progeny, from the children of Fatemah.

Again, the same author on page 223 of his afore-said book narrates from Ali-ibn-Hallal who narrates from his father who said: ‘I was honored by visiting the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) at the time when he was feeling unwell and Fatemah was crying besides him. Then the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) said: ‘O my daughter, what causes you to cry? She replied: I fear that after you, harm shall befall me.           

  The Holy Prophet (S.AW.A.) replied: ‘O my beloved one, Allah put the rein of care on the inhabitants of the earth. Then, amongst them, He appointed your father and then bestowed upon him the Messengership. Thereafter, He showed another care. He appointed your husband Ali and revealed to me that I should give your hand in marriage to him. ‘O Fatemah, we are such an Ahlul-Bait that Allah, the Exalted has given us privilege of seven things which others do not possess. Neither those before us nor those who will come after us will have the privilege of those seven things.

I am your father, the Last of the Prophets and the most hondurable among them before Allah and my “Wasi” (legatee) is your husband, the best of the legatees and the most beloved amongst them before Allah. Our martyr Hamza, the loved uncle of your father as well as your husband, are the best of the martyrs and the most beloved amongst them before Allah. Moreover, the one who possesses two wings is from us. He shall fly with them in Paradise along with the angels to whichever place he wishes. He is your father’s cousin and the brother of your husband. The two “Sebt” (offsprings) of this “Ummah” (nation) are from us and they are Hassan and Hussein, the two Chiefs of the youth of Paradise and they are your sons. I swear by the one Who rightly appointed me to the station of the Prophethood that Mahdi is from your sons. He shall fill the earth with Justice just as it had been filled with oppression. The author of ‘Yanabi’ mentions that Hafez Abul-Ala Hamadani has brought this tradition in the “Forty traditions” (which has been written about Mahdi).

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 434 narrates from “Ausa’th” of Tabarani who narrates from Abaya-ibn-Raba’ee who in turn narrates from Abu Ayub Ansari who said:

  The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) told Fatemah (May Allah’s peace be upon her) as such: The best of the Prophets is from us and he is your father. The best of - the Wasi’s (legatees) is from us and he is your husband. The best of the martyrs is from us and he is Hamza, your father’s uncle. The one who possesses two wings is from us. He shall fly with them to whichever place he wishes in Paradise and he is Jafar, your father’s cousin. The two “Sebt” (offsprings) of this ‘Ummah’ and the two Chiefs of the youths of Paradise are from us and they are Hassan and Hussein, your two sons. Moreover, Mahdi is from us and he shall be from your children.

In the afore-mentioned book, the author on page 490 narrates from the book “Faza’el as-Sahabah” of Abu Muzaffar Sam’ani who in turn narrates from Abu Sae’ed Khudri a tradition almost similar to the one which was just mentioned.

The author says: Traditions in this regard (which

you came across in the preface of this book) are “Mustafiza” traditions. Rather they are wildly transmitted traditions and what we have written shall be adequate.[45]

Mahdi is From the Progeny of “Sebtain” (i.e. Hassan and Hussein)

The author of “Eqdud-Durar” in the third chapter of section No.3 narrates from the book “Sefat al-Mahdi” of Hafez Abu Naeem Esfahani who in turn narrates from Ali-ibn-Hallal who narrates from his father as such:

‘I received the honor of visiting the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.A) at the time when his soul was about to depart and Fatemah was crying besides him. He recited the afore-said lengthy tradition and in the end of it he said: ‘O Fatemah, I swear by the One Who rightly appointed me that Mahdi of this ‘Ummah’ will be from those two (i.e. Hassan and Hussein).

The world will become such that chaos and disturbances will be intensified all path (of solution) will be served and people will fiercely fall upon one another such that neither the elders will show mercy upon the young nor the children will honor the old. When this happens, Allah will appoint someone (i.e. Mahdi) who shall conquer the deviated castles and open out the sheathed hearts (a metaphoric remarks that Hazrat shall dominate over the false religions and tame the deviated hearts towards Islam). Indeed he shall revolt at the end of time just as I revolted at my time. He shall fill the earth with Justice just as it had been filled with oppression.

