The development of shiite political thought from shura to wilayat al-faqih

            Before we go into the study of the chains (of narration) of such historical narrations, it is necessary to point that, some scholars who wrote on Imam Mahdi, have neglected such reports, and did not depend on them, as Shahid Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Sadr did in his ‘Bahth Haula al-Mahdi’, but he rather relied on the claims of the four deputies, who claimed special deputation and representation from ‘Imam Mahdi’. He ruled out that those people would tell lie in their claims of meeting the Imam. He constructed on the basis of that, the validity of the existence and birth of Imam Mahdi. He went on after that, interpreting the philosophy of the occultation, and establishing the possibility of a long life!

            There are those who relied on the great scholars who reported those narrations like Sheikh Kulayni, Saduq, Tusi and Mufid, and then ruled out the possibility of their lying or their depending on weak reporters and reports.

            Despite the existence of cases of fraud and manifulations in both the ancient and the modern works, I could not find anyone who studies those books and confirms their soundness and correctness.

            I generally believe that: It is necessary to confirm the following in any academic research:

            Firstly-            The authenticity of the attribution of the famous historical books like ‘Al-Ghaybah’, ‘Ikmal al-Din’, ‘Al-Irshad’,’and ‘Al-Fusul’ to their real authors, and also that no addition, deletion or interpolation has happened to the books. This is really very difficult and impossible as there are no authentic books, those attributed to their real authors-in the whole of Shiite heritage, except four books of Hadith-‘Al-Kafi’, ‘Manla Yahduruhu al-Faqih’, ‘Al-Tahdhib’ and ‘Al-Istibsar’, which were narrated by scholars one from the other.

            There must be, secondly, a study of the authors, including the extent of their scrupulousness and accuracy. This is possible and not difficult.

            Then it is also imperative to study the chains of narrators from whom they transmit, and to be certain of their existence, truthfulness and accuracy. For some narrators are non-existing i.e they were illusory fabricators, while some of them were fabricating and lying extremists. That was in accordance with the scholars of Twelver-Imam Shiites like Tusi, Najashi, Kashi, Ibn al-Ghada’iri and so on.

            There were other reporters accepted by all the scholars of Hadith among the Twelver-Imam Shiites on the basis of their reliability, truthfulness and reporting from then…but the remaining Imamate Shiites and other Islamic sects do not accept (Hadith) from them and they doubt their truthfulness like the four special deputies and others who claimed to have seen ‘Imam Mahdi’ and to have met him and to have been appointed as deputies by him.

            Any study on the chains of these historical reports, which establish the birth and existence of ‘Imam Mahdi’ is supposed to study the objective circumstances surrounding these ‘deputies’, and to review its stand on their reliability and truthfulness…. As the Shiites reviewed their stand on many of the companions of Imam Kadhim (peace be upon him) , those who stopped and ended (the Imamate) on him claiming that he went into occultation and that he was ‘the Mahdi’, despite their reliability and truthfulness. They stopped at least, short of accepting their reports in which they discussed the continuation of the life of Imam Kadhim…especially after they have been accused of benefiting financially from the claim of Imam Kadhim’s Mahdism, occultation and meeting him.

            Historians and other writers on ‘Imam Mahdi used to take for granted the reliability of the ‘four deputies’ and to believe and accept their reports on seeing Imam Mahdi and receiving signatures from him…. This is a kind of predetermined connivance or inclination, blind acceptance and simplemindedness as regards men accused of fabricating the story from the beginning, and of exploiting it in order to achieve personal material gains.

            They were doubted in their lives and integrity, because the Shiites doubted the truth of their claim of ‘repressentation’ and were also asking about the fate of the wealth, which they collect in the name of ‘Imam Mahdi’, and some of claimants to representation accused the others of lying. Each group accused the other of mischief and deception.

            There is nothing to confirm the truth of the ‘four deputies’ claim, out of more than twenty persons who claimed ‘special representation’ in those days, except a number of hearsays that the deputies/representatives (of the ‘Mahdi’) have performed some miracles and have knowledge of the Unseen. Historians, like ‘Kulayni’, ‘Saduq’, ‘Tusi’ and ‘Mufid’ in their works, mentioned these things and they believed it has happened to some of the ‘deputies’, but rejected it for the others.

