The development of shiite political thought from shura to wilayat al-faqih
|
|  Yüklə 0.82 Mb.
|
D: ASSESSING THE LETTERS OF ‘MAHDI’ The supporters of the theory on the existence of Imam Mahdi possess some letters, which they believed the Imam has sent to a number of people, and they took that as additional evidence on the validity of their theory on the existence of ‘Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Askari’. After our study of these reports and scrutinizing the chains of narration however, their weakness became very clear. It was nothing other than hearsay that was spread by those who claimed to be ‘deputies’. The first report by Tusi came from a group of people, whom he did not identify from Abu Muhammad al-Tal’akbari from Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi, about whom the Shiite scholars of narrators (Rijal) say that, he was a weak and extremist (reporter). In addition to that, Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Qummi did not mention the means of correspondence with ‘Sahib al-Zaman’, or indicate the one who takes the issues (Letters) to him. It is therefore likely that he fabricated the letters himself. As for the second letter, Tusi also reported it through Ahmad bin Ali al-Razi (the weak extremist) from a number of unknown persons. In addition, it contains something irrational, i.e. seeking judgement from an unknown person, whose existence is a controversy, to establish his very existence! It is possible that, one of the deputies would write the response. Knowing fully that doubting the existence of the son of Hassan requires doubting the truth of the ‘deputies’, how can we then return to one of them relying on him, before confirming his truthfullness, or believing in what papers he present, claiming them coming from the Mahdi? As for the report from Saduq known as ‘Al-Tawqi’ it was weak due to the status of Ishaq bin Ya’qub as a weak reporter, and his being unknown; so also its not being mentioned by earlier scholars like Kulayni; and due to the report containing a number of incorrect issues like: Firstly, the praise of the transmitter of the letter namely ‘the second deputy, Muhammad bin Uthman al-Umari’ on himself and his father. This supports the likelihood of its being his own fabrication. Secondly, the legality of Khums (one-fifth) during the period of the occultation till the appearance (of the Mahdi), this contradicts the continuation of Islamic injunctions in all times. The Shiite scholars have of recent refrained from believing in this legality, due to its contradiction with (other) Islamic principles. Thirdly, the demand of refraining from asking the cause of the occultation, despite that the philosophy of occultation is one of the necessary religious matters that must be known in the way of belief in the Mahdi. Hence that report- the letter, is very weak and cannot be certified. Likewise is the case of the second report of Saduq from Al-Umari, which he transmitted from Abu Abdullah Ja’far, who says that he has found it confirmed from Sa’ad bin Abdullah, i.e. he did not report it directly, he only found it in a book. It is well known in the science of narration that finding a report in a book (and reporting it) is the weakest form of narration. In addition to that, Sa’ad did not mention how he came about the letter? Or who informed him of it? He did not report it from the two al-Umaris, who did not mention it clearly. He only reports that it is from another person, without specifying his name, but he supposed he was the Mahdi. If the report from the two al-Umaris is sound, it can be of their own writing, in support of their theory based on the existence of Mahdi, and as support to their claim of being his ‘deputies’, Hence it cannot constitute an evidence. Regarding the letters of Sheihk Mufid, which were mentioned by Tabrisi and Ibn Shahra’ashub in their works, Mufid himself did not mention them in any of his books. Even if its ascription to him is confirmed, it does not constitute any evidence. That was because Mufid says that, he received it from a village-Arab man unknown to him, and the handwriting in it was not that of the Mahdi, but of another person, to whom the Mahdi dictated its contents. Mufid had refused to present those letters from the village-Arab man to any of his companions. He claimed that was due to the instruction of the Mahdi. He did not present to the people except letters written in his own handwriting. He said the Mahdi had requested him to do that. If this is valid…We are in fact witnessing letters in Sheikh Mufid’s handwriting himself saying that they were copies of the letters which the village-Arab man handed over to him having received them from another unknown man, and being the writer of the letters. That unknown man was saying that Imam Mahdi has dictated them to him. In other words we are before a tradition reported by a single reporter, reported by Mufid from an unknown man from an unknown man also from Mahdi. This raises number possibilities: Like, its likelihood of coming from Mufid, moreso that it entails a lot of excessive praise and commendation on him. In some of it, Mahdi mentioned the name of Mufid before his very name. Of these possibilities is its coming from the village-Arab Man, or from the third man who lied to the writer, and claimed to be the Mahdi. In the same way, the report in the feld of science of Hadith, does not deserves even the least of attention or even a short or long pause.