The author says: This tradition has been narrated by Ganji from the book “NETAI-MAHDI” of Abu Na’eem Esfahani and “Mu’ajam Kabeer” of Abul Qasim Tabarani and most of the experts of tradition too, have narrated this tradition in their respective books with slight differences in wordings. in some of them, the words ‘from us’ has been written instead of ‘from those two’.[46]

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 432 writes: ‘The author of Jawaher al-Aqdain says; ‘As per research, the effects of the Holy Prophet’s ‘dua’ (invocation) at the time of marriage of Ali and Fatemah (peace be upon them) became apparent in the offspring of Hassan and Hussein. Thus, from their offspring are those who have passed away and those who are still to come. If there will not come anyone in the future except Mahdi, suffice it will be for the invocation of the Holy Prophet to have come into effect.

In this regard, the author says: ‘Just as we saw in the tradition of Ali-ibn-Hallal, Hazrat’s swearing, in spite of being truthful and trustworthy was only to emphasize the matter. From amongst the seven-fold characteristics, Hazrat has set aside Mahdi and sweared by him only, showing the importance of this matter.

However the reason that Mahdi (A.S.) is from the sons of “Sebtain” (A.S.) (offspring of Ali) is that Hazrat Baqer’s mother (i.e. Fatemah) was the wife of Hazrat Ali-ibn-Hussein Zain-ul-Abedeen (A.S.) and daughter of Hazrat Abu Muhammad Hassan Mujtaba (AS.) and about this woman, Imam Baqer has said: -

  ‘Fatemah is a righteous woman. So Abu Jafar Muhammad-ibn-Ali Baqer is from the sons of Hassan and Hussein and he and his honorable sons are amongst those who have attained this honor. Mahdi, the Awaited one too is from this propitious splendor and blessed family tree because, he is Muhammad-ibn-Hassan- ibn-Jafar-ibn-Muhammad - ibn - Baqir-ibn-Ali-ibn Hussein-ibn-Ali-ibn-Abi Talib Amir-ul-Mumineen (A.S.)

Mahdi is From the Offspring of Hussein (A.S.)

In the first chapter of “Eqdud-Durar” its author narrates from Hafez Abu Na’eem from his book “Sefat al-Mahdi” who in turn narrates from Huzaifa-ibn -Yamaan who said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.A) delivered a sermon. Then, he disclosed for us all that was sure to take place till the Day of Judgement. Thereafter he said: If there remains not more than a day from the life of the earth, God Almighty will set the day so long until a person from my progeny who carries the same name as me shall appear. Then Salman stood up and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, from which of your progeny he shall come? The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) replied: ‘He shall be from this son (and he put his hand on Hussein’s head) of mine.

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 49 says: In the commentary on Nahiul-Balagha (most probably he is referring to commentary of Ibn-Abil Hadeed) Qazi-ul-Quza’at narrates from Kafi-ul-Kufa’at, Abul-Qasim Ismail-ibn-Ebad a tradition where the chain of transmission is linked to Ali (A.S.) who mentioned something about Mahdi and then said:

‘Verily he is from the children of Hussein.[47]

The author says: Traditions in this regard are “Mustafiza” traditions. Rather, the consensus amongst we Shia Imamiah is the same and what is famous among the scholars of our brethren Sunnis too is the same. However in some of the rare traditions (very few) we find something which is opposite to this meaning.

Among them, Abu Dawoud in his ‘Sahih’ (vol. 4, pg. 89) narrates from Abu Ishaaq who said:

Ali (may Allah’s peace and blessing be upon him) looked at Hassan and Said: “Surely my son is ‘Sayyid’ (Chief) just as the Holy Prophet called him by this name. Soon a person will emerge from his rear. His name shall be the same as your Prophet’s name. In creation he will be similar to the Prophet but in behaviour he will not be so. He shall fill the earth with Justice.”

Some of Sunni ‘Ulemas’ have reckoned Mahdi to be from the children of Abu Muhammad Hassan Mujtaba (A.S.)

Amongst them, Ibn Hajar in his ‘Sawa’eq’ on page 99 writes: “Abu Dawoud in his ‘Suaan’ has narrated a tradition that Mahdi is from the children of Hassan and its mystery lies in this that Hassan waived his Caliphate for the sake of Allah and his affection for his people. Thus Allah placed the ‘Qa’em’ (who shall emerge at the time of dire strait) amongst his children so that he fills the earth with Justice. The traditions which say that he is from the children of Hussein are weak.”