            If we rejected the stories of miracles and the knowledge of the unseen which were claimed by the ‘four deputies’ or which were spread by their supporters, there will be nothing to present as evidence on their truth and which distinguish them from the other false claimants, because all have been accused of benefiting personally.

            Due to this we will study the claims of narrators of these historical stories which mention the birth, existence and the sight of ‘Imam Mahdi Muhammad bin Hassan Askari objectively, and we will solely rely on the judgment of weakness (or soundness) from the Hadith scholars of the Twelver-Imam Shiites. If we have any personal opinion on any particular man, we will present particular evidences on him.

            THE REPORT OF HAKIMAH

            Saduq reports in ‘Ikmal al-Din’ p. 424, the story of the birth of ‘Sahib al-Zaman’ from Muhammad bin Hassan bin Walid. He said: ‘Muhammad bin Yahya al-Attar has told us that he heard from Abu Abdullah Hussain bin Rizqullah, who said that Musa bin Muhammad Qasim told him that Hakimah told him that…

            Hussain bin Rizqullah is an unknown person or a fabricator, with no mention of him in the works of biographies of hadith reporters, while Musa bin Muhammad is not taken seriously.

            In some copies we find ‘Hussain bin Ubaidullah’ instead of ‘Abu Abdullah Hussain’. Najashi accused Hussain of extremism.

            In another narration, Saduq transmits the story from Hussain bin Ahmad bin Idris, who said, my father told me that Muhammad bin Isma’il told him that Muhammad Ibrahim al-Kufi said that Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Tahwi reported from Hakimah…

            The copies of ‘Ikmal al-Din’ differ in the name of al-Tahwi. In some of them he is al-Zahri, and yet another one as al-Zuhri. In yet another copy his name is al-Mutahhari and also elsewhere as al-Tuhri. There is no mention of this man in the books on narrators, which makes it likely that some narrators invented him. Anyway he is unknown.

            As for Sheikh Tusi, he reported the story in ‘al-Ghaybah’ (1) from the aunt of Imam Askari. He calls her Khadijah instead of Hakimah.

            He transmits the story again through Ibn Abi Jayyid from Muhammad bin Hassan bin Walid from Saffar Muhammad bin Hassan al-Qummi from Abu Abdullah al-Mutahhari from Hakimah, who mentioned that the name of the mother of the son of Hassan was ‘Susan’ and not ‘Narjis’ as was in the report of Saduq.

            He narrates the story in a third report from Ibn Jayyid from Muhammad bin Hassan bin Walid from Muhammad bin Yahya al-Attar from Muhammad bin Hamuwaih al-Razi from Hussain bin Rizqullah from Musa bin Muhammad….

            In a fourth report transmitted by Tusi from Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi from Muhammad bin Ali from Ali bin Sami’ bin Banan from Muhammad bin Ali bin Abi al-Dari from Ahmad bin Muhammad from Ahmad bin Abdullah from Ahmad Ruh al-Ahwazi from Muhammad bin Ibrahim from Hakimah, similar to the first Hadith, except that he said here: ‘She said Abu Muhammad (Askari) sent to me in the fifteenth night of Ramadan, and not Sha’aban.

            In a fifth report transmitted by Tusi from Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi from Muhammad bin Ali from Hanzalah bin Zakariyya’ who said that a reliable source told me from Muhammad bin Bilal from Hakimah….

            In a sixth narration, transmitted by Tusi from a group of scholars from Hakimah….

            In this last report Tusi did not mention the name of any person from the scholars who reported (indirectly) from Hakimah, without the mention of any chain of narration. This invalidates it as evidence to be considered.

            In the report just before the last, Hanzalah bin Zakariya (considered as weak by Najashi) did not say who the reliable source that told him was? As for Muhammad bin Ali bin Bilal, he was one of the claimants to being deputy (of the Mahdi), he has differed with Muhammad bin Uthman al-Umari. As far as Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi is concerned, Tusi himself put him among the weak reporters. Najashi also considered him weak, likewise Ibn al-Ghada’iri. They also accused of being an extremist.

            From this, the condition of the fourth narration transmitted by Tusi from Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi (the weak extremist), who narrates it from an unknown person, i.e ‘Ahmad al-Ahwazi,becomes clear.’