I would like to draw the attention of the reader to an important point, i.e. the issue of Imam Mahdi’s handwriting in those letters and the many notes attributed to him. The man who believes in the Mahdi especially today will long for seeing his handwriting, if he was not lucky enough to see him in person. He would hope that history have preserved even if only one copy of those letters and notes. He would also hope that the Shiites in those days have recognized that importance and have preserved the letters of Imam in their historical treasures. For such kinds of documents constitute the most important material for the study of that period, and for confirming the truth on ‘Imam Mahdi’, and the circumistances that led to the occultation. Based on this I have attempted to examine all the signs of ‘Imam Mahdi’s’ handwriting in his letters, and to search for any copy of those letters, and to follow his notes (Tawaqi). I thought in the beginning, or I supposed that the Shiites of those times especially the four deputies or the Fuqaha (Jurists) or scholars of Hadith, might have given a lot of importance to the preservation of those letters. I did not find any trace of that. I found instead doubting ambiguity surrounding this issue. I also found in the note ‘al–Tawqi’ reported by Tabrisi in ‘al-‘Ihtijaj’ from Ishaq bin Ya’qub formal-Umari, a text saying: “… Don’t show our handwriting, written by us to anyone.” This shows the contrary of what was expected, in terms of concern and importance in recognizing the handwriting and in preserving the letters of Mahdi, so also the non-existence of one particular handwriting known to be that of the Mahdi, which can always be refered to for comparing the remaining letters with it, to confirm its genuineness. I also discovered that Sheikh Tusi was discussing the ‘Handwriting of Mahdi’ skeptically, when he said: ‘Abu Nasr Hibatullah has said: “I found in the handwriting of Abu Ghalib al-Razi: ‘Al –Umari was responsible for this matter --representation), for about fifty years. People bring to him their wealth and he will obtain for them ‘Notes’ in the same handwriting as the time of Hassan (peace be upon him), explaining some worldly and religious affairs, and what they used to ask him, he responded in a strange manner.” (28) He did not relate why Al-Umari was doing that? And why was he not producing the notes in the handwriting of the Mahdi? It is well known that recognizing the handwriting of Imam Hassan himself was a problem during his life. As some of those who claimed to be his deputies among the extremists, resorted to forging his handwiriting. The Shiites due to that faced the problem of recognizing and confirming the handwriting of Imam Askari, during his life. How can the handwriting of ‘Imam Mahdi’ who was not seen by anyone be recognized? The handwriting that was never seen, nor was its existence ever confirmed. The common people do not possess any means of confirming it? With the existence of this major problem, al-Umari was not handing over any handwriting or notes to anyone. He was rather, showing it to them only or copy it in his own handwriting. Sheikh Mufid has resorted to---according to the so-called report-- similar manner also. He presented copies in his handwiriting, and said that they were qouted from ‘Letters from Mahdi’, which were not at all written in his handwriting, but were dictation from him to an unknown writer. If we had obtained copies from the handwriting of ‘Imam Mahdi’, it would be within our ability to compare them and confirm its attribution to him, or distinguish the genuine from the forged ones among them. Nothing of that had happened. Due to this, it is possible for us to regard the secrecy surrounding the handwriting and its concealment’ was an additional evidence on the non-existence of ‘Muhammad bin Hassan Askari’, who, if he had really existed and was hiding and in occultation for security reasons would have resorted to, without doubt, establishing his existence and his person among the Shiite populace, and would have led them through the letters signed by him, in a manner that would have not left any doubt or controversy. It would have been possible to recognize and distinginsh them by recognizing his handwriting and by comparing them,as one of the several means by which he establishes himself.
|