The author says: ‘As per the prescribed rules in ‘Usul-e-Fiqh’ (Principles of Jurisprudence) relying on the afore-said tradition is not correct for the following reasons:

Firstly, there exists a discrepancy in the narration of Abi Dawoud as the author of ‘Eqdud-Durar’ narrates from ‘Sunan’ of Abi Dawoud that All looked towards Hussein.

Secondly, a group of experts on traditions have narrated the same tradition in its exact form except that Ali looked at Hussein.

Thirdly, there is the possibility of an error because the words of Hassan and Hussein are sometimes erroneously written for one another especially in the Kufi script.

Fourth, the tradition is contrary to what is famous among the Sunni Ulemas.

Fifth, the said tradition is contradicting most of the other traditions, which are more authentic in their chain of transmission and more evident in expression.

Some of these traditions have already been mentioned and Allah - willing, the rest too will be mentioned later on.

And Sixth, this tradition is probably a false and fabricated one for this reason that they wanted to get near to Muhammad-ibn-Abdulla known as ‘Nafs-e-Zakiyah’. Thus they resorted to fabrication merely to please him.

Mahdi is From the Ninth Descendant of Hussein (A.S.)

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 493 narrates from “Manaqib” of Muwaffaq-ibn- Ahmad Khawrazmi who narrates from Sulaim-ibn-Qais  Hallali who narrates from Salman Farsi who said: ‘I got the honor of visiting the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.A.). What I saw was Hussein-ibn-Ali sitting on his lap and the Holy Prophet kissing over his eyes and licking his clothes and then saying:

You are a Chief, son of a Chief and brother of Chief. You are an Imam, son of an Imam and brother of Imam. You are a divine proof, brother of a divine proof and father of nine Divine Proofs, the ninth of them being the “Qaem”.

The same too can be seen in “Uqdud-Durar”.

In the afore-mentioned book on page 258, the author narrates from the tenth chapter of “Mawaddat-ul-Qurba” as such:

It has come from Salim-ibn-Qais Hallali that Salman Farsi said: When I went to meet the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) I saw Hussein sitting on his lap and kissing over his eyes and licking his clothes. Thereafter the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) said: You are a Chief and the son of a Chief You are an Imam and the son of an Imam. You are a divine proof and the son of a divine proof and the father of nine Divine Proofs, the ninth of them shall be the Qaem.

Besides these one, there are still other numerous traditions and Allah-willing, we shall soon narrate them.

The author says: - It does not seem likely that anyone amongst the Muslims is ignorant of these nine personalities and has not known them by name. With this description there is no holding back to mentioning their names out of benediction and remembrance. The first of them is Abul-Hassan Zain-ul-Abedeen, followed by his son Abu Jafar Muhammad Baqir, followed by his son Abu Abdulla Jafer Sadeq, followed by his Abul-Hassan Musa Kazim, followed by his son Abul-Hassan lih ar-Reza, followed by his son Abu Jafar Muhammad Jawad, followed by his son Abul-Hassan Ali Haadi, followed by his son Muhammad Hassan Askari, followed by his son Abul Qasim Muhammad Mahdi who is the ninth of them and the “Qaem”.

Mahdi is From the Offspring of Sadeq (A.S.)

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 499 has narrated from “Arba’een” of Hafez Abu Na’eem Esfahani (which is a collection of forty traditions about Mahdi). Amongst them is a tradition, which he has narrated from ‘Laghwi’ better known as Ibn ‘Khesbab’.

He said: Abul Qasim Thaher-ibn-Haroon-ibn-Musa Kazim narrated for me a. tradition from his grand - father who said: my master Jafer-ibn -Muhammad said: ‘The pious successor shall be from my progeny and he is the Mahdi. His name is Muhammad and his agnomen is Abul-Qasim. He shall emerge at the end of time. His mother is named as Nargis and above his head is a cloud, which shall provide a shadow for him from the sun. It shall accompany him wherever he goes and will call out in an eloquent voice: This is Mahdi, so obey him.’

Besides this, there are some other traditions which Allah-willing we shall acquaint you with very soon.

Ibn-Hajar in “Sawa’eq” on page 120 says: Muhammad-ibn-Ali Baqer left behind six sons which the most learned and perfect amongst all is Jafar Sadeq. It was for this reason that he was made as his father’s successor and legatee and people have narrated so much knowledge from him that his fame (of excellence) had engulfed all the places.

Great Sunni scholars like Yahya-ibn-Sa’eed, Ibn-Jareeh, Malik, Sufyanin, Abu Hanifa, Shuaba and Ayub Bakhtiyani have narrated traditions from him...