            As for the third report, we find in it the name of ‘Muhammad bin Hamuwaih al-Razi’ who is also unknown, in addition to ‘Hussain bin Rizqullah’, equally an unknown person.

            In the second report, the name of ‘Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Tahwi’ ws substituted with the name of Abu Abdullah al-Mutahhari…an unknown person in both cases.

            As for the first report, the aunt of the Imam says in it that she did not witness the birth of the son of Hassan, she only heard about it as a news written by Abu Muhammad to his mother in Madinah.

            Therefore, later extremists reported the report of Hakimah on the birth of the son of Hassan, from weak reporters from unknown persons from fabricators…. It is not possible to depend on it at all.

A MAN FROM THE PEOPLE OF PERSIA

            Kulayni transmits in ‘Al-Kafi’ (2) , so also saduq in ‘Ikamlal-Din’(3), Tusi in ‘al-ghaybah’(4) and al-Sadr in ‘Al-ghaybah’(5) story of ‘a man from the people of Persia who went to ‘Surr Man Ra’a and stayed in the house of Abu Muhammad hassan Askari working with the servants.. One day he saw a white child, and the Imam Hassan said to him, “This is your companion (Imam)”.

            This is a very weak report. There is no need to pause on it, as it did not mention the name of the reporter. It only says he is a man from the people of persis! This can never be accepted in Hadith.

YA’QUB BIN MANQUSH

As for the report of Yaqub bin Manqush, in which he says that he asked Imam Askari, one day: “Who is the owner of of this affair?” He said to him, “Raise the curtain from the door of the house”. A child of five years came out of it. He then said, “This is your companion”. The report transmitted by Saduq from Abu Talib al-Muzaffar bin Ja’far bin al-Muzaffar al-Alawi al-Samarqandi, from Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Masud from his father, Muhammad bin Mas’ud al-Iyashi from Adam al-Balkhi from Ali bin Hassan bin Harun al-Daqqaq from Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Qasim from Ya’qub bin Manqush.This report is very weak.

Firstly:            Due to the non-existence of a person called Al-Muzaffar al-Samarqandi in the biographies of reporters.

Secondly: Because Al-Iyashi used to report from a lot of weak reporters as Najashi says. He believes in the interpolation of the Quran clearly in his Tafsir.

Thirdly: Due to the belief of Adam al-Balkhi in ‘Tafwid (the belief that Allah gave to Muhammad creation of the world). He was one of the extremists who believed that Allah created Muhammad, and gave him the power of the creation of the world. He is the creator in it. He (Muhammad) then gave that power (of creation) to Ali (see Biography of Najashi).

Fourthly: Due also to the neglect of Al-Daqqaq and the difference in the name of his father, whether Hassan and Hussain

Fifthly: Due to Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Abdullah being an unknown person.

Sixthly: Due to Ya’qub bin Manqush being an unreliable person and the problem of his father’s name between Manqush, Manfush and Manfus.

As for the report transmitted by Saduq in ‘Ikmal al-Dn’ (6), and Tusi in ‘Al-Ghaybah’ (7 from a group including Uthman bin Sa’id al-Umari, Muawiyah bin Hakim and Muhammad bin Ayyub, and the statement of the Imam to them: “This is your Imam after me…”.Both Saduq and Tusi reported it from Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Malik al-Fazari, a well-known liar, and fabricator of Hadiths. Ibn Al-Ghada’iri says of him: “ A liar whose Hadith is abandoned altogether, from weak and unknown reporters. All the defects of the weak are found in him. He reported many strange things as regards the birth of the Qa’im. Najashi says of him. “He was a weak reporter of Hadith Ahmad bin Hussain said that, he used to seriously fabricate Hadith, reporting from unknown persons. I heard one who said that: ‘He was misguided in his views and his report of Hadith’. I did not know how our noble reliable Sheikh Abu Ali bin Hammam and our reliable great Sheikh Abu Ghalib al-Razi reported from him.”

            On the report of ‘Nasim’ and ‘Tarif Abu Nasr’ the two servants of Imam Askari, their two reports were transmitted by Saduq from Al-Muzaffar al-Samarqandi (the abandoned) from ‘Iyashi (the weak) from Adam al-Balkhi (the extremist who believed in ‘tafwid’) (see above).

            As for the report of Isma’il Nubakhti fromTusi from Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi, it is very weak, because Tusi himself did not consider al-Razi as a reliable person, and accused him of weakness and extremism, in addition to Ibn al-Ghada’iri and Najashi’s accusation of him on that.

            Tusi reports another narration from Jafar bin Muhammad bin Malik al-Fazari, and from Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi from Kamil bin Ibrahim al-Madani who says that: ‘He went to Imam Askari, and when the wind blew it waved the curtain spread on the door (to the side), he saw a youth behind (the door). The child recognized him and called him by his name. Then the curtain spread back to its position, and he could not remove it. This report as is clear, is very weak especially due to its being reported by Al-Fazari, Al-Razi, two weak extremists.

ABU AL-ADYAN AL-BASRI

As for the report of ‘Abu Al-Adyan al-Basri’ which only Saduq has reported, and he mentioned it without the proper chain of narration, when he says, Abu Al-Adyan that. Despite the fact that there is a period of about one hundred years between the two, no one knows any person of that name, which further emphasized his fabrication from some of the extremists.

On the completion of the story—that is, the arrival of the delegations from Qum and the Mountains to ‘Surr Man Raa’—which was transmitted by Saduq…, we find  in its chain of narration was ‘Ahmad bin Hussain Al-Abi al-Arudi and (Abu) Hussain (Ibn) Zayd bin Abdullah al-Baghdadi from Sinan al-Mawsili from his father.All of them were unknown persons, with no mention in the biography books (of reporters) in addition to the discrepancy in the name of al-Baghdadi.

SA’AD BIN ABDULLAH AL-QUMMI

As regards the report of Sa’ad bin Abdullah al-Qummi in which he says that he went to Imam Askari together with Ahmad bin Ishaq. He saw on the lap of the Imam a child who was playing with a golden pomegranate. This report was transmitted by Saduq from Al-Nawfali al-Karmani from Ahmad bin ‘Isa al-Washsha’ al–Baghdadi from Ahmad bin Tahir al-Qummi… There is in the chain of this report four abandoned and unknown persons. As for the fifth reporter Al-Shaibani’, he was one of the weak and the extremists who believe in tafwid (believing that the affairs of the world were given to Muhammad then to Ali), as mentioned by Kashi, Ibn al-Ghada’iri, Tusi and Najashi.

Allama al-Hilli in ‘Al-Khulasah’ withdrew confidence from Sa’ad bin Abdullah al-Qummi after this report. Shahid al-Thani said: “The signs of fabrication in this (report) are evident, that was due to what was contained in the report, that the Mahdi was playing with a golden pomegranate!”

Therefore, the great weakness in the chain of each report invalidates them all from being evidence or being relied on…. when we put the weakness in the chain of narration together with the weakness in the text…. and the contradiction in the reports themselves… and their contradicting the Zahirite report … Then, it will be mere illusion and hearsays and myths… which cannot establish the birth of an ordinary person….

Then how can we depend on them in establishing the birth of one of the Imams and the construction of a religious creed on the basis of that?

On the story of an attempt to arrest the Mahdi as reported by Tusi, Majlisi and Sadr, it was an unconnected (Mursal) report to ‘Rashiq’ the unknown policeman, whose integrity is doubted. It is weak due to its not mentioning the identity of the man who was praying on a mat, and that the reports contain strange things like: ‘Mahdi’s stay in the house of his father and in Samirra’i throughout the period of the occultation. This is far from the truth. It was possible for him to move around in the land and to hide in other places. Of these (strange things) was that the report comprises of strange miracles for which there was no need, and it conforms to the report of extremists and their myths.

Al-Mutadid the Abbasid caliph, was known for inclining towards Shiism, and he insisted on cursing Mu’awiyah on pulpits, and ordered the writing of a book to be read for the people in this regard, ad pointed out by Ibn Al-Athir in his ‘Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh’ (8). This makes the report far from being sound, as it claims that he tried to arrest Imam Mahdi. It is more likely that it was fabricated due to the story of Mahdi hiding in the canopy.