Under the verse (*) Imam Fakhr Raazj says: ‘Among the meanings of ‘Kauthar’ (river in Paradise) one meaning can be that of ‘offspring’ because, this Sura was revealed in refutation of those who were rebuking the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) for not having a son and then Allah provided him a generation which would continue to remain in the course of time. Thus, you may see for yourself that how many an offspring of the Holy Prophet have been killed and yet the world is full of their existence whereas not even one has remained from Bani-Ummayid. Once again, you may see for yourself that those who are from his Ahlul-Bait like Baqir, Sadeq, Kazim, Reza (A.S.), ‘Nefs-Zakiyah’ and their likes are great scholars.

Mahdi is From the Offspring of Reza (A.S.)

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 448 narrates from the book of “Fara’ed-ul-Semtain” as such: Hassan-ibn-Khalid says: - Ali-ibn-Musa Reza (peace be upon him) said: - ‘The one who does not have (*) (i.e. piety), does not have faith and the most honorable of you before Allah is the one who is the most pious. Thereafter he said: - Verily the fourth from my descendant is the son of a princess of slave-maids who shall cleanse the earth from every cruelty and oppression.

In the afore-mentioned book on page 489, the author narrates from Hassan-ibn-Khalid who said: - Ali-ibn-Musa ar-Reza (A.S.) said: - ‘The appointed time (in Quran) refers to the day of emergence of our ‘Qa’em’. Then it was asked from Hazrat as to who is the Qaem and he replied: ‘He is the fourth of my descendant, the son of a princess of slave-maids who shall purify the earth from every cruelty and oppression.

Once again, in the same book on page 454 the author narrates from “Fara’ed-ul-Semtain” as such:

Ahmad-ibn-Ziad has narrated from De’abel Khuza’ee who said:- ‘I read out my elegy which began with (*) before Hazrat Reza (AS.) until I reached to this part of the poem:[48]

(*)

Hazrat cried bitterly and then said: ‘O De’abel, the Holy Spirit has spoken through your tongue. Do you know who this Imam is?

I replied: No, I do not know him. But, I have heard that an Imam shall emerge from your household, the one who shall fill the earth with equity and Justice.

Hazrat said: The Imam after me shall be my son Muhammad and after Muhammad will be his son Ali and after Ali will be his son Hassan and after Hassan will be his son Hujjat al-Qaem and he is the Awaited one.[49]

Ibn-Hajjar in his ‘Sawa’eq’ on page 122 says:

‘When Hazrat Musa-ibn-Jafar passed away, he left behind thirty-seven sons and daughters. Amongst them was Ali-ar-Reza who was more renowned in name and more manifest in merit than the others. For this reason Ma’mun gave him a place in his heart and gave his daughter’s hand in marriage to him. He also placed him as his partner in his kingdom and entrusted the affairs of Caliphate to him. In the year of 201 Hijra, he wrote by his own hand the ‘testamental-guardianship’ for Hazrat and took a large number of people into witness. However Hazrat passed away from this world before him as a result of which Ma’mun became very depressed and sad. Before dying, Hazrat had foretold that he would die because of the poisonous effect of grapes and pomegranates and that Ma’mun would wish to bury him near his father, Rashid’s grave, but would not succeed. Thus, all that Hazrat had foretold did occur.

Once Hazrat told a person as such: ‘O Abdulla! Be satisfied with what Allah wishes and be prepared for that which is inevitable for you to occur. Then on the third day Abdulla died. This incident has been narrated by Hakem. Also, he narrates from Muhammad-ibn-Isa who narrates from Abu Habib who said: I saw in my dreams that I had visited the Holy Prophet and greeted him. At that very moment, I saw a tray of Saihani dates next to him and he offered eighteen of those dates to me. Then I woke up and interpreted my dream in this manner that I would live for another eighteen days. However, after the twentieth day, Abul-Hassan Ali ar-Reza arrived from Medina and came to the same mosque where I had seen the Holy Prophet in my dream. People hastened towards him in order to offer their greetings. I too went close to him and saw him sitting in the very place which the Holy Prophet had sat and besides him was kept a tray of Saihani dates, the same tray of dates which I had seen in my dream. Later, I greeted him and he called me close to himself and offered me a handful of those dates. When I counted them, I realized that they were exactly the same numbers of dates the Holy Prophet had offered me in my dream. I asked for more but he said: If the Holy Prophet had offered you more than this amount, I too would offer you more.