C: ASSESSING THE TESTIMONY OF THE FOUR DEPUTIES

The clear historical reporting of the Hadith after the death of Imam Hassan Askari says that: ‘The Imam did not leave behind any offspring whether a male or a female, and that he gave his wealth in a will, to his mother: (Hadith), due to this his brother Ja’far claimed the Imamate and a group of Shiites followed him (on that)’. As for the report of the deputies it says that: ‘there was a hidden son for Imam Askari and they claimed to be his deputies and representatives. Believing them will lead to believing in the existence of ‘Hujjah bin Hassan ‘ (Mahdi), but doubting their claims will not establish anything in the secret report on the existence of a son for Imam Askari. Were they really truthful? Have the Shiites agreed on their reliability? How did they believe them? What is the evidence on the validity of their statements? Is there anything that can make us doubt and be skeptical, of their claims of being deputies of Imam Mahdi and doubt his existence?

Before we assess those reports that came praising them and claiming their reliability, we must point out that this phemomenon of claiming to be a deputy of Imam Mahdi was not the first phemomenon in Shiite history, as many phemomena, appeared before it. And before the four deputies, many people have claimed to be representatives and deputies of the earlier Imams, those who claimed for them Mahdism (i.e being the Mahdi), like Imam Musa Kadhim (peace be upon him) whose life was believed to have continued after his death, as they believed in his occultation also. Among them were Muhammad bin Bashir who claimed being his deputy. He later bequeathed it to his sons and grandsons.

More than twenty persons have claimed being the deputies of ‘Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari’ among them were: Al-Shari’i, Al-Namiri, Al-Ibrata’i al-Hallaj, and so on. That was because the claim of being a deputy brings with it many material benefits, as well as a socio-political status for the claimants. Moreso that the claimant used to work underground and in secret, and investigating his claim is not allowed. He exploited his previous relationship with the Imam, and so he claimed his continued life or his existence, and his being his deputy…. His claim used to be accepted by the simpleminded, and rejected by the enlightened wise people. The Imamate Shiites have rejected the claims of more than twenty claimants of being deputies of ‘Imam Mahdi bin Hassan Askari’. They accused them of lying and deceit, as they doubted the validity of the claims of those four deputies. They differed on their affairs. There was not single strong intellectual evidence in the reports narrated by the historians on their truthfulness and the validity of their claims. This is what makes these people a part of false claimants who traded with the issue of Imam Mahdi!

Sheikh Tusi did depend in the reliability of Uthman bin Sa’id al-Umari on a number of reports. Some of them were like the report of Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Qummi, who stated the reliance and trust of Imams Hadi and Askari in him during life and after death. And that he was the deputy and the trusted and reliable person on Allah’s wealth. There is nothing in it that establishes Al-Umari’s deputyship of Imam Mahdi. But some reports were stating clearly that Imam Askari declared the deputyship of al-Umari to Imam Mahdi, except that the chain of this narration is very weak, as it includes Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Malik al-Fazari, concerning whom Najashi and Ibn Al-Ghada’iri have stated: “He was a liar whose Hadith is rejected, and he was extremist in some of his views. He reports from weak and unknown reporters. All the faults of weak reporters were found in him. He has reported on the birth of Qa’im strange things. He used to clearly fabricate Hadith. He has deviated from the path and his reports were not sound”.

As for the previous report which mentions the reliability of al-Umari and his honesty, and his being the deputy (of Imam), that is unknown. There is in its chain an extremist ‘Al-Khusaibi’. It comprises of the claim on Imam Askari’s knowledge of the Unseen, and his knowledge of the delegation from Yemen before he saw it. (9) This claim is part of the concepts of the extremists. The first report says that Askari has mentioned the uprightness of al-Umari in future after his death. Only Allah knows this, it being part of the knowledge of the Unseen also.

From here and after the invalidity of these reports due to their weakness in terms of both their texts and their chains of narration, we seem to reach one conclusion, that is, Al-Umari who was the deputy of the two Imams Hadi and Askari in collecting funds, wanted to continue enjoying that post and claimed the existence of a son for Imam Askari,so as to claim being his deputy also without producing a confirmed and  clear evidence on what he was saying. Due to this the historians were certain, and do not confirm his deputyship of the Mahdi. Al-Tabrisi, who was so eager to record whatever comes to him, did not state in his book: ‘Al-Ihtijaj’ more than (these words): “Al-Umari performed the affairs of the ‘Sahib al-Zaman’ his signatures and responses to issues were all coming through him.” (10)

The Shiite historians did not mention any miracle that confirms his claim of being deputy, despite the statement of Sayyid Abdullah Shibr in ‘Haq al-Yaqin’ that; the Shiites would not accept the statements of the deputies until after the appearance of any miracle on each of the deputies from the Sahib al-Zaman, which would show the truth of their statements and the validity of their intentions.

    As for the second deputy; Muhammad bin Uthnan bin Sa’id al-Umari, the Shiite historians did not mention any text regarding him from the Mahdi, appointing him as his deputy. Tusi said: “He took the place of his father through a text from Abu Muhammad ‘Hassan Askari’, and the text from his father Uthman by the order of the Qa’im.” (12)

Tusi has mentioned a report from Abdullah bin Ja’far al-Himyari al-Qummi who said that: ‘The Mahdi sent to Al-Umari a note passing his condolence to him on the death of his father, Uthman bin Sa’id. He praised Allah who has placed him in the place of his father and prayed for his success. The leters came to us in the same handwiting as was being communicated to us by placing Abu Ja’far in the position of his father. Tusi also reported another tradition from Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Mahziyar al-Ahwazi, and another one from Ishaq bin Yaqub from Imam Mahdi, who testified on his reliability and his acceptance of him. All these reports were transmitted through Al-Umari himself, which made them weak.

There is no any way of confirming the claim that Uthman bin Sa’id Al-Umari has stated that his son Muhammad will be deputy, through the instructions of the Qa’im. It seems it was simply a guess from Tusi. As there is no any evidence to establish the text from the father to the son, except through inheritance and claims.

The greatest problem is found in the difficulty of confirming the validity of the signatures which were brought by al-Umari and which he attributed to Imam Mahdi, especially the signature reported by Al-Himyari al-Qummi, as he did not mention his chain of transmission to the occult Imam, which makes it more likely that it was Al-Umari who wrote it with his hand, and attributed it to the Mahdi. Moreso that he was praising himself so much, which becloud it with ambiguity even if the Imam is present talkless of when he is absent? There is no any reporter for the issue of signatures except Al-Umari himself. Al-Himyari did not say how he quickly believed the signatures while there was a controversy at that time among the Shiites on the truth of Al-Umari in his claim of being deputy? There is the possibility that Al-Himyari al-Qummi might have fabricated the signature himself and he attributed it the Mahdi.

On the report of Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Mahziyar al-Ahwazi, it is weak, because he confessed that in the beginning he doubted the existence of the Mahdi, and he claimed being a deputy after that, and after his meeting with Al-Umari in Baghdad, due to this he was a doubtful person in his affairs. He did not say how the signature reached him directly or through al-Umari? If he claims that it reached him directly but how? Has he seen the Mahdi himself? He did not claim that! Or it came to him through Al-Umari? This will also raise doubts.

As for the third report (report of Ishaq bin Ya’qub), it clearly declares that it was from Al-Umari. It is weak due to doubts that Al-Umari might have fabricated it. So also due to unknown reporters; and the weakness (unreliability) of Ishaq bin Ya’qub, and his not declaring how he knew the handwriting of the Mahdi, knowing that Tusi was saying that: ‘The handwriting in the notes (signatures) was the same as such that was written in the days of Askari.’ (13)

Lastly, the story of Muhammad bin Uthman Al-Umari in sighting the Mahdi during the Hajj, was more of a claim devoid of evidence. He did not state how he knew the Mahdi whom he has never seen before? It may be that someone resembles him.

Due to this, Ahmad bin Hilal al-Ibrata’i (the leader of Shiites in Baghdad) from whom Al-Fazari reported that he claimed to have witnessed the occasion when Askari presented the Mahdi, and Al-Umari was appointed as his successor (Khalifah)- Al-Ibrata’i doubted the validity of Al-Umari’s claim that his son is a special deputy of the Mahdi. He denied having heard Imam Askari stating that he was his representative. He rejected and refused to admit that he was the representative of ‘Sahib al-Zaman’. (14)

Al-Ibrata’i had played a great role in supporting the claim of Uthman bin Sa’id al-Umari, of being representative. He was hoping that he would receive the will (of being chosen for that) after him. When he gave the will to his son Muhammad, he rejected that and claimed to be the deputy himself. This shows that there was connivance and interests in the various claims of being special deputies.