When Hazrat arrived in Naishabour he was mounted on a mule and on top of the mule-litter was a cover, which was not visible from behind. Then two persons from the experts of traditions, i.e. Abu Zarra Raazi and Muhammad-ibn-Aslam Tusi went in his presence along with a large number of scholars. They asked Hazrat to disclose his blessed face and narrate for them traditions, which he had received from his fore - fathers. Then, as per his commands the mule-litter came to a stand - still and his slaves drew back the curtain. When the people’s eyes fell on his blessed face they began to rejoice. A group was jubilating while another group was crying out of excessive happiness. Yet others threw themselves on the ground and those who were near were seen kissing the hooves of his mule. Then the scholars cried out: “O people, be quiet and listen to what Hazrat says.” When the people prepared themselves to listen, Hazrat started to deliver this tradition and as the crowd was great in number those too i.e. Abu Zarra and Muhammad-ibn-Aslam were calling Out Hazrat’s message to the people. Later, Hazrat said: ‘My father Musa Kazim narrated to me from his father Jafer Sadeq who narrated from his father Muhammad Baqer who narrated from his father Zain-ul-Abedeen who narrated from his father Hussein who narrated from his father Ali-ibn-Abi Talib (may Allah be satisfied with him) who said: My dear and beloved Messenger of Allah (S.AW.A) said:

Gibra’eel (Gabriel) told me as such: - I heard the Exalted Lord saying: The words of:

(*)

is My castle. So anyone who recites it shall enter My castle and the one who enters My castle will be saved from My chastisement.

Thereafter, he removed the cover from the mule-litter and moved ahead. About twenty - thousand writers have narrated this tradition.

In another tradition it has come that Hazrat said: ‘Faith’ is recognition by the heart, confession by the tongue and action by the limbs. Perhaps he said both of them.

Ahmad says: “If this tradition which is having a chain of transmitters is read for an insane person he shall be cured of his madness.”

Mahdi is From the Offspring of Hassan Askari (A.S.)

When you will follow what we have said and understand the traditions, which we have written, there should not be any reason for you to doubt its conclusion (i.e. Mahdi, the Awaited one is the very son of Abu Muhammad Hassan Askari). However from the view - point of elucidation of the conclusion, we have written them under the above title and also notified the stipulation of some of the great scholars of Ahl-e-Sunnah. We say: The afore-mentioned traditions which indicated that Mahdi is the ninth descendant of Hussein and fourth descendant of Abul Hassan ar-Reza proves this matter (i.e. he being the son of Hassan Askari) especially the tradition which we narrated from Fara’ed-ul-Semtain where Hazrat Reza speaks to De’bel Khuza’ee as such: “Indeed the Imam after me will be my son Muhammad Taqi Jawad and the Imam after him will be his son, Ali Haadi Naqi and the Imam after him will be his son Hassan Askari and the Imam after him will be his son Muhammad Hujjat Mahdi Muntaaar.”

Moreover, that which we shall narrate later on (the fact that Mahdi, the Awaited one is the twelfth from the Caliphs, Imams, legatees and divine proofs) also proves this matter.

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 491 has narrated from “Arba’een” of Hafez Abu Na’eem who in turn has narrated from Ibn-Kheshab who said:

‘Sadeq-ibn-Musa narrated to me from his father who narrated from Ali-ibn-Musa ar-Reza who said: - The virtuous successor shall be from children of Hassan-ibn-Ali Askari. He is the Mahdi, the master of time.

The author of “Es’aaf-ur’Raghebeen” on page 157 has narrated from the book “Al-Yawaqit-wal-Jawahar” of Abdul-Wahab Sha’rani who in turn has narrated from the book of “Al-Fotouhat al-Makkah” as follows: -

‘Know that the emergence of Mahdi is inevitable. However he shall not emerge until the earth has been filled with cruelty and oppression. Then he shall fill it with equity and Justice. He shall be from the generation of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.A.) and from the progeny of Fatemah (peace be upon them). His great grand-father is Hussein-ibn-Ali-ibn-Abi Talib and his father is Hassan Askari, the son of Imam Ali an-Naqi, the son of Imam Muhammad Taqi, the son of Imam Ali ar-Reza, the son of Imam Musa Kazim, the son of Imam Jafer Sadeq, the son of Imam Muhammad Baqir, the son of Imam Zain-ul-Abedeen, the son of Imam Hussein, the son of Imam Ali-ibn -Abi Talib (peace be upon them all).