As a result of the absence of authentic and confirmed traditions on the deputyship of Muhammad bin Uthman Al-Umari, the shiites doubted his claim. Al-Majlisi reported in ‘Bihar al-Anwar’ that: “The shiites were in a state of confusion, and were not relying on the many claims of being ‘deputies’”. He said that Abu al-Abbas Ahmad Al-Siraj al-Dainuri did ask al-Umari on the evidence which confirms the validity of his claim, and that he will not believe in him, unless if another person tells him that from (knowledge) of the unseen, and present him a miracle’. (15)

The tradition of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) which states that ‘Our servants and our keepers are the worst of Allah’s creations’ was very popular in those days among the Shiites, which made them doubt the validity of claims of ‘representation’. Sheikh Tusi has affirmed the validity of that tradition, but he said: “It is not generally so, but they only said that, because among them were those who changed and distorted and were treacherous.” (16)

Some Shiites did show their regret on giving wealth to Al-Umari, as they doubted the existence of Mahdi and the signatures (notes) brought by al-Umari and which were attributed to him. There was among these people a section of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). This was what made Al-Umari to issue a letter as originating from the Mahdi, condemning the doubters and the deniers of the existence of the Mahdi.

As another section of them doubted the validity of Nubakhti being a deputy, and kept on asking him on the fate of the wealth which he used to receive in the name of Imam Mahdi, he said that: ‘This wealth goes to where it should not (not spent in the legal way)’. Saduq and Tusi said that, ‘Nubakhti was able to convince them by means of miracles and the knowledge of the Unseen, like specifying the time of the death of some people before the appointed time, and his picking some dirhams from a man’s bag, from a distance. (17)

In fact, the Shiite historians used to mention a number of stories on peoples’ doubts regarding the claimants to the post of ‘deputy’, with some of them, accusing the others of telling lie. The general masses of the Twelver- Imam Shiites distinguished those ‘four deputies’ from the other accused claimants, on the basis of their power of producing miracles and the possession of the knowledge of the Unseen.

Kulayni, Mufid and Tusi have mentioned tens of stories showing that the ‘four deputies’ have performed many strange things of miraculous nature and informed of things to come. Tusi has narrated from ‘Hibatullah’ the grandson of al-Umari who said: “ The miracles of the Imam appeared on him and he used to tell of the Unseen”. (18)

Tusi has also mentioned a story from Ali bin Ahmad al-Dallal, who said that: ‘Al-Umari told him the time of his death, the day, the month and the year. And he died on the day, the month and the year as he foretold, that was in the end of Jumada al-Ula, 305 A.H.’ (19)

But this statement contradicts the principles of Shiism and the traditions of members of Prophet’s family (peace be upon them), who used to deny any knowledge of the Unseen (al-Ghayb), or employing the miraculous unseen means to establish their Imamate. Sheikh Saduq said in ‘Ikmal al-Din’: “ The Imam does not know the Unseen, he is only a pious servant teaching the Quran and the Sunnah. Anyone who ascribes the knowledge of the Unseen to the Imams has committed disbelief (Kufr) in Allah, and has gone out of the fold of Islam in our view. The unseen is known only to Allah, noone claims it for a human except one who associates something to Allah and is an unbeliever.” (20)

Imam Sadiq said: “What a surprise for some people claiming that we know the unseen (al-ghayb)! By Allah I had wanted to beat my housemaid, so and so, but she fled away from me. I do not know in which house she is (now)” (21)

Abu Bashir one day came to Imam Sadiq and said to him: “They are saying that you know the (number) of drops in the rain water and the number of stars, and the number of leaves of trees, and the weight of what is in the sea and the number of particles of the earth. He said; Glory be to Allah! Glory be to Allah! No, by Allah noone knows that except Allah.” (22)

Yahya bin Abdullah asked Imam Musa Kadhim (peace be upon him) saying: “May I be made your ransom, they are claiming that you know the Unseen?” He replied: “Glory be to Allah! Put your hand on my head by Allah there is no hair on it and on my body except that it has been aroused. No by Allah it is nothing other than the inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)”. (23)

In another narration transmitted by Al-Hurr al-Amili, the Imam says in it: ‘The ignorant and the unwise Shiites have done harm to us, and those whose religion weighs less than the wing of a mosquito….I am free from those who say that we know the Unseen, before Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him).” (24)

Therefore we cannot believe the claim of those ‘deputies’ regarding their being Imam Mahdi’s deputies, and we (cannot) consider their statements evidence on the existence of the Imam, depending on the claim of miracles and the knowledge of the Unseen. We cannot distinguish their claims from those of false claimants to deputyship, whose number was more than twenty four.

If we accuse these false claimants of attempting to benefit (from those claims), and of the love of wealth and of having relations with the Abbasid authorities of those days, the same accusations will have to be directed to the ‘four deputies’, who were not aloof from them.

Muhammad bin Ali al-Shalnaghani, who was the representative of Hussain bin Ruh al-Nubakhti in the Banu Bistam, he then dissociated himself from them and claimed being deputy himself said: “We did not enter with Abu Qasim Hussain bin Ruh in this affair except that we know why we entered it. We were scrambling on this affair as the dogs were scrambling over the carrion. “ (25)

If we could not establish the claims of the ‘four deputies’ and we doubted the validity of their statements, how can we establish the existence of ‘Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari, based on their testimonies of meeting him and being his deputies?

In addition to this doubt there is another evidence on the falsehood of the claimants to being deputies, that was their not playing any cultural or intellectual or political role in the service of the Shiites and the Muslims except collection of funds and the claims of giving it to Imam Mahdi.

It was supposed that the ‘deputies’ who claimed the existence of a special, relationship between them and  ‘Imam Mahdi’, ‘would solve all the problems of the sect, and would have transmitted the instructions and guidance of the Imam to the Ummah. Rather we see the ‘third deputy’, Hussain bin Ruh Nubakhti for example, resorting to the scholars of Qum, so as to solve for him the problem of Shalmaghani who had revolted against him. He sent Shalmaghani’s work ‘Al-Ta’dib’ to Qum seeking from the city’s scholars to distinguish the sound and the weak in the book, as was reported by Tusi in ‘Al-Ghaybah’. (26)

There is in this an indication of lack of any contact between him and the Mahdi. Otherwise he would have put the book before him and ask him about its soundness.

 What further strenghens the doubts on the non-existence of the Mahdi Muhammad bin Hassan Askari, was the inability of those who claimed to be deputies to fill the fiqhi vacuum, and to expose many ambiguous matters that need to be cleared in that period of time. It is well known that Kulayni wrote the book of ‘Al-Kafi’ during the days of Nubakhti, and that he has filled it with weak and fabricated traditions, which discuss the interpolation of the Quran and other invalid things. But neither Nubakhti nor Al-Samri commented on the fabricated traditions, and nor did they correct any thing from the book which caused the harming of Shiites throughout the ages, and put them in a fix of not identifying the sound traditions from the fabricated ones.

Sayyid Murtadah did invent the theory of ‘Lutf’ (Compassion and clemency) in which he says: ‘Imam Mahdi must interfere to correct the ‘Ijtihad’of Fuqaha, during the occultation, so as to stop their agreeing on something invalid and wrong. Based on this, the right, better and simpler thing was for ‘Imam Mahdi’ to correct the book of Kulayni, if he ever existed, or that he leaves behind him an all-sufficing work, in the period of major occultation, as a reference for the Shiites. This did not happen. The claimants to ‘Niyaba’ (representation) did not produce anything in this regard. This is what would make us doubt their truth and their claim of the existence of an ‘occult Imam’ upon whom they depended.

Sheikh Hassan al-Farid (a colleague of Imam Khomeini) in his book ‘Risalah fi al-Khums’ was surprised and astonished and also perplexed when he asked the secret behind why Kulayni did not ask the ‘Sahib al-Zaman’ (Mahdi) through his deputy Nubakhti on the issue of Khums (one-fifth) in the ‘occultation period’. (27)