His name is the same as the Holy Prophet’s name and the Muslims will give allegiance to him between ‘Rukn’ and ‘Maqaam’ (station of Ibrahim).

The author says: Most of our (Shute) scholars as well as the scholars of Ahl-e-Sunnah have narrated these invaluable and precious sentences or expressions from the book of “Al-Yawaqit-wal-Jawahar” where its author in turn has narrated from the book of “Al-Fotouhat al-Makkiyeh”. However in the recent edition of that book I have not seen the above expressions. So please ponder (a metaphoric remark that perhaps the afore-mentioned tradition has been dropped).

The author of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” on page 451 has narrated from the book “Fasl-ul-Khetaab” as such:

‘And it is the saying of the pure Imam Abu Muhammad Hassan Askari where he says- ‘And shall not leave any son except Abul-Qasim Muhammad who shall be given such titles as ‘Qaem’, ‘Hujjat’, ‘Mahdi’, ‘Saheb-uz-Zaman’ and ‘Khatam-ul-Ai’mma Ithna-Ashar among the Imamiahs’.

The author says: The words “among the Imamiahs” is related to the fact that Hazrat is twelfth in number and not that it is referring to the other afore-mentioned titles.

The same scholar in the afore-said book, on page 470 says: Sayyid Abdul-Wahab Sharani in the sixty fifth Chapter of his book ‘Al-Yawaqit-wal-Jawahar’ writes:

‘Mahdi is the son of Imam Hassan Askari.’

Once again, the same scholar on page 471 of his book narrates from “Matalib-ul-Su’ool” and “Durrul-Munazzam” of Kamaluddin Thaiha who has written as such: “Mahdi is the son of Muhammad Hassan Askari.”

Also, in the same book on page 471 the author writes: In the last Chapter of the book of ‘Bayan’, Ganji says: - “Surely Mahdi will be the son of Hassan Askari.”

In the same book, the author on page 471 writes:

the author of “Fusool-ul-Muhimma” says: - ‘Verily the promised Mahdi is the son of Abu Muhammad Hassan Askari, the son of Abu Muhammad Hassan Askari, the son of Ali an-Naqi’ (Peace be upon them).

The author of “Durrul-Musawiya” writes: Those whom I found to be having the same belief as we Shiites in the matter of Mahdi are Muhammad- ibn-Yusuf Ganji in ‘Al-Bayan’, Muhammad - ibn-Thalha Shafa’ee in ‘Matalib - us Su’ool’, Sebt-ibn-Jauzi in ‘Tazkerat-ul-Aim’am’ and Sh’arani in ‘Al-Yawakit- wal-Jawahar’ where they have all said: - ‘Mahdi is the son of Imam Hassan Askari. He was born in the night of fifteenth of Sha’ban 255 A.H and is still living until he and Isa-ibn-Maryam meet each other.

The same matter has also come in “Al-Yawakit” and “Tabaqa’at” where its authors have narrated from Shaikh Hassan Araqi, the one who has met Mahdi as per the detailed account which has come in the book of “Tabaqa’at” (translated by the afore-said Shaikh Hassan). It is also reported that Ali Khawa’as and Shaikh Mohiuddin (in his book of Fotouhat ch. 366) have given their consent with regard to this belief. Sha’rani in “Lawaqeh al-Anwar-ul-Qudsiah” (which is a conclusion of Fotouhat al-Makkiyah), Saban Mesri in Es’aaf-ur-Rhagebeen and his exact wordings in “Al-Yawakit” which are both Egyptian prints, Shaikh Salahuddin Safadi whose exact statement has been narrated in the book of “Yanabi-ul-Muwadda” from “Shar-e-Dayera”, Shaikh Ali-ibn-Muhammad Maliki in his book “Fusul-ul-Muhimma” and Shaikh Hamuini Shafa’ee in “Fara’ed-ul-Semtain” have narrated as such:

‘Verily the promised Mahdi is the son of Abi Muhammad Hassan Askari son of Ali an-Naqi (Peace be upon them)[50]and the same has been mentioned by Shaikh Hamu’ani Shafa’ee in his book “Fara’ed-us-Semtain”.


6